False statements at RFA, They "should be banned" Options

[Shalom]

From "Yet another ageism thread": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r_ageism_thread

The point of this thread is to attempt to put a stop to opposes based on false information, especially when the person making the false comment refuses to budge. Majorly talk 20:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, nobody listened. All anyone wanted to talk about was ageism, not whether it's okay to oppose someone based on a false statement.

Well then, Majorly, don't you think Iridescent's oppose on me was based on false information? Why didn't you protest then? Why did the whole admin community not protest then? Why did everyone smile and nod as Iridescent slandered me -- and continued to do so later by falsely alleging on her talk page that I had engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against "real life" individuals?

[Alex]

From "Yet another ageism thread": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r_ageism_thread

The point of this thread is to attempt to put a stop to opposes based on false information, especially when the person making the false comment refuses to budge. Majorly talk 20:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, nobody listened. All anyone wanted to talk about was ageism, not whether it's okay to oppose someone based on a false statement.

Well then, Majorly, don't you think Iridescent's oppose on me was based on false information? Why didn't you protest then? Why did the whole admin community not protest then? Why did everyone smile and nod as Iridescent slandered me -- and continued to do so later by falsely alleging on her talk page that I had engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against "real life" individuals?

It's been so long now I've totally forgotten what Iridescent said, so forgive my bad memory.

[thekohser]

...as Iridescent slandered me...

I'm curious, what did Iridescent's voice sound like?










Or, was it libel, then?

[Shalom]

Oh come on, I should have written "defamed" but I forgot the distinction between libel and slander. I am referring to written statements on Wikipedia. Thankfully the RFA is courtesy blanked and the talkpage archives are out of common view.

I enumerated the lies Iridescent told at my RFA on her talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iri..._Yechiel_thread It's an extremely long read, but if you're not convinced that she told some blatant untruths about me in public view of other Wikipedians, then you're not paying attention. The kicker, though, was this reply to my rude goodbye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iri...risy_forever.21

To equate that with your running multiple campaigns of harassment against multiple people (both Wikipedia editors and real life individuals), using a variety of sockpuppets, impersonation accounts, and a lame attempt to use Wikipedia as a google-bomb is just laughable.

I never harassed any real life individuals. To allege otherwise is defamatory. Iridescent, you should be ashamed of what you said about me. "Personal attack" and "incivil" are not strong enough words of condemnation.

[Malleus]

"Personal attack" and "incivil" are not strong enough words of condemnation.

Indeed they're not. Hardly words of condemnation at all really, more like mindless mantras trotted out by the wikifaithful. Oh, and I think you missed out "assume good faith". Was that a convenient lapse of memory on your part because you didn't?

[GlassBeadGame]

"Personal attack" and "incivil" are not strong enough words of condemnation.

Indeed they're not. Hardly words of condemnation at all really, more like mindless mantras trotted out by the wikifaithful. Oh, and I think you missed out "assume good faith". Was that a convenient lapse of memory on your part because you didn't?

Remember all "discussions" on Wikipedia are virtual, not real. This permits people who would incapable of engaging in a serious collaborative learning project, such as writing an encyclopedia, to experience a simulation of what this would be like. WP concepts (typically identified as "WP:XXX") are not actual protocols of a learning project. They are actually tokens standing in for the same in simulated game environment.

[Bottled_Spider]

I enumerated the lies Iridescent told at my RFA on her talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iri..._Yechiel_thread It's an extremely long read....

Sure is, Shal. To be honest, I can't be arsed wading through all that depressing, meaningless, turgid shite. Life's too short. You couldn't see your way clear to briefly outlining all the funny bits in one easy-to-read piece by any chance, could you? You sound to me like you could be one of those whiney, humourless guys who are inadvertently hilarious. I'd be damned grateful; honest. Cheers, mate!

[Malleus]

Remember all "discussions" on Wikipedia are virtual, not real. This permits people who would incapable of engaging in a serious collaborative learning project, such as writing an encyclopedia, to experience a simulation of what this would be like. WP concepts (typically identified as "WP:XXX") are not actual protocols of a learning project. They are actually tokens standing in for the same in simulated game environment.

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

[Eva Destruction]

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

[Malleus]

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

Good point. I remember being rather puzzled by that "personal attacks" policy, and to a large extent I still am, as must be obvious to any wikiafficionado. I mean, calling someone who is behaving like an idiot an idiot is just making an observation. It's a personal remark, sure, but an "attack"? If it was in my mind to attack someone I could do an awful lot better than that. Trust me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Kato]

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

Good point. I remember being rather puzzled by that "personal attacks" policy, and to a large extent I still am, as must be obvious to any wikiafficionado. I mean, calling someone who is behaving like an idiot an idiot is just making an observation. It's a personal remark, sure, but an "attack"? If it was in my mind to attack someone I could do an awful lot better than that. Trust me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I don't know what you guys are relating to, but call someone an "idiot" in a professional environment and you're in trouble.

[Alex]

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

Depends on the job of course. At my last job, we were always picking at each other and taking the piss, but I never once felt upset or even close, not nearly as much as I have done when people have viciously attacked me in all sorts of ways on here and WP. Today, for example, an anonymous person by the name of "Bottled Spider" decided they knew me enough to make a judgment on my character, having never ever spoken to me, knowing nothing about me, or in fact anything at all. The difference in a job is that it is done in person, and in a less vicious manner. What happens on Wikipedia are personal remarks (or attacks, it's all the same really), made by an anonymous person who knows nothing whatsoever about you, and it's essentially hiding behind a screen name to make those remarks. It's cowardly to do so. The comments aren't light, they're serious, made by a very bitter individual.

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

Good point. I remember being rather puzzled by that "personal attacks" policy, and to a large extent I still am, as must be obvious to any wikiafficionado. I mean, calling someone who is behaving like an idiot an idiot is just making an observation. It's a personal remark, sure, but an "attack"? If it was in my mind to attack someone I could do an awful lot better than that. Trust me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I don't know what you guys are relating to, but call someone an "idiot" in a professional environment and you're in trouble.

Perhaps they are referring to what the public might call them? It doesn't surprise me though tbh.

[Malleus]

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

Good point. I remember being rather puzzled by that "personal attacks" policy, and to a large extent I still am, as must be obvious to any wikiafficionado. I mean, calling someone who is behaving like an idiot an idiot is just making an observation. It's a personal remark, sure, but an "attack"? If it was in my mind to attack someone I could do an awful lot better than that. Trust me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I don't know what you guys are relating to, but call someone an "idiot" in a professional environment and you're in trouble.

You've obviously never been an academic. Or in the services.

What happens on Wikipedia are personal remarks (or attacks, it's all the same really) ...

So you really believe that personal remark is synonymous with personal attack do you?

"I think you were a wonderful administrator, and I was gutted when you were forced to step down from your position by a few vindictive souls."

"I think you were a crap administrator, and I cheered the day you were forced to resign from your position."

Both are personal remarks, but you only object to the personal remark that you don't like. Is that altogether honest? Ever heard of Rudyard Kipling?

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Shalom]

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

So I take it you're not going to defend your allegation that I harassed "real life individuals"? Good for you. It's indefensible.

To Bottled_Spider: I did pick apart Iridescent's lies in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shalom Yechiel (now blanked, but you can read the page history). I wrote as concisely as possible. The problem in such situations is that making a false statement may take only one sentence, but refuting the falsehood may require a whole paragraph or more.

[Alex]

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

Good point. I remember being rather puzzled by that "personal attacks" policy, and to a large extent I still am, as must be obvious to any wikiafficionado. I mean, calling someone who is behaving like an idiot an idiot is just making an observation. It's a personal remark, sure, but an "attack"? If it was in my mind to attack someone I could do an awful lot better than that. Trust me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I don't know what you guys are relating to, but call someone an "idiot" in a professional environment and you're in trouble.

You've obviously never been an academic. Or in the services.

What happens on Wikipedia are personal remarks (or attacks, it's all the same really) ...

So you really believe that personal remark is synonymous with personal attack do you?

"I think you were a wonderful administrator, and I was gutted when you were forced to step down from your position by a few vindictive souls."

"I think you were a crap administrator, and I cheered the day you were forced to resign from your position."

Both are personal remarks, but you only object to the personal remark that you don't like. Is that altogether honest? Ever heard of Rudyard Kipling?

Both a personal attack and a personal compliment could be personal remarks. You can object to whatever one you like, they're remarks all the same.

[Malleus]

Both a personal attack and a personal compliment could be personal remarks. You can object to whatever one you like, they're remarks all the same.

But you only object to one of them, the one you don't like. Me, I shrug them both off. That's why I asked you about Kipling.

[Alex]

Both a personal attack and a personal compliment could be personal remarks. You can object to whatever one you like, they're remarks all the same.

But you only object to one of them, the one you don't like. Me, I shrug them both off. That's why I asked you about Kipling.

I could ignore them both, but it's unlikely both would be presented like that. As it is, most personal comments, good and bad, come out of the blue. A negative one isn't a very pleasant surprise, even if you do think the person making it is a twit, and talking out of their arse.

[gadfly]

I don't know what you guys are relating to, but call someone an "idiot" in a professional environment and you're in trouble.

You've obviously never been an academic. Or in the services.

What happens on Wikipedia are personal remarks (or attacks, it's all the same really) ...

So you really believe that personal remark is synonymous with personal attack do you?

"I think you were a wonderful administrator, and I was gutted when you were forced to step down from your position by a few vindictive souls."

"I think you were a crap administrator, and I cheered the day you were forced to resign from your position."

Both are personal remarks, but you only object to the personal remark that you don't like. Is that altogether honest? Ever heard of Rudyard Kipling?

I've seen slanging matches held in many academic conferences, and I was nearly thumped by a member of an audience who took exception to an argument I was advancing that undercut some cherished ideas he had about post-modernism and psychological research. We all just took incidents like that in our stride, and although it was of passing interest, it was nothing to scream about or to even throw the person concerned out of the room for. It might sometimes be better if it didn't happen like that, but no one ever seemed to have the idea that there should be sanctions against anyone who took or seemed to be about to take such "direct action". In the above case, indeed, as I remarked, if he had thumped me, it would have been a completely acceptable response to my argument and in keeping with his position which was opposed to mine: indeed, a reasoned argument as a response would have been self-defeating for his position.

Wikipedia seems often to be just a parody of academic debate and joint working, a bit like a cargo cult, involving magical thinking and rituals that are indulged in as an attempt to copy the same processes and yield the same results as would happen in real encyclopaedia writing. However, they very often merely end up looking pathetic and ridiculous. It isn't all like that, but the pressures which make it become like that are considerable, and seem almost always able to prevail.

This post has been edited by gadfly:

[Malleus]

Both a personal attack and a personal compliment could be personal remarks. You can object to whatever one you like, they're remarks all the same.

But you only object to one of them, the one you don't like. Me, I shrug them both off. That's why I asked you about Kipling.

I could ignore them both, but it's unlikely both would be presented like that. As it is, most personal comments, good and bad, come out of the blue. A negative one isn't a very pleasant surprise, even if you do think the person making it is a twit, and talking out of their arse.

You don't seem to be following. Do I need to type slower so that you can understand?

[Alex]

Both a personal attack and a personal compliment could be personal remarks. You can object to whatever one you like, they're remarks all the same.

But you only object to one of them, the one you don't like. Me, I shrug them both off. That's why I asked you about Kipling.

I could ignore them both, but it's unlikely both would be presented like that. As it is, most personal comments, good and bad, come out of the blue. A negative one isn't a very pleasant surprise, even if you do think the person making it is a twit, and talking out of their arse.

You don't seem to be following. Do I need to type slower so that you can understand?

I am busy right now, so it's likely I'm distracted doing more important things. Let's just say you win this one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[Malleus]

Wikipedia seems often to be just a parody of academic debate and joint working, a bit like a cargo cult, involving magical thinking and rituals that are indulged in as an attempt to copy the same processes and yield the same results as would happen in real encyclopaedia writing. However, they very often merely end up looking pathetic and ridiculous. It isn't all like that, but the pressures which make it become like that are considerable, and seem almost always able to prevail.

I like the cargo cult analogy.

I am busy right now, so it's likely I'm distracted doing more important things. Let's just say you win this one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Let's say instead that you were talking out of your arse, you were found out, and you are now running away.

[Alex]

Wikipedia seems often to be just a parody of academic debate and joint working, a bit like a cargo cult, involving magical thinking and rituals that are indulged in as an attempt to copy the same processes and yield the same results as would happen in real encyclopaedia writing. However, they very often merely end up looking pathetic and ridiculous. It isn't all like that, but the pressures which make it become like that are considerable, and seem almost always able to prevail.

I like the cargo cult analogy.

I am busy right now, so it's likely I'm distracted doing more important things. Let's just say you win this one. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Let's say instead that you were talking out of your arse, you were found out, and you are now running away.

Oh, what a shame. I did think our grownup conversation was going well, but I think that spoiled it. We'll try another time eh, when I'm not so busy doing more important things than chitchatting on a silly webforum.

[Shalom]

Wikipedia seems often to be just a parody of academic debate and joint working, a bit like a cargo cult, involving magical thinking and rituals that are indulged in as an attempt to copy the same processes and yield the same results as would happen in real encyclopaedia writing. However, they very often merely end up looking pathetic and ridiculous. It isn't all like that, but the pressures which make it become like that are considerable, and seem almost always able to prevail.

I like the cargo cult analogy.

I don't. The peer review process, which is an integral aspect of formal academic writing, shows up only in GA or FA nominations or by unofficial request. The large majority even of the high quality articles don't use these processes.

[gadfly]

I don't. The peer review process, which is an integral aspect of formal academic writing, shows up only in GA or FA nominations or by unofficial request. The large majority even of the high quality articles don't use these processes.

You obviously do not understand the implications that I am drawing out, because, for your criticism to have any force, the peer review process used on wikipedia would need to be the same as that used in academic work, and I have considerable experience of both: they are not the same because of issues concerning expertise and substantive experience in given fields are not guaranteed and may even be unlikely (given other biases) in the wikipedia cases. In the cases where wikipedia does not make use of peer review, that is just an instance where the copying inherent in cargo cults is imperfect and based on ignorance about what should really be happening. Hence the cargo cult analogy still holds. I must thank you for allowing me to elaborate this aspect of the magical thinking and ritual involved.

This post has been edited by gadfly:

[Alison]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

[Malleus]

If I may just add to what gadfly has said, the whole idea of "peer review" at wikipedia is a misnomer. Who are my peers? Who are your peers? What qualifications do they have to pass judgement on my article? What qualifications do I have to pass judgement on yours? Peer review on wikipedia is more like a jury chosen because it has no knowledge or preconceptions of the case it has been assembled to consider. That's a long way from an academic peer review, which your worst enemy may well be invited to comment on, and often is.

[Ahypori]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Shalom]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[gadfly]

If I may just add to what gadfly has said, the whole idea of "peer review" at wikipedia is a misnomer. Who are my peers? Who are your peers? What qualifications do they have to pass judgement on my article? What qualifications do I have to pass judgement on yours? Peer review on wikipedia is more like a jury chosen because it has no knowledge or preconceptions of the case it has been assembled to consider. That's a long way from an academic peer review, which your worst enemy may well be invited to comment on, and often is.

This approach in academic peer review is the kind of thing that Karl Popper was writing about when he suggests that in science, the best test of something which helps us discard weak claims, results, or theories is when one makes the hardest attempts to prove them wrong, and yet they still survive those tests. In wikipedia, either the tests are weak, because they are either paltry or misdirected. So the end results may well result in substandard material being retained. Any attempt at qualitry control is dogged by similar weakly applied or misdirected processes.

[Bottled_Spider]

To Bottled_Spider: I did pick apart Iridescent's lies in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shalom Yechiel (now blanked, but you can read the page history).

I can? That's very nice of you, Shals, but no thanks. Page histories just aren't my "bag", if you catch my drift.

I wrote as concisely as possible. The problem in such situations is that making a false statement may take only one sentence, but refuting the falsehood may require a whole paragraph or more.

You've got to watch out for those false statements, Shal. I sense that you took your failed RfA very badly indeed. You see it as a knife in your guts, and you think everyone hates you and laughs at you behind your back. Just let it go, Shal!

[Shalom]

To Bottled_Spider: I did pick apart Iridescent's lies in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shalom Yechiel (now blanked, but you can read the page history).

I can? That's very nice of you, Shals, but no thanks. Page histories just aren't my "bag", if you catch my drift.
Oh come on, you lazy loser. Here's the link on a silver platter. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=226396978

I wrote as concisely as possible. The problem in such situations is that making a false statement may take only one sentence, but refuting the falsehood may require a whole paragraph or more.

You've got to watch out for those false statements, Shal. I sense that you took your failed RfA very badly indeed. You see it as a knife in your guts, and you think everyone hates you and laughs at you behind your back. Just let it go, Shal!

I took my failed RFA very badly indeed because it was not merely a rejection of my request for special access, but a rejection of the very premise on which I was working on Wikipedia. I was working for the readership, to be sure, but I was also working for the community to help other people do their volunteering, and many of those people, by supporting false statements about me and explicitly suspecting that I was up to no good, showed me that they wanted me to leave. So I left. I have no regrets about reacting angrily to the false statements. My only regret is that I didn't do it more effectively. If I knew how to handle such situations I could possibly have gotten Iridescent blocked or at least censured for blatant false statements, which are the worst kind of incivility. Not having been familiar with conflict situations because I edited quiet topics, I didn't know how to game the system to screw her over, but she richly deserved it.

I do not take kindly to being called "Shal". "Shalom" is my full name on this forum.

[One]

Well then, Majorly, don't you think Iridescent's oppose on me was based on false information? Why didn't you protest then? Why did the whole admin community not protest then? Why did everyone smile and nod as Iridescent slandered me -- and continued to do so later by falsely alleging on her talk page that I had engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against "real life" individuals?

Seems to be in the wrong forum.

[Shalom]

Well then, Majorly, don't you think Iridescent's oppose on me was based on false information? Why didn't you protest then? Why did the whole admin community not protest then? Why did everyone smile and nod as Iridescent slandered me -- and continued to do so later by falsely alleging on her talk page that I had engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against "real life" individuals?

Seems to be in the wrong forum.

That's all you have to say? Aren't you the slightest bit disappointed one of your administrators would say such lies about me and get away with it?

This post has been edited by Shalom:

[One]

That's all you have to say? Aren't you the slightest bit disappointed one of your administrators would say such lies about me and get away with it?

Iridescent's words were fair comment--at least as fair as the words about me in my election.

By the nature of the voting system, smears can be very effective, that's true. However, I don't think ArbCom or anyone else should pillory admins for exaggeration. Or is there more to it? What's the single worst lie? These look like mere hyperbole to me.

The value of frank disclosure in RFA outweighs the harm of sorting through "defamation" about Wikipedia's volunteers.

[Kato]

I think that's about right. I really find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in an academic environment would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who's spent any time at all in a job would turn a hair at what laughably passes for "personal attacks" on wikipedia.

Good point. I remember being rather puzzled by that "personal attacks" policy, and to a large extent I still am, as must be obvious to any wikiafficionado. I mean, calling someone who is behaving like an idiot an idiot is just making an observation. It's a personal remark, sure, but an "attack"? If it was in my mind to attack someone I could do an awful lot better than that. Trust me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I don't know what you guys are relating to, but call someone an "idiot" in a professional environment and you're in trouble.

You've obviously never been an academic. Or in the services.

I've never been in the services, but I've certainly been in academia.

Call someone an "idiot" in academia in a formal context - and you'll be taken aside. Certainly if a teacher called a student an "idiot". Those kinds of comments are completely off limits. No question about it.

Sure, it might go on, but it would be used against the name caller in a disciplinary, if a recipient pressed the matter. You would be condemned by all judging parties for the comment.

[Bottled_Spider]

I took my failed RFA very badly indeed because it was not merely a rejection of my request for special access, but a rejection of the very premise on which I was working on Wikipedia. I was working for the readership, to be sure, but I was also working for the community to help other people do their volunteering, and many of those people, by supporting false statements about me and explicitly suspecting that I was up to no good, showed me that they wanted me to leave. So I left. I have no regrets about reacting angrily to the false statements. My only regret is that I didn't do it more effectively. If I knew how to handle such situations I could possibly have gotten Iridescent blocked or at least censured for blatant false statements, which are the worst kind of incivility. Not having been familiar with conflict situations because I edited quiet topics, I didn't know how to game the system to screw her over, but she richly deserved it.

Now come on, Shalso. No-one "deserves" to be screwed over. Or under, for that matter. You need to sit down, turn things around, and look back (but not in anger). Go forward, and don't turn sideways. It's time to forgive and forget. I think you should settle things with Irrad Idires that other person and become friends. We're all in this together.

I do not take kindly to being called "Shal". "Shalom" is my full name on this forum.

I hear you, Shallers. It's the height of bad manners doing that sort of thing. I've got to ask, though - would you settle for "Shamol"? It's got a nice ring to it.

[Alex]

Maybe we should start calling the bottled spider "botty" or "bot"?

[Shalom]

That's all you have to say? Aren't you the slightest bit disappointed one of your administrators would say such lies about me and get away with it?

Iridescent's words were fair comment--at least as fair as the words about me in my election.

By the nature of the voting system, smears can be very effective, that's true. However, I don't think ArbCom or anyone else should pillory admins for exaggeration. Or is there more to it? What's the single worst lie? These look like mere hyperbole to me.

The value of frank disclosure in RFA outweighs the harm of sorting through "defamation" about Wikipedia's volunteers.

I'm conflating two issues. Sorry for not being clear.

I don't use the word "defamation" for the lies at RFA. They were lies, and they damaged my reputation, but some of them can be attributed to confusion and sloppy memory rather than malice.

Among the more egregious lies were these:

"Also, on too many occasions his response to anyone disagreeing with him has been to post at great length on the matter to WR." Flat out lie. I never did that, certainly not "repeatedly."

"I'm well aware that a number of editors (including me) post occasionally at WR and don't get in any trouble for doing so. However, there's a qualitative difference between occasionally explaining policy and how particular decisions were reached... , and SY's posts, which include accusations of sockpuppetry against Arbcom members, repeated attacks on anyone who agrees with anyone he sees as part of "the cabal", and so on." The accusation of sockpuppetry against FT2 was probably a misunderstanding of a comment where I responded to someone else's allegation of same. The "repeated attacks on ..." was a flat out lie. I never did that, certainly not "repeatedly."

I should have raised these points in the RFA, but it all happened so quickly. The RFA ended in 12 hours (it got SNOWed, then I asked to reopen it so I could answer questions and close it on my own terms), and in those 12 hours I was editing SSP and articles and living life and eating and sleeping aside from watching the RFA. It's not possible to catch everything in that time frame.

The "defamation" was her comment that I engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against both Wikipedians and "real world individuals." I neither concede nor strenuously object to the Wikipedians half of that statement; [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] is very inclusive even of mildly annoying behavior, and I did some inappropriate things that fall under those broad definitions. However, I absolutely did not harass anyone in real life. You of all people should know about this by now; I sent an email to Arbcom-L complaining about the "campaigns of harassment against real world individuals" comment. I withdrew the complaint a few days later after I did an act of vigilante revenge while despairing that Arbcom would notice. If I were to say something similar about Iridescent, I would get blocked for it. That's what I call defamation. I'm sorry you don't think it is all that serious. I'm sorry for myself that I can't move on from it.

This post has been edited by Shalom:

[One]

The "defamation" was her comment that I engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against both Wikipedians and "real world individuals." I neither concede nor strenuously object to the Wikipedians half of that statement; [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] is very inclusive even of mildly annoying behavior, and I did some inappropriate things that fall under those broad definitions. However, I absolutely did not harass anyone in real life. You of all people should know about this by now; I sent an email to Arbcom-L complaining about the "campaigns of harassment against real world individuals" comment. I withdrew the complaint a few days later after I did an act of vigilante revenge while despairing that Arbcom would notice. If I were to say something similar about Iridescent, I would get blocked for it. That's what I call defamation. I'm sorry you don't think it is all that serious. I'm sorry for myself that I can't move on from it.

I see. Yeah, if that comment was seen by people who know your real name and are unfamiliar with the hyper-inflated concept of Wikipedia "harassment," I might agree. I'm not really sure what Iridescent was talking about.

[Malleus]

I've never been in the services, but I've certainly been in academia.

Call someone an "idiot" in academia in a formal context - and you'll be taken aside. Certainly if a teacher called a student an "idiot". Those kinds of comments are completely off limits. No question about it.

Sure, it might go on, but it would be used against the name caller in a disciplinary, if a recipient pressed the matter. You would be condemned by all judging parties for the comment.

I'm not talking about schools, or the discussions which take place between teacher and pupil. I'm talking about the discussions between academics -- university lecturers, researchers, professors and so on. "Idiot" would be very mild beer indeed.

[Shalom]

The "defamation" was her comment that I engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against both Wikipedians and "real world individuals." I neither concede nor strenuously object to the Wikipedians half of that statement; [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] is very inclusive even of mildly annoying behavior, and I did some inappropriate things that fall under those broad definitions. However, I absolutely did not harass anyone in real life. You of all people should know about this by now; I sent an email to Arbcom-L complaining about the "campaigns of harassment against real world individuals" comment. I withdrew the complaint a few days later after I did an act of vigilante revenge while despairing that Arbcom would notice. If I were to say something similar about Iridescent, I would get blocked for it. That's what I call defamation. I'm sorry you don't think it is all that serious. I'm sorry for myself that I can't move on from it.

I see. Yeah, if that comment was seen by people who know your real name and are unfamiliar with the hyper-inflated concept of Wikipedia "harassment," I might agree. I'm not really sure what Iridescent was talking about.

I'm not really worried people will see it. Only two people who know me in real life are also Wikipedia editors (not including folks like Sj and Paul August whom I met at a meetup) and one of them already knows about the whole thing. I think I've done everything I can do to dissociate my RL identity from Wikipedia. I'm reasonably certain that I will not hear about the incidents again unless I were to run for president (which would not work for a whole bunch of other reasons).

She was talking about the fact that I laid a "Google bomb" for my university president using Wikipedia back in 2005 and early 2006. Some context is in order here: I was a very new editor and didn't know any policies or that this was wrong; and Googlebombing was still possible (witness the "miserable failure" prank). I never informed the university president about what I did, and to the best of my knowledge he is still not aware that anything happened. I disclosed the Googlebomb several months later by posting signs on campus, and although I don't have solid information on this, I believe that someone in the administration (not the president himself) contacted the IT folks to move the webpage so that the Googlebomb pointed to a 404 error. Was it a smart thing I did? No, but it's not harassment either. If it were, then I could harass you simply by writing on my computer "Cool Hand Luke is a moron" and never posting it online, or writing such a thing on my personal blog which almost nobody reads. If the "victim" of harassment was not ever aware, and was not at all adversely affected, then it's not harassment.

[Kato]

I've never been in the services, but I've certainly been in academia.

Call someone an "idiot" in academia in a formal context - and you'll be taken aside. Certainly if a teacher called a student an "idiot". Those kinds of comments are completely off limits. No question about it.

Sure, it might go on, but it would be used against the name caller in a disciplinary, if a recipient pressed the matter. You would be condemned by all judging parties for the comment.

I'm not talking about schools, or the discussions which take place between teacher and pupil. I'm talking about the discussions between academics -- university lecturers, researchers, professors and so on. "Idiot" would be very mild beer indeed.

Have you ever attended a seminar, or a professional discussion among academics, where people openly call each other "idiots" - without incident?

I'll answer for you.

No.

You don't do it in a professional environment and it just doesn't happen.

Outside, in the pub, yes.

Inside, no. You wouldn't last five minutes.

[Malleus]

I've never been in the services, but I've certainly been in academia.

Call someone an "idiot" in academia in a formal context - and you'll be taken aside. Certainly if a teacher called a student an "idiot". Those kinds of comments are completely off limits. No question about it.

Sure, it might go on, but it would be used against the name caller in a disciplinary, if a recipient pressed the matter. You would be condemned by all judging parties for the comment.

I'm not talking about schools, or the discussions which take place between teacher and pupil. I'm talking about the discussions between academics -- university lecturers, researchers, professors and so on. "Idiot" would be very mild beer indeed.

Have you ever attended a seminar, or a professional discussion among academics, where people openly call each other "idiots" - without incident?

I'll answer for you.

No.

You don't do it in a professional environment and it just doesn't happen.

Outside, in the pub, yes.

Inside, no.

Where do you buy your crystal balls? I'm only asking because I don't want to make the mistake of getting a rubbish one like yours. Why bother to ask a question if you think you already know the answer, even when you patently don't?

[Kato]

Where do you buy your crystal balls? I'm only asking because I don't want to make the mistake of getting a rubbish one like yours. Why bother to ask a question if you think you already know the answer, even when you patently don't?

I'll take that as a no. And an admission that academics don't go around calling each other "idiots" in a professional environment without consequences.

The reason why this is important is that on initial contact, browsers may be fooled into thinking that Wikipedia operates under some sort of professional collegiate conventions. When in fact, at any moment, they may be called an "idiot" online, or find themselves embroiled in some juvenile shouting match with grossly uncivil morons.

Just one of the numerous negative aspects of that place.

[Malleus]

Where do you buy your crystal balls? I'm only asking because I don't want to make the mistake of getting a rubbish one like yours. Why bother to ask a question if you think you already know the answer, even when you patently don't?

I'll take that as a no. And an admission that academics don't go around calling each other "idiots" in a professional environment without consequences.

You see, I told you that your crystal ball was faulty. Take it as a " yes they do, and much worse".

[One]

Have you ever attended a seminar, or a professional discussion among academics, where people openly call each other "idiots" - without incident?

I'll answer for you.

No.

You don't do it in a professional environment and it just doesn't happen.

Going to have to side with Kato here. Like many students at my institution, I enjoy seeing papers presented before certain faculty who have a reputation for being harsh reviewers. Although I've heard panelists question the value of research, and outright state that certain premises are false, rendering the work worthless, I have never heard a "personal attack."

If they do it, it's not in front of an audience of their peers. I've no doubt that they complain in private like the rest of us, but it's strikingly unprofessional in public.

I've no doubt that Wikipedia's notion of "personal attack" is over broad. But considering that "stalking" is often just looking at one's contribution history, and "harassment" is often just voting in a deletion debate, it's far from the most absurd concept on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by One:

[Anonymous editor]

Well then, Majorly, don't you think Iridescent's oppose on me was based on false information? Why didn't you protest then? Why did the whole admin community not protest then? Why did everyone smile and nod as Iridescent slandered me -- and continued to do so later by falsely alleging on her talk page that I had engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against "real life" individuals?

I don't know of a single person who holds grudges as long as you do, and with you they're not even real grudges. They're silly Wikipedia nonsense grudges. How long ago did these things happen? I don't even know what you're talking about and I've followed the RfAs for months.

[Somey]

You see, I told you that your crystal ball was faulty. Take it as a " yes they do, and much worse".

What sort of academic institutions have you been associated with, then? I could imagine the culture of various institutions being different, particularly in different countries. But in my experience, practically all professors and administrators - and the vast majority of graduate students, even - are considerably more "civil" to each other in open discussions, meetings, and correspondence than Wikipedians (generally speaking), and they don't even have to read WP:CIVIL (T-H-L-K-D) in advance.

That's not to say there isn't a certain amount of backroom sniping, backstabbing, rumor-mongering, whisper campaigning, and general snarkiness, but it's like they say about cannibalism in the British Navy: "All new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they're to tell us immediately so that we can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up."

And, finally, necrophilia is right out...! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I will say, though, that on the surface at least, Wikipedia seems to do a better job of keeping things "civil" than one would expect under the circumstances - to the point where I'd say it isn't really that much of a problem. Most of the nastier instances of sniping, etc., seem to occur where you can't see them, at least not directly... so it probably is a bit like academia in that respect.

[Shalom]

Well then, Majorly, don't you think Iridescent's oppose on me was based on false information? Why didn't you protest then? Why did the whole admin community not protest then? Why did everyone smile and nod as Iridescent slandered me -- and continued to do so later by falsely alleging on her talk page that I had engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against "real life" individuals?

I don't know of a single person who holds grudges as long as you do, and with you they're not even real grudges. They're silly Wikipedia nonsense grudges. How long ago did these things happen? I don't even know what you're talking about and I've followed the RfAs for months.

You are yet another person who spends more words shooting me down for complaining about Iridescent's behavior than shooting down Iridescent for her behavior. (Or "behaviour", since she's English. Or "behavior" because she grew up in New York.)

I will always hold this grudge. I tried to walk away several times and forget about it, and I locked out the password to my WR account in December. Then I had a bad day IRL and decided to come back here.

[Somey]

I will always hold this grudge. I tried to walk away several times and forget about it, and I locked out the password to my WR account in December. Then I had a bad day IRL and decided to come back here.

Welcome back! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

And aren't you glad we have a password recovery feature...?

[Shalom]

I will always hold this grudge. I tried to walk away several times and forget about it, and I locked out the password to my WR account in December. Then I had a bad day IRL and decided to come back here.

Welcome back! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

And aren't you glad we have a password recovery feature...?

Sort of. I may regret coming back here, but so far it's okay.

I had the same issue on Wikipedia in July 2007 (this was a year BEFORE the "retirement" in July 2008). I decided I needed to leave for a while, so I changed my password to gibberish and copied the gibberish into a text file. When I tried to restore the gibberish in the password space when I next tried to login, it did not work. But have no fear! I could and did recover my password via email. I could have used that as an excuse to just start over under a new name, or leave altogether. I can imagine there are others who have done similar things.

Getting a new account on Wikipedia is easy. I've done it at least 20 times. Getting a new account on WR is difficult. I don't use a "real world" email address currently, and besides, I've done nothing to prevent me from moving up the social ladder here, and even have access to the thoroughly uninteresting 300 forum, so that's cool. Anyway, thanks for welcoming me back.

[Anonymous editor]

Well then, Majorly, don't you think Iridescent's oppose on me was based on false information? Why didn't you protest then? Why did the whole admin community not protest then? Why did everyone smile and nod as Iridescent slandered me -- and continued to do so later by falsely alleging on her talk page that I had engaged in "campaigns of harassment" against "real life" individuals?

I don't know of a single person who holds grudges as long as you do, and with you they're not even real grudges. They're silly Wikipedia nonsense grudges. How long ago did these things happen? I don't even know what you're talking about and I've followed the RfAs for months.

You are yet another person who spends more words shooting me down for complaining about Iridescent's behavior than shooting down Iridescent for her behavior.

Because I don't care what you think Iridescent did to you. This is about you. You have a severe obsession.

[maggot3]

I will always hold this grudge. I tried to walk away several times and forget about it, and I locked out the password to my WR account in December. Then I had a bad day IRL and decided to come back here.

This is not a good way of gaining sympathy.

Also describing a google bomb to attempt to defame somebody as "harassment" really isn't so far off the mark that it requires holding a grudge for however long.

[Shalom]

Also describing a google bomb to attempt to defame somebody as "harassment" really isn't so far off the mark that it requires holding a grudge for however long.

YES IT IS! I did NOT attempt to defame the university president. I did not announce to the world that he was a ____. It was at first a private joke that I told to nobody (a few family members, but that's all), then it was something I revealed to a few more people for a short period in March 2006, and shortly afterward the Googlebomb was disabled altogether and was gone from existence. All the fuss on Wikipedia, my blog post about it, etc. happened afterward.

Two questions for you:
1) a) Googlebombers linked the names of George W. Bush and Michael Moore to "miserable failure." Was that harassment?
b) Googlebombers linked the name of Tony Blair to "liar". Was that harassment?
c) Googlebombers linked the name of Italy's premier Silvio Berlusconi to "buffone" which means "clown" in their language. Was that harassment?

2) a) Suppose I write on a password protected site, to which only I have the password, that "maggot3 is a nincompoop." I leave it up indefinitely and nobody knows the difference. Is that harassment?
b) I let a few friends in on the joke (say I give them the password). Some of the friends reprimand me, and I go no further. You never find out about it. Is that harassment?

These things used to happen all the time before Google killed Googlebombs. It's not harassment. It's not even close. It's not in the same ballpark. Sorry, I reject your assertion to the ccontrary.

[One]

Also describing a google bomb to attempt to defame somebody as "harassment" really isn't so far off the mark that it requires holding a grudge for however long.

These things used to happen all the time before Google killed Googlebombs. It's not harassment. It's not even close. It's not in the same ballpark. Sorry, I reject your assertion to the ccontrary.

What Iridescent said is exaggeration at best. If you tried to associate a real, non-public-figure name with an attack site on google, that's strikes me as much more heinous that Iridescent's "defamation" of a pseudonym on a web page that few but insiders visit. Especially because it was your grudge that provoked the comment in the first place.

If you were really trying to protect your reputation, you wouldn't repeatedly call Iridescent a liar, especially not on such a weak foundation. For what it's worth, I never read Iridescent's comment before, but my opinion of you is at an all-time low.

Drop the grudge. Move on. Life's too short.

[Noroton]

Drop the grudge. Move on. Life's too short.

Sorry, Shalom, I haven't read through the details of what's passed between you and iridescent. I've got a more general comment that may or may not be useful here.

My take is: it's often very hard to end hard feelings after someone feels he's been wronged, and much harder when the community around you won't enforce its norms in that situation. One of Shalom's complaints was that others didn't do that.

The community around the two parties plays a much bigger role than people may think. We often look away if we think there's plenty of blame to go around when two parties are fighting each other (although sometimes the drama attracts us if it looks entertaining enough or grisly enough). If we want someone to stop complaining about a particular case, or stop feuding about it, it seems to me the surest way to do it is to look into the situation, condemn the other person if that other person really did do something awful, and make the condemnation clear. That cuts down the urge of the complainer for revenge, and may even eliminate the urge.

Obviously, this example is like comparing a mountain to a molehill, but some of the same things apply if you just scale it down: I remember sitting through a well-publicized rape trial, and I had the opportunity to speak with the defendant, his accuser and the family members of each. I also remember being told by a guy -- who happened to be a cop -- that if it had ever happened to his sister or a member of his family, he'd kill the rapist. I remember thinking, "The hell you'd kill him." The experience for an accuser and the accuser's family at a trial has its frustrations, but it can also heal a lot. The accuser's family sat through the trial, experienced the formailty of the community assessing the accusation with care and seriousness, and then, after the first trial resulted in a hung jury, saw the rapist as he was convicted (at which point he bawled), then sentenced. The husband of the rape victim, a huge guy, didn't lift a finger against the rapist, and then, with a completely clean conscience, experienced the satisfaction of seeing the community punish him. If you scale all this down, I'd say that if some third party states that they've looked into a matter and found that someone seems to have been wronged, it helps diffuse the situation.

In societies where the authorities don't tend to dispense justice, traditions develop for families, private groups or the parties themselves to dispense it. The usual conflict-of-interest problems ensue, and the punishments tend to be overly harsh.

From [[Feud]]:

Vendetta is typical of societies with a weak rule of law (or where the state doesn't consider itself responsible for mediating this kind of dispute) [...] The practice has mostly disappeared with more centralized, rationalistic societies where law enforcement and criminal law take responsibility of punishing lawbreakers.

Not everything can be adjudicated. Many things can be condemned. I think that even if both parties are to blame, condemning both may actually be helpful to both, since I suspect most people would be willing to take the criticism if only the other side's wrongs were recognized. This is one reason why we shouldn't hesitate to say something that might irritate the complainer if the complainer is also in the wrong.

I think it seldom works to tell someone who's angry that "life's too short". That may work after the anger dies down, but that's never the time a person is told "forget about it." I think One's reply, overall, was probably helpful by indicating he looked into the matter, and, since he determined that the other person (iridescent) did something wrong, said so.

Maybe the best thing someone in Shalom's situation can do is to state the complaint briefly and provide diffs clearly showing what the complaint is (this is very hard to do, especially when you're mad).

[Bottled_Spider]

Maybe the best thing someone in Shalom's situation can do is to state the complaint briefly and provide diffs clearly showing what the complaint is (this is very hard to do, especially when you're mad).

Yeah! That's what I was thinking too! He does seem............ Oh. "Mad" as in angry and frustrated at the great injustice that's been done to him. OK. Right. Sorry.

[Malleus]

Maybe the best thing someone in Shalom's situation can do is to state the complaint briefly and provide diffs clearly showing what the complaint is (this is very hard to do, especially when you're mad).

Yeah! That's what I was thinking too! He does seem............ Oh. "Mad" as in angry and frustrated at the great injustice that's been done to him. OK. Right. Sorry.

These aren't recent events though, so "mad" ought not to apply. Blow out at the time, get it off your chest, then move on. It also helps to develop a bit more self-esteem than perhaps Shalom has right now. Who cares what someone you think is a dick thinks about you?

Speaking of dicks, Laralove was kind enough to include me in the valedictory posting she made on her talk page, saying "You're a dick of porn star proportions ...". I like to think that was a typo, and that what she meant to write was "You've ...". Robust self-esteem or hopeless fantasy? You decide. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Sarcasticidealist]

What Iridescent said is exaggeration at best. If you tried to associate a real, non-public-figure name with an attack site on google, that's strikes me as much more heinous that Iridescent's "defamation" of a pseudonym on a web page that few but insiders visit. Especially because it was your grudge that provoked the comment in the first place.

If you were really trying to protect your reputation, you wouldn't repeatedly call Iridescent a liar, especially not on such a weak foundation. For what it's worth, I never read Iridescent's comment before, but my opinion of you is at an all-time low.

Drop the grudge. Move on. Life's too short.

As the guy who actually nominated you for adminship, I echo all of the above. It's common ground that you had a really flawed history with Wikipedia, and Iridescent indicated that she wasn't prepared to overlook that. You can disagree with some of her word choice, but I though what she had to say was fundamentally fair (though I disagreed with it).

[Apathetic]

The best part was Shalom's RFC demanding an apology from all of Wikipedia

[Somey]

The best part was Shalom's RFC demanding an apology from all of Wikipedia

Well then, as the one person on Earth who can legitimately be said to represent all of Wikipedia, I'd just like to apologize to Shalom on behalf of the entire web-based community.

Won't happen again, promise! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[AlioTheFool]

OK I don't care about most of this. I just want to say that it's not true that Google bombing someone is not harrassment or libel. If you say that, then putting on a Wikipedia BLP that someone is a drunk pedophile is also ok.

I don't care if someone knows that you've been defaming them. Google bombing could be considered criminal in action.

[Somey]

I just want to say that it's not true that Google bombing someone is not harrassment or libel.

But this depends on context, does it not? If someone Google-bombs you with the phrase "super-wonderful person," or "supreme benefit to society," that's obviously not libel - and is it even "harassment"? (I wouldn't think so?)

It seems to me that Google-bombing is just... Google-bombing. Just because it seems to be used maliciously in most cases doesn't mean it's used maliciously, or for spamming purposes, in all cases. In fact, it's quite possible that "nice" Google-bombing happens more than we realize, and that it just doesn't get reported on.

Also bear in mind that at least in the US, truth is still considered an iron-clad defense against libel. That may be changing, as courts and politicians inevitably choose the wrong solution for the relatively simple problem of how to define the term "publisher" with respect to websites, but for now at least...

[Shalom]

The best part was Shalom's RFC demanding an apology from all of Wikipedia

I demanded an apology from those individuals who made false statements about me. Those were a small number of individuals. I asked for forgiveness from all of Wikipedia. I didn't receive it.

I'm willing to commit reputation suicide if I can kill Iridescent in the process. Nothing else I've tried has done any good. I tried legitimate dispute resolution. Fail. I tried talking with her on her talkpage. Fail. I tried again. Fail. I tried personally attacking her. Fail. I tried vandalizing her editnotice. Success for 13 hours, but ultimately, fail. I tried bringing it up on Wikipedia Review. Fail.

That's the story of my life right there. Fail.

I would be tempted to challenge Cool Hand Luke's confusing statement about how I linked to an attack site, except that it happens to be true. One of the ways I set up the Googlebomb was by creating a site on Yahoo Geocities with the fellow's name, photo and a hyperlink with the requisite anchor text. I removed that site a few months after I created it. I don't remember whether this was before or after I published the Googlebomb to friends. It was definitely before anything became known on Wikipedia.

I think I may as well just finish the self destruction and list all my sockpuppets for the world to see. If I really can't lose any more credibility in your eyes, CHL, I have nothing to lose. It would not be to clear my conscience, just a pure act of stupidity. But if that's what you want, that's what you might get. Then y'all can ban me from Wikipedia (including my current sock) and make it official.

CHL contends that Googlebombing public figures is not harassment but for private figures it is. However, in the case of public figures the Googlebomb itself becomes public, whereas in my case I told only a few friends, and again, the subject of the attack never became aware and was never adversely affected.

It's a frickin' shame that of all my hard work, this is what gets remembered. Yes, I chose to make a point of it. But really, there's no defense for what she said about me. I always trust Sarcasticidealist, and I know he's saying sense, but I still can't see it. I can't see how alleging harassment is okay. I can't see how all the other lies she said about me were okay. Call them half-truths or exaggerations, whatever, they're still not true. That Iridescent didn't substantively harm my reputation more than I did to myself, she said in her defense and I sense others agree. I just wish I hadn't screwed up my wiki career from the very beginning. Take away those early edits and start in July 2006 instead, and I'm an admin, possibly retired by now, or anyway in good standing. Instead I fucked up. There's nowhere to go from here but down.

[Noroton]

It's a frickin' shame that of all my hard work, this is what gets remembered. Yes, I chose to make a point of it. But really, there's no defense for what she said about me. I always trust Sarcasticidealist, and I know he's saying sense, but I still can't see it. I can't see how alleging harassment is okay. I can't see how all the other lies she said about me were okay. Call them half-truths or exaggerations, whatever, they're still not true. That Iridescent didn't substantively harm my reputation more than I did to myself, she said in her defense and I sense others agree. I just wish I hadn't screwed up my wiki career from the very beginning. Take away those early edits and start in July 2006 instead, and I'm an admin, possibly retired by now, or anyway in good standing. Instead I fucked up. There's nowhere to go from here but down.

I sympathize. I've sometimes felt the same way. Malleus is wrong to discount your anger because it's been prolonged -- my anger doesn't go away too fast, either. Reading what you just wrote makes me agree with previous comments that you'd be much better off if you could walk away from this and concentrate on something else. A vacation from Wikipedia (and Wikipedia Review), even from all things online, might do you a lot of good. And if you can't stay away, then destroy your access to your user name and get another. Make a fresh start.

You're clearly suffering from this and it's just not important enough to suffer over this way. You've made your case against Iridescent, people have had a chance to form their own opinions, and that's that. Your statements will remain as a record in case Iridescent does something so wrong in the future that people will want to know that editor's background. From what I can tell, you haven't done anything to suffer this much. You don't deserve that. I wouldn't do anything to get new account creation blocked, though. Just close this chapter and open a new one. I wish you well with it.

The best part was Shalom's RFC demanding an apology from all of Wikipedia

Well then, as the one person on Earth who can legitimately be said to represent all of Wikipedia, I'd just like to apologize to Shalom on behalf of the entire web-based community.

Won't happen again, promise! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

Well, where the hell's my damn apology? And what's taking you so long?!

[Malleus]

Malleus is wrong to discount your anger because it's been prolonged ...

No, I'm not wrong, and I don't discount anger, it has its place. But its place is as an immediate release of emotion, not as the fuel for some long-running vendatta. "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

There are loads of people I don't like, but I don't hate any of them and neither do I take the trouble to plot against them. I'm not some pinko turn-the-other-cheek Christian, I deal with people as they deal with me. When they behave themselves, then so do I. When they don't, then they get it with both barrels.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Bottled_Spider]

Speaking of dicks, Laralove was kind enough to include me in the valedictory posting she made on her talk page, saying "You're a dick of porn star proportions ...". I like to think that was a typo, and that what she meant to write was "You've ...". Robust self-esteem or hopeless fantasy? You decide. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Why not both? In my opinion, there's not enough rudeness in Wikipedia based on "trouser-snake" references. Every male Wikipedian should, at one time or another, have comments made regarding their "meat-and-two-veg" in drama situations. The project should become known as the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and have their "love truncheons" talked about. I'll stop now.

I'm willing to commit reputation suicide if I can kill Iridescent in the process.

Christ on a stick! You're starting to give me The Fear, Shalser!

]That's the story of my life right there. Fail.

It's certainly beginning to look that way, Sh. But if you think about it - real hard - it's an achievement of sorts, isn't it? So it's not all doom and gloom.

[Noroton]

Malleus is wrong to discount your anger because it's been prolonged ...

No, I'm not wrong, and I don't discount anger, it has its place. But its place is as an immediate release of emotion, not as the fuel for some long-running vendatta. "Revenge is a dish best served cold."

Yeah, but it's always cooked and stored hot. My point was that real anger can last long. My point was not to justify it. It just does exist, and it can be hard to get rid of, and that's worth recognizing. I wasn't justifying revenge, either.

There are loads of people I don't like, but I don't hate any of them and neither do I take the trouble to plot against them. I'm not some pinko turn-the-other-cheek Christian, I deal with people as they deal with me. When they behave themselves, then so do I. When they don't, then they get it with both barrels.

I guess I'd better go back and read up on this. It wasn't just anger, it was hatred? He was plotting? Not good.

[Malleus]

Why this is so hard for so many people to understand? X makes a personal comment about Y that Y takes exception to. Y, not being a god-like creature, merely another human being, responds in kind. A little bit of argey-bargey ensues, but nobody dies and it's soon forgotten. Or at least it ought to be.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[Noroton]

Why this is so hard for so many people to understand? X makes a personal comment about Y that Y takes exception to. Y, not being a god-like creature, merely another human being, responds in kind. A little bit of argey-bargey ensues, but nobody dies and it's soon forgotten. Or at least it ought to be.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Oh, that's easy. If it were just an exchange of words that the parties took exception to, you'd have hit the nail on the head. But this is different. He says Iridescent lied and that torpedoed his RFA. That's a lot more than just a personal comment.

I've been reading the RFA just now. Actually, I doubt that the particular assertions by Iridescent that Shalom objects to actually did torpedo the RFA. It seems to me that it was the overall circumstances -- Shalom's past wasn't something that other editors were ready to discount enough, despite his statements that he'd reformed and a period of time showing reform. I think if the RFA had been postponed longer, Shalom would have been in a much stronger position, but perhaps not.

Shalom, there's an irony in this. In the RfA, you wanted Wikipedia editors to forgive you for past wrongs (admittedly, after you had shown regret, decided to change and did change). Now you're saying you can't forgive and put it behind you after all these months. I understand that feeling, but you also understand the irony, don't you? Incidentally, I think you looked better in that RfA than Iridescent did. Iridescent did make a seemingly reasonable case that you shouldn't be trusted, others made a reasonable case that you should.

Given the mercurial, unfair, often irrational nature of Wikipedia, I don't think it's a good idea to put a lot of stock in seeking any kind of sign there of community approval for anything.

[Milton Roe]

Speaking of dicks, Laralove was kind enough to include me in the valedictory posting she made on her talk page, saying "You're a dick of porn star proportions ...". I like to think that was a typo, and that what she meant to write was "You've ...". Robust self-esteem or hopeless fantasy? You decide. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Why not both? In my opinion, there's not enough rudeness in Wikipedia based on "trouser-snake" references. Every male Wikipedian should, at one time or another, have comments made regarding their "meat-and-two-veg" in drama situations. The project should become known as the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and have their "love truncheons" talked about. I'll stop now.

I'm willing to commit reputation suicide if I can kill Iridescent in the process.

Christ on a stick! You're starting to give me The Fear, Shalser!

]That's the story of my life right there. Fail.

It's certainly beginning to look that way, Sh. But if you think about it - real hard - it's an achievement of sorts, isn't it? So it's not all doom and gloom.

Yes, when all else fails, you can alway serve as a bad example.

[Random832]

If you tried to associate a real, non-public-figure name with an attack site on google

Er... do you even know what a googlebomb is?

[One]

If you tried to associate a real, non-public-figure name with an attack site on google

Er... do you even know what a googlebomb is?

Type in a name, get Shalom's site.

[Shalom]

Shalom, there's an irony in this. In the RfA, you wanted Wikipedia editors to forgive you for past wrongs (admittedly, after you had shown regret, decided to change and did change). Now you're saying you can't forgive and put it behind you after all these months. I understand that feeling, but you also understand the irony, don't you? Incidentally, I think you looked better in that RfA than Iridescent did. Iridescent did make a seemingly reasonable case that you shouldn't be trusted, others made a reasonable case that you should.

Given the mercurial, unfair, often irrational nature of Wikipedia, I don't think it's a good idea to put a lot of stock in seeking any kind of sign there of community approval for anything.

Yes, these are words of wisdom. Thank you, Noroton.

If you tried to associate a real, non-public-figure name with an attack site on google

Er... do you even know what a googlebomb is?

Type in a name, get Shalom's site.

The deal was: type in _____ and it would link to the university president's official homepage on the university website. It was not the website itself that was objectionable, but rather the word linked to that website. Check my first dozen logged in contributions to see the method. Also read the Wikipedia article on "Googlebomb."

I happened to read about Googlebombs in late 2005. I said to myself, hey that's cool, why don't I try to see if I can make my own Googlebomb.

It should be noted that the word I used was extremely obscure even to most Hebrew speakers and had only about 100 Google hits at the time. That's why I was able to defeat the existing Google hits with the Googlebomb; not much competition.

[One]

The deal was: type in _____ and it would link to the university president's official homepage on the university website.
...
It should be noted that the word I used was extremely obscure even to most Hebrew speakers and had only about 100 Google hits at the time.

Oh, I see.

Yeah, I don't really know what she means.

[LaraLove]

Speaking of dicks, Laralove was kind enough to include me in the valedictory posting she made on her talk page, saying "You're a dick of porn star proportions ...". I like to think that was a typo, and that what she meant to write was "You've ...". Robust self-esteem or hopeless fantasy? You decide. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Hey now... that was no typo! Just because we're dating doesn't mean I'm putting out, so your insinuations that I would even know... naughty, naughty. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'm willing to commit reputation suicide if I can kill Iridescent in the process. Nothing else I've tried has done any good. I tried legitimate dispute resolution. Fail. I tried talking with her on her talkpage. Fail. I tried again. Fail. I tried personally attacking her. Fail. I tried vandalizing her editnotice. Success for 13 hours, but ultimately, fail. I tried bringing it up on Wikipedia Review. Fail.

The fact that you resorted to personal attacks and vandalism (again), in my eyes, pretty much justifies her oppose comments. To be honest, I don't think you had a snowball's chance in Hell of passing RFA with or without Iridescent's comments, but either way, if this is how you react over her comments, how on Earth would you act in response to the shit admins have to put up with? From those who keep the "end justifies the means" mentality, you get no sympathy. And I do hope that by "kill Iridescent", you mean her wiki-career. That's how I took it, and I think you should give up because it's not possible. You've already committed reputation suicide. You tried to bring yourself back from the dead but, well, that was fail.

That's the story of my life right there. Fail.

I think this is where there's a clear indication that this whole things ranks way too high on your priority list. Just a website, dude.

I think I may as well just finish the self destruction and list all my sockpuppets for the world to see. If I really can't lose any more credibility in your eyes, CHL, I have nothing to lose.

I'm not sure you could lose anymore credibility in anyone's eyes. List 'em out. Let's see how prolific you've been.

It's a frickin' shame that of all my hard work, this is what gets remembered. Yes, I chose to make a point of it. But really, there's no defense for what she said about me. <snip> I just wish I hadn't screwed up my wiki career from the very beginning. Take away those early edits and start in July 2006 instead, and I'm an admin, possibly retired by now, or anyway in good standing. Instead I fucked up. There's nowhere to go from here but down.

At least you appear to be taking most of the responsibility for your downfall, though it seems a bit too easy for you to judge Iridescent's comments as indefensible considering everything you've done.

[A Horse With No Name]

That's why I asked you about Kipling.

Sorry, I never Kipled. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I'm curious, what did Iridescent's voice sound like?

I always imagined it was sort of like Elizabeth Taylor's in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" Five-to-one odds that Malleus is a vocal dead-ringer for Richard Burton. Oh, to see them in a remake of "Boom!" with Guy Chapman in the Noel Coward role. That's what this world needs: less Wikipedia articles and more campy movies. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

[One]

I'm willing to commit reputation suicide if I can kill Iridescent in the process. Nothing else I've tried has done any good. I tried legitimate dispute resolution. Fail. I tried talking with her on her talkpage. Fail. I tried again. Fail. I tried personally attacking her. Fail. I tried vandalizing her editnotice. Success for 13 hours, but ultimately, fail. I tried bringing it up on Wikipedia Review. Fail.

The fact that you resorted to personal attacks and vandalism (again), in my eyes, pretty much justifies her oppose comments. To be honest, I don't think you had a snowball's chance in Hell of passing RFA with or without Iridescent's comments, but either way, if this is how you react over her comments, how on Earth would you act in response to the shit admins have to put up with? From those who keep the "end justifies the means" mentality, you get no sympathy. And I do hope that by "kill Iridescent", you mean her wiki-career. That's how I took it, and I think you should give up because it's not possible. You've already committed reputation suicide. You tried to bring yourself back from the dead but, well, that was fail.

Yeah, Lara's right. "Reputation suicide" doesn't really work that way. Crazy-looking attacks (that come with crazy-looking notes like "I'm willing to commit reputation suicide if I can kill Iridescent in the process") only makes Iridescent look more gracious for responding with such restraint.

If you really want to be a Wikipedia admin, wait several months and return as a productive user unconnected to your past ways (tip: attacking Iridescent will be a big give-away). Then you could theoretically earn a reputation as an OK editor and even perhaps get the mops. That'll show your detractors wrong.

As it is, you're proving them generally right--even if they were wrong about the details. How long ago was this RFA anyway? Sheesh!

[Cedric]

*sigh* One of these times, I may write a book about Wikipedia. If I do, I will title it All I Needed to Know About Wikipedia I Learned from Star Trek:

(IMG:http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1539/vlcsnap75977.png)

"From Hell's heart, I stab at thee!"

[Shalom]

I'll take a pass on your "end justifies the means" comment. I disagree but I don't expect to convince you that you are wrong. There are enough bad things I really did do so that nobody needs to fabricate defamatory lies of things I didn't do. As I said on the infamous self-RFC: "I understand if people oppose me for things I actually did. I don't understand why it's okay to oppose me for things I didn't do."

I think I may as well just finish the self destruction and list all my sockpuppets for the world to see. If I really can't lose any more credibility in your eyes, CHL, I have nothing to lose.

I'm not sure you could lose anymore credibility in anyone's eyes. List 'em out. Let's see how prolific you've been.

Okay, I'll start back in April 2007. On my last RFA I really did list every single sockpuppet and almost every IP address I had used up to that time. It's not possible to find every last IP address, but I've remembered which articles I edited, so I could track down the large majority of them.

My first edit that I can recall making was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=21828568 to "Chess problem terminology" on 25 November 2005. I wrote:

Battery - a pair of pieces, where the front piece moves away to discover an attack from the back piece. For example, if a White knight stands between a White rook and the Black king, moving the knight - that is, "firing" the battery - leads to check.

Three and a half years later, the content still stands. My first logged in edit, to ChessGames.com, occurred two days later: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=29405127 It was far from perfect, and I would never make an edit like that nowadays, but most of its content was useful at the time. The article was deleted in November 2007 and rewritten almost from scratch in someone's userspace, then restored in December.

Curiously, the [[Battery (chess)]] article uses the over-the-board definition of "battery", which differs from the problemist's definition. Maybe I'll update that article.

Going back to my original point, the one IP address I deliberately did not bother to track down for the purpose of my RFA was the one I used to make the following edit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=130469943

The edit summary refers to the words atop the Auschwitz concentration camp entrance. The article was the university I was attending at that time.

The wikisuicide has begun, folks.

This post has been edited by Shalom: