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?

[Anonymous editor]

Evidently, Shalom cannot handle the truth. See his current, childish signature.

[Shalom]

Evidently, Shalom cannot handle the truth. See his current, childish signature.

You can't handle the truth. Thank you for finally noticing. Look, would you prefer to delete the 350 articles I've created and the thousands of productive edits I have made both to mainspace and Wikipedia space? Would Wikipedia be better off without those articles and edits? The damage of my vandalism in every case has been temporary - I have never succeeded in putting in vandalism that lasted more than one month unnoticed (except one time when I reverted it myself after three weeks). In contrast, the benefit of my article work is permanent until Wikipedia collapses: people are still reading my articles and learning from them. So I stand by my statement that my overall effect on Wikipedia and its readers has been positive. (Heck, I went on a vandalism attack this past week, and I still say my overall effect since 2005 has been positive. It will take many, many more vandalism sprees to change that fact, if it ever can be changed, not that I want it to change.)

[Friday]

Evidently, Shalom cannot handle the truth. See his current, childish signature.

You can't handle the truth. Thank you for finally noticing. Look, would you prefer to delete the 350 articles I've created and the thousands of productive edits I have made both to mainspace and Wikipedia space? Would Wikipedia be better off without those articles and edits? The damage of my vandalism in every case has been temporary - I have never succeeded in putting in vandalism that lasted more than one month unnoticed (except one time when I reverted it myself after three weeks). In contrast, the benefit of my article work is permanent until Wikipedia collapses: people are still reading my articles and learning from them. So I stand by my statement that my overall effect on Wikipedia and its readers has been positive. (Heck, I went on a vandalism attack this past week, and I still say my overall effect since 2005 has been positive. It will take many, many more vandalism sprees to change that fact, if it ever can be changed, not that I want it to change.)

I can only conclude that people like this are not adults and have never had a job.

"Gee boss, I did my job most of the time, and I only occasionally shit on the floor! And even when I did, it got cleaned up pretty quickly..."