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:

[Milton Roe]

*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!"

Hey, that's MY character quoting Milton.

[Shalom]

I thought my revelation two posts earlier would shock people. I did hide it at the end, but you guys are supposed to notice this stuff.

[maggot3]

I thought my revelation two posts earlier would shock people. I did hide it at the end, but you guys are supposed to notice this stuff.

It's the sort of thing idiots do all the time. Not very shocking.

[Anonymous editor]

we know you're a petty and malicious vandal already. What's to be shocked about?

[Shalom]

we know you're a petty and malicious vandal already. What's to be shocked about?

Once a vandal, always a vandal. I didn't expect this sort of reaction. I'm now a petty and malicious vandal who happened to write a few hundred articles, not the other way around. Anyway, I think it's time to continue the wiki-suicide. Maybe later.

This post has been edited by Shalom:

[Anonymous editor]

that's how I always saw you. You were a vandal first and a vandal last and you did as much damage as you helped, from what I observed.
You told us how you're a "failure". I wouldn't disagree. But then from there you leap to painting yourself out to be an excellent contributor and how everyone will be "shocked" to see your edits.

I'm not even a little bit surprised. What I was surprised about was how anyone could justify supporting you at an RfA. You've shown for a long time that you'll hold even the pettiest grudges for years.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Shalom]

that's how I always saw you. You were a vandal first and a vandal last and you did as much damage as you helped, from what I observed.
You told us how you're a "failure". I wouldn't disagree. But then from there you leap to painting yourself out to be an excellent contributor and how everyone will be "shocked" to see your edits.

I'm not even a little bit surprised. What I was surprised about was how anyone could justify supporting you at an RfA. You've shown for a long time that you'll hold even the pettiest grudges for years.

You did as much damage as you helped - you're f.ing kidding, right??????? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

The damage I did is well known. Here's some of the help:

Endgame tablebase (T-H-L-K-D) - Good article, almost entirely based on my overhaul of more than 100 edits and addition of 40 sources. Still today it's the best resource on the internet for that topic.

More than 10,000 edits to main namespace. Currently the toolserver calls it 9881 edits, but with deleted article edits or with constructive edits while logged out or from alternate accounts I've done well over 10,000 mainspace edits.

More than 300 new articles. Some of these are disambiguation pages or otherwise don't reflect much original effort, but they all count. How many articles have you written, anonymous editor? For all I know you've done nothing actually to help write the encyclopedia. That's the price of attacking a better contributor than yourself while hiding behind a dopey pseudonym.

Here's the toolserver's list. You can verify for yourself here, and enjoy the 445 redirects I created too (some with pagemoves). Link: http://toolserver.org/~escaladix/larticles/ (you must insert the username "Shalom Yechiel" in the input box).


15/12/2005 03:51:29 J. David Bleich
27/07/2006 22:52:20 Joke chess problem
20/09/2006 08:38:18 Alibi
14/01/2007 07:14:58 Tomchei Shabbos
07/02/2007 03:51:41 Sha'arei Tzedek Medical Center
11/02/2007 06:02:14 Adams Street Shul
20/02/2007 08:24:36 Elizabeth Alexander
15/03/2007 05:02:43 EG (magazine)
15/03/2007 05:29:39 ICGA Journal
20/03/2007 21:07:34 ChessCafe.com
20/03/2007 21:20:17 Tim Harding (disambiguation)
21/03/2007 17:52:50 Congregation Ohab Zedek
21/03/2007 17:58:46 Congregation Shaare Zedek (New York City)
25/03/2007 18:27:19 Anisotropic conductive film
27/03/2007 19:31:08 Eastern Air Lines Flight 980
08/04/2007 21:39:48 List of chess periodicals
25/06/2007 04:29:09 Yad (disambiguation)
25/06/2007 23:53:56 Moses Galante (disambiguation)
01/07/2007 04:38:19 Eugene Hollander
23/07/2007 21:37:39 Hugh Pennington
23/07/2007 21:50:59 John Mullan
23/07/2007 22:04:47 Anneliese Seubert
24/07/2007 20:43:27 Gedaliah (disambiguation)
25/07/2007 05:30:52 Alois Burgstaller
25/07/2007 05:40:20 Adrian Geiges
25/07/2007 05:47:43 Scott Murray (footballer born 1988)
25/07/2007 05:55:49 Thimblette
25/07/2007 06:03:44 Triadi
25/07/2007 06:13:55 Monobenzone
25/07/2007 06:25:02 Benetice (Světlá nad Sázavou)
26/07/2007 01:47:24 Kinnot
27/07/2007 17:06:09 Aldgate railway station, Adelaide
27/07/2007 17:25:19 Iron chair
27/07/2007 17:38:32 London Denim
29/07/2007 02:40:05 Canon Horace Baugh
31/07/2007 14:47:57 Eruv (disambiguation)
31/07/2007 14:54:59 Eruv tavshilin
31/07/2007 14:58:32 Eruv techumin
31/07/2007 22:49:57 Serjeant Painter
03/08/2007 16:53:31 Steady state visually evoked potential
03/08/2007 17:04:24 Wrocław water tower
06/08/2007 21:14:54 San Pedro de la Paz
06/08/2007 21:32:24 T (New York Times)
06/08/2007 21:45:29 J. M. Ledgard
07/08/2007 03:54:39 Ernest Pogosyants
07/08/2007 04:11:06 Ladislav Prokeš
07/08/2007 05:17:38 Prokeš maneuver
08/08/2007 01:54:59 Pennsylvania House of Representatives, District 55
08/08/2007 01:58:44 Pennsylvania House of Representatives, District 64
08/08/2007 20:02:05 Bush House Hotel
08/08/2007 20:21:13 Pennsylvania Senate, District 41
08/08/2007 20:26:36 Pennsylvania Senate, District 32
08/08/2007 20:37:58 Ibn Marwan
09/08/2007 15:36:03 Mark Oldman
09/08/2007 15:45:53 William Butterworth (businessman)
15/08/2007 01:28:16 E1 (Jerusalem)
17/08/2007 16:11:06 Kelch protein
17/08/2007 16:26:00 Hartmann F. Stähelin
19/08/2007 01:49:00 Alan Weiss
24/08/2007 02:45:46 Karen Wooley
24/08/2007 03:01:24 Ladderane
27/08/2007 14:16:21 JW Lees
05/09/2007 00:22:08 Tradition (disambiguation)
05/09/2007 00:34:53 Tradition (journal)
05/09/2007 16:49:53 Bondarenko
05/09/2007 18:17:14 Khost University
09/09/2007 00:59:29 Alois Wotawa
09/09/2007 18:49:06 Camp Moshava
09/09/2007 18:52:42 Camp Moshava (Bnei Akiva)
20/09/2007 16:41:48 Pakala
20/09/2007 16:53:29 Nikolai Grigoriev
25/09/2007 19:35:44 Walter J. Phillips
25/09/2007 19:56:40 Famoso Raceway
26/09/2007 03:22:31 The Heroic Slave
08/10/2007 16:57:53 Karl Elbs
12/10/2007 19:06:12 Grundmann aldehyde synthesis
19/10/2007 05:07:16 Correspondence principle (disambiguation)
21/10/2007 00:25:22 Chelex 100
21/10/2007 00:51:49 Hydrolysis constant
22/10/2007 15:56:00 Bayliss effect
22/10/2007 18:40:40 Wedcast
22/10/2007 18:49:54 Sde Eliyahu
22/10/2007 19:21:32 Sde Nahum
28/10/2007 00:14:55 Ma'ale Gilboa
30/10/2007 02:04:55 First law (disambiguation)
04/11/2007 00:35:58 Effusion (disambiguation)
04/11/2007 04:22:21 Neve Eitan
06/11/2007 23:53:12 Tehumin
07/11/2007 00:06:37 Megadim (journal)
07/11/2007 00:31:14 Megadim
07/11/2007 00:49:09 Mesilot
07/11/2007 22:40:55 Abu Zabal
07/11/2007 22:47:43 Meirav
14/11/2007 22:55:02 Kfar Ruppin
14/11/2007 23:40:21 Hamadia
18/11/2007 20:29:14 Joe Garagiola, Jr.
20/11/2007 00:29:07 Beit Yosef, Israel
20/11/2007 00:32:20 Beit Yosef
20/11/2007 00:55:07 Yardena
20/11/2007 01:05:15 Beit Yosef (book)
21/11/2007 17:53:16 Revaya
26/11/2007 17:55:07 Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani
27/11/2007 23:15:35 John Quinn (wrestler)
27/11/2007 23:22:32 Earl Patrick Freeman
27/11/2007 23:30:39 What Makes a Man
27/11/2007 23:34:44 Obvious (Westlife song)
28/11/2007 16:25:43 Mark Nichols (disambiguation)
30/11/2007 20:34:28 Spatial quantization
02/12/2007 00:22:45 Sdei Trumot
02/12/2007 00:45:29 Tel Te'omim
02/12/2007 03:27:14 Shafir Regional Council
05/12/2007 16:00:49 Elena of Bulgaria
06/12/2007 15:29:12 Ein Tzurim
06/12/2007 16:04:28 Gilboa Regional Council
06/12/2007 16:13:06 South Brighton railway station, Adelaide
06/12/2007 16:16:17 Balhannah railway station, South Australia
06/12/2007 16:23:08 Etta Kett
09/12/2007 00:31:00 Lindemann mechanism
13/12/2007 21:15:47 Bart Miadich
13/12/2007 21:20:28 Japan Association for International Chemical Information
20/12/2007 02:13:01 Ram On
20/12/2007 02:23:27 Merkaz Omen
20/12/2007 02:29:27 Nir Yafeh
20/12/2007 02:40:07 Gadish
20/12/2007 02:48:10 Mlea
27/12/2007 05:21:10 Maimonides (disambiguation)
27/12/2007 17:21:37 Gan Ner
27/12/2007 17:33:23 Giv'ati
27/12/2007 17:39:37 Givat HaShlosha
30/12/2007 23:18:27 Gidona
30/12/2007 23:26:19 Heftziba
01/01/2008 02:58:06 Barak, Israel
01/01/2008 03:08:53 Merkaz Hever
01/01/2008 03:18:21 Deborah (disambiguation)
01/01/2008 03:20:50 Dvora, Israel
01/01/2008 03:43:47 Merkaz Yael
01/01/2008 03:54:58 Nurit
01/01/2008 04:07:02 Prazon
03/01/2008 18:03:30 Magen Shaul
04/01/2008 01:09:10 Juiced ball theory
04/01/2008 01:47:29 Pi Glilot bombing
04/01/2008 15:58:48 Fenix, North Carolina
09/01/2008 03:59:26 Parachor
10/01/2008 16:38:42 Limbo (poem)
10/01/2008 16:47:15 Limbo (Coleridge poem)
13/01/2008 15:21:30 Mesu'ot Yitzhak
14/01/2008 18:02:37 Chinese-American Chemical Society
16/01/2008 04:56:58 Central Arava Regional Council
16/01/2008 05:19:08 Hatzeva
16/01/2008 05:31:51 Idan
17/01/2008 00:10:39 Tzofar
17/01/2008 00:30:48 Tzukim
17/01/2008 00:37:32 Sapir, Israel
17/01/2008 00:46:12 Gederot Regional Council
17/01/2008 01:07:09 Gan HaDarom
17/01/2008 16:16:15 Kfar Aviv
20/01/2008 00:09:51 Mas'ade
20/01/2008 00:34:17 Highway 3 (Israel)
20/01/2008 02:20:07 Highway 7 (Israel)
20/01/2008 05:59:56 Highway 10 (Israel)
20/01/2008 06:20:17 Highway 12 (Israel)
20/01/2008 06:32:20 Highway 13 (Israel)
20/01/2008 14:39:33 Highway 25 (Israel)
20/01/2008 16:47:44 Highway 31 (Israel)
21/01/2008 04:11:24 Highway 34 (Israel)
22/01/2008 00:07:34 Highway 35 (Israel)
22/01/2008 00:35:29 Beit Guvrin, Israel
22/01/2008 00:49:15 Lakhish
08/01/2008 15:59:04 Chemistry of Materials
23/01/2008 09:00:11 Highway 38 (Israel)
23/01/2008 09:18:53 Eshtaol
23/01/2008 09:37:41 Highway 41 (Israel)
23/01/2008 09:56:52 Meishar
23/01/2008 10:01:04 Misgav Dov
23/01/2008 16:05:47 Aseret
23/01/2008 16:29:57 Shdema
23/01/2008 16:46:50 Hevel Eilot Regional Council
24/01/2008 03:25:57 Elifaz, Israel
25/01/2008 17:21:46 Samar, Israel
27/01/2008 00:22:11 Be'er Ora
27/01/2008 01:15:37 Shaharut
27/01/2008 03:10:43 Grofit
27/01/2008 03:19:56 Neve Harif
27/01/2008 03:39:35 Megilot Regional Council
27/01/2008 04:03:26 Avnat
27/01/2008 04:11:28 Vered Yeriho
27/01/2008 04:39:42 Almog
28/01/2008 03:41:33 Nahum Barnea
28/01/2008 03:45:40 Mitzpe Shalem
30/01/2008 18:18:47 Givat Ram
30/01/2008 23:10:33 Yoav Regional Council
30/01/2008 23:37:42 Beit Nir
30/01/2008 23:57:56 Gat, Israel
31/01/2008 00:18:24 Highway 99 (Israel)
31/01/2008 02:01:27 Finger of the Galilee
31/01/2008 02:30:54 Highway 98 (Israel)
31/01/2008 02:48:24 Highway 65 (Israel)
31/01/2008 03:31:04 Highway 92 (Israel)
31/01/2008 03:47:19 Ramot, Golan Heights
31/01/2008 13:21:42 Highway 91 (Israel)
31/01/2008 13:51:54 Bnot Ya'akov Bridge
31/01/2008 14:09:02 Highway 89 (Israel)
01/02/2008 18:58:12 Revadim
03/02/2008 00:18:15 12-Crown-4
03/02/2008 00:33:14 15-Crown-5
03/02/2008 01:54:51 Highway 42 (Israel)
03/02/2008 02:09:00 Highway 44 (Israel)
04/02/2008 03:54:42 Londres, Catamarca
04/02/2008 04:09:15 Sde Yoav
04/02/2008 04:37:52 Garay (disambiguation)
05/02/2008 03:59:59 Kfar Menahem
05/02/2008 14:40:53 Moledet, Israel
06/02/2008 03:50:14 Highway 46 (Israel)
07/02/2008 02:18:50 Kfar HaRif
07/02/2008 02:34:09 Nahala, Israel
07/02/2008 02:40:49 Menuha
07/02/2008 02:49:20 Lakhish Regional Council
07/02/2008 03:06:39 Lakhish, Israel
08/02/2008 15:07:08 Chlorodimethylsilane
08/02/2008 15:32:52 Journal of Molecular Structure
08/02/2008 15:47:37 Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM
10/02/2008 00:38:33 Sgula
10/02/2008 00:51:33 Vardon
10/02/2008 01:20:23 Kedma
10/02/2008 01:33:40 Kedma, Israel
10/02/2008 02:10:40 Al-'Azi
10/02/2008 02:49:36 Highway 55 (Israel)
10/02/2008 03:05:39 Neot Kedumim
10/02/2008 03:21:37 Highway 87 (Israel)
11/02/2008 06:28:23 Petroleum Road
12/02/2008 01:17:53 West Georgia Regional Airport
13/02/2008 00:09:00 Givat HaMatos
13/02/2008 00:21:58 Highway 85 (Israel)
13/02/2008 00:42:20 Kahal
13/02/2008 00:49:54 Korazim
13/02/2008 02:38:04 Jewish law in the polar regions
13/02/2008 03:33:48 Tiferet Yisrael (commentary)
13/02/2008 03:40:20 Israel Lipschutz
13/02/2008 17:56:43 Sde Moshe
13/02/2008 18:03:14 Shahar, Israel
13/02/2008 18:16:35 Nir Hen
13/02/2008 18:53:29 Amatzia, Israel
13/02/2008 18:55:39 Amatzia
13/02/2008 19:22:16 Noga, Israel
15/02/2008 01:41:32 Highway 9 (Israel)
15/02/2008 01:58:46 Highway 9 (Jerusalem)
17/02/2008 02:40:36 Sodium aluminium hydride
17/02/2008 03:34:52 Yonatan, Golan Heights
17/02/2008 04:03:25 Nehora
17/02/2008 04:15:19 Shekef
17/02/2008 04:40:35 Haruv
17/02/2008 04:49:01 Kfar Haruv
19/02/2008 15:16:11 Elifelet
19/02/2008 15:23:09 Amnun
19/02/2008 15:34:22 Beit Hillel
25/02/2008 17:36:54 Hillel Yaffe
29/02/2008 03:46:36 Mishmar HaYarden
29/02/2008 12:55:58 Ramot Naftali
06/03/2008 15:19:44 Solel Boneh
10/03/2008 00:36:54 Hillel Yaffe Medical Center
10/03/2008 03:02:48 Mishmar HaYarden, Palestine
11/03/2008 23:06:50 Pus (disambiguation)
12/03/2008 00:21:54 Long Island Sound link
12/03/2008 03:47:55 Highway 80 (Israel)
12/03/2008 03:59:54 Karkom
12/03/2008 13:52:24 HaAyin HaShevi'it
12/03/2008 14:11:34 Automatic (automobile company)
12/03/2008 17:56:16 Purin (disambiguation)
13/03/2008 01:09:20 Highway 66 (Israel)
13/03/2008 01:22:44 Sde Eliezer
13/03/2008 01:27:48 Yuval
13/03/2008 01:43:10 She'ar Yashuv
13/03/2008 01:46:17 She'ar Yashuv Cohen
13/03/2008 01:54:17 Highway 71 (Israel)
16/03/2008 18:37:38 Revolving door (disambiguation)
19/03/2008 17:02:31 Poly(N-isopropylacrylamide)
05/05/2008 02:12:45 Highway 70 (Israel)
05/05/2008 02:21:13 Dalton, Israel
11/05/2008 03:23:57 Dovev
11/05/2008 03:37:00 Hazon, Israel
11/05/2008 03:41:21 Kfar Shamai
11/05/2008 03:45:34 Highway 73 (Israel)
14/05/2008 02:39:46 Highway 75 (Israel)
14/05/2008 02:40:14 Highway 77 (Israel)
14/05/2008 02:44:41 Shefer
14/05/2008 02:47:49 Shezor
15/05/2008 22:19:46 Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law
15/05/2008 22:53:25 Shabbat clock
16/05/2008 02:09:44 Encyclopedia Talmudit
20/05/2008 02:41:22 Highway 79 (Israel)
20/05/2008 02:53:47 Parod
20/05/2008 03:03:19 Kerem Ben Zimra
21/05/2008 13:52:00 Highway 57 (Israel)
21/05/2008 13:55:57 Amuka, Israel
27/05/2008 02:51:52 Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah
30/05/2008 06:54:04 Dominique (disambiguation)
01/06/2008 03:21:40 Route 264 (Israel)
01/06/2008 03:26:07 Tefahot
03/06/2008 02:34:12 Route 171 (Israel)
03/06/2008 02:41:54 Livnim
03/06/2008 23:09:33 Yisrael Rozen
08/06/2008 02:47:05 Route 999 (Israel)
08/06/2008 02:59:11 Yaakov Herzog
08/06/2008 11:43:55 List of highways numbered 999
17/06/2008 12:34:52 Route 978 (Israel)
17/06/2008 13:00:09 Route 959 (Israel)
17/06/2008 18:40:18 Route 918 (Israel)
17/06/2008 19:08:58 Route 977 (Israel)
17/06/2008 19:14:40 Route 899 (Israel)
17/06/2008 19:20:50 Bar Yohai
17/06/2008 19:53:19 Kfar Hoshen
20/06/2008 04:53:40 Inbar
20/06/2008 04:58:20 Alma, Israel
20/06/2008 05:14:25 Ein al-Asad
20/06/2008 05:19:24 Route 888 (Israel)
22/06/2008 16:44:18 Newton rail accident
22/06/2008 21:22:06 Ais Gill rail accident
02/07/2008 18:22:12 Rehaniya
04/07/2008 11:41:50 Testimony in Jewish law
04/07/2008 13:42:19 Testimony (disambiguation)
04/07/2008 15:56:43 Ga'aton
04/07/2008 16:37:59 Betzet
04/07/2008 16:43:09 Route 886 (Israel)
04/07/2008 17:09:54 Route 866 (Israel)
04/07/2008 17:44:57 Route 864 (Israel)
04/07/2008 17:48:46 List of highways numbered 864
04/07/2008 17:51:08 List of highways numbered 866
04/07/2008 17:53:56 List of highways numbered 899
13/07/2008 17:37:23 Ahihud
13/07/2008 17:52:26 Bustan HaGalil
13/07/2008 17:58:29 Liman, Israel

If you think my vandalism has done more damage than the foregoing articles have done good, speak up or forever hold your pee.

[Malleus]

Tell me Shalom, just to satisfy my curiosity. What's the attraction of vandalism? To me it just seems like mindless destruction.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Shalom]

Tell me Shalom, just to satisfy my curiosity. What's the attraction of vandalism? To me it just seems like mindless destruction.

It's mostly mindless destruction. Sometimes I want to do just that. Let me say up front that I've never vandalized real property (other than my own) and never would do such a thing. Part of the appeal of wiki vandalism is knowing that it can be repaired easily. Putting graffiti on a wall raises serious ethical issues. Putting graffiti on a paper sign posted on a bulletin board for an event that has already occurred, or putting graffiti on the blackboard knowing that someone will erase it, don't raise the same level of ethical issues.

Last Friday in my office I was so upset with things that I started throwing books around. It was a closed room and nobody else was there. By the time the fellow who works in the next room came over to calm me down, I had thoroughly destroyed a notebook I don't use anyway by throwing it against a wall six times. That's vandalism on Wikipedia. Just an act of frustration, needing to destroy something but not knowing what. I've sometimes torn leaves off a tree and torn them up for unleashing angst. Same idea.

[Moulton]

You should either invest in a punching bag or learn to take up writing song parodies.

[Shalom]

You should either invest in a punching bag or learn to take up writing song parodies.

Monera, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, Plantae
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order and Family
Mitosis and meiosis aggravate psychosis
And "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"
As you can see
In biology.

I wrote that song parody of "Aruba, Jamaica..." in high school (c. 1999-2001) and published it in my school's literary magazine. No kidding.

[Malleus]

You should either invest in a punching bag or learn to take up writing song parodies.

I'd recommend a punchbag, or what I have, a dummy on a heavy flexible base, which is a bit more fun to hit because of the way it moves around. I'd show you a picture of mine, but ... well let's just say it may open me up to accusations of racism. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Somey]

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.

I thought my revelation two posts earlier would shock people. I did hide it at the end, but you guys are supposed to notice this stuff.

I think you've got to give people more than just one hour to notice and be "shocked," Shalom, not to mention actually react - many of us go for days without checking the site or logging in.

As it happens, though, putting a Swastika at the top of the Yeshiva University page, while obviously not funny and extremely naughty and provocative, is hardly the sort of vandalism that one would expect to stay on the page for long. In a word, it's amateurish. In this case it lasted six minutes, which isn't bad for a non-BLP and a relatively non-controversial subject.

More importantly, were these uncontrolled-rage episodes you're describing derived from your frustrations on WP, or maybe they were just a partial contributing factor? Or was it something else, mostly/completely unrelated? I might go so far as to disagree with the prevailing wisdom and say that such episodes derived from WP frustrations aren't necessarily more or less unhealthy than rage episodes derived from anything else - if anything, they might be more healthy in the long term, because at least you probably have a better chance of weaning yourself off of a Wikipedia addiction than you would of many other things, such as getting a better job, preventing your getting ripped off in a business transaction, or getting your wife or girlfriend to dress up like Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS just before hanky-panky time. (Or for that matter, getting her to just bring you a sandwich!)

[Moulton]

Promoting the Art of Subtle Vandalism

You should either invest in a punching bag or learn to take up writing song parodies.

Monera, Protista, Animalia, Fungi, Plantae
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order and Family
Mitosis and meiosis aggravate psychosis
And "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"
As you can see
In biology.

I wrote that song parody of "Aruba, Jamaica..." in high school (c. 1999-2001) and published it in my school's literary magazine. No kidding.

Now all you have to do is start writing non-boring, non-depressing song parodies and post them on Wikipedia, and you'll be good to go.

[Milton Roe]

As it happens, though, putting a Swastika at the top of the Yeshiva University page, while obviously not funny and extremely naughty and provocative, is hardly the sort of vandalism that one would expect to stay on the page for long.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) So Shalom put a swastika at the top of the Yeshiva University page, eh? Performance art? Does this count as legitimate and righteous trolling, or is it just the way Mr. Shalom is? Expert opinion solicited.

[EricBarbour]

Christ, here we go again.

Shalom's getting good at starting WR bitch-fests.
One would almost think he'd been studying SlimVirgin's methods. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Bottled_Spider]

Last Friday in my office I was so upset with things that I started throwing books around. It was a closed room and nobody else was there. By the time the fellow who works in the next room came over to calm me down, I had thoroughly destroyed a notebook I don't use anyway by throwing it against a wall six times.

Six? Nice. Next time try fixing a long bungee cord to it with the other end tied round your wrist so you can snatch it back for another quick throw without all that tedious picking it up stuff. As for the fellow you mentioned, what you should have done there is pounce on him as he came through the door, wrestled him to the ground and done him in with the remains of the notebook. That would have shown the bastards.

I've sometimes torn leaves off a tree and torn them up for unleashing angst. Same idea.

Yes. Come autumn-time a good idea is to pick up all the fallen leaves and sellotape them back onto the trees. It's one in the eye for the leaf-rakers (bastards!) and would make everyone think you were cool and sane and ask you out for dinner.

[Random832]

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

Type in a name, get Shalom's site.

Nope. Type in a disparaging phrase, get the "target"'s official site.

[LaraLove]

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.

Disagreeing with someone does not make them wrong, Shalom. You've got no one on your side. I think it's pretty obvious that people who have that mentality feel that Iridescent's actions were justified. Regardless, what really matters here is that you've got no one on your side.

Going back to my original point, the one IP address I deliberately did not bother to track down for the purpose of my RFA [...]

The deal with the opposers in your RFA is that they couldn't trust you. Clearly that lack of trust was justified, and it is blatantly obvious that you are not fit to be an administrator. What's shocking is not that you've done more vandalism that originally admitted to (I think most people assumed as much), but that you refuse to let this go, as if it matters.

The wikisuicide has begun, folks.

It began within your first handful of edits. Hopefully it's ending now.

[...] Part of the appeal of wiki vandalism is knowing that it can be repaired easily. Putting graffiti on a wall raises serious ethical issues. Putting graffiti on a paper sign posted on a bulletin board for an event that has already occurred, or putting graffiti on the blackboard knowing that someone will erase it, don't raise the same level of ethical issues.

It's still shit that other people have to spend their time cleaning up. If you're really into vandalism that goes light on ethical issues, check out Knitta.

Last Friday in my office I was so upset with things that I started throwing books around. It was a closed room and nobody else was there. By the time the fellow who works in the next room came over to calm me down, I had thoroughly destroyed a notebook I don't use anyway by throwing it against a wall six times. That's vandalism on Wikipedia. Just an act of frustration, needing to destroy something but not knowing what. I've sometimes torn leaves off a tree and torn them up for unleashing angst. Same idea.

Anger management, Shalom. And it's not the same idea. Who had to clean up your office? Did you leave it for the janitor, did your co-worker clean it up, or your boss maybe? I think what would have been the best for all involved is if your boss cleaned it up after firing you and having security toss your ass out the front door. But hey, that's just me.

You release your anger like a child. Were you one of those kids that took a magnifying glass to the sidewalk and lit up ant hills? Took your slingshot to the woods to play target practice with the squirrels and birds? Or were you one of the kids that scribbled hate into a notebook, lit matches into piles of hay, or other similar acts of rage that didn't inflict pain on living creatures?

Find a hobby that you don't hate, Shalom... or, at least, a hobby that doesn't hate you. And stop caring about shit so much. I've come to realize that life is a lot easier if you just don't give a fuck (DGAF). People don't like you? DGAF. Someone said something that offended you? DGAF. Some other junk you have no control over pissing you off? Just DGAF. It's all much easier when you just choose not to care.


All that said, as an off-topic aside, Bottled Spider is my favorite poster. The Comedy Central of WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Love it.

[EricBarbour]

Next time try fixing a long bungee cord to it with the other end tied round your wrist so you can snatch it back for another quick throw without all that tedious picking it up stuff. As for the fellow you mentioned, what you should have done there is pounce on him as he came through the door, wrestled him to the ground and done him in with the remains of the notebook. That would have shown the bastards.

(IMG:http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n366/glioma/mega-icon-smiley-thumbs-up.jpg)(IMG:http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x294/vaanth/smiley-thumbsup.jpg)(IMG:http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o182/gtownjjb/ThumbsUpSmiley.jpg)(IMG:http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t192/joyministry/Smiley%20faces/thumbsup.jpg)

[Anonymous editor]

Going back to my original point, the one IP address I deliberately did not bother to track down for the purpose of my RFA [...]

The deal with the opposers in your RFA is that they couldn't trust you. Clearly that lack of trust was justified, and it is blatantly obvious that you are not fit to be an administrator. What's shocking is not that you've done more vandalism that originally admitted to (I think most people assumed as much), but that you refuse to let this go, as if it matters.

The wikisuicide has begun, folks.

It began within your first handful of edits. Hopefully it's ending now.

[...] Part of the appeal of wiki vandalism is knowing that it can be repaired easily. Putting graffiti on a wall raises serious ethical issues. Putting graffiti on a paper sign posted on a bulletin board for an event that has already occurred, or putting graffiti on the blackboard knowing that someone will erase it, don't raise the same level of ethical issues.

It's still shit that other people have to spend their time cleaning up. If you're really into vandalism that goes light on ethical issues, check out Knitta.

100% agree. What really gets me here is that these antics 100% prove correct the people who opposed his RfA due to trust issues.

All that said, as an off-topic aside, Bottled Spider is my favorite poster. The Comedy Central of WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Love it.

And agree with that too. Almost all his posts are funny and I've learned to appreciate them.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor:

[Shalom]

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.
LaraLove: Disagreeing with someone does not make them wrong, Shalom. You've got no one on your side. I think it's pretty obvious that people who have that mentality feel that Iridescent's actions were justified. Regardless, what really matters here is that you've got no one on your side.[/quote]

I have nobody on my side anymore. However, that was not always so. Aside from Sarcasticidealist who nominated me, and Riana who nominated me the time before that, WJBscribe defended me pretty well in the third RFA and was a regretful neutral in the fourth. The fact that nobody takes my side on this fight doesn't mean my side is meritless. It just means not enough people are aware of the facts. If people really were aware, they might think differently. I'm sorry that you're not aware, Lara, or that you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

I said it above in this thread and I'll repeat it: there was enough bad shit that I really did do. Iridescent had ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to oppose my RFA by alleging GRATUITOUS LIES. All she had to do is say "Oppose" per [diff1] [diff2] [diff3] [diff4] ... [diff100] etc. and say sorry, I don't care how long it's been but I can't support anyone who ever did this much vandalism. Simple. Stick to facts. All those other red herrings about doing a pagemove without seeking consensus or writing long posts on WR attacking anyone I saw as part of "the Cabal" - those were LIES. I repeat: LIES! If you can't see that, you should see an eye doctor.

The problem with "end justifies the means" argument in THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE is that Iridescent and others could EASILY have achieved THE SAME END through completely honest means. She chose to tell lies instead. That shows a great deal about her moral character.
______________________

Shalom: The wikisuicide has begun, folks.
LaraLove: It began within your first handful of edits. Hopefully it's ending now.[/quote]

That's the other most painful part. I remember between the Sunday I applied for RFA last summer and the Friday I "retired" - it was either a Tuesday or Wednesday night. I went for a walk outside in the warm summer air, near the local high school in my hometown, and I started talking to myself (as I often do when nobody else is around) about the situation, trying to make sense of it. I cried in anguish about the injustice of it all, how from my SECOND EVER EDIT under my username I never had a fair chance. It was so damn unfortunate, really. I could have started over many times (and did twice after that incident, and can do it yet again...) and I don't doubt that some of the current admins (specifically Cirt and possibly others unknown) did get that clean start after doing shit that got them in serious trouble. All I had to do is start over after those first vandalism edits. Everyone who treats Wikipedia as a silly game knows to do that. I didn't know any better so I didn't do that. I took Wikipedia seriously. That's why the whole episode hurt so deeply. I treated the free encyclopedia as a calling, for a while. I really believed I was doing good things for the world by writing hundreds of articles for free, and I believed that folks who were aware of what I was doing would RECOGNIZE AND THANK me for it. Instead, I could never escape the shadow of my first ten edits. I still can't do that. I can, but I'll be accused of sockpuppeting if it ever comes to light, so really, I can't.
____________________________

Shalom: Last Friday in my office I was so upset with things that I started throwing books around. It was a closed room and nobody else was there. By the time the fellow who works in the next room came over to calm me down, I had thoroughly destroyed a notebook I don't use anyway by throwing it against a wall six times. That's vandalism on Wikipedia. Just an act of frustration, needing to destroy something but not knowing what. I've sometimes torn leaves off a tree and torn them up for unleashing angst. Same idea.
LaraLove: Anger management, Shalom. And it's not the same idea. Who had to clean up your office? Did you leave it for the janitor, did your co-worker clean it up, or your boss maybe? I think what would have been the best for all involved is if your boss cleaned it up after firing you and having security toss your ass out the front door. But hey, that's just me.

You're missing some background here. I work alone in my office. Others share it but are not there simultaneously. I cleaned up the mess myself. Being a grad student, I don't have a "boss."
____________________________

LaraLove: You release your anger like a child. Were you one of those kids that took a magnifying glass to the sidewalk and lit up ant hills? Took your slingshot to the woods to play target practice with the squirrels and birds? Or were you one of the kids that scribbled hate into a notebook, lit matches into piles of hay, or other similar acts of rage that didn't inflict pain on living creatures? [/quote]
None of the above. Did YOU do any of those things?
______________________________

LaraLove: All that said, as an off-topic aside, Bottled Spider is my favorite poster. The Comedy Central of WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Love it.

I couldn't disagree more. I think Bottled_Spider is a total moron.

[Alex]

I couldn't disagree more. I think Bottled_Spider is a total moron.

I actually agree with you on this occasion (unsurprisingly).

[LaraLove]

Haha. Shalom, your posts remind me of Chris-chan videos.

Get over it. No one cares.

[Shalom]

So anyway, I've revealed everything that happened up to July 18, 2008. For the next three weeks I did not edit Wikipedia at all. Then I relocated to get a checkuser-proof clean start. I created a new account, whose name I will leave to the side for now. It and a bunch of vandal-socks got blocked in September. Around that time I also made troll accounts on other projects, for example, "Poetloser" on Wikiquote.

One of my troll accounts caused a Commons admin to make a colossal blunder. I created User:Robdurbar2 and his RFA.

User talk page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robdurbar2
RFA: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...votes/Robdurbar

So I created a fake RFA while pretending to be Robdurbar. I also pretended to have Archtransit vote for me. The real folks whom we know as Robdurbar and Archtransit had no involvement.

Platonides wrote:

Closed Not enough commons edits, created by Robdurbar2 voting as Archtransit. Platonides (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

ShakataGaNai then blocks me with the log summary "Vandalism: Creating RFA's for a sock, claiming to vote as someone else"
Link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...User:Robdurbar2

I request unblock, but he refuses my request:

Request reason: "This block is against policy. You say the reason is "Vandalism: Creating RFA's for a sock, claiming to vote as someone else." It's not vandalism. I looked at the link, and nothing I did is vandalism. You say "Creating RFA's for a sock." I'm not a sock of Robdurbar. Why can't I create an RFA for him? You say "claiming to vote as someone else." Why can't I do that? Also, since the RFA is over, what's the problem?"
Decline reason: "No reason given"

I request unblock again; he reverts the edit and locks the talkpage. Fair enough. Game over. Or so I thought.

Later I googled and found ShakataGaNai's subpage where he describes the incident:
Link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ShakataGaNai/Cases

== Robdurbar & Socks ==
;Users involved:
* Robdurbar
* Robdurbar2
* Archtransit

;Info:
* http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?t...&oldid=15325110
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki..._of_Archtransit
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wiki...s_of_Wonderfool

;Action:
* Blocked Robdurbar, Robdurbar2, Archtransit

WJBscribe noticed and asked ShakataGaNai why he had blocked two innocent users:
Link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_tal...es/2008/October

== Recent blocks ==

Hi, is there evidence that Robdurbar and Archtransit were one and the same user? Both accounts are of former admins who were desysopped and banned on enwiki, but never linked to each other. I suspect Robdurbar2 was an unrelated troll. Is there now evidence to connect these accounts? WJBscribe (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Well if I was wrong, I'm sure they'll speak up. But this was a good enough start for me. --ShakataGaNai (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) 21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Archtransit has no contributions in Commons. I found this out after checking the IP for Robdurbar2. This is just some random troll. Bastique demandez 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Cary Bass did not unblock Robdurbar or Archtransit from Wikimedia Commons. They remain blocked in perpetuity, victims of my impersonation and ShakataGaNai's woeful incompetence. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Hipocrite]

Salom is so retarded he wouldn't even merit a fuckhead/halfwit cascade. This is not internet performance art, it's just maladjusted wannabes.

[Shalom]

Salom is so retarded he wouldn't even merit a fuckhead/halfwit cascade. This is not internet performance art, it's just maladjusted wannabes.

Hipocrite: You can't spell my name correctly, and you can't write a sentence that makes sense. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

I created another fake RFA shortly after the "Robdurbar2" failure. I was considering how to transclude it, but then I forgot about it. Fortunately for me, a certain other fellow (ahem!) noticed the RFA and brought it to everyone's attention here.

I was wondering how I might create maximum disruption. Ironically, my plot succeeded beyond my wildest hopes even though the RFA never went live. Thank you, y'all!

I'm the secret devil behind "Somey from WR." http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20774

[Hipocrite]

I'm the secret devil behind "Somey from WR." http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20774

IT'S ABOUT AS SHOCKING AS ME TELLING YOU THAT NO ONE CARES

[KamrynMatika]

I'm the secret devil behind "Somey from WR." http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20774

IT'S ABOUT AS SHOCKING AS ME TELLING YOU THAT NO ONE CARES

Lol, he's just (pathetically) trying to troll us. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[Hipocrite]

I'm the secret devil behind "Somey from WR." http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20774

IT'S ABOUT AS SHOCKING AS ME TELLING YOU THAT NO ONE CARES

Lol, he's just (pathetically) trying to troll us. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Lol, he's just (pathetically) trying to troll us. Mabe if we cascade him he'll go away :meow:

[Shalom]

I'm getting tired of this, but I will not let Hipocrite's claptrap stand at the end of this thread.

Hipocrite: learn how to spell! How old are you? Do you speak English??

[Hipocrite]

I'm the secret devil behind "Somey from WR." http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20774

IT'S ABOUT AS SHOCKING AS ME TELLING YOU THAT NO ONE CARES

Lol, he's just (pathetically) trying to troll us. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Lol, he's just (pathetically) trying to troll us. Mabe if we cascade him he'll go away :meow:

I'm getting tired of this, but I will not let Hipocrite's claptrap stand at the end of this thread.

Hipocrite: learn how to spell! How old are you? Do you speak English??

Lol, he's just (pathetically) trying to troll us. Mabe if we taunt him he'll go away :roar:

[Bottled_Spider]

I went for a walk outside in the warm summer air, near the local high school in my hometown, and I started talking to myself (as I often do when nobody else is around) about the situation, trying to make sense of it. I cried in anguish about the injustice of it all, how from my SECOND EVER EDIT under my username I never had a fair chance.

{sniff} .... You know, Shalser, that's the saddest damn thing {choke} I've ever heard. I'm quite overcome, don'tchaknow {snurk}. Walking all alone in the wide, wide world {oh jesus! jesus!} crying to yourself .... it's too much to bear. It really is {cough!}. Near your local high school, you said? Fuck. Hope there aren't any water-towers nearby. Did I say that, or think it?

LaraLove: All that said, as an off-topic aside, Bottled Spider is my favorite poster. The Comedy Central of WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Love it.

I couldn't disagree more. I think Bottled_Spider is a total moron.

Well, really, Shalso. That's a bit below the belt, isn't it? Honestly, you weird guys can be so rude!

[Alex]

I went for a walk outside in the warm summer air, near the local high school in my hometown, and I started talking to myself (as I often do when nobody else is around) about the situation, trying to make sense of it. I cried in anguish about the injustice of it all, how from my SECOND EVER EDIT under my username I never had a fair chance.

{sniff} .... You know, Shalser, that's the saddest damn thing {choke} I've ever heard. I'm quite overcome, don'tchaknow {snurk}. Walking all alone in the wide, wide world {oh jesus! jesus!} crying to yourself .... it's too much to bear. It really is {cough!}. Near your local high school, you said? Fuck. Hope there aren't any water-towers nearby. Did I say that, or think it?

LaraLove: All that said, as an off-topic aside, Bottled Spider is my favorite poster. The Comedy Central of WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Love it.

I couldn't disagree more. I think Bottled_Spider is a total moron.

Well, really, Shalso. That's a bit below the belt, isn't it? Honestly, you weird guys can be so rude!

Poor little Bull Shitter. You need to learn to speak out your mouth instead of your arse. Then perhaps you may say something intelligent, relevant, or anything actually worth listening to. Until, then... I think Shalom should just apply the principle of not feeding the trolls, and ignore BS's childish antics. I mean, it's namecalling, Shalom. Ignore it dude!

I mean I don't think very highly of Shalom, but "Bottled Spider" is clearly a very unintelligent fuckwit, and makes Shalom actually look somewhat respectable.

[Hipocrite]

Well, really, Shalso. That's a bit below the belt, isn't it? Honestly, you weird guys can be so rude!

Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

[Malleus]

I'm getting tired of this, but I will not let Hipocrite's claptrap stand at the end of this thread.

Hipocrite: learn how to spell! How old are you? Do you speak English??

Shalom, have you ever tried counting your wits? You know, just to make certain that you haven't lost any of them?

I mean I don't think very highly of Shalom, but "Bottled Spider" is clearly a very unintelligent fuckwit ...

Takes one to know one I suppose. My opinion of Mr Bottled is quite different from yours though. You're very clearly an "unintelligent fuckwit", whereas he very clearly isn't.

[Bottled_Spider]

I mean I don't think very highly of Shalom, but "Bottled Spider" is clearly a very unintelligent fuckwit ...

Takes one to know one I suppose. My opinion of Mr Bottled is quite different from yours though. You're very clearly an "unintelligent fuckwit", whereas he very clearly isn't.

Thank you very much for saying so. I think I detect a touch of very slight animosity in what he's saying, which is strange to me. I just can't imagine what brought all that on. What is he really trying to say?

[Malleus]

What is he really trying to say?

Do you really believe that he even he knows? I don't. I believe that he's a simple-minded piece of shit who believes that everyone else is as daft as he is. That's only my opinion though, not a "personal attack"; I could be wrong.

[Anonymous editor]

That shows a great deal about her moral character.

Nevermind her moral character. What does this thread say about your moral character?

I couldn't disagree more. I think Bottled_Spider is a total moron.

You should see a humor doctor.

I'm the secret devil behind "Somey from WR." http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20774

IT'S ABOUT AS SHOCKING AS ME TELLING YOU THAT NO ONE CARES

Lol, he's just (pathetically) trying to troll us. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Maybe you're right. I should stop replying.

[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.)

[Shalom]

Hello? Is anyone going to stand up for me? You know I'm right, folks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[The Joy]

Hello? Is anyone going to stand up for me? You know I'm right, folks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Why haven't you been blocked yet?

[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..."

[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.)

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..."

It's more like, "Gee, boss, I raised $100,000 for your nonprofit but I once pulled the fire alarm as a prank and forced everyone to leave the office for 15 minutes." Yes, I could get fired for doing that, but (except in truly extraordinary circumstances) pulling the fire alarm does not cause $100,000 worth of damage; therefore, my net effect on the nonprofit is still overwhelmingly positive.

Look, Wikipedia is a volunteer project. In many cases, had I not done a certain productive action, nobody would have done it at all, ever; and in other cases, nobody would have done something similar for many months. This is analogous to raising money for a nonprofit that would otherwise not receive the money. I'm not sure how apt the fire drill prank is: it's really overstating the problem because I disrupted individuals, not the whole working group of the project.

Edit: Or you could go with the "crap on the floor" analogy if you prefer. My point is: I was not doing a job that someone else could do equally well (or perhaps a little better or worse). I was doing volunteer work that, had I not done it, would otherwise not have been done. My value to Wikipedia should be measured by what Wikipedia would be if it lacked those 350 articles and 10,000+ productive mainspace edits.

This post has been edited by Shalom:

[A Horse With No Name]

Hello? Is anyone going to stand up for me? You know I'm right, folks. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Well, I would rather stand up for Nana Mouskouri:

[Anonymous editor]

Wikipedia would be better off without Shalom's contributions. It's not really much of a question, and only Shalom would treat it as the "dumbest post on WR."

Aside from the fact that there are some spectacularly stupid posts at Der Revue, my post was spot on.

No one values what you did, Shalom. Apparently, you think you were a great contributor and that excuses all the disruption you caused.

All your silly raving and insults don't really change a damn thing about the reality of it all.

[Malleus]

So anyway, I've revealed everything that happened up to July 18, 2008. For the next three weeks I did not edit Wikipedia at all. Then I relocated to get a checkuser-proof clean start. I created a new account, whose name I will leave to the side for now. It and a bunch of vandal-socks got blocked in September. Around that time I also made troll accounts on other projects, for example, "Poetloser" on Wikiquote.

I'm finding all of this hard to follow.

Are you the annoying 12-year-old kid who spoke at the New York wikithingy last year?

[Anonymous editor]

I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.

[Appleby]

I don't think people quite grasp a fundamental point yet. Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation and volunteers are often easily deterred by disruption, any editor who is at all disruptive needs to be penalised. Both Shalom and Peter Damian, for example, are in general good editors and no doubt lovely people, but have deservedly been punished. I doubt that I would have blocked Peter permanently, but YMMV.

[Kelly Martin]

I don't think people quite grasp a fundamental point yet. Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation and volunteers are often easily deterred by disruption, any editor who is at all disruptive needs to be penalised.

Again with the myth of the volunteer! Wikipedia's editors are not volunteers. They are customers, and they're quite willing to 'pay' for what they want even in the presence of disruption; in fact, many of them prefer a disrupted environment as it either facilitates their purpose for patronizing Wikipedia, or at least provides them with added value.

[LaraLove]

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

The dumbest comment on Wikipedia Review:
"You did as much damage as you helped." -- Anonymous editor
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23411&st=86

Ae's opinion seems valid to me. I'd have to say I agree.

Shalom, QFP this as the second dumbest comment on WR, I suppose.

[A Horse With No Name]

I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.

Shappy is actually a lot wiser than people twice or thrice his age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shappy

I don't think people quite grasp a fundamental point yet. Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation and volunteers are often easily deterred by disruption, any editor who is at all disruptive needs to be penalised.

Again with the myth of the volunteer! Wikipedia's editors are not volunteers. They are customers, and they're quite willing to 'pay' for what they want even in the presence of disruption; in fact, many of them prefer a disrupted environment as it either facilitates their purpose for patronizing Wikipedia, or at least provides them with added value.

That doesn't make them customers. That makes them masochists. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Friday]

I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.

Shappy is actually a lot wiser than people twice or thrice his age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shappy

Another tantrum? This makes him wise?

I don't think people quite grasp a fundamental point yet. Because Wikipedia is a volunteer organisation and volunteers are often easily deterred by disruption, any editor who is at all disruptive needs to be penalised.

Again with the myth of the volunteer! Wikipedia's editors are not volunteers. They are customers, and they're quite willing to 'pay' for what they want even in the presence of disruption; in fact, many of them prefer a disrupted environment as it either facilitates their purpose for patronizing Wikipedia, or at least provides them with added value.

That doesn't make them customers. That makes them masochists. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Hmmm.. Kelly seems to frequently assume that other people are like her. Some people really just want to improve articles, or add cats, or delete junk. Certainly there are some people who are just there for drama, but it's not worth taking their needs into consideration.

[Kelly Martin]

Some people really just want to improve articles, or add cats, or delete junk. Certainly there are some people who are just there for drama, but it's not worth taking their needs into consideration.

Wikipedia's governing process takes their needs into consideration, and in fact gives them undue weight (because they tend to be unusually vocal). You know all about this, because you exploit it on a regular basis.

It's my contention that the proportion of active Wikipedians who "really just want to improve articles, or add cats, or delete junk" is vanishingly small in comparison to those who are there to forward ideology, play the Wikipedia MMORPG, or play drama games. This is even more true when you consider the subset of Wikipedians who actively participate in site governance activities.

[A Horse With No Name]

I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.

Shappy is actually a lot wiser than people twice or thrice his age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shappy

Another tantrum? This makes him wise?

No, there's no tantrum. He called it a day and went on to the proverbial bigger and better. Shappy's contributions to WP have been waning for some time and dropped off completely by August 30. He pops in at Simple Wikipedia, but I suspect his WP days are behind him.

[Shalom]

Wikipedia would be better off without Shalom's contributions. It's not really much of a question, and only Shalom would treat it as the "dumbest post on WR."

Aside from the fact that there are some spectacularly stupid posts at Der Revue, my post was spot on.

No one values what you did, Shalom. Apparently, you think you were a great contributor and that excuses all the disruption you caused.

All your silly raving and insults don't really change a damn thing about the reality of it all.

Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 99 (Israel) (T-H-L-K-D)

If Wikipedia would be better off without my contributions, get rid of my contributions. (I'm wondering how long it will take for this to get a "speedy keep"; I expect that most AFD regulars do want my contributions to stay.)

This post has been edited by Shalom:

[A Horse With No Name]

Some people really just want to improve articles, or add cats, or delete junk. Certainly there are some people who are just there for drama, but it's not worth taking their needs into consideration.

Wikipedia's governing process takes their needs into consideration, and in fact gives them undue weight (because they tend to be unusually vocal). You know all about this, because you exploit it on a regular basis.

Undue weight? Now now...Friday is just big-boned. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

If Wikipedia would be better off without my contributions, get rid of my contributions. (I'm wondering how long it will take for this to get a "speedy keep"; I expect that most AFD regulars do want my contributions to stay.)

Shalom...turn off the computer and go outside. The sun is shining and interesting things are happening. Take advantage of the real world -- this juvenile mess is not worth getting upset over.

[Cedric]

I think that was Shappy.

I don't think I ever saw Shappy throw tantrums like this, though, so Shalom is proving that his maturity level is lower than that of a 12 year old.

Shappy is actually a lot wiser than people twice or thrice his age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shappy

Another tantrum? This makes him wise?

No, there's no tantrum. He called it a day and went on to the proverbial bigger and better. Shappy's contributions to WP have been waning for some time and dropped off completely by August 30. He pops in at Simple Wikipedia, but I suspect his WP days are behind him.

If so, good for him. Whenever this happens with a Teenage Mutant Wiki Admin™ or a Teenage Mutant Wiki Admin Wannabe™, I usually assume that they got a girlfriend or otherwise acquired a life.

[Anonymous editor]

Wikipedia would be better off without Shalom's contributions. It's not really much of a question, and only Shalom would treat it as the "dumbest post on WR."

Aside from the fact that there are some spectacularly stupid posts at Der Revue, my post was spot on.

No one values what you did, Shalom. Apparently, you think you were a great contributor and that excuses all the disruption you caused.

All your silly raving and insults don't really change a damn thing about the reality of it all.

Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway 99 (Israel) (T-H-L-K-D)

If Wikipedia would be better off without my contributions, get rid of my contributions. (I'm wondering how long it will take for this to get a "speedy keep"; I expect that most AFD regulars do want my contributions to stay.)

More trolling from you. Wikipedia would be better off without you editing it now, and would have been better off had you never discovered the site. That doesn't mean anyone can go ahead and delete everything you've ever edited on Wikipedia, just like WR didn't want everything Guy/Poetlister and the rest of the socks posted deleted. Guy, of course, succeeded in deleting a lot of things, but just because he was a disruption and caused the site untold harm, doesn't mean they would go back and delete everything he ever wrote, because it would ruin countless threads.

Similarly, deleting everything you ever contributed is not feasible, and only you would suggest such a thing.

I don't see how this is difficult to understand. Your bad outweighs your good, but it's rather difficult to get articles deleted in any case, let alone when the article creator throws a tantrum. Several other people edited almost all of your articles. If you can find articles you created that no one else edited, by all means, tag them with a speedy template. I couldn't care less.