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?

[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.

[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.

[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.