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?

[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.

[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.

[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:

[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]

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.