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

[Shalom]

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous editor]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.