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]

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.

[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:

[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.

[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.)

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.

Just yesterday I created an article about a neighborhood in Jerusalem, translating it from the Hebrew Wikipedia. I will probably continue to translate articles when the mood motivates me. I gain knowledge of the subject I am writing about, and Wikipedia readers gain knowledge, too. Nobody loses.

Look, I may have "abused" the "right to vanish." But I am not the first or last person to return under a new name, and many people do it with tacit approval from ArbCom. (I was never banned by ArbCom so I don't need their approval, but if I did need it, they would probably grant it.) Heck, "A new name 2008" ran for adminship and got 100 support votes, and we know it was not his first account; and Cirt actually passed RFA and it wasn't his first account either. In many cases a user may walk away for privacy reasons and return anonymously. I should have returned just once or twice, not five or six times, but my "anyone can edit" right does not expire when I decide I've had enough of everyone falsely accusing me of things I didn't do. I have not applied for RFA and don't intend to anytime in the future. What is the harm by me editing the encyclopedia, adding articles and fixing mistakes? Would you prefer that I not write the articles and not fix the mistakes? I have no less credibility under my "anyone can edit" account than the IP who has no track record at all.

I find it especially perverse that, when I wrote 300+ articles about actual content, translating from a language that most English speakers cannot read, nobody raised a doubt that I might be pulling a hoax (and I never did). But the minute I apply for adminship, whoa, I can't be trusted. I understand you don't want me deleting the main page, and I respect those who opposed on that basis, but really, which trust is more important -- trust in article content or trust in RFA credentials? When the user has departed, the RFA is moot but the articles remain. How do you know that I didn't create hoaxes about the highways in Israel, that I didn't add one that does not exist? Do you trust me for that? Maybe you should renominate those highway articles just to make sure.

I think you know in your heart that my net contribution to Wikipedia is overwhelmingly positive: not a little positive, not moderately positive, but top-5,000 editor all time positive (which the statistics in every significant category accord with). I think you can't even begin to compare your own contributions to Wikipedia to mine: you are just a dilettante who never bothered to research and write anything of value, so you are taking out your inferiority complex by saying someone better than you is actually worse than you. Maybe if you reveal your WP account we can know for sure. Your trolling antics have succeeded in getting me to write how stupid you are, which I think is what you wanted, but you know you are wrong, and you will wake up someday and realize it. I know you will say the same to me, but I'm right and you are flat wrong.

[Anonymous editor]

I think you know in your heart that my net contribution to Wikipedia is overwhelmingly positive: not a little positive, not moderately positive, but top-5,000 editor all time positive (which the statistics in every significant category accord with). I think you can't even begin to compare your own contributions to Wikipedia to mine: you are just a dilettante who never bothered to research and write anything of value, so you are taking out your inferiority complex by saying someone better than you is actually worse than you. Maybe if you reveal your WP account we can know for sure. Your trolling antics have succeeded in getting me to write how stupid you are, which I think is what you wanted, but you know you are wrong, and you will wake up someday and realize it. I know you will say the same to me, but I'm right and you are flat wrong.

You are such a child.

1)Claiming that your contributions are superior to mine is a thoroughly absurd claim. Not just because it isn't true, but because you have no idea of what you're talking about.

2)I am stupid? If we needed it, this is yet more evidence that you are a child. I never called you stupid. I don't think you're stupid. I just know that you've done a considerable amount of damage to Wikipedia. Hell, there are those who would congratulate you for that. I don't happen to be one of those people, but hey, you can't win them all. Your rebuttal is calling me stupid. Very clever, Shalom. You will go far with that wit.

3)Your constant cries for attention are getting to be quite alarming. I'm not a psychologist, but I do think you need to seek help for your obsession with Wikipedia and your delusions about the value of your contributions. Even if we ignore all of your vandalism, disruption, and socking, many of your articles are of little value. A large portion of them would not be missed. And no, in case you haven't figured it out yet, that doesn't mean you should start AfDs on all of them and demand they be deleted because someone on WR hurt your feelings.

4)A new name 2008 most likely did not abuse the right to vanish as you did. You are an abusive sockpuppeteer, and your lack of self awareness and sheer conceit precludes you from admitting to it.

5)I am aware that you have psychological issues, but even the most stubborn of deluded individuals would have noticed by now that most of the people who have commented are not sympathetic to your incessant ego trips and attention whoring. I don't think they were sympathetic to your spamming to get to 300 posts either, but I digress.

6)I anticipate your next post, which will call me stupid yet again. You haven't called me the dumbest poster on WR yet. Maybe you should try that tack.