This page has been written to document the various false claims that Zordrac (talk · contribs) has made about me in attempts to damage my reputation. Unlike his false and malicious accusations, I can provide diffs to document my account of affairs.
Zordrac lies to incite trouble between myself and Daniel Brandt
[1] 20:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) "By the way, I sent an e-mail to Daniel yesterday advising him that you were not trying to imply that he was gay - you were trying to imply that he was a hypocrite, by using weasel words in an underhanded way to discredit him, something which I advised him is defamatory of nature. Just so you know. Its actually one hell of a lot worse than implying he is gay."
Zordrac will later pretend that I requested[2] for him to e-mail Daniel Brandt and ask Daniel to do something -- since of course it never happened, the details of what I purportedly requested are vague, existing only within Zordrac's imagination. However, to explore this theory, let us ask, "Assuming that I desired Daniel Brandt to do anything, why would I choose Zordrac as my intermediary?
As we'll see, Zordrac will later claim [3] that "before we had communicated", I had made public threats and "wild accusations" against him and claimed to be "watching [him]". If this had been true (rather than a figment of Zordrac's imagination) why on Earth would I select Zordrac to "explain" me (incorrectly) to Daniel Brandt? and why on Earth would he have accepted??
The truth is much simpler: Zordrac wanted to curry the favor of Daniel Brandt and to cause trouble for me; to meet these goals he told Brandt that I was "trying to imply that he was a hypocrite, by using weasel words in an underhanded way to discredit him", and to cause trouble for me, "advised" Brandt that "my" intentions was "defamatory of nature". He then left the above edit on my user talk page to gloat about the trouble he'd caused for me. Only when he realized that his attempt to stir up more trouble between Brandt and Wikipedia editors could backfire on him did he invent the ludicrous story that I had asked him to represent me to Brandt.
Zordrac claims that I have "confessed" to his paranoid delusions
[4] 17:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC) At this point, I have already explained to Zordrac that he cannot go spreading false and malicious rumors about people on talk pages all over Wikipedia and then call it "Wikistalking" for those people to keep an eye on what false and malicious things are being said about them. I am not the only one who has to explain this to Zordrac; Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is the victim of the same smears from Zordrac as I am, and puts it succinctly: "going from talk page to talk page for the sole purpose of spreading grossly untrue and insulting accusations against me is really not good behavior." Zordrac continually erases these messages from his talk page, this time with the edit summary "rv yet more vandalism by confessed stalker. sheesh. just asking for a ban".
Zordrac lies about me again
[5] 20:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Zordrac's claim: "I had never met [Antaeus Feldspar] prior to Daniel Brandt, and indeed, before we had communicated, he threatened me on the Daniel Brandt talk page, and made wild accusations about me, claiming to have been "watching me". He then engaged in an obstructive edit war to try to engage me in it, and when I backed out of it he engaged others in it and repeatedly accused me of things in edits."
Of course, I have never made any threats to Zordrac at all, besides threats to take him through the established procedures (RFC, RfAr) that Wikipedia has for users who commit severe breaches of civility against others, as Zordrac has committed by his lies against me.
However, this particular lie is incredibly easy to demolish. "Before we had communicated" must mean before Zordrac had initiated communication with me by leaving this message on my user talk page; that was at 16:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC). At that point, I had edited Talk:Daniel Brandt exactly once, with this edit at 14:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC).
Any reasonable person reading this edit can verify that Zordrac's description of it is wholly false: there are no threats; there are no "wild accusations" (unless saying someone "is apparently under some misguided impressions regarding the 'See also' section" or that their "reasoning ... commits at least one major misunderstanding and one major fallacy" now counts as a "wild accusation".) And most notably, there is a complete absence of any claim that I was "watching" him.
As we have just seen, Zordrac is willing to make false claims even when he must realize that anyone can check the history and realize that those claims are wholly false. When Zordrac claims "he then engaged in an obstructive edit war to try and engage me in it", it must be taken in this context: even when it comes to objective and verifiable facts, Zordrac cannot be trusted to tell even the truth as he knows it. Can his word be taken at any higher value about who caused an "edit war"? Clearly not.
As for "repeatedly accused me of things in edits", examination of the facts shows that Zordrac did in fact knowingly do those things. He cannot now complain that the consequence of what he himself chose to do is some sort of unthinkable offense against him; he chose to lie about other editors, and now he faces the consequences of those lies.
Zordrac falsely claims that I have no "legitimate edits"
[6] 08:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Zordrac receives a message from DannyWilde (talk · contribs), one in which Danny tries to post my personal information (what he believes to be my real name). Zordrac does not respond to the obvious violation of civility involved in trying to "out" my real name; instead he opines to Danny "Its [sic] disappointing that someone like that could have protection though, as I am unaware of any legitimate edits by him."
Zordrac falsely represents his accusations against me at User:Zordrac/Poetlister
[7] 16:14, 30 December 2005
Zordrac repeats his previous false accusations against me, and denies that he ever made false accusations against me at User:Zordrac/Poetlister: "there are ZERO lies in there, and the article is NOT about you." However, here is what Zordrac claims about me at that page:
- 08:16, 23 December 2005 User:Antaeus Feldspar, wrote to Zordrac supporting Lulu and implying that they both would stalk Zordrac until either he stopped trying to get Poetlister's ban reversed, or else was banned from Wikipedia. [[8]]
Here is the actual contents of that diff (reprinted here for convenience):
- "Correction, Zordrac: you did not "help me out", you deliberately tried to incite trouble for me, and then you lied like a cheap rug about it, actually claiming that I asked you to put words into my mouth. I really, really hope you're enough of an idiot to file that RfAr because when you do I will bury you with all the evidence of your lying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)"
As anyone can see, Zordrac's very specific and detailed accusations against me are completely at odds with the actual evidence he presents: there is not one word about Lulu, not one word about Poetlister, not one word about anyone's ban. There is just, again, a clear and firm announcement that Zordrac is continuing to tell lies damaging to my reputation and that if he forces this to a head he will be the one who regrets it, since all the evidence shows how knowingly false and malicious those lies are.