|
Wikileaker's identity |
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
I've determined Wikileaker's identity on a "more probable than not" standard of confidence. I assumed that the statements Wikileaker made about himself on Wikipedia Review are accurate, and I evaluated every arbitrator's history on Wikipedia against those statements. Only one user seemed to match all the criteria. Does anyone want to know? Newyorkbrad? Do you want to know? You did ask before: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=155190 [Wikileaker is NOT Newyorkbrad. I am pointing out that Newyorkbrad asked Wikileaker to identify himself.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
cyofee |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 329
Joined:
Member No.: 2,233
|
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Sat 9th July 2011, 5:50am) Having earlier encountered Shalom´s great ability to spot socks in the Mantanmoreland -case... ..... and Shaloms great work proving, without a shadow of a doubt, that poor Poetlister (and all her lovely friends) are innocent! ( They even had the photographs to prove it!)... With such a stellar history of being spot-on, I bet both Wikileaker and Malice are hoping, nay, praying that Shalom shall name their real names (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Shalom also apparently bears a grudge against Sam Korn for blocking some of his sock accounts back in 2008.
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(cyofee @ Sat 9th July 2011, 6:06am) QUOTE(The Adversary @ Sat 9th July 2011, 5:50am) Having earlier encountered Shalom´s great ability to spot socks in the Mantanmoreland -case... ..... and Shaloms great work proving, without a shadow of a doubt, that poor Poetlister (and all her lovely friends) are innocent! ( They even had the photographs to prove it!)... With such a stellar history of being spot-on, I bet both Wikileaker and Malice are hoping, nay, praying that Shalom shall name their real names (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Shalom also apparently bears a grudge against Sam Korn for blocking some of his sock accounts back in 2008. I looked at every former arbitrator, without prejudice, and decided that Sam Korn was the most likely match. If it's not Sam Korn, what can I say, I've been wrong before. Revenge has nothing to do with my motivation in undertaking the investigation and reporting my tentative conclusion.
|
|
|
|
bi-winning |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 23
Joined:
Member No.: 45,540
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Sat 9th July 2011, 8:00pm) I looked at every former arbitrator, without prejudice, and decided that Sam Korn was the most likely match. If it's not Sam Korn, what can I say, I've been wrong before. Revenge has nothing to do with my motivation in undertaking the investigation and reporting my tentative conclusion.
You are a child, Shalom. Oh nos! Did I "out" myself as Sam Korn. Shit. I hate when that happens.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(bi-winning @ Sun 10th July 2011, 10:51am) QUOTE(Shalom @ Sat 9th July 2011, 8:00pm) I looked at every former arbitrator, without prejudice, and decided that Sam Korn was the most likely match. If it's not Sam Korn, what can I say, I've been wrong before. Revenge has nothing to do with my motivation in undertaking the investigation and reporting my tentative conclusion.
You are a child, Shalom. Oh nos! Did I "out" myself as Sam Korn. Shit. I hate when that happens. No, but maybe The Adversary just did that. Few would know THAT much about Shalom's screwups, off the top of their head or in that short a search time. Shalom has indeed slipped on his shoelaces and fallen down quite a lot while hunting socks. He's been victimized by the best! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 10th July 2011, 3:44pm) QUOTE(bi-winning @ Sun 10th July 2011, 10:51am) QUOTE(Shalom @ Sat 9th July 2011, 8:00pm) I looked at every former arbitrator, without prejudice, and decided that Sam Korn was the most likely match. If it's not Sam Korn, what can I say, I've been wrong before. Revenge has nothing to do with my motivation in undertaking the investigation and reporting my tentative conclusion.
You are a child, Shalom. Oh nos! Did I "out" myself as Sam Korn. Shit. I hate when that happens. No, but maybe The Adversary just did that. Few would know THAT much about Shalom's screwups, off the top of their head or in that short a search time. Shalom has indeed slipped on his shoelaces and fallen down quite a lot while hunting socks. He's been victimized by the best! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Two separate issues. 1. Wikileaker = Sam Korn, confidence >50% 2. Wikileaker = Anonymous editor, speculative. I said as much originally. Don't conflate two separate issues. Whoever Anonymous editor is, he clearly has stalked my contributions on Wikipedia around November 2009, noting a specific oppose on an RFA as disruptive. I know that Sam Korn was not around then, so on further review, I can say Anonymous editor is someone else.
|
|
|
|
Anonymous editor |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 678
Joined:
Member No.: 7,398
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 12th July 2011, 7:42am) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 10th July 2011, 3:44pm) QUOTE(bi-winning @ Sun 10th July 2011, 10:51am) QUOTE(Shalom @ Sat 9th July 2011, 8:00pm) I looked at every former arbitrator, without prejudice, and decided that Sam Korn was the most likely match. If it's not Sam Korn, what can I say, I've been wrong before. Revenge has nothing to do with my motivation in undertaking the investigation and reporting my tentative conclusion.
You are a child, Shalom. Oh nos! Did I "out" myself as Sam Korn. Shit. I hate when that happens. No, but maybe The Adversary just did that. Few would know THAT much about Shalom's screwups, off the top of their head or in that short a search time. Shalom has indeed slipped on his shoelaces and fallen down quite a lot while hunting socks. He's been victimized by the best! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Two separate issues. 1. Wikileaker = Sam Korn, confidence >50% 2. Wikileaker = Anonymous editor, speculative. I said as much originally. Don't conflate two separate issues. Whoever Anonymous editor is, he clearly has stalked my contributions on Wikipedia around November 2009, noting a specific oppose on an RFA as disruptive. I know that Sam Korn was not around then, so on further review, I can say Anonymous editor is someone else. Anonymous editor did not stalk you. Indeed, it seems that Shalom has an obsession with Anonymous editor.
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(Anonymous editor @ Thu 22nd September 2011, 1:38pm) QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 12th July 2011, 7:42am) Two separate issues.
1. Wikileaker = Sam Korn, confidence >50%
2. Wikileaker = Anonymous editor, speculative.
I said as much originally. Don't conflate two separate issues.
Whoever Anonymous editor is, he clearly has stalked my contributions on Wikipedia around November 2009, noting a specific oppose on an RFA as disruptive. I know that Sam Korn was not around then, so on further review, I can say Anonymous editor is someone else.
Anonymous editor did not stalk you. Indeed, it seems that Shalom has an obsession with Anonymous editor. Look, Anonymous editor. We need to agree on definitions if we can possibly communicate with each other. When I said you "stalked" me in November 2009, I was using the definition of "following an individual user's contribution history to dig up dirt about him for the purpose of either insulting him directly or writing derogatory statements about him to others." That definition in those words is not sourced anywhere but is consistent with "Wikistalking" as I have seen it described from years ago, with dispute resolution requested against Editor B who would systematically make edits (not necessarily reverts) to the same articles Editor A had just changed. This is how you stalked me, Anonymous editor: in a single post, which I will not link to because I don't want to take the time to find it, you accused me of disrupting Wikipedia in fall 2009 by making a single frivolous opposition to a Request for Bureaucratship, and you commented on my Arbcom candidacy, and something about my behavior on Wikipedia Review. It is entirely possible that you saw the Request for Bureaucratship for a separate reason and just happened to find my comment there. That is not the point. The result is what counts as stalking, regardless of the method or the original intent. You could have observed my frivolous opposition (I could call it a "joke" if I wanted to) and said nothing; but you used it to make a frivolous jab at me. That's why I justifiably interpret your digging up of even small bits of dirt about me, and posting such dirt here on Wikipedia Review, as stalking. Now let's get serious. Everyone on this forum knows that Anonymous editor and I don't get along very well. The reason for this is that Anonymous editor engages in bullying tactics that take advantage of the fact that I have fully disclosed my identity, and he has concealed his identity. Literally, I have no way to know anything about what Anonymous editor has done for Wikipedia (aside from the very minimal general information he has stated), so I can't know if there's any possible truth in Anonymous editor's allegation that he has done more good for Wikipedia than I have done. As I have pointed out repeatedly, if he has written more than 300 new articles, upgraded more than one article to good or featured status, made more than 10,000 mainspace edits AND more than 10,000 non-mainspace edits, and otherwise distinguished himself through years of dedicated volunteer service, then it's possible he has done more than I have done to help Wikipedia. Until such time as he proves it, I will retain my stance that I have done far more good than Anonymous editor has done for Wikipedia. Anonymous editor, I have one question that will prove the absurdity of your position about me. Do you recognize that at some point, it is theoretically possible that I could, by virtue of additional contributions to Wikipedia from today and forward, "do more help than damage" to Wikipedia on a net basis of my lifetime interaction with the site? If yes, then by whatever criteria you use to define a good contribution, I have already crossed that threshold years ago. Or if you reject that assertion, you must then say that you and the overwhelming majority of editors also have done very little of value for Wikipedia. The question is one of relative contributions of one user more than another user. If no, then you find yourself in a logical fallacy by saying, in essence, that it is impossible for anyone to make a net positive contribution to Wikipedia. To be clear, I am suggesting that even Willy on Wheels himself could do enough good, by improving enough articles to featured status, that on a net basis we would say his lifetime contribution to Wikipedia is more good than bad. If you reject this assertion, I think you are engaging in a logical fallacy, as I already explained. I'm sorry to have to keep railing on this point, but it's very important to me to defend my record, and I simply will not allow this issue to go unanswered.
|
|
|
|
Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 27th September 2011, 10:11pm) QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 27th September 2011, 4:40pm) Anonymous editor, I have one question that will prove the absurdity of your position about me.... I'm sorry to have to keep railing on this point, but it's very important to me to defend my record, and I simply will not allow this issue to go unanswered.
What do you mean, you will not allow this issue to go unanswered? If Anonymous editor ignores your post, as I suspect he very well may, then unanswered this issue will go. Perhaps Shalom intends to start stalking the individual in question until an answer is provided, at swordpoint if need be. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Personally, I think the way y'all have taken stalking, a real term for an extremely menacing and invasive behavior, and devalued it by using it to refer to "carefully observing someone else's public activities, drawing conclusions about them therefrom, and reporting on those conclusions to others". By the definition Shalom gives of "stalking", it would be stalking for anyone on Wikipedia to use any form of corrective or disciplinary measure with respect to any other editor.
|
|
|
|
melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 28th September 2011, 4:51am) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Tue 27th September 2011, 10:11pm) QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 27th September 2011, 4:40pm) Anonymous editor, I have one question that will prove the absurdity of your position about me.... I'm sorry to have to keep railing on this point, but it's very important to me to defend my record, and I simply will not allow this issue to go unanswered.
What do you mean, you will not allow this issue to go unanswered? If Anonymous editor ignores your post, as I suspect he very well may, then unanswered this issue will go. Perhaps Shalom intends to start stalking the individual in question until an answer is provided, at swordpoint if need be. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) Personally, I think the way y'all have taken stalking, a real term for an extremely menacing and invasive behavior, and devalued it by using it to refer to "carefully observing someone else's public activities, drawing conclusions about them therefrom, and reporting on those conclusions to others". By the definition Shalom gives of "stalking", it would be stalking for anyone on Wikipedia to use any form of corrective or disciplinary measure with respect to any other editor. There's a difference between "stalking" and "wikistalking", the latter of which is supposed to be mild online "harassment", if you could call following someone's edits that. I'm sure Alison can explain what the former is. Stalking is, like abuse and harassment, overused on Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Posts in this topic
Shalom Wikileaker's identity Ottava I honestly would rather have cake than care about ... EricBarbour Me! Me! <_< Shalom
Me! Me! <_<
Wikileaker is Sam Kor... melloden
Me! Me! <_<
Wikileaker is Sam Ko... EricBarbour o rly? Sam Korn left Arbcom in 2006.
Not FT2? Not... No one of consequence I have no comment as to the accuracy of the guess,... radek
I have no comment as to the accuracy of the guess... Shalom
I have no comment as to the accuracy of the gues... Anonymous editor
[quote name='radek' post='279430' date='Thu 7th J... melloden
I have no comment as to the accuracy of the guess... trenton Its either Sam Korn, Flcelloguy, or Fritzpoll.
Le... Somey Let the witch hunt begin!
Before we get starte... A Horse With No Name
Its either Sam Korn, Flcelloguy, or Fritzpoll.
L... NuclearWarfare
Its either Sam Korn, Flcelloguy, or Fritzpoll.
... Abd [quote name='A Horse With No Name' post='279447' d... Sololol
[quote name='A Horse With No Name' post='279447' ... Wikileaker I've determined Wikileaker's identity on a... Shalom What's your evidence that Wikileaker is Nuclea... Kelly Martin They were using mailman, which means each member h... Theanima I don't think it's Sam Korn, but unless Wi... Minor4th My guess is either Randy or Carcaroth or however y... Theanima
My guess is either Randy or Carcaroth or however ... NuclearWarfare Assuming that Wikileaker indeed lost access in Jan... Deskana
Assuming that Wikileaker indeed lost access in Ja... Ottava
Assuming that Wikileaker indeed lost access in J... Wikileaker You all assume too many things. What if I said I... NuclearWarfare
You all assume too many things. What if I said I... EricBarbour
You all assume too many things.
Don't get th... SpiderAndWeb Another day, another disillusioned ex-arb breaking... Casliber
You all assume too many things. What if I said I... Shalom
[quote name='Wikileaker' post='279523' date='Fri ... tarantino
Clarification: Sam Korn's last edit to Wikipe... Encyclopedist I'll just say this; Malice Aforethought seems ... trenton
OTOH, who really should give a flying fuck about ... Shalom
As regards who *is* the leaker, I cannot think it... nableezy
I'll have to double-check this, but I don... Shalom
I'll have to double-check this, but I don... EricBarbour
Given Arbcom's delinquence in failing to desy... Shalom Here's the computer file I wrote up before I m... Milton Roe
Given Arbcom's delinquence in failing to des... melloden
[quote name='EricBarbour' post='279639' date='Fri... nableezy
What is your motivation in criticizing Wikipedia ... melloden
[quote name='Wikileaker' post='279523' date='Fri... -DS-
I looked at every former arbitrator, without pre... Tarc Whoever Anonymous editor is, he clearly has stalke... Shalom
Whoever Anonymous editor is, he clearly has stalk... chrisoff I'm sorry the leaker will leak no more because... Abd I'm sorry the leaker will leak no more because... chrisoff
I'm sorry the leaker will leak no more becaus... melloden
[quote name='Abd' post='281330' date='Tue 26th Ju... MaliceAforethought
[quote name='Abd' post='281330' date='Tue 26th J... Encyclopedist
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. It... MaliceAforethought
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. It... MaliceAforethought Stop the presses! His royal hineyness Rodhull... MaliceAforethought
Stop the presses! His royal hineyness Rodhul... Guido den Broeder
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. It... Detective
I've not been anyone of consequnce on Wikiped... No one of consequence
I've not been anyone of consequnce on Wikipe... -DS-
I've not been anyone of consequnce on Wikipe... EricBarbour Boooooring.......bored now....... <_< Anonymous editor these attacks by Shalom are baseless and I believe...
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |