Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Shalom

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=&showtopic=22760&view=findpost&p=155190

[Wikileaker is NOT Newyorkbrad. I am pointing out that Newyorkbrad asked Wikileaker to identify himself.]

Posted by: Ottava

I honestly would rather have cake than care about who Wikileaker is.

There are plenty of dangerous socks out there that need exposing, so why focus on exposing the whistleblowers?

Posted by: EricBarbour

Me! Me!

Posted by: Shalom

Wikileaker is Sam Korn.

Posted by: melloden

He was one of the few I had been expecting Wikileaker to be. However, I was iffy about that because he was an ombudsman from January 2009 to February 2010, and I was not expecting some of his earlier leaks to come during that time period.

Posted by: EricBarbour

o rly? Sam Korn left Arbcom in 2006.

Not FT2? Not Morven, Matthews, Deskana, Jdforrester, Jpgordon, or YellowMonkey, all of
whom stepped down in Dec 08/Jan 09?

Posted by: No one of consequence

I have no comment as to the accuracy of the guess, but retired arbitrators continued to have full access to the Arbcom mailing list until sometime in 2009 (if I recall correctly). After some controversy over something or other, and some early leaks that may or may not have been Wikileaker, Arbcom closed the Arbcom mailing list to all but current arbitrators only, and also created the functionaries mailing list, which checkusers, oversighters and past arbcom members in addition to current arbcom members are eligible to join.

Posted by: trenton

Its either Sam Korn, Flcelloguy, or Fritzpoll.

Let the witch hunt begin!

Posted by: Somey

Before we get started, did someone say there was going to be cake?

Posted by: Wikileaker

Anyway, thanks for reminding me about that old "en-ac-private" group. I'll have to dig up my archives of that and see if there's anything interesting... this is of course contingent on me not running out of bourbon in the meantime...

Posted by: radek

The implication of this presumes that they change the password (or whatever guards access to these super sekrit archives) frequently. If not, then someone who had access to it pre 2009 (with some kind of axe to grind), who's access got removed, still could have gone back more recently and checked if "the old password still works" and then...

Maybe it sounds a little far fetched but from what I understand a lot of these security breaches occur for mundane reasons like this. And the leaker did say that the reason for the leak was "stupidity" and this certainly fits the scenario.

Posted by: Shalom

I'm under the impression that each Arbcom-L user has an individual username and password, just like on Wikipedia or the Review. Sam Korn's login would have been disabled on January 16, 2009, when he and the other old-timers were removed from access to Arbcom-L. Perhaps the login was not disabled but he also didn't receive new messages. Any other former arbitrator from that time could comment here on what happened. Thatcher commented but he wasn't an arbitrator so he has no direct knowledge of what Sam Korn would have found different.

Thus, there wasn't one password to ArbCom-L -- unless there was.

I've also concluded that Sam Korn may be "Anonymous editor" here on Wikipedia Review. If I'm correct, it would enable me to continue our conversation from two years ago at "False statements at RFA" thread. I haven't examined "Anonymous editor"'s pattern enough to know with confidence, but one clue suggests that he is Wikileaker (both accounts tell someone else "You are a child"). Another clue suggests Anonymous editor is Sam Korn ("I know everything about you, Shalom, your name, your..."). Sam Korn checkusered me or at least reported results to me. This was before "Anonymous editor" taunted me in that way.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Eh, phooey! It is really NuclearWarfare. Now let's grab some shovels and konk him on the head!

Posted by: Shalom

What's your evidence that Wikileaker is NuclearWarfare? NW was never on ArbCom.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

They were using mailman, which means each member had their own password, which was emailed to them in plain text once a month. There is also a master list password, which would be known to whoever managed the master list (used to be David Gerard, but I imagine not so anymore), and a master server password, which would be known to whoever runs the software (WMF technical team, I assume).

The thing is, these passwords are (as I mentioned) emailed to each member once a month, in plaintext. If one of the Arbs were to have been so foolish as to use a public access unencrypted WiFi to access their email, that would have allowed anyone with enough competence to run firesheep to capture a login cookie to their email account, and from that our intrepid hacker could have gotten anything that was presently in their email, presumably including that plaintext password. From there, the rest is gravy: log into the mailman archives with that password and download all the archives.

There are fairly simple steps that can be taken to avoid this sort of compromise, but fairly few people take them, and with eighteen people on the ArbCom it's a fair bet that at least one of them was not.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

Oh shi...

Posted by: Abd

Got him!

Posted by: melloden

ArbCom did close off the list to old arbs on January 16, 2009 (but Wikileaker said he had access up to 2/16/09, so I guess that was a typo?). Sam Korn was an ombudsman in 2009--do they have access to the enwiki CU/OS lists?

Posted by: Theanima

I don't think it's Sam Korn, but unless Wikileaker tells us or gives it away, we'll probably never know.

Posted by: Sololol

And he would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you nosy kids and your horse.

Posted by: Minor4th

My guess is either Randy or Carcaroth or however you spell it

Posted by: Theanima

Sounds too intellectual for Randy, doubt it's Carcharoth - don't think he even had access in 2008.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

Assuming that Wikileaker indeed lost access in January 2009, he or she is almost certainly one of the following people:

Charles Matthews, David Gerard, Deskana, FT2, Jayjg, Jdforrester, Jpgordon, Mindspillage, Rebecca, Sam Korn, The Epopt, Theresa Knott, Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, Mackensen, Morven, Raul654, Paul August, UninvitedCompany, or YellowMonkey.

It can't be Rlevse or Carcharoth, as they were both first elected (and received access to the archives) in December 2008.

Posted by: Deskana

I actually lost my mailing list access towards the end of March 2009, not in January 2009. After I resigned I served as mailing list co-ordinator for a few months until that position was superseded by new mailing list organisation.

Posted by: Wikileaker

You all assume too many things. What if I said I'd lost arbcom-L access as an act of misdirection, designed to throw suspicion on the people listed above? What if I'm not even an ex-arbitrator, but a friend of one who gets gossip forwarded to them? What if I'm some hacker type? (Although I suppose my knowledge of even the existence of the Google group makes that scenario unlikely.) What if I actually am who I've said I am, and this post is misdirection itself? I'm already a piece of shit for publicly posting information that was supposed to remain in confidence -- why would lying about my identity be below me?

Anyway, I woke up this morning and discovered a couple empty bottles of Evan Williams... then eventually figured out that I'd had a WikiRelapse during a moment (day?) of weakness. I apologize for being a tease, but I won't be posting any more mailing list threads or arbwiki stuff. MaliceAforethought seems to have that covered anyway.

Posted by: Ottava

!!!!!!!

Deskana! Hi!

Not only do I get to talk to you again (to say hi), but you brought a pokemon to our forum. Ahahaha.



P.S., the Wikileaker is clearly Jimbo.

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

Exactly.

The point, Shalom, is that your "investigations" are going to be a waste of time. There are better things to do.

Posted by: SpiderAndWeb

Another day, another disillusioned ex-arb breaking ranks... who cares?

I'm much more interested in Malice and where he's disappeared to.

Posted by: Casliber

Well, er - duh.

Okay then Wikileaker, I might have missed this (did you post this somewhere?), but what was your motivation? anger at perceived arrogance of the committee? a sense of injustice? or just teh lulz? Just asking, before you dissapear again off into the aether..

Cas

Posted by: EricBarbour

Don't get the assumption that I even care. Lots of Wiki-slaves come here to gawk, and when
someone posts dirt, they go all buggy. But most of this Arbcom stuff has been of little real value.


Post some more dirt and I'll buy you three more bottles. Screw AA.

Posted by: Shalom

Cas, if you look carefully through Wikileaker's posting history, he wrote that he tried to reform Wikipedia's power structure from the inside, failed, and decided to take private matters public. I'm paraphrasing and interpreting. If you go to "Members" then type "Wikileaker" then click his name, then click the drop-down box on the upper right-hand corner to "Find member's posts" and go to the second page, you'll find it there. I'm too preoccupied to do it right now.

To Wikileaker, yes, I did make assumptions, and I believe those assumptions are reasonable. I started with a process of elimination to eliminate any Arbitrators who I thought could not be Wikileaker. I did not exclude anyone from the search, not even Newyorkbrad. I checked to see who was active recently. Most of anyone who's ever been an arbitrator, even in 2004 and 2005, has edited Wikipedia in 2011, and most of those have edited in July 2011.

A few former arbitrators didn't edit in 2011. This was consistent with Wikileaker's statement that he "hasn't touched Wikipedia in several years." Wikileaker posted this yesterday. I read the list of arbitrators, former arbitrators and incoming arbitrators as of December 2008 on an old version of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Again, you can trawl the page history for yourself. My process of elimination yielded several "UNLIKELY" and one "POSSIBLE". That "POSSIBLE" was Sam Korn.

I looked for positive evidence linking Sam Korn's Wikipedia activity with Wikileaker's posts on Wikipedia Review. I found some suggestive links. Wikileaker wrote about Aitias and Majorly on WR. Sam Korn was involved in their user conduct issues on Wikipedia in March or April of 2009. Wikileaker posted from an IP address some nasty citations about Majorly. It's hard to believe any active user would do this and expect not to get checkusered and busted, but who knows, maybe he was away from home and unlinkable to his usual wiki identity. Pretty much, the same guy who had access to the Arbcom-L list did post to Majorly's talk page while not logged in, and boasted about it at WR, and since that did happen, one must accept that whoever did it took the risk of getting caught. There's also two diffs on Jimbo's talk page in February 2009 where Sam Korn posts snarky one-line comments in a thread about Kelly Martin's leaks of Arbcom-L. One day later (or earlier?) Wikileaker boasted about having archives on Wikipedia Review.

Deskana's claim that he lost Arbcom-L access in March 2009, not January 2009, casts reasonable doubt on this situation. However, one can say like this: Wikileaker said in early February 2009 that he had the list through 2/16/09 which hadn't happened yet. Commenters suspected a typo, which should have read 1/16/09. It's possible that Wikileaker had not been removed from the list but only updated his list as of 1/16/09, or may have removed himself voluntarily while Deskana waited to get kicked out.

I don't know if fishing out links and diffs will convince anyone here. I find that people on Wikipedia Review either don't read what I write, or don't react to the substance of what I write. I do maintain a "more likely than not" confidence that Wikileaker is Sam Korn. Whoever wrote what Wikileaker wrote, when he wrote it, had to know certain things and project a certain attitude, that only Sam Korn is likely to have done. It could be some long-time inactive arb like Filiocht or Flcelloguy but it seems far more likely that the culprit is someone who was involved with dramatic affairs on a daily basis, as Sam Korn was for an extended time.

Clarification: Sam Korn's last edit to Wikipedia was in late 2009. He hasn't touched Wikipedia in almost two years.

Posted by: tarantino

http://twitter.com/#!/killerinthesun is a theology student at Cambridge (or perhaps he's recently graduated). Surely he wouldn't engage in such egregious behavior.

Posted by: melloden

I'm fairly sure you're right. Usually when people get in these things at first they don't think to lie, because it's much harder to lie unless you've already established yourself or your story. So I would assume the ex-arb thing to be correct. And I used a similar method of elimination, albeit faster and less thorough, to arrive at a similar conclusion, but I still am concerned because some of those leaks came when Sam Korn was an ombudsman.

Posted by: Encyclopedist

I'll just say this; Malice Aforethought seems to think that I have attempted to "out" him, as indicated by the header to the now defunct thread about my de-sysopping; even as an Admin on WP, I was not privy to such information, and never had access to higher permissions. Never CU, or anything else, and it was a difficult task for me even to manage run of the mill vandalism while trying to add some content in the early months of this year. So that's just bollocks, and I've called him on it- he can email me with the details, if he likes.

Wikileaker, OTOH, I can have little confidence in, unless and until he/she produces something novel that hasn't already been covered by existing revelations. A bandwaggon-jumper, unless the novelty threshold is met- and given the existing, tedious, turgid and boring revelations thus far, I think we should at least expect surprise, as opposed to bluff. So, I'm calling him out.

As regards who *is* the leaker, I cannot think it's old Arbs; posting here of material about my own desysopping in the early months of this year suggests someone with access to the current mailing list. In particular, there is no reason whatever why retired Arbs should take any interest whatsoever in my own case, shameful though it was.


OTOH, who really should give a flying fuck about Wikipedia? It's a well-intentioned, but ultimately amateur attempt to create an online encyclopedia. It's worst feature is that "anyone can edit it"; that's an irrational optimism that has demonstrably failed in so many ways, from simple vandalism, to POV-pushers, to those who use it for commercial promotion. This is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.

I reject it, as it currently is.

Cheers

Posted by: trenton

You can't fire me, I quit!

Amazing, isn't it, the number of Wikipediots that come to this realization after they've been kicked out. Before that, it's all one big happy family with papa Jimbeau at the head.

Posted by: Shalom

I'll have to double-check this, but I don't think Wikileaker posted anything from this year. It's all from 2008 and maybe earlier. If I'm incorrect, could you please point a link to the evidence which proves Wikileaker had more recent access?

To Tarantino: looking at that face on Twitter, I do find it hard to believe that Sam Korn would have done this. He seemed like a stand-up guy on Wikipedia. But I can't find anyone else who is more likely linked, and as I said there are some weak links between Sam Korn on Wikipedia and Wikileaker on WR. I'm tempted to put more time into this but life is too short and I think I will give up.

Posted by: nableezy

Why should anybody here care? All that matters here, as far as I am concerned, is if the leaked material is authentic. Every indication is that it is. Who the leaker, both of them, is does not affect that at all. Let ArbCom spend the time determining who did what. If you want to volunteer your time doing so I wont stop you, but it seems like a useless exercise.

Posted by: Shalom

If one can identify the leaker, one can prevent them from having continuing access from now and forward, and one can hold them accountable on Wikipedia: in this case, desysop.

Given Arbcom's delinquence in failing to desysop Good Olfactory and Od Mishehu, I suspect they would not desysop Sam Korn even if I would present strong evidence that Sam leaked the Arbcom-L mailing list. Still, I considered compiling the evidence I have in as clear a format as I can -- which would also require me to check something which could point to his innocence -- and at that point I punt and say it's not my problem.

What is your motivation in criticizing Wikipedia in general, if you're not willing to challenge unethical behavior when you see it? That's a reason to "out" Wikileaker or Malice if possible. Leaking these materials is unethical. Some of what happened behind the scenes was also unethical.

I have every reason to believe Wikileaker and Malice both have accurate archives. I've already been quoted in two separate emails (Poetlister and CAMERA) and both are accurate represenations, word for word, of what I wrote, when I wrote it, and to whom I wrote it.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yeah, right. And yet it's "not your problem".

Identifying the leaker will just help to keep the Same Old Assholes in charge at WP. Because they are vengeful, and will make an example of any leakers.

Do you really want to do that?

Posted by: Shalom

Here's the computer file I wrote up before I made the first post in this thread:


Candidates for being Wikileaker

Criteria:

Served on ArbCom
Wrote: “I haven’t touched Wikipedia in several years.”
Wants reform
Says he has Arbcom-L archives thru Feb. 16, 2009, and checkuser-L and oversight-L
Has interest in Everyking, JoshuaZ, Lar, and others from 2005 – 2008 period
Could have written all the material he wrote, at the time he wrote it.

List of former Arbitrators
Put “00000” before each name if they have edited Wikipedia recently
Bold each name that could be right.


00000 James W. Rosenzweig, aka Jwrosenzweig (did not seek re-election, December 2004)
00000 The Cunctator (unsuccessful in election bid, December 2004)
00000 Gutza (resigned 2004)
00000 Martin Harper, aka MyRedDice (resigned, December 2004)
00000 Lee Pilich, aka Camembert (resigned, December 2004)
00000 Mark, aka Delirium (resigned, July 2005)
00000 Steven Melenchuk, aka Grunt (resigned, July 2005)
00000 Rebecca, aka Ambi (resigned, July 2005)
00000 Daniel Mayer, aka Maveric149 (resigned, September 2005)
00000 David Friedland, aka Nohat (resigned, September 2005)
UNLIKELY: Sannse (resigned, November 2005)
UNLIKELY: Kelly Martin (resigned, January 2006) - also I think she got booted from Arbcom-L before 2009
00000 David Gerard (did not seek re-election, January 2006)
00000 Fennec (unsuccessful in election bid, January 2006)
00000 Filiocht (on indefinite leave, June 2006)
00000 Kat Walsh, aka Mindspillage (resigned, December 2006)
00000 Jayjg (did not seek re-election, December 2006)
POSSIBLE: Sam Korn (did not seek re-election, December 2006)
00000 Sean Barrett, aka The Epopt (did not seek re-election, December 2006)
00000 Theresa Knott (did not seek re-election, December 2006)
00000 Dmcdevit (resigned, February 2007)
UNLIKELY: Essjay (resigned, March 2007) – got booted or resigned from Arbcom-L; didn’t want reform
UNLIKELY: Flcelloguy (on indefinite leave, May 2007) – inactive since May 2007, missed the 2008 fun
00000 Fred Bauder (did not seek re-election, December 2007)
00000 Mackensen (did not seek re-election, December 2007)
00000 Neutrality (did not seek re-election, December 2007)
00000 Raul654 (unsuccessful in re-election bid, December 2007)
00000 SimonP (did not seek re-election, December 2007)
00000 Paul August (resigned, August 2008)
00000 UninvitedCompany (resigned, September 2008)



00000 1.FayssalF (talk • contribs • email) (Fayssal Fertakh, szvestgmail.com)
00000 2.FloNight (talk • contribs • email)
00000 3.FT2 (talk • contribs • email) (public inbox: ft2wikipedia.inboxgmail.com)
00000 4.Kirill Lokshin (talk • contribs • email) (kirill.lokshingmail.com)
00000 5.Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs • email) (newyorkbradgmail.com)
00000 6.Stephen Bain (talk • contribs • email) (aka "bainer", formerly Thebainer,
00000 1.Sam Blacketer (talk • contribs • email) (sam.blacketergmail.com)
00000 1.Charles Matthews (talk • contribs • email) (charles.r.matthewsntlworld.com)
00000 2.Deskana (talk • contribs • email) (djgwikigooglemail.com)
00000 3.Jdforrester (talk • contribs • email) (James Forrester, aka "James F.", jdforrestergmail.com)
00000 4.Jpgordon (talk • contribs • email)
UNLIKELY: 5.Morven (talk • contribs • email) (Matthew Brown, morvengmail.com)
00000 6.YellowMonkey (talk • contribs • email) (formerly known as Blnguyen).
00000 1.Carcharoth (talk • contribs • email) (carcharothwpgmail.com)
00000 2.Casliber (talk • contribs • email)
00000 3.Cool Hand Luke (talk • contribs • email) (User.CoolHandLukegmail.com)
00000 4.Coren (talk • contribs • email) (marcuberbox.org)
00000 5.Jayvdb (talk • contribs • email) (John Vandenberg, jayvdbgmail.com)
00000 6.Risker (talk • contribs • email)
UNLIKELY 7.Rlevse (talk • contribs • email) – retired; wouldn’t do such a thing.
00000 8.Roger Davies (talk • contribs • email) (roger.davies.wikigmail.com)
00000 9.Vassyana (talk • contribs • email) (Pete Sienkiewicz, vassyanagmail.com)
00000 10.Wizardman (talk • contribs • email) (wizardmanwikigmail.com)

Posted by: Milton Roe

I guess Shalom wants to do that.

Posted by: melloden

Sam Korn is not a sysop at this time, so it's not like they could desysop him anyway.

Posted by: The Adversary

Having earlier encountered Shalom´s great ability to spot socks in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mantanmoreland-case...
..... and Shaloms great work proving, without a shadow of a doubt, that poor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shalom_Yechiel/Drafts_and_archives/Poetlister_is_innocent! ( They even had the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shalom_Yechiel/Drafts_and_archives/Poetlister_is_innocent/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

Posted by: cyofee

Shalom also apparently bears a grudge against Sam Korn for blocking some of his sock accounts http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30267&view=findpost&p=246552.

Posted by: nableezy

I never really understood the loyalty that people have to "the Project" (always a capital P), or "the community". I dont actually care about either of those things. The thing I care about is having the top google result for most anything not be bullshit. Thats it. What is my motivation in criticizing wikipedia in general? Because wikipedia structure is designed to focus on "the Project" and "the community", not the product. And these leaks, so far, show that problem. There was one email that I have read, obviously of the ones so far released, that show an arb actually analyzing what counts. That email being the discussion of the article Goy and Jayjg's edit removing an alternate translation and emailing for support. The rest of the discussions have been about things that, in my view, do not matter.


Again, thats what counts for me.

Posted by: Shalom

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.

Posted by: bi-winning

You are a child, Shalom.

Oh nos! Did I "out" myself as Sam Korn. Shit. I hate when that happens.

Posted by: -DS-

Thank you, bi-winning, I was just going to post about how ridiculous that was.

Posted by: Milton Roe

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!

Posted by: Shalom

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.

Posted by: Tarc

Its not like you're a difficult person to track, Yechiel Man.

Posted by: Shalom

Why does every thread I start wind up being about me? (After it's finished going off topic.)

Tarc, you again missed the point. It's possible to take notice of an RFA oppose if either you follow RFA generally, or you stalk a user's contributions. I suspect "Anonymous editor" did the latter, but he may have done the former. My point is, Sam Korn didn't do that because he wasn't active on Wikipedia then, and if he was following anything at all, he wouldn't have been following both Arbcom and also RFA.

Posted by: chrisoff

I'm sorry the leaker will leak no more because of all this speculation. Wikipedia is a secret organization, run by a small group of people. Any insight into their doings is hugely helpful because the rest of us are victims of their whims.

Now hope is gone!


Why does it matter who he is? His info checked out. Just the wikipeida mentality of "get anyone" you can that fails to keep the SECRETS that we all need to know.


To chase Malice away by threats is standard wikipedia practice.

Posted by: Abd

Eh? What happened?

Posted by: chrisoff

It's the stalking the sockpuppet mentality gone awry. Too much speculation on who the leaker is. That is all this thread is, so the leaker decided not to leak anymore.

Vulture mentality here, just like on wikipedia. That is what editors love to do, rather than learn what goes on behind the curtain of secrecy of the cesspool called wikipedia.

Posted by: melloden

Really? Looks like he's still leaking to me.

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

They mean Wikileaker. I don't worry because I've not been anyone of consequnce on Wikipedia so the chances some chav is going to suss out my identity is nil. (Not that the idiots on AC aren't trying their level best)

Posted by: Encyclopedist

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. It's about to become common knowledge, as far as I'm aware. And that's when the excrement contacts the rotating machinery.

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

Well mate, I've already told you to come out with it since the day you emailed me when the leaks came out, so out with it then.

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

Stop the presses! His royal hineyness Rodhullandemu has deigned to give us all a clue:

So does that make me David, Durova...who else starts with a D? Come now Rod, don't be a tease.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Boooooring.......bored now.......

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

Ah well, it looks like looney toons is all we'll be getting here, eh?

Posted by: Detective

So you're No one of consequence?

Posted by: No one of consequence

Posted by: -DS-

Damn, I wanted to make that joke.

Posted by: Guido den Broeder

The use of the word 'mate' is of course a dead giveaway.

Cheers,

Guido

Posted by: Anonymous editor

lol.

Posted by: Anonymous editor

Anonymous editor did not stalk you. Indeed, it seems that Shalom has an obsession with Anonymous editor.

Posted by: Shalom

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.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

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.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Perhaps Shalom intends to start stalking the individual in question until an answer is provided, at swordpoint if need be.

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.

Posted by: melloden

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.

Posted by: Shalom

Replies.

1. Newyorkbrad: "unanswered" = unanswered by me. I do expect Anonymous editor will either drop the issue or repeat his standard piffle.

2. Kelly Martin: "stalked my contributions" (what I wrote above does not equal "stalked me".

Posted by: Anonymous editor

these attacks by Shalom are baseless and I believe him to be delusional. I did not engage in stalking of any kind. Yes, I asserted that he was being disruptive, and I still maintain that position. I do not see how that constitutes stalking.

Indeed, Shalom's fixation on me is rather odd and suggestive of an unhealthy mental state.

I do not engage in "bullying tactics" and the allegation that I do is libelous.