Wikileaker's identity Options

[EricBarbour]

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

[MaliceAforethought]

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

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. "
—Albert Einstein

Too late; you've blown it big style. Just keep an eye over your shoulder. The alternative is to leave me alone. So, D, how confident do you feel that you're untouchable right now?

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

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

...and I thought I was pissed. Never mind, your use of language makes it absolutely beyond doubt who you are, and shows that you're in retreat.

Shall I copy this to one of the main threads, or are you going to fess up or just crawl back under that stone? Your value here is now negligible, unless you can come up with something truly wonderful, and credible. Problem is that you blew your load too early, and especially when you started the thread about me and titled it as you did.

Do you really think I don't keep records over the last 20 years? What a maroon! Ha, ha, ha.

Welcome to the Machine.

KThxBai!

[Detective]

I've not been anyone of consequnce on Wikipedia

So you're No one of consequence?

[No one of consequence]

I've not been anyone of consequnce on Wikipedia

So you're No one of consequence?

[-DS-]

I've not been anyone of consequnce on Wikipedia

So you're No one of consequence?

Damn, I wanted to make that joke.

[Guido den Broeder]

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)

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.

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.

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

Cheers,

Guido

[Anonymous editor]

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.

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.

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.

lol.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Thu 22nd September 2011, 5:35pm

[Anonymous editor]

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!

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]

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.

[Newyorkbrad]

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.

[Kelly Martin]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[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".

[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.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Tue 17th January 2012, 4:06am