Tue 27th September 2011, 8:40pm
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.