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

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.

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.

Eh? What happened?

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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

So you're No one of consequence?

Damn, I wanted to make that joke.

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

Cheers,

Guido

lol.

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.

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.

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".

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.