JoshuaZ, Stalker Extraordinaire, He's trying to resurrect that redirect Options

[Jon Awbrey]

Now, really, as much fun as it may be letting yourselves be diverted with all the wonky details, isn't it just a trifle obvious that we have, yet again, a double standard of justice here?

Or is that just too obvious to be much fun pointing out?

Jon

[KamrynMatika]

Now, really, as much fun as it may be letting yourselves be diverted with all the wonky details, isn't it just a trifle obvious that we have, yet again, a double standard of justice here?

Or is that just too obvious to be much fun pointing out?

Jon

Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other admins that have been banned following sockpuppetry allegations. Runcorn comes to mind, and I'm sure there have been a few others recently although I don't specifically recall their names. So no, I don't think there are double standards.

[Jon Awbrey]

Now, really, as much fun as it may be letting yourselves be diverted with all the wonky details, isn't it just a trifle obvious that we have, yet again, a double standard of justice here?

Or is that just too obvious to be much fun pointing out?

Jon

Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other admins that have been banned following sockpuppetry allegations. Runcorn comes to mind, and I'm sure there have been a few others recently although I don't specifically recall their names. So no, I don't think there are double standards.

I guess it didn't occur to me that I would have to explain the meaning of the phrase "double standard".

I forgot where I was there for a moment.

Jon

[jorge]

Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other admins that have been banned following sockpuppetry allegations. Runcorn comes to mind, and I'm sure there have been a few others recently although I don't specifically recall their names. So no, I don't think there are double standards.

We are talking about JoshuaZ here and he is quite obviously lying. I don't doubt that Runcorn was also sockpuppeting and that ban was also justified. It is this quite obvious blatant corruption which drives people here to look at Wikipedia as they do.

[Random832]

Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other admins that have been banned following sockpuppetry allegations. Runcorn comes to mind, and I'm sure there have been a few others recently although I don't specifically recall their names. So no, I don't think there are double standards.

You don't think that a different standard was applied to Runcorn/Poetlister/etc than to JoshuaZ, then? No-one said that the double standard was admins vs non-admins.

This post has been edited by Random832: Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:07pm

[KamrynMatika]

Maybe it's just me, but I can think of other admins that have been banned following sockpuppetry allegations. Runcorn comes to mind, and I'm sure there have been a few others recently although I don't specifically recall their names. So no, I don't think there are double standards.

You don't think that a different standard was applied to Runcorn/Poetlister/etc than to JoshuaZ, then? No-one said that the double standard was admins vs non-admins.

Sorry, I was going by a comment by jorge (i think) earlier in the thread.

Did Runcorn ever actually make a defence?

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika: Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:10pm

[Moulton]

And in regards to Moulton's question let me be clear; I completely deny any accusations of sockpuppetry. Neither the Gothnic nor Miles Naismith accounts are mine. Any other reasonable ways of asking the question have the same response.

Kamryn, did that response just come into you via PM a few minutes ago?

My question to you was, "Kamryn, to the best of your knowledge and recollection, did Joshua ever directly deny the allegation? Or did he just provide lotsa good reasons to buy the story (originally suggested by others) as a possible theory to explain the forensic data?"

Is this the first time you have ever heard him express a flat denial?

[KamrynMatika]

And in regards to Moulton's question let me be clear; I completely deny any accusations of sockpuppetry. Neither the Gothnic nor Miles Naismith accounts are mine. Any other reasonable ways of asking the question have the same response.

Kamryn, did that response just come into you via PM a few minutes ago?

My question to you was, "Kamryn, to the best of your knowledge and recollection, did Joshua ever directly deny the allegation? Or did he just provide lotsa good reasons to buy the story (originally suggested by others) as a possible theory to explain the forensic data?"

Is this the first time you have ever heard him express a flat denial?

Via email.

I've never interacted with him before. So obviously this is the first time.

[jorge]

Sorry, I was going by a comment by jorge (i think) earlier in the thread.

Did Runcorn ever actually make a defence?

Why are you trying to distract this thread? I think Runcorn was guilty of sockpuppeting. I think JoshuaZ is also guilty of sockpuppeting. Prove there isn't a double standard.

[thekohser]

Based on past experience, this will double the overall traffic to my Wikipedia-Watch homepage.

Daniel, I mean you no offense, but according to Alexa (I know, not reliable, but still it's something), Wikipedia Review gets perhaps 5 or 6 times your unique visitors, and we only get about 750 uniques per week.

Does that jive with your server logs?

Greg

[Aloft]

I think the damning evidence is the double voting ahead of his own vote, which would be a pretty smart trick to achieve.

Exactly. The socks sometimes voted first. Apparently this mystery person can tell the future as well as hijack his laptop.

[KamrynMatika]

Sorry, I was going by a comment by jorge (i think) earlier in the thread.

Did Runcorn ever actually make a defence?

Why are you trying to distract this thread? I think Runcorn was guilty of sockpuppeting. I think JoshuaZ is also guilty of sockpuppeting. Prove there isn't a double standard.

I think there's a difference between disappearing into the blue immediately following a sockpuppeting allegation and sticking around and presenting a defence.

Prove there is a double standard? It's only a double standard if the people in charge agree that they were both sockpuppeting.

[Random832]

Did Runcorn ever actually make a defence?

The alleged socks did.

This post has been edited by Random832: Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:40pm

[Daniel Brandt]

Based on past experience, this will double the overall traffic to my Wikipedia-Watch homepage.

Daniel, I mean you no offense, but according to Alexa (I know, not reliable, but still it's something), Wikipedia Review gets perhaps 5 or 6 times your unique visitors, and we only get about 750 uniques per week.

Does that jive with your server logs?

Exact counts here but those are for the home page only. I don't track the entire site. The thing about Alexa is that only those who have the Alexa toolbar get counted. Folks who visit my sites tend to not buy into the ecommerce thing, and may even be fairly privacy-conscious and avoid all toolbars, so all of my sites are undercounted in Alexa.

Also, a forum or wiki has a lot of return visitors. My homepage visitors see my homepage once and rarely come back because it rarely changes. It's a different demographic between your wiki and my site, in terms of how one considers the traffic numbers.

See that bubble on the third graph at the end of 2006? That was from those IRC logs. I really should do that again.

[Random832]

Apparently this mystery person can tell the future

To be fair, that's not exactly hard to do, when the vote is on a Brandt DRV

Prove there is a double standard? It's only a double standard if the people in charge agree that they were both sockpuppeting.

Huh? So, there's only a double standard if there's no difference in the results? This makes no sense whatsoever. I'd think it's more apt to be a double-standard if the quality of evidence is essentially the same, or worse in the case that was found "guilty" than in the one that was found "innocent", but the people in charge say that one is sockpuppeting and the other is not. From what I know now (I haven't seen JoshuaZ's secret e-mail), Poetlister's story is more believable than JoshuaZ's.

This post has been edited by Random832: Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:45pm

[jorge]

Apparently this mystery person can tell the future

To be fair, that's not exactly hard to do, when the vote is on a Brandt DRV

So someone hijacked his computer and thought, aha, I'll make sockpuppet accounts and operate them from his computer and I'll use them to vote on Brandt's afd so he'll get caught sockpuppeting? Sorry but I think someone who had gone to the trouble of hacking his machine would have done something more devious than that.

[Random832]

Apparently this mystery person can tell the future

To be fair, that's not exactly hard to do, when the vote is on a Brandt DRV

So someone hijacked his computer and thought, aha, I'll make sockpuppet accounts and operate them from his computer and I'll use them to vote on Brandt's afd so he'll get caught sockpuppeting? Sorry but I think someone who had gone to the trouble of hacking his machine would have done something more devious than that.

I'm not saying that I believe JoshuaZ's story (though at this point I haven't even heard the whole story)- I'm just saying that the "tell the future" element by itself is a red herring when we're talking about someone who is so predictable.

[dogbiscuit]

I'm not saying that I believe JoshuaZ's story (though at this point I haven't even heard the whole story)- I'm just saying that the "tell the future" element by itself is a red herring when we're talking about someone who is so predictable.

I'll agree that there is that get out, but to be honest the other element I just don't buy is that anyone would think him important enough to put that level of sophistication into an attack. There are so many other ways of creating a far more plausible sock, like using proxies and leaving some tell-tales like an accidental word here or there.

Well let's say that the double standard is that for one not part of the in crowd that the standard is balance of probabilities, whereas if you are in the team, then it is beyond all reasonable doubt.

To put it in context, the !! block was: look, the sneaky bastard is editing normally. He must be a sock.

The JoshuaZ socking was: caught red handed, no plausible explanation for a month or two, then a retrofitted story. He must be entirely innocent because those WR people are incredibily clever hackers - look at the amazingly complex tracing system that WordBomb invented, taking many years to craft just so he could plant it on Gary Weiss (oh bother! MantanThingy). If there was some hack, I have no doubt that, knowing he had a problem, he kept evidence and can tell us what the hack was and how he removed it - and that he has already provided that evidence to ArbCom.

I'd love to see the IRC or email trace where someone gives JoshuaZ the concocted story that he is dumb enough to try and use. Two months to coach a defence? Plenty of time.

[Moulton]

The forensic evidence (what precious little of it there is) could plausibly be explained by either theory. And I daresay evidence could probably be produced to overwhelmingly confirm one theory while definitively refuting the other. I am perplexed why no such definitive (damning or exculpatory) evidence has been produced for examination.

But as near as I can tell, we do now have something we didn't have before, which is Joshua's express denial of the charges of sock-puppetry, which (to my mind) carries a lot more weight than a suggested alternative theory to explain the forensic evidence marshalled against him.

It carries more weight not because it's convincing, but because Joshua (and perhaps Joshua alone) knows whether it's true. (Which is considerably more than can be said about Joshua's knowledge about the truth-value of any alternative theory to explain the forensic data.)

[Somey]

The forensic evidence (what precious little of it there is) could plausibly be explained by either theory. And I daresay evidence could probably be produced to overwhelmingly confirm one theory while definitively refuting the other. I am perplexed why no such definitive (damning or exculpatory) evidence has been produced for examination.

Well, JoshuaZ is certainly no fool - he's aware of what rootkits can do, and as implausible as the idea is (that someone would use a rootkit just to frame him for sockpuppetry on WP), the fact is that if you're infected with a malicious rootkit, the only effective removal strategy is to format your hard drive. You might not even be able to figure out where it came from, what files were affected, or anything else.

That's also what makes it usable as an excuse, of course. (Just not plausible.)