Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ JoshuaZ _ JoshuaZ, Stalker Extraordinaire
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_22#Daniel_Brandt_.E2.86.92_Public_Information_Research. I've been waiting for this for almost three weeks. On April 3 he told http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prodego/archive/61 that he was planning to do this. I have already expanded the hostmask database from 26,000 lines to 33,000 lines in anticipation of this, but now I'm dusting off the IRC logs for January through April.
If the redirect goes through I will reinstall that old IRC search engine. This is not because IRC is interesting — indeed, compared to 2006 the #wikipedia IRC channel is almost tame these days. But it does give me an excuse to add about 700 HTML pages to Wikipedia-Watch. Based on past experience, this will double the overall traffic to my Wikipedia-Watch homepage.
That's because anytime you add 700 pages to a site, and these pages are filled with a wide variety of keyword-rich content that's interesting to web surfers, you get a lot more clicks once that content is indexed by search engines. Moreover, the two links in the footer of each page will go back to my homepage and to hivemind. These links help direct traffic from those who landed on an IRC chat page, and who find themselves wondering what they're looking at. That's a very common question, as you can imagine if you've ever seen about 600 consecutive lines of chat from #wikipedia on IRC. (These 700 files will average about 600 lines of chat each.)
The links in the footer also tend to give more Google juice to the two target pages, although not a whole lot because they're internal links. Do you know why every few words in Wikipedia articles are linked to another Wikipedia article? It's for the Google juice. Same thing here. (A lot of sites do this sort of thing just so that they have pages that can carry their Google ads, but I've never had any ads on any of my sites. I wonder if other sites will scrape my IRC logs? Google sure encourages a lot of pollution on the web, but then Wikipedia has never done anything to stop scrapers either.)
I'm actually looking forward to doing this if that redirect goes through. Wikipedia-Watch in general, and hivemind in particular, deserve more traffic. It's a quid pro quo because if the redirect is reinstalled, the PIR page in Wikipedia — the one with my name on it in seven places — will be getting more traffic too.
Posted by: ColScott
Look this is a nasally stunted retarded young man whose own Family doesn't even love him. He deserves whatever you bring him.
Posted by: dogbiscuit
His logic is exactly based on that which he complains - he is quite open that he is using Wikipedia as an attack site.
QUOTE
However, it then became apparent that as I had predicted Brandt had no intention to stop his campaign on Wikipedia. [... ...] Therefore I am relisting this redirect.
He could have just left it alone - after all he is confused he is not an administrator, just an anorak.
Posted by: Kato
Oddly enough, he links to a statement by Daniel Brandt about the BLP situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ABiographical_optout&diff=204797239&oldid=204794773
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt)
I happily accept responsibility for reporting the following comment;
"This wording makes this entire effort almost worthless: "An individual who has placed themselves at the forefront of public controversies in order to influence the issues involved." By that measure, I anticipate that if this becomes policy, someone will resurrect my bio based on the new policy, and another 2.5-year battle will ensue. Hivemind will end up twice as big. The proper way to deal with people who are active in specific causes (and no one is active in all causes), is to mention them in an article on that specific issue. It should not be an excuse to start a general bio on that person. I'm presently mentioned on pages about Google-Watch, Scroogle, etc. I have no quarrel with that. I'm mentioned too many times on Public_Information_Research and I have some quarrel with that, as it threatened to become a substitute for my bio once the redirect was in place. Since the redirect was deleted a few weeks ago, I have much less problem with that. By the way, I'm banned from Wikipedia. Does a banned person have any right to comment on issues concerning him, or does his input get summarily deleted regardless of the reasons for the ban or the nature of the comments? --Daniel Brandt
(later deleted by Ryan Postlethwaite because Brandt is a banned user)
JoshuaZ describes this statement as part of a continued campaign by Brandt.
Therefore, as noted by Dogbiscuit, JoshuaZ is placing himself in opposition to Daniel Brandt, and this redirect is a deliberate attempt to sustain a personal battle between himself and Brandt. Recall that JoshuaZ employed sockpuppets to conduct this feud and vote against Brandt in previous debates. Adopting different personas to gain the upper hand.
Why is this kid still allowed to demand polls and start debates on Brandt related matters? Surely a topic ban is in order by now?
Posted by: dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:30pm) 
Why is this kid still allowed to demand polls and start debates on Brandt related matters? Surely a topic ban is in order by now?
What would be sensible for JoshuaZ to consider is, if the powers that be saw this as an embarrassing nuisance, the sockpuppeteer might end up as a banned user himself. If he considered this possibility, he might have an enlightening change of perspective.
There are now some sane observations on the impropriety of this approach being recorded.
In the immortal words of the Simpsons: "Oooh! Let's poke it!"
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 10:56am)
There are now some sane observations on the impropriety of this approach being recorded.
Well, we can all be thankful for that, at least.
But quite frankly, I'm really, really tired of JoshuaZ's crap. He either has to go, or it's off with the gloves.
In particular, I'm thinking it may be time for someone to start releasing #wp-en-admins IRC logs to the public... Whoever does it will probably want to start pulling out the juiciest bits first though, rather than publish them all at once. They'll probably scream "copyright infringement," but as everyone knows, any real action in that regard will only bring vast amounts of additional attention to what's in those logs.
And of course, every page should carry the words "Courtesy of Joshua Zelinsky!" right at the top. At some point, people over there are going to have to wake up to the fact that we're serious about this shit.
Posted by: No one of consequence
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 3:56pm)
What would be sensible for JoshuaZ to consider is, if the powers that be saw this as an embarrassing nuisance, the sockpuppeteer might end up as a banned user himself. If he considered this possibility, he might have an enlightening change of perspective.
Did he sock on Brandt DRVs or AfDs? I don't remember the names of the accounts to check.
Posted by: dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 5:22pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 10:56am)
There are now some sane observations on the impropriety of this approach being recorded.
Well, we can all be thankful for that, at least.
But quite frankly, I'm really, really tired of JoshuaZ's crap. He either has to go, or it's off with the gloves.
In particular, I'm thinking it may be time for someone to start releasing #wp-en-admins IRC logs to the public... Whoever does it will probably want to start pulling out the juiciest bits first though, rather than publish them all at once. They'll probably scream "copyright infringement," but as everyone knows, any real action in that regard will only bring vast amounts of additional attention to what's in those logs.
And of course, every page should carry the words "Courtesy of Joshua Zelinsky!" right at the top. At some point, people over there are going to have to wake up to the fact that we're serious about this shit.
Yes, I am sure you could and would do that, but then you are just giving the Joshua's of this world a big "I told you so." Wikipedians know you have a big stick and are happy to use it. It strikes me that there are a growing body of Wikipedians that are acknowledging both the issue and that the treatment of you has not been of the highest standard.
I think you gained ground when you made conciliatory noises. Let's be realistic. If we think that there is some possibility that the BLP policy can be improved: there are quite a few people coming at it from different angles, then it is probably unwise to paint them into a corner with threats.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:22pm)
I'm really, really tired of JoshuaZ's crap. He either has to go, or it's off with the gloves.
I'll offer a third alternative -- one that might actually appeal to Joshua if he does get topic-banned.
If Joshua deigns to come here, to WR, I'll engage him in the kind of dialogue that I am known (and taunted) for in these quarters -- a civil dialogue of inquiry designed to arrive at elusive insights, enroute to a more enlightened understanding of the problems that vex him and others with whom he has become increasingly ensnared and enmeshed in persistent adversarial and antagonistic relationships.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:29am)
Yes, I am sure you could and would do that, but then you are just giving the Joshua's of this world a big "I told you so." Wikipedians know you have a big stick and are happy to use it. It strikes me that there are a growing body of Wikipedians that are acknowledging both the issue and that the treatment of you has not been of the highest standard.
Ehhh, this is coming from me, not Daniel... I'll admit, sometimes people get the two of us confused...
Btw, the two JoshuaZ socker accounts were User:Gothnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gothnic) and User:Miles_Naismith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Miles_Naismith). Neither user page carries a sockpuppet tag, and the Gothnic account http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_4&diff=prev&oldid=179418031.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:37am)
If Joshua deigns to come here, to WR, I'll engage him in the kind of dialogue that I am known (and taunted) for in these quarters -- a civil dialogue of inquiry designed to arrive at elusive insights, enroute to a more enlightened understanding of the problems that vex him and others with whom he has become increasingly ensnared and enmeshed in persistent adversarial and antagonistic relationships.
After which he'll probably post a biography of you, too.
Posted by: No one of consequence
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:47pm)
Ehhh, this is coming from me, not Daniel... I'll admit, sometimes people get the two of us confused...
Btw, the two JoshuaZ socker accounts were User:Gothnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gothnic) and User:Miles_Naismith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Miles_Naismith). Neither user page carries a sockpuppet tag, and the Gothnic account http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_4&diff=prev&oldid=179418031.
Thanks, Somey.
Posted by: Alex
Lawrence Cohen has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:JoshuaZ_on_Daniel_Brandt to ban Joshua from the article.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:47pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:37am)
If Joshua deigns to come here, to WR, I'll engage him in the kind of dialogue that I am known (and taunted) for in these quarters -- a civil dialogue of inquiry designed to arrive at elusive insights, enroute to a more enlightened understanding of the problems that vex him and others with whom he has become increasingly ensnared and enmeshed in persistent adversarial and antagonistic relationships.
After which he'll probably post a biography of you, too.I'll take my chances.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
JoshuaZ expressed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoshuaZ&oldid=69085566#Not_long_enough%2e for me in August 2006, even though the first time he showed up on my radar was in February 2007:
QUOTE
While his [someone else, not Brandt] edits were disgusting and engendered in me a level of contempt I normally have for Daniel Brandt... JoshuaZ 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Months later JoshuaZ indef blocked me for off-Wiki activity:
QUOTE
14:25, 18 July 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Daniel Brandt (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (it has come to my attention to Hivemind is back up, brandt is not going to be welcome here as long as he runs an outing website. period)
Now then, here's a http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15878&st=0&p=78919&#entry78919.
Look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Gothnic&month=&year=. Just do a browser "Find" for "Brandt."
Naturally, the Cabal tried to handle this quietly. Wikileaker brought it to light.
I love Newyorkbrad's comment in that sooper-sekrit report:
QUOTE
Newyorkbrad - "Personally I am minded to believe that he's probably telling the truth here (because the conduct if it actually took place makes no sense) and let him continue as an administrator without any restrictions unless there are further incidents. The risk of actual harm to the project going forward is probably slight. (On the other hand, sometimes I think I'm the most credulous one here.)"
I agree, Newyorkbrad is the most credulous one!
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:55am)
I'll take my chances. ^_^
Hmm... this was probably your plan all along, eh?
Who knows, maybe the best way for a person to get an article about himself (or herself) into WP, and keep it there, is to personally attack JoshuaZ on an ongoing basis! If we can get the word out to enough people who are trying to get articles about themselves included, which would be about 100,000 times as many people who are trying to do the opposite, we could turn ol' Josh into one of the world's most unpopular people ever!
Maybe we could lobby the Powers That Be, so as to make him the next James Bond villain, too?
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:01pm)
I love Newyorkbrad's comment in that sooper-sekrit report:
QUOTE
Newyorkbrad — "Personally I am minded to believe that he's probably telling the truth here (because the conduct if it actually took place makes no sense) and let him continue as an administrator without any restrictions unless there are further incidents. The risk of actual harm to the project going forward is probably slight. (On the other hand, sometimes I think I'm the most credulous one here.)"
I agree, Newyorkbrad is the most credulous one!
Don't be so credulous, Daniel. Newyuckbrad is merely pretending to be credulous.
Besides, it's only an exhibition of human credulositude — we don't want them competing for top honors.
But I'm torn in my diagnosis of JoshuassZ —
Is it Redirectile Dysfunction or Resurrectile Dysfunction?
Jon
Posted by: dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 5:47pm)
Ehhh, this is coming from me, not Daniel... I'll admit, sometimes people get the two of us confused...
Bah! Humbug! Bother!
Posted by: Moulton
http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2006/01/respect-and-contempt.html
For a few years now, I've been studying an obscure piece of research known as FaceWork Theory. It addresses the issue that Asians call Face.
FaceWork Theory examines 5 or 6 axes:
1. The Respect-Contempt Axis
2. The Approval-Condemnation Axis
3. The Cooperation-Antagonism Axis
4. The Freedom-Taboo Axis
5. The Trust-Mistrust Axis
6. The Comfort-Anxiety Axis
In the Argument/Debate Culture, the participants tend to migrate to the right on each of the above axes, generating mutual and reciprocal disrespect, disapproval, antagonism, and mistrust.
In the Dialogue Model, the participants seek to create common ground, and seek to migrate themselves to jointly shared respect, and mutual approval and cooperation.
It saddens me to note that we are more adept at Negative FaceWork Dynamics than Positive FaceWork Dynamics. We are adept at criticising, shaming, and blaming the other side, and poor at building bridges and finding common ground.
We are gifted at conflict and poor at peacemaking.
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:22pm)
In particular, I'm thinking it may be time for someone to start releasing #wp-en-admins IRC logs to the public... Whoever does it will probably want to start pulling out the juiciest bits first though, rather than publish them all at once. They'll probably scream "copyright infringement," but as everyone knows, any real action in that regard will only bring vast amounts of additional attention to what's in those logs.
And of course, every page should carry the words "Courtesy of Joshua Zelinsky!" right at the top. At some point, people over there are going to have to wake up to the fact that we're serious about this shit.
It surprises me that this has not happened. The pseudo copyright lawyers will probably crucify me for saying this, but it's funny to me that anyone would claim copyright over an IRC log. Besides, one could easily avoid any possibility of being discovered by uploading to a free site and using proxies. In the event that the free web hosting finds that posting IRC logs is a copyright violation, the worst they can do is delete the site...then one just moves on to the next free host.
Let's face it though, there probably wouldn't be much damning information there, but it would piss off certain clique members, and I am all for that!
Posted by: dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:14pm)
http://moultonlava.blogspot.com/2006/01/respect-and-contempt.html
For a few years now, I've been studying an obscure piece of research known as FaceWork Theory. It addresses the issue that Asians call Face.
I'm sure JoshuaZ has two issues:
1) he believes he is a gifted manipulator and leader online and should be able to manage getting his way. He is discovering that this is untrue.
2) he is publicly embarrassed, and therefore motivated to save face by continuing the battle, seeking new tactics to recover from his public embarrassment by eventually winning the battle (see (1)). (I would presume that he has not kept his identity secret and may have bragged about his influential position to his peers, so this is a real life issue for him).
My theory of mind, based on not much really, is that JoshuaZ has invested heavily in Wikipedia personally, and would find it difficult to withdraw gracefully, having been found out to be a bit of a chump. How does one allow him to withdraw gracefully without too much loss of face.
One sensible move would be to encourage the JoshuaZ persona to die a quiet death and resurrect himself anew quietly under a new name, sticking to doing editing or gnoming in an uncontroversial fashion. As he is not an admin, there should be no real issue about this. It would then be up to him to avoid the conflict with Daniel. As long as he was a well behaved Wikipedian, there would be no need to seek him out. In reality, I suspect he does not have the sense or ability not to attract attention, but that is what I'd suggest.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 5:23pm)
Besides, one could easily avoid any possibility of being discovered
Considering that the chronological ordering of IRC messages is a partial order rather than a total order, it is in theory possible to use discrepancies in the ordering of messages in different logs significantly narrow down who is recording the logs, provided that whoever it is is an active user. I'm surprised this hasn't been done (or attempted) already, though it would take a fairly large sample, another complete set of logs, and of course the requirement that the user recording the logs is actually participating in discussion.
Posted by: Kato
Proposed topic ban of JoshuaZ on the Brandt related articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban:_User:JoshuaZ_on_Daniel_Brandt
Posted by: Derktar
Looks like a nerve was struck, well in that case...
Yes everyone, JoshuaZ did sockpuppet abusively, and some people tried to give him a pass. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15878.
Your lies won't save you this time.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Joshua is now rushing around to deny the socking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMajorly&diff=207405081&oldid=207398547
QUOTE
Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sceptre&diff=prev&oldid=207405073
QUOTE
Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Does he not realise that by making his denials off-wiki, he is looking even more guilty than ever?
Posted by: Moulton
I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those http://web.media.mit.edu/~bkort/Drama.html as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:37pm)
Considering that the chronological ordering of IRC messages is a partial order rather than a total order, it is in theory possible to use discrepancies in the ordering of messages in different logs significantly narrow down who is recording the logs, provided that whoever it is is an active user.
We've thought of that (for what that's worth)... That's one of the reasons for releasing the material in bits and pieces, and with lines about who's coming in and leaving either removed or repositioned. I'm all for removing them entirely, myself - that should prevent the various log sources from being identified.
There's a lot of material involved, and I did get started at one point on a program to do that automatically, as well as things like translating text-only URL's to HREF tags, randomly changing the time/datestamp formats on each line, maybe adding links from IRC handles to WP userpages, etc., etc.. I'll have to pick that project up again, along with the dozens of other things I've been promising to do around here!
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:53pm)
I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those http://web.media.mit.edu/~bkort/Drama.html as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.
And would you rather do this in a thread that's write-access-limited to the two of you exclusively? It's technically feasible, but I don't think we've ever done that before. Also, I'm not even sure what the point would be - is there some solution to this situation that doesn't involve him just backing off, preferably for good?
Posted by: dogbiscuit
...wow! and on to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#JoshuaZ already, courtesy of our very old friend NonVocalScream.
JoshuaZ defends his sockpuppeting, under the impression that people are not aware of the full evidence against him, but seems already prepared to concede a topic ban.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
If Majorly (Alex on here) after seeing Joshua's email "evidence" that showed he didn't sock was convinced, then I'm tempted to believe that Joshua, in fact, didn't sock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=207410593&oldid=207410540
QUOTE
I have stricken my comment above due to information I have received which shows I jumped the gun a bit when I made that comment. My apologies. I suggest everyone who voted "per Majorly" to think again. Still, I think Josh seriously needs a break from this article. Majorly (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:00pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:53pm)
I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those http://web.media.mit.edu/~bkort/Drama.html as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.
And would you rather do this in a thread that's write-access-limited to the two of you exclusively? It's technically feasible, but I don't think we've ever done that before. Also, I'm not even sure what the point would be - is there some solution to this situation that doesn't involve him just backing off, preferably for good?I suppose if 1) Joshua requested it and/or 2) our tete-a-tete became impossible due to disruptive levels of rotten tomatoes jamming the conversation, then your suggestion might be needed.
The point would be for Joshua and I to explore the issues that drive this long-running conflict and see if we can discover any useful insights leading to either a detente or (Kato's horror at the prospect notwithstanding) a resolution acceptable to the adversarial parties.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:10pm)
If Majorly (Alex on here) after seeing Joshua's email "evidence" that showed he didn't sock was convinced, then I'm tempted to believe that Joshua, in fact, didn't sock...
If this evidence is similar in quality to the kind of evidence they use to make themselves believe that people do use multiple accounts to manipulate WP processes, then I'm tempted to laugh it off as nonsense without even bothering to look.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:11pm)
The point would be for Joshua and I to explore the issues that drive this long-running conflict and see if we can discover any useful insights leading to either a detente or (Kato's horror at the prospect notwithstanding) a resolution acceptable to the adversarial parties.
Posted by: KamrynMatika
For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:15am)
For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)
Well please post it here, I would love to see it since the Arb conversation evidence is damning.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:00pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:53pm)
I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those http://web.media.mit.edu/~bkort/Drama.html as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.
And would you rather do this in a thread that's write-access-limited to the two of you exclusively? It's technically feasible, but I don't think we've ever done that before. Also, I'm not even sure what the point would be — is there some solution to this situation that doesn't involve him just backing off, preferably for good?
Couldn't we just all chip in to get them a room at the Motel 6 and save ourselves the expense of buying all those barf bags?
Kinda gives a whole nu nuance to PayPal though, doesn't it?
Jon
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:11pm)
The point would be for Joshua and I to explore the issues that drive this long-running conflict and see if we can discover any useful insights leading to either a detente or (Kato's horror at the prospect notwithstanding) a resolution acceptable to the adversarial parties.
I dunno, Mr. Moulton... you may be overstating the complexity of this issue just a tad...
I mean, this is what we know:
1. D. Brandt doesn't want an article about himself in Wikipedia, or a redirect from his name to another article.
2. JoshuaZ wants to maintain Wikipedia's usefulness as a revenge platform, at all costs.
3. ....
4. Profit!
What's so complicated about this?
I realize the issue for him is that Brandt continues to publish the Hivemind page despite the deletion of both the article and the redirect... But if you get into a "conversation" with Joshy, he's just going to spout a bunch of nonsense about "injecting oneself into the public sphere" and "the integrity of the encyclopedia" and "the whole notion of privacy" being "redefined by the internet." He doesn't care about public editability, the effects of Google rankings, or administrative malfeasance... he might as well not even think those things exist. JoshuaZ is a head-in-the-sand, see-no-evil, hard-line reactionary. Trying to get him to change his mind, or even compromise, is just a waste of time, at least in my opinion.
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:15pm)
The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess...
A bit?
Posted by: Kato
JoshuaZ claims he cannot reveal the details of why his IP showed up to vote on Brandt related articles using a different account. His reasons are that the details are private. They reveal "very personal information regarding my medical history" he says.
Posted by: dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Derktar @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:17pm)
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:15am)
For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)
Well please post it here, I would love to see it since the Arb conversation evidence is damning.
Alex (Majorly) has been checking out the Arbcom conversation from February which is posted here. Summary was that all the big names, including Jimbo, tried their best to hint to J how to get himself off the hook, but he was not bright enough to take the hint. I think the damning evidence is the double voting ahead of his own vote, which would be a pretty smart trick to achieve.
Posted by: Derktar
Ah Joshua is on here at the moment, why don't you have a quick chat with us?
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
I want to hear about that rootkit. Is it anything like the woman who was sued by RIAA for distribution of music tracks? Her lawyer argued that it may have been a neighbor on Wi-Fi, but it turned out that the woman didn't even have Wi-Fi on her computer. The woman lost the case.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:15pm)
For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)
If the summary is "I was h4×0rd by Brandt", is it worth posting?
In the light of the documented evidence, this kind of "defence" would look pretty weak without actual law-enforcement involvement and a prosecution. Sockin' Josh does not have a sufficient reputation for honesty to take his word.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:28pm)
I dunno, Mr. Moulton... you may be overstating the complexity of this issue just a tad...
A bit?
JoshuaZ's dispute is bigger than just Brandt. He agitates against a number of BLP victims including Seth Finkelstein. He was plotting against Ed O'Laughlin a while ago to try and restore that deleted biography. He tries to punish anyone who defies him, and swoops down on anyone who tries to escape the icy clutches of The Wiki. Even Angela Beesley has been persecuted by his relentless agenda.
Posted by: KamrynMatika
He gave me permission to post this:
QUOTE(Joshua Zelinsky)
The main evidence for my story is as follows:
0) I've been involved with Wikipedia for over two years and been involved
with many other Wikimedia projects. The idea that I would risk this sort of
thing is a bit absurd.
1) The sockpuppeting if it had been done would have been grotesquely stupid;
no attempt was made to hide the IP addresses at all. It would be easy to use
a different browser along with AOL, or dual boot and use a distinct machine
or something like that.
2) The accounts in question did not edit the Seth Finkelstein DRV despite
editing almost every BLP DRV I was involved in. By all accounts there are
two
articles that I think we really screwed up on and should be restored;
Finkelstein and Brandt. Now, if I we're going to sock, why wouldn't I edit
the Seth article? Especially in contrast to the Barbara Schwartz article
where in my comment I explicitly said that I thought that this might be one
where deletion wouldn't be unreasonable and only called for overturning
weakly. On that article, not one but both the accounts in question -Gothnic
and Miles Naismith voted to overturn. However, if there was a rootkit on my
machine then there's a good explanation for what happened: I was away from
home at the time of the most recent Finkelstein DRV. Although I brought my
laptop with me, I had minimal internet access at the time and when I did
have access I generally edited using other computers. So whoever was running
the rootkit did not have the opportunity to edit from my machine there.
(Checkuser confirms that I was away during that DRV).
3) I've been told that none of these accounts edited from a Yale IP address
as far back as the checkuser data goes. Now, given that I frequently edit
from Yale IP addresses why wouldn't these accounts do so as well if they
edited from all other locations that I edit from? There's a simple answer to
this and I'm glad that whoever was doing this overlooked this issue; my
laptop hasn't connected to the Yale network for over a semester. [He
provided a good, extremely plausible reason for this] This detail should be confirmable both by checkuser data looking at user-agent strings.
4) Checkuser has confirmed that all the edits made by these two accounts appear to be coming from a single machine (unfortunately they haven't given me the user-agent data other than to say it was consistent with a single machine using firefox that updated more or less regularly. However, given the times of some of these edits and some of the overlapping IP addresses the only possible machine these could have come from is my laptop.
5) Checkuser has confirmed (I think. They still aren't be very cooperative
in letting me know what they know which hasn't helped in trying to figure
out what happened) that at some of these locations that overlap I've used
other computers as well. The socks haven't.
2,3,4 and 5 are the really important points. They are only reasonably
explainable by the hypothesis that we're dealing with a rootkit on the
laptop, not by sockpuppetry. 2 in particular has a very good explanation
consistent with the rootkit hypothesis and with checkuser data (and if
necessary, credit cards and other receipts that I could supply demonstrating
that I was away). 2 is not easily explainable by the sockpuppetry
hypothesis.
6) Some of the edits made by the alledged socks don't fit my editing
patterns. For example see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impossible_is_Nothing_%28video_r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9%29&diff=prev&oldid=183006529I
always make edits adding in refs to in two steps first adding
<ref>http//whatever. </ref> and then adding a template (this can be easily
verified by looking at my history of edits).
Some fairly private info that confirms point no. 3 has been removed... make of it what you will.
Posted by: No one of consequence
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:42pm)
He gave me permission to post this:
QUOTE
The main evidence for my story is as follows:
{snip}
In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?
Posted by: KamrynMatika
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:28pm)
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:15pm)
The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess...
A bit?
Haha okay, a lot? To be honest I'm far too uncomfortable about the possibility of sock investigations turning up false positives to be particularly crazy about them.. call me naive but it's a lot easier (and a lot better for my sanity in the long run) to just assume that people are what they say they are. I don't want to end up being one of those people that sees socks everywhere
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:15pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:11pm)
The point would be for Joshua and I to explore the issues that drive this long-running conflict and see if we can discover any useful insights leading to either a detente or (Kato's horror at the prospect notwithstanding) a resolution acceptable to the adversarial parties.
OK. So it was http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17556&view=findpost&p=95076. Sue me.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:50pm)
In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?
Slightly better than that. The edits came from my laptop, and showed my IP addresses, and my laptop was with me at all times, but it wasn't me. That's the way I read it.
I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it. Even if it was true, it seems to me that if JoshuaZ cannot keep Mysterious Evil Spirits from gaming Wikipedia through the computer that he owns and controls at all times, then he shouldn't be trusted as a Wikipedia editor.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
Weak restatement of a weak defence.
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:55pm)
I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it.
Bah. If he chooses not to ask someone who would know, he's making the choice to be The Most Credulous One.
Posted by: jorge
Sorry but this is crazy. The very time we get evidence that an administrator is abusively socking, and it's just all a terrible misunderstanding because they were hacked. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:55pm)
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:50pm)
In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?
Slightly better than that. The edits came from my laptop, and showed my IP addresses, and my laptop was with me at all times, but it wasn't me. That's the way I read it.
I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it. Even if it was true, it seems to me that if JoshuaZ cannot keep Mysterious Evil Spirits from gaming Wikipedia through the computer that he owns and controls at all times, then he shouldn't be trusted as a Wikipedia editor.
One damn diagnostic quandary after another!
Is this the:
- Little Brother Defense?
- My Dog Typed It Defense?
- Multiple Personality Defense?
Jon
Posted by: No one of consequence
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:55pm)
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:50pm)
In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?
Slightly better than that. The edits came from my laptop, and showed my IP addresses, and my laptop was with me at all times, but it wasn't me. That's the way I read it.
I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it. Even if it was true, it seems to me that if JoshuaZ cannot keep Mysterious Evil Spirits from gaming Wikipedia through the computer that he owns and controls at all times, then he shouldn't be trusted as a Wikipedia editor.
I think he's saying that since the other accounts did not edit when he was away from home, that means it was a rootkit on his laptop that could be accessed from his home but not while he was traveling.
At least its more creative than "my neighbor poached my wi-fi."
I gather he claims he was set up by someone from Wikipedia Review (that is my recollection of the arbcom log post). Which one of you did it, then? It has to be someone in New Haven who spent some time in JZ's apartment and diddled his laptop while no one was looking. Pretty sneaky, and kudos to whoever pulled it off.
Hmm. On further thought I think JZ is going to find it was a strategic mistake to put this out there. Wikipedians as a group are a lot more cynical and technically savvy than Newyorkbrad.
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:05pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:55pm)
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:50pm)
In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?
Slightly better than that. The edits came from my laptop, and showed my IP addresses, and my laptop was with me at all times, but it wasn't me. That's the way I read it.
I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it. Even if it was true, it seems to me that if JoshuaZ cannot keep Mysterious Evil Spirits from gaming Wikipedia through the computer that he owns and controls at all times, then he shouldn't be trusted as a Wikipedia editor.
I think he's saying that since the other accounts did not edit when he was away from home, that means it was a rootkit on his laptop that could be accessed from his home but not while he was traveling.
At least its more creative than "my neighbor poached my wi-fi."
I gather he claims he was set up by someone from Wikipedia Review (that is my recollection of the arbcom log post). Which one of you did it, then? It has to be someone in New Haven who spent some time in JZ's apartment and diddled his laptop while no one was looking. Pretty sneaky, and kudos to whoever pulled it off.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15878&view=findpost&p=78930
Posted by: Moulton
Joshua doesn't say what operating system he runs on his laptop, but the 'root' in 'rootkit' refers to the 'root' account on Unix. A rootkit is a hack that lets someone log into a machine (say using telnet or rlogin or rsh or ssh) and then promote themselves to the 'root' account.
But if Joshua is only saying that someone gained remote access to his laptop to proxy edit from it, you don't even need a rootkit. Gaining access via an unprivileged user account suffices.
For example, I can use the 'ssh' (secure shell) to log in to a remote Unix host and tunnel X11 through the connection. That would allow me to run Firefox (or any other program) on the remote machine.
So, if Joshua were using Ubuntu Linux on his laptop, and anyone else knew the password to at least one non-privileged login on it, that's all that would be needed for them to appear to be editing from his laptop.
Probably the same thing is possible with Remote Desktop on Windows.
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:20pm)
Joshua doesn't say what operating system he runs on his laptop, but the 'root' in 'rootkit' refers to the 'root' account on Unix. A rootkit is a hack that lets someone log into a machine (say using telnet or rlogin or rsh or ssh) and then promote themselves to the 'root' account.
But if Joshua is only saying that someone gained remote access to his laptop to proxy edit from it, you don't even need a rootkit. Gaining access via an unprivileged user account suffices.
For example, I can use the 'ssh' (secure shell) to log in to a remote Unix host and tunnel X11 through the connection. That would allow me to run Firefox (or any other program) on the remote machine.
So, if Joshua were using Ubuntu Linux on his laptop, and anyone else knew the password to at least one non-privileged login on it, that's all that would be needed for them to appear to be editing from his laptop.
Probably the same thing is possible with Remote Desktop on Windows.
So the real question appears to be, does Joshua still think its the Wikipedia Review conspiracy? Or is it aliens? Or maybe Sasquatch? Or perhaps even a joint Wikipedia Review-Alien-Sasquatch federation.
Posted by: Wikileaker
From dear Sydney's inbox:
QUOTE
I'm getting very sick of having to deal with these users who are banned for good reason. I'd appreciate at least some minimal indication from the ArbCom if my unpleasant efforts in this regard are actually getting anywhere.
Josh Zelinsky
Hi, Josh! I'm still around!
Josh Zelinsky
Posted by: KamrynMatika
QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:33pm)
From dear Sydney's inbox:
QUOTE
I'm getting very sick of having to deal with these users who are banned for good reason. I'd appreciate at least some minimal indication from the ArbCom if my unpleasant efforts in this regard are actually getting anywhere.
Josh Zelinsky
Hi, Josh! I'm still around!Josh Zelinsky
From who's inbox? What efforts? Huh?
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
I know, let's sic Jpgordon∇∆∇∆ on him!
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Wed 19th September 2007, 12:10am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eatmishorts33
QUOTE
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request.
Request reason: "it was my little brother who did this and i had no intention of harming wikipedia"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decline reason: "Then your little brother has gotten you blocked forever. — jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"
Finally — something that little brothers are good for !!!
Jonny
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:20pm)
Joshua doesn't say what operating system he runs on his laptop, but the 'root' in 'rootkit' refers to the 'root' account on Unix. A rootkit is a hack that lets someone log into a machine (say using telnet or rlogin or rsh or ssh) and then promote themselves to the 'root' account.
"Rooting" is now a common term for breaking into any machine.
QUOTE
For example, I can use the 'ssh' (secure shell) to log in to a remote Unix host and tunnel X11 through the connection. That would allow me to run Firefox (or any other program) on the remote machine.
grep sshd /var/log/auth.log, or similar.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:42pm)
He gave me permission to post this:
QUOTE(Joshua Zelinsky)
The main evidence for my story is as follows:
[Seven suggested reasons for believing the story.]
[Seven suggested reasons for believing the story.]
Kamryn, I recall this observation, from way back...
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 15th February 2008, 11:29am)
Joshua Z offers a lot of alternate theories to explain the forensic data, but did he ever come out and unequivocally deny the basic allegations?
If so, I missed his direct denial.
If so, I missed his direct denial.
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?
Posted by: KamrynMatika
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:51pm)
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:42pm)
He gave me permission to post this:
QUOTE(Joshua Zelinsky)
The main evidence for my story is as follows:
[Seven suggested reasons for believing the story.]
[Seven suggested reasons for believing the story.]
Kamryn, I recall this observation, from way back...
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 15th February 2008, 11:29am)
Joshua Z offers a lot of alternate theories to explain the forensic data, but did he ever come out and unequivocally deny the basic allegations?
If so, I missed his direct denial.
If so, I missed his direct denial.
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?
QUOTE(Joshua Zelinsky)
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.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 3:46pm)
grep sshd /var/log/auth.log, or similar.
On my Ubuntu Linux host, the auth logs are only kept for four weeks.
Posted by: 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
Posted by: KamrynMatika
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:56pm)
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.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 3:59pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:56pm)
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
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:59pm)
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.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:59pm)
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.
Posted by: KamrynMatika
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 9:06pm)
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:59pm)
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?
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 3:55pm)
QUOTE(Joshua Zelinsky)
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?
Posted by: KamrynMatika
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 9:17pm)
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 3:55pm)
QUOTE(Joshua Zelinsky)
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.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 9:09pm)
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.
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:02am)
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
Posted by: Aloft
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:29pm)
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.Posted by: KamrynMatika
QUOTE(jorge @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 9:25pm)
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 9:09pm)
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.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:09pm)
Did Runcorn ever actually make a defence?
The alleged socks did.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:29pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:02am)
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 http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/cgi-bin/wtraffic.htm 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.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Aloft @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:30pm)
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
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:34pm)
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.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 9:41pm)
QUOTE(Aloft @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:30pm)
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.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(jorge @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:45pm)
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 9:41pm)
QUOTE(Aloft @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:30pm)
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.
Posted by: dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 9:48pm)
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
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.
Posted by: 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.)
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:46pm)
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.)
Posted by: Moulton
Whether one cleaned out a (suspected) rootkit by reinstalling the system from scratch or first doing standard investigations to find and remove it short of a total rebuild, one would expect there to be some independent evidence that some such remedial measures were taken (and what, if anything was found). Either way, one would expect some independently verifiable record of taking remedial action in response to adopting and believing the rootkit theory.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 5:56pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:46pm)
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.)
The fact remains that No One But A Dyed-In-The-Wiki Agent Of Cabal Interests (WP:NOBADITWAOCI) would even get a hearing, much less get off on anything remotely like the excuse in question — hence the proof of a Condition Of Inequality that we commonly call a Double Standard, Elite Privilege, or Unequal Justice is complete no matter what the actual details of the case may be.
Duh …
Jon
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:07pm)
Whether one cleaned out a (suspected) rootkit by reinstalling the system from scratch or first doing standard investigations to find and remove it short of a total rebuild, one would expect there to be some independent evidence that some such remedial measures were taken (and what, if anything was found). Either way, one would expect some independently verifiable record of taking remedial action in response to adopting and believing the rootkit theory.
Yes, I mean you'd think he would have been careful to collect proof that his computer had been hijacked wouldn't you, in order to prove his innocence?
Posted by: Iamlost
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:29pm)
JoshuaZ claims he cannot reveal the details of why his IP showed up to vote on Brandt related articles using a different account. His reasons are that the details are private. They reveal "very personal information regarding my medical history" he says.
Perhaps he could have been in the hospital and that someone in his residence, having access to his computer, may have made those edits. I had a friend (now deceased, who I ranted over on this site about faulty accusations, and ill treatment of her by Wikipedia's administration.) who was very active on Wikipedia and during the times her illness affected her so, she had a nurse (friend) with her at her home, and they both edited from the same computer, even under the same User ID at times, unwittingly though, without realizing one was already logged in. Also when she was in the hospital there were people at her home taking care of things for her, having access to her computer then.
Just putting this out there that this may be some of the medical history issues he speaks of? Not that he's dying, but maybe had a stay in a hospital?
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(jorge @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:18pm)
Yes, I mean you'd think he would have been careful to collect proof that his computer had been hijacked wouldn't you, in order to prove his innocence?
It wouldn't even have to be CSI grade evidence. Just some scrap of happenstantial evidence lying around would have been better than none at all.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:55pm)
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:50pm)
In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?
Slightly better than that. The edits came from my laptop, and showed my IP addresses, and my laptop was with me at all times, but it wasn't me. That's the way I read it.
I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it. Even if it was true, it seems to me that if JoshuaZ cannot keep Mysterious Evil Spirits from gaming Wikipedia through the computer that he owns and controls at all times, then he shouldn't be trusted as a Wikipedia editor.
Christ, it just keeps getting better. What next, alien abductions and CIA mind control devices? All a favored administrator needs to do to wiggle out of a CU and/or a sock report is make up a story. Any story will do. They begged him to make one up, and he finally did. Since double standards is being debated, when's the last time you saw anyone dismissed without a public dressing-down? Not that this should happen, mind you…but the only times I've seen it happen is for high-level power players. For everyone else, the most usual method is to trumpet the discovery on the noticeboards and populate the category, "Sockpuppets of JoshuaZ."
Suppose we made a template of this absurd defense, Template:JoshuaZSockDefense, that CU-confirmed sockpuppeteers could place on their pages when caught. Under the principle "assume good faith,"* we'd have to let them all go, correct?
Oh, wait, I missed the fine print…
*applies to administrators only.
Posted by: Iamlost
QUOTE(jorge @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:04pm)
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.
Yes! - the part I emphasize in your comment. It's true for me.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:32pm)
applies to administrators only.
Well - there's a little more of a fine criteria than that. Sockin' Josh attempted to dishonestly influence some sensitive discussions, and this cannot be admitted.
Remember Flo's expressed reason for wanting to protect him - a desire not to "throw him to the wolves". What "Arbcom" has demonstrated here is that they'll go to fantastic lengths to avoid acknowledging wikipedia got it wrong and BLP victims, including Brandt, were mistreated.
We're about 3 months from his apparently-scheduled recovery of the sysop flag.
Posted by: Poetlister
In the JoshuaZ case, there was clear checkuser evidence that the socks were using the same IP and the same user agents. He was desysopped but not blocked.
In the Runcorn case, the only checkuser evidence was that two of the accounts (not Runcorn or me) were using the same proxies, which is far from conclusive. Everything else was speculation, and nonsenses like "they only had one photo each" - Taxwoman had umpteen - and the legendary (I won't say it). And even if Runcorn was running socks, it is clearly double standards that Runcorn was blocked and JoshuaZ wasn't.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:50pm)
In the JoshuaZ case, there was clear checkuser evidence that the socks were using the same IP and the same user agents.
Joshua's laptop uses Windows XP Home Edition. If the user agents matched exactly, that almost surely means the browser had to be running, which would put the display on laptop screen. Rootkit might get you into a windows machine, but I know of no way to run the GUI browser remotely short of Remote Desktop. But according to my notes Remote Desktop only exists on Windows XP Professional Edition.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 10:58pm)
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:50pm)
In the JoshuaZ case, there was clear checkuser evidence that the socks were using the same IP and the same user agents.
Joshua's laptop uses Windows XP Home Edition. If the user agents matched exactly, that almost surely means the browser had to be running, which would put the display on laptop screen. Rootkit might get you into a windows machine, but I know of no way to run the GUI browser remotely short of Remote Desktop. But according to my notes Remote Desktop only exists on Windows XP Professional Edition.
Surely anyone sophisticated enough for the rest of this can fake a user agent. I've always said checkuser should log the accept mime-types header, since that - while it gives less information - is less likely to be faked than a user agent.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
Here's a second case of Gothnic voting on a JoshuaZ-initiated DRV. (Only Brandt-related history entries are shown here.)
JoshuaZ
QUOTE
# 02:48, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia Watch? (restoring full see also)
# 02:47, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Google Watch? (?See also: sp)
# 02:47, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Google Watch? (?See also: restoring partially)
# 02:33, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 3: comment to Squeakbox)
# 14:38, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) NameBase? (rv we easily have sources identifying him as a privacy rights activist)
# 14:16, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Dale Biddle Andrews? (?Annie Dale Biddle Andrews: wouldnt have an OR issue)
# 14:13, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: reply to Starblind)
# 01:02, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (?Daniel Brandt: reply)
# 23:38, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?The 7% Solution: commenting)
# 23:10, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (?Daniel Brandt: commenting to Rock and to Alkivar)
# 22:35, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: comment to ChrisO)
# 21:27, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: comment to Chris)
# 20:48, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: comment to Durova)
# 20:41, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (formating)
# 20:14, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (?Daniel Brandt: also restored others)
# 19:59, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (Daniel Brandt)
# 19:54, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: there was no stalemate)
# 19:49, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Night Gyr)
# 19:39, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: reply to Messed)
# 19:29, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (Protected Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2: Preemptive - no need for junk [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)))
# 19:19, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to SV)
# 19:12, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: not what he said)
# 19:10, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mike18xx? (Brandt AfD 14)
# 18:46, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?The 7% Solution: comment to SV)
# 18:44, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Moreschi)
# 18:37, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (comment to Coroebus)
# 18:26, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?The 7% Solution: agree with James)
# 18:26, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Starblind)
# 14:08, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m NameBase? (?See Also: + to see also)
# 14:07, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Google Watch? (?See also: + to see also)
# 14:07, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia Watch? (+ to see also)
# 14:06, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) NameBase? (+ see also)
# 14:05, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Google Watch? (+ to see also)
# 14:04, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia Watch? (since merge never occured and Brandt article was broken up, we should go back to this (also adding see also section))
# 13:41, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: comment to Carcharoth)
# 03:51, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: gut in himmel.)
# 03:32, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: reply to Carcaroth)
# 03:23, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Carcharoth)
# 03:09, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (reply to Carcaroth)
# 03:05, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: comment to Carcharoth)
# 02:54, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (?Daniel Brandt: various comments)
# 02:52, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dmcdevit? (DRV of Brandt)
# 01:42, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (?Daniel Brandt: not process wonkery. this is a bad idea)
# 01:31, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (?Daniel Brandt: noting also prior attempts at merging)
# 01:28, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: now on DRV)
# 01:26, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (+ Daniel Brandt, (sorry!, really!))
# 01:04, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: agree with Seraph)
# 00:31, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: this seems like a bad idea)
# 23:49, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m User talk:A Man In Black? (?Brandt close: forgot to sign)
# 23:49, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:A Man In Black? (Brandt close)
# 23:39, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Messedrocker? (?Brandt: explanation and possibly funny story)
# 19:02, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Messedrocker? (Brandt)
# 18:39, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Randolph Stetson? (Brandt 14 tagging)
# 18:37, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (rv, hmm, apparently correct that content was not harmed. tagging is still valid so it stays)
# 17:01, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Section 5: modifying Still's formating)
Gothnic
QUOTE
# 16:43, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt)
# 16:22, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt)
# 16:19, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: overturn)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_2&diff=prev&oldid=138157544, if it weren't so pathetic:
QUOTE
The starter of this DRV gives a good explanation of why this should be overturned.
The "starter of this DRV" is JoshuaZ himself, of course. I guess that proves, by Cabal standards, that they are two different users! One is a Mysterious Spirit Force that chimes in two hours after JoshuaZ's most recent edit, using his laptop, and then two hours later JoshuaZ is back at it.
Two cases of double-voting on a Joshua anti-Brandt DRV, six months apart. Now that's what I call a well-vectored rootkit.
Posted by: Amarkov
You know, it is always possible to come up with some convoluted theory that explains how one was not sockpuppeting. What it comes down to is "just how much do you trust JoshuaZ"?
My answer is "about as far as I can throw him".
Posted by: Castle Rock
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 3:32pm)
Christ, it just keeps getting better. What next, alien abductions and CIA mind control devices? All a favored administrator needs to do to wiggle out of a CU and/or a sock report is make up a story. Any story will do. They begged him to make one up, and he finally did. Since double standards is being debated, when's the last time you saw anyone dismissed without a public dressing-down? Not that this should happen, mind you…but the only times I've seen it happen is for high-level power players. For everyone else, the most usual method is to trumpet the discovery on the noticeboards and populate the category, "Sockpuppets of JoshuaZ."
Suppose we made a template of this absurd defense, Template:JoshuaZSockDefense, that CU-confirmed sockpuppeteers could place on their pages when caught. Under the principle "assume good faith,"* we'd have to let them all go, correct?
Oh, wait, I missed the fine print…
*applies to administrators only.
JoshuaZ has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder, and his multiple personalities were all logging onto Wikipedia and voting in deletion reviews. There is no way that the "Alpha" persona could have known what the "Beta" and so on were doing. He is completely innocent, and by discussing this you are guilty of harassment, e-libel, e-defamation, and e-manslaughter for you have assassinated his character.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#JoshuaZ
QUOTE
I do not think that we need to open a full case since we can modify our previous private ruling. Since the matter was handled privately (and full discussion was not leaked), the Community can not make a fully informed decision without more information.
I have to disagree. This requires a full case, and full disclosure of the "previous private ruling."
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:27pm)
You know, it is always possible to come up with some convoluted theory that explains how one was not sockpuppeting.
Personally, I think all such defenses should be ignored across the board. If there's a direct CU match, or other credible evidence, combined with votestacking or any other apparent abuse, that's it. If one knows there is no defense, one can deal with this simply by not allowing others to edit Wikipedia from one's computer (since this rootkit stuff is an obvious lie anyhow.) Maybe apply it only to administrators, since 1) they can be expected to know this rule (as opposed to, say, Proscience and his wife,) avoid public terminals, etc., while 2) at the same time, corrupt administrators are a bigger problem than regular users socking. No different than, administrators are expected to select strong passwords: you can't say "but my account was hacked!" even though that can theoretically happen.
Posted by: jorge
So, this devious wikipedian/ex-wikipedian hacker went to all the trouble of getting into Joshua's computer and all they did was run a load of socks that agreed with Joshua on Brandt afds?
They didn't steal his credit card, or plaster his porn and all those hot pms and emails to his mom all over the net?
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:23am)
Two cases of double-voting on a Joshua anti-Brandt DRV, six months apart. Now that's what I call a well-vectored rootkit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gothnic
Yes, this mysterious ghostly figure votes on a Brandt deletion debate in February 2007. Disappears for a few months. Returns to back up JoshuaZ in another Brandt deletion debate of June 2007. Disappears again for a while. "Vectors" back in during December 2007 on Joshua's computer to comment again on the Brandt debate.
This hacker is extraordinary. He gets into JoshuaZ's laptop 3 times over a period of 10 months to vote on 3 Brandt deletion debates, each months apart. How does this ghostly genius mange this?
Posted by: Castle Rock
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:46pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:23am)
Two cases of double-voting on a Joshua anti-Brandt DRV, six months apart. Now that's what I call a well-vectored rootkit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gothnic
Yes, this mysterious ghostly figure votes on a Brandt deletion debate in February 2007. Disappears for a few months. Returns to back up JoshuaZ in another Brandt deletion debate of June 2007. Disappears again for a while. "Vectors" back in during December 2007 on Joshua's computer to comment again on the Brandt debate.
This hacker is extraordinary. He gets into JoshuaZ's laptop 3 times over a period of 10 months to vote on 3 Brandt deletion debates, each months apart. How does this ghostly genius mange this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:50pm)
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:46pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:23am)
Two cases of double-voting on a Joshua anti-Brandt DRV, six months apart. Now that's what I call a well-vectored rootkit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gothnic
Yes, this mysterious ghostly figure votes on a Brandt deletion debate in February 2007. Disappears for a few months. Returns to back up JoshuaZ in another Brandt deletion debate of June 2007. Disappears again for a while. "Vectors" back in during December 2007 on Joshua's computer to comment again on the Brandt debate.
This hacker is extraordinary. He gets into JoshuaZ's laptop 3 times over a period of 10 months to vote on 3 Brandt deletion debates, each months apart. How does this ghostly genius mange this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY
I guess Josh never invested in dogs and/or shower curtains...alas.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:32pm)
JoshuaZ has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder, and his multiple personalities were all logging onto Wikipedia and voting in deletion reviews. There is no way that the "Alpha" persona could have known what the "Beta" and so on were doing. He is completely innocent, and by discussing this you are guilty of harassment, e-libel, e-defamation, and e-manslaughter for you have assassinated his character.
Well, yeah, sure, but how does that make him different from all the other Adminds?
Jon
Posted by: Somey
Right.
OK, let's do the usual B.S. "super-sleuth sockpuppet investigation," shall we? How about the "Essjay controversy" article, for example.
Here's User:Gothnic, adding a nice bit of info to the article at 15:51, 6 March 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=113080233
QUOTE
Later, Louisville Courier was able to confirm elements of Jordan's new CV but not all of its claims. In particular, the University of Louisville stated they had no record of Jordan studying there as he had claimed on Wikia CV.
Oops, Gothnic left out the word "his"!
So here's JoshuaZ, two edits and three minutes later, at 15:54, 6 March 2007, adding the word "his":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=113080546
Just how bloody stupid do they think we are? I mean, if someone is operating from JoshuaZ's computer via a rootkit, what are the chances that JoshuaZ would show up on the exact same article, three minutes later, to correct that very user's mistake?
Here's a hint: ZERO?
Not to mention the fact that anyone could have found something like this with the tiniest fraction of the effort that's been expended on Poetlister or Piperdown, among thousands of others.
In fact, this was the first example I checked.
For shit's sake, Wikipedia, figure it out already. You've been had, and not even very cleverly.
Posted by: Kato
No, no, Somey. Rootkit. It was the Rootkit. 
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:54pm)
Right.
OK, let's do the usual B.S. "super-sleuth sockpuppet investigation," shall we? How about the "Essjay controversy" article, for example.
Here's User:Gothnic, adding a nice bit of info to the article at 15:51, 6 March 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=113080233
QUOTE
Later, Louisville Courier was able to confirm elements of Jordan's new CV but not all of its claims. In particular, the University of Louisville stated they had no record of Jordan studying there as he had claimed on Wikia CV.
Oops, Gothnic left out the word "his"!
So here's JoshuaZ, two edits and three minutes later, at 15:54, 6 March 2007, adding the word "his":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=113080546
Just how bloody stupid do they think we are? I mean, if someone is operating from JoshuaZ's computer via a rootkit, what are the chances that JoshuaZ would show up on the exact same article, three minutes later, to correct that very user's mistake?
Here's a hint: ZERO?
Not to mention the fact that anyone could have found something like this with the tiniest fraction of the effort that's been expended on Poetlister or Piperdown, among thousands of others.
In fact, this was the first example I checked.
For shit's sake, Wikipedia, figure it out already. You've been had, and not even very cleverly.
That's pretty funny.
So there are the Checkusers and Arbitrators, wringing their hands for who knows how long trying to figure out whether to believe him or not, without ever bothering to check contribs to see if they can't solve it for themselves.
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:54pm)
Right.
OK, let's do the usual B.S. "super-sleuth sockpuppet investigation," shall we? How about the "Essjay controversy" article, for example.
Here's User:Gothnic, adding a nice bit of info to the article at 15:51, 6 March 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=113080233
QUOTE
Later, Louisville Courier was able to confirm elements of Jordan's new CV but not all of its claims. In particular, the University of Louisville stated they had no record of Jordan studying there as he had claimed on Wikia CV.
Oops, Gothnic left out the word "his"!
So here's JoshuaZ, two edits and three minutes later, at 15:54, 6 March 2007, adding the word "his":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldid=113080546
Just how bloody stupid do they think we are? I mean, if someone is operating from JoshuaZ's computer via a rootkit, what are the chances that JoshuaZ would show up on the exact same article, three minutes later, to correct that very user's mistake?
Here's a hint: ZERO?
Not to mention the fact that anyone could have found something like this with the tiniest fraction of the effort that's been expended on Poetlister or Piperdown, among thousands of others.
In fact, this was the first example I checked.
For shit's sake, Wikipedia, figure it out already. You've been had, and not even very cleverly.
Oh dear...
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Castle Rock @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:32pm)
JoshuaZ has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder, and his multiple personalities were all logging onto Wikipedia and voting in deletion reviews. There is no way that the "Alpha" persona could have known what the "Beta" and so on were doing. He is completely innocent, and by discussing this you are guilty of harassment, e-libel, e-defamation, and e-manslaughter for you have assassinated his character.
This would be a good all-purpose one. Instead of My Name is Sybil it would be My Name is JoshuaZ
Another promising defence might be the patented Patrick Kennedy, Jr. "Ambien defence."
QUOTE
Sleepwalking, and eating, or driving, or editing Wikipedia while not fully awake, with amnesia for the event, have been reported. If you experience any of these behaviors contact your provider immediately.
Provider being Jimbo.
Ah, things were so much simpler in the time of Teddy Kennedy, where it was a simple matter of too much alcohol, a lost weekend or night or whatever, and, er, drowning your sorrows. But the adults got wise to that, so nowadays we have medicalization of just about everything. Including, I'm sure, every Wikipedia administrator misdeed. Just wait.
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
Well obviously, the evil WR hacker logged in as Sockin' Josh to make the correction, despite not having the password, just to create this example 13 months hence.
The next wikipediot to say "conspiracy theorist" gets laughed at.
Anyway...Flo says "full discussion was not leaked". Wikileaker, is there anything relevant, or is she misdirecting?
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 1:08am)
Well obviously, the evil WR hacker logged in as Sockin' Josh to make the correction, despite not having the password, just to create this example 13 months hence.
"It was the Rootkit Vector thing-a-ma jig"
Posted by: dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:59am)
No, no, Somey. Rootkit. It was the Rootkit.
Much though it pains me, I think that logic puts Squeakbox in the frame as another sockmaster 'cos he got there first. What are the chances of that...
Watch list. Only from the history that I can see (article was moved?), JoshuaZ had not edited the page before, therefore he would not have had this on his watch list. (OK, we can play further Russian Dolls with this if you wish).
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 5:24pm)
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:59am)
No, no, Somey. Rootkit. It was the Rootkit.
Much though it pains me, I think that logic puts Squeakbox in the frame as another sockmaster 'cos he got there first. What are the chances of that...
Watch list. Only from the history that I can see (article was moved?), JoshuaZ had not edited the page before, therefore he would not have had this on his watch list. (OK, we can play further Russian Dolls with this if you wish).
Well it really comes down to what portion JoshuaZ happened to edit as well, Squeak was simply putting up a tag, Joshua corrected himself.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:20pm)
Surely anyone sophisticated enough for the rest of this can fake a user agent. I've always said checkuser should log the accept mime-types header, since that - while it gives less information - is less likely to be faked than a user agent.
In order to fake a user agent you have to know the user agent.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
I was going to do a photoshop and replace the face on this: 
using this new face:
and add a title: JoshuaGate
and a new caption under the pic: "Screw ArbCom. My cat did it, and they can't prove she didn't. Now give me back my sysop bit."
I'm also conflicted, because I like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3.16.08NYCMeetupByLuigiNovi16.jpg better, and that would require some resizing.
Alas, I don't have Photoshop, which means a lot of work to pull it off. So use your imagination....
Posted by: dogbiscuit
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 1:32am)
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:20pm)
Surely anyone sophisticated enough for the rest of this can fake a user agent. I've always said checkuser should log the accept mime-types header, since that - while it gives less information - is less likely to be faked than a user agent.
In order to fake a user agent you have to know the user agent.
<sigh> Next you'll be claiming to be knowledgeable on computers and networking, like having degrees or something.
That should discount your opinion pretty effectively. But what are you saying: is it that the hacker is clearly at a higher level of expertese than we already suspected, or is it that IT'S AN INSIDE JOB FOLKS - THE HACKER HAS CHECKUSER.
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 1:44am)
I'm also conflicted, because I like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3.16.08NYCMeetupByLuigiNovi16.jpg better, and that would require some resizing.
I swear that nose is getting longer.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 1:32am)
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:20pm)
Surely anyone sophisticated enough for the rest of this can fake a user agent. I've always said checkuser should log the accept mime-types header, since that - while it gives less information - is less likely to be faked than a user agent.
In order to fake a user agent you have to know the user agent.
This is all pretty academic now. Unless by sheer outrageous coincidence JoshuaZ edited an article for the first time, and just happened to correct an edit 3 minutes earlier by the mysterious hacker who was also editing the article for the first time. The chances of that are so improbable they're funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=113080794&oldid=113080233
This has been a good, fun day at the office. Please peruse those old JoshuaZ excuses for quality squirming. Here's one of his feeble attempts:
QUOTE(JoshuaZ)
I mentioned to David Gerard the possibility that there is some sort of deliberate frame-up; there was a group of Yale students who were writing very subtle hoax articles and I got them in trouble. If the editing started in February 07 it was Yale IP addresses then that's a likely explanation For that matter, for all I know they are working with someone at Wikipedia Review. AT the risk of sounding conspiratorial, Daniel Brandt got information off of me from Facebook.com that he could have only gotten with the cooperation of someone who was either a) my friend on facebook or b ) in the Yale or Yale alumni networks!
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
He's wrong about Facebook. I merely registered with a fake name and throwaway Gmail account, and asked to see his profile. They loosened up about 18 months ago. Now they're really loose. You can find a lot of the pics on Google. If you want the "profile," which is usually just something like your school and year of graduation, then I think you probably still need to log in. You can see everyone's friends if you log in, unless they have opted to keep this info private, in which case you have to already be their friend to see it. But that option is rather new, I suspect, and most of them haven't done this.
Try this http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=site%3Awww.facebook.com+%22joshua+zelinsky%22&btnG=Search.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(JoshuaZ)
...there was a group of Yale students who were writing very subtle hoax articles and I got them in trouble.
As I recall, it was actually one Yale student, John Behan, and Josh actually suggested that he should be expelled.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19805
I suppose if Joshy's rootkit story actually had any credibility whatsoever, it's far more likely that Behan would have been able to pull this off than most, if not all, WR members. He at least would have had easy access to the same network(s)... Of course, since Joshy's rootkit story in fact has no credibility whatsoever, this is a moot point.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 8:23pm)
Here's a second case of Gothnic voting on a JoshuaZ-initiated DRV. (Only Brandt-related history entries are shown here.)
JoshuaZ
QUOTE
# 02:48, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia Watch? (restoring full see also)
# 02:47, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Google Watch? (?See also: sp)
# 02:47, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Google Watch? (?See also: restoring partially)
# 02:33, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 3: comment to Squeakbox)
# 14:38, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) NameBase? (rv we easily have sources identifying him as a privacy rights activist)
# 14:16, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Dale Biddle Andrews? (?Annie Dale Biddle Andrews: wouldnt have an OR issue)
# 14:13, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: reply to Starblind)
# 01:02, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (?Daniel Brandt: reply)
# 23:38, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?The 7% Solution: commenting)
# 23:10, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (?Daniel Brandt: commenting to Rock and to Alkivar)
# 22:35, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: comment to ChrisO)
# 21:27, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: comment to Chris)
# 20:48, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: comment to Durova)
# 20:41, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (formating)
# 20:14, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (?Daniel Brandt: also restored others)
# 19:59, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (Daniel Brandt)
# 19:54, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: there was no stalemate)
# 19:49, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Night Gyr)
# 19:39, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: reply to Messed)
# 19:29, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (Protected Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2: Preemptive - no need for junk [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)))
# 19:19, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to SV)
# 19:12, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: not what he said)
# 19:10, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mike18xx? (Brandt AfD 14)
# 18:46, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?The 7% Solution: comment to SV)
# 18:44, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Moreschi)
# 18:37, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (comment to Coroebus)
# 18:26, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?The 7% Solution: agree with James)
# 18:26, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Starblind)
# 14:08, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m NameBase? (?See Also: + to see also)
# 14:07, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Google Watch? (?See also: + to see also)
# 14:07, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia Watch? (+ to see also)
# 14:06, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) NameBase? (+ see also)
# 14:05, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Google Watch? (+ to see also)
# 14:04, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia Watch? (since merge never occured and Brandt article was broken up, we should go back to this (also adding see also section))
# 13:41, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: comment to Carcharoth)
# 03:51, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: gut in himmel.)
# 03:32, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: reply to Carcaroth)
# 03:23, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Carcharoth)
# 03:09, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (reply to Carcaroth)
# 03:05, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: comment to Carcharoth)
# 02:54, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (?Daniel Brandt: various comments)
# 02:52, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dmcdevit? (DRV of Brandt)
# 01:42, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (?Daniel Brandt: not process wonkery. this is a bad idea)
# 01:31, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (?Daniel Brandt: noting also prior attempts at merging)
# 01:28, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: now on DRV)
# 01:26, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (+ Daniel Brandt, (sorry!, really!))
# 01:04, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: agree with Seraph)
# 00:31, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: this seems like a bad idea)
# 23:49, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m User talk:A Man In Black? (?Brandt close: forgot to sign)
# 23:49, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:A Man In Black? (Brandt close)
# 23:39, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Messedrocker? (?Brandt: explanation and possibly funny story)
# 19:02, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Messedrocker? (Brandt)
# 18:39, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Randolph Stetson? (Brandt 14 tagging)
# 18:37, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (rv, hmm, apparently correct that content was not harmed. tagging is still valid so it stays)
# 17:01, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Section 5: modifying Still's formating)
Gothnic
QUOTE
# 16:43, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt)
# 16:22, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt)
# 16:19, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: overturn)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_2&diff=prev&oldid=138157544, if it weren't so pathetic:
QUOTE
The starter of this DRV gives a good explanation of why this should be overturned.
The "starter of this DRV" is JoshuaZ himself, of course. I guess that proves, by Cabal standards, that they are two different users! One is a Mysterious Spirit Force that chimes in two hours after JoshuaZ's most recent edit, using his laptop, and then two hours later JoshuaZ is back at it.
Two cases of double-voting on a Joshua anti-Brandt DRV, six months apart. Now that's what I call a well-vectored rootkit.
Er ist tote, nicht vahr?
But there was 1 / 1,000,000,000,000 chance that the blood in the Bronco was not that of O.J. !
Ergo, he got off. Maybe JZ could get that type of response from Jimbo and NYB?
Posted by: Moulton
It occurs to me that both theories could be incorrect.
The Essjay Controversy article was created on March 2, 2007. Among the first editors were Miltopia and Random832, who also edited within minutes of each other.
By March 6th, the story (and the article about it) would have been front page news throughout WP.
If Gothnic and JZ were both Yalies, and both sitting in the same coffee house on the afternoon of March 6th with similar wireless laptops behind the same NAT router, discussing the controversy and the WP article about it, they might well have done concurrent edits.
But one would also think that JZ would therefore know Gothnic, be able to name him, and persuade him to come forward, as there wouldn't have been any hoax or frame-up. Just two classmates who almost surely knew each other, hung out in the same coffee house, and shared an obvious interest in the scandal du jour.
Posted by: Moulton
Gothnic may or may not be one and the same as Yalie John Behan.
Nor does the article cited confirm that JZ got them into trouble.
QUOTE(JZ Letter to Yale Daily News)
I am troubled by John Behan’s behavior. According to Wednesday’s article “Profs question students’ Wikipedia dependency,†Behan has created multiple hoax articles on Wikipedia. I am forced to wonder what Behan feels he gains from wasting other people’s time and effort tracking down and dealing with his hoaxes.
On the face of it, JZ picked up the news about Behan from anhttp://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19798 and only commented in Letters to the Editor that it troubled him. The original story about Behan was written by June Torbati of the Yale Daily News. It mentions several other Yalies who use Wikipedia. JZ is not mentioned in the article exposing Behan and his shenanigans.
None of this adds up to a theory that Behan hacked into JZ's laptop the following month. Moreover, a rootkit would be useless if JZ's laptop were in a wireless hotspot behind a NAT router, since NAT routers don't accept incoming Internet connections on behalf of NAT clients.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:25am)
It occurs to me that both theories could be incorrect.
The Essjay Controversy article was created on March 2, 2007. Among the first editors were Miltopia and Random832, who also edited within minutes of each other.
By March 6th, the story (and the article about it) would have been front page news throughout WP.
If Gothnic and JZ were both Yalies, and both sitting in the same coffee house on the afternoon of March 6th with similar wireless laptops behind the same NAT router, discussing the controversy and the WP article about it, they might well have done concurrent edits.
But one would also think that JZ would therefore know Gothnic, be able to name him, and "persuade him to come forward, as there wouldn't have been any hoax or frame-up. Just two classmates who almost surely knew each other, hung out in the same coffee house, and shared an obvious interest in the scandal du jour.
This friend (Gothnic) is from Munich and is called Klaus. He visits his pen pal JoshuaZ in 2007 to chat about the latest news from Bavaria, and entertains Joshua with old stories of life in the divided country during the cold war. And in those hearty sessions, they get drunk and a tear enters Klaus's eye. He recalls the old days of the Motorik and Baader-Meinhof. And then he raises his glass and curses former German chancellor Willy Brandt. He looks up Willy Brandt on Wikipedia to explain the history to Joshua, but finds the Daniel Brandt afd and the deletion reviews.
"Dammit", says Klaus. "I'm going to vote to keep this article". JoshuaZ replies, "Yes, that's a coincidence. I've been campaigning to retain this article myself". And they both vote on the same laptop in the bar.
This incident is repeated three other times over the next 10 months in the same bar on the same computer.
It's another theory?
Posted by: Moulton
Gothnic's user page says he's in CT.
And he begins life in WP editing articles on Lindsay Lohan and PacMan. Prolly a US adolescent, especially if ArbCom sez his CU is Yale and environs.
Posted by: No one of consequence
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:46pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:23am)
Two cases of double-voting on a Joshua anti-Brandt DRV, six months apart. Now that's what I call a well-vectored rootkit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gothnic
Yes, this mysterious ghostly figure votes on a Brandt deletion debate in February 2007. Disappears for a few months. Returns to back up JoshuaZ in another Brandt deletion debate of June 2007. Disappears again for a while. "Vectors" back in during December 2007 on Joshua's computer to comment again on the Brandt debate.
This hacker is extraordinary. He gets into JoshuaZ's laptop 3 times over a period of 10 months to vote on 3 Brandt deletion debates, each months apart. How does this ghostly genius mange this?
But that just proves it's a frame-up by Wikipedia Review. If it was a real hacker, he would have vandalized or deleted the main page or something really disreputable that would have got JZ checkusered immediately.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:47am)
Gothnic's user page says he's in CT.
Gothnic could be a theatrically trained orangutan-sidekick from a CT Zoo, who has come to accompany JoshuaZ in his travels at all times. Sitting in the passenger seat of the cab, drinking in bars with Joshua, and loafing around cheap motels with his human buddy. But each time JoshuaZ takes a pee, the orangutan takes hold of his laptop, logs into WP under a different account and seeks out the latest Brandt afd news. Voting accordingly?
Posted by: Moulton
Or, more likely, a coupla Yalies, who use the same campus computer labs (which typically have fleets of identical machines), and who hang out in the same coffee house (where they connect via the same wireless link behind the same NAT router) get interested in the same WP scandals as everyone else, and tend to think alike because they are the same age, drink the same WP Kool-Aid, and have similar adolescent values.
Posted by: Derktar
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:04pm)
Or, more likely, a coupla Yalies, who use the same campus computer labs (which typically have fleets of identical machines), and who hang out in the same coffee house (where they connect via the same wireless link behind the same NAT router) get interested in the same WP scandals as everyone else, and tend to think alike because they are the same age, drink the same WP Kool-Aid, and have similar adolescent values.
And yet, JoshuaZ, having this great explanation, didn't use it, how curious eh?
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Derktar @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 10:05pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:04pm)
Or, more likely, a coupla Yalies, who use the same campus computer labs (which typically have fleets of identical machines), and who hang out in the same coffee house (where they connect via the same wireless link behind the same NAT router) get interested in the same WP scandals as everyone else, and tend to think alike because they are the same age, drink the same WP Kool-Aid, and have similar adolescent values.
And yet, JoshuaZ, having this great explanation, didn't use it, how curious eh?Yah, it's curious that the most plausible explanation (at least to me) never occurred to anyone, including JZ. Which is one reason I'd like to interview him. JZ is a math major, which might explain why he can prove an abstract theorem but not construct and prove a scientific theory to explain observed phenomena. JZ doesn't seem to reason from evidence very well. But then neither do a lot of people.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:05am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:04pm)
Or, more likely, a coupla Yalies, who use the same campus computer labs (which typically have fleets of identical machines), and who hang out in the same coffee house (where they connect via the same wireless link behind the same NAT router) get interested in the same WP scandals as everyone else, and tend to think alike because they are the same age, drink the same WP Kool-Aid, and have similar adolescent values.
And yet, JoshuaZ, having this great explanation, didn't use it, how curious eh?
Don't ask me. He could have said they're roommates, and his roommate was pissed at Brandt for putting JoshuaZ on Hivemind. We know from past experience that this would have worked, and will work again and again (for administrators only) until WP collectively puts its foot down and says, we don't care what your story is, it's CU 100% confirmed vote-stacking, and that's that.
Like everything else, though, consistency in enforcement removes discretion from the leadership, thus palpably eroding their power. When it comes right down to it, whether people admit it to themselves or not, no one wants the rules to be too clear, here or elsewhere (civility and edit-warring come to mind) not because others will "game the system," but because administrators will no longer be able to "game" enforcement to benefit their favorites.
The upsides include the amount of time the community will save bickering about what should be open-and-shut cases, a much-needed boost in the reputation of the leadership for honest and equitable dealing, a similar boost in contributor morale when they see the system (this part of it, at least) is not corrupt, and a reduction in administrator sockpuppetry.
Who knows how many people advocating going easy on JoshuaZ are doing the same thing now, and hope for the same strained assumption of good faith/lenient treatment if and when they're caught?
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:40am)
Like everything else, though, consistency in enforcement removes discretion from the leadership, thus palpably eroding their power. When it comes right down to it, whether people admit it to themselves or not, no one wants the rules to be too clear, here or elsewhere (civility and edit-warring come to mind) not because others will "game the system," but because administrators will no longer be able to "game" enforcement to benefit their favorites.
Good point.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:13am)
Yah, it's curious that the most plausible explanation (at least to me) never occurred to anyone, including JZ. Which is one reason I'd like to interview him. JZ is a math major, which might explain why he can prove an abstract theorem but not construct and prove a scientific theory to explain observed phenomena. JZ doesn't seem to reason from evidence very well. But then neither do a lot of people.
Moulton, the most likely explanation is that Joshua Z made sockpuppets to try and keep the Brandt article since he has consistently shown hostility towards him and an intention to annoy. The motive and the evidence is there.
Posted by: JohnA
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:37pm)
If Joshua deigns to come here, to WR, I'll engage him in the kind of dialogue that I am known (and taunted) for in these quarters -- a civil dialogue of inquiry designed to arrive at elusive insights, enroute to a more enlightened understanding of the problems that vex him and others with whom he has become increasingly ensnared and enmeshed in persistent adversarial and antagonistic relationships.
You're going to call him a "poopyhead"? That will be fun....
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(JohnA @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 10:55am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:37pm)
If Joshua deigns to come here, to WR, I'll engage him in the kind of dialogue that I am known (and taunted) for in these quarters -- a civil dialogue of inquiry designed to arrive at elusive insights, enroute to a more enlightened understanding of the problems that vex him and others with whom he has become increasingly ensnared and enmeshed in persistent adversarial and antagonistic relationships.
You're going to call him a "poopyhead"? That will be fun....
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 5:34am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:13am)
Yah, it's curious that the most plausible explanation (at least to me) never occurred to anyone, including JZ. Which is one reason I'd like to interview him. JZ is a math major, which might explain why he can prove an abstract theorem but not construct and prove a scientific theory to explain observed phenomena. JZ doesn't seem to reason from evidence very well. But then neither do a lot of people.
Moulton, the most likely explanation is that Joshua Z made sockpuppets to try and keep the Brandt article since he has consistently shown hostility towards him and an intention to annoy. The motive and the evidence is there.I'll leave it to Poetlister to work out the Bayesian analysis of which of two or three proposed explanations is more likely to approach the ground truth.
The theory that User:Gothnic is a JZ sockpuppet has to account for all the unrelated http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Gothnic&month=&year= that Gothnic made over 2 1/2 years.
Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:32pm)
Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?
If the sockpuppet account only edited Daniel Brandt and Daniel Brandt afds it would arouse instant suspicion- the other edits are necessary to build the account up as different "personality".
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 8:38am)
If the sockpuppet account only edited Daniel Brandt and Daniel Brandt afds it would arouse instant suspicion- the other edits are necessary to build the account up as different "personality".
Let me rephrase the question...
Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 10:40pm)
Don't ask me. He could have said they're roommates, and his roommate was pissed at Brandt for putting JoshuaZ on Hivemind. We know from past experience that this would have worked, and will work again and again (for administrators only) until WP collectively puts its foot down and says, we don't care what your story is, it's CU 100% confirmed vote-stacking, and that's that.
Saying it was a roommate is good, but not as good as The Gay Lover Defense. The Gay Lover Defense actually causes some of your accusers to apologize to you for invading your privacy and elicits all sorts of emotional and soothing messages on your talk page. The Gay Lover Defense is the most effective defense against sockpuppet claims.
Posted by: Kato
JoshuaZ has offered a proposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=207596841
QUOTE(JoshuaZ)
So it seems to my reading that a) there is no consensus for a general ban on this topic and B ) many users who I deeply respect think I should either be banned or should at best take a break from this subject. So I am going to make a simple compromise proposal which will hopefully handle most concerns in a way that makes a maximum fraction of individuals happy. Proposal; I will not start any discussions about any attempt to restore any Brandt related content. This wouldn't stop me from editing say [[Public Information Research]] or [[Scroogle]] or something similar but would prevent me from say starting a DRV on the Brandt article or a the redirect or the CIA cookie exposure (Yes I still remember that. As far as I'm concerned it was one of the best things Brandt has ever done). Dihydrogen Monoxide a bit above this makes a highly reasonable argument for this sort of position. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Is there going to be a decision on JoshuaZ's sockpuppetry in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=176800696?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Angela_Beesley&diff=prev&oldid=177482270
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:01pm)
Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?
How can you contact a person that does not exist?!!!!!
Posted by: Moulton
According to Sec 113 of the Violence Against Women Act, there is a new-fangled kind of 'communication device' that works almost as good as the good old fashioned telephone.
It's called the 'Internet' or something like that.
Posted by: Somey
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=207596841
QUOTE(Joshy)
So it seems to my reading that a) there is no consensus for a general ban on this topic and b) many users who I deeply respect think I should either be banned or should at best take a break from this subject. So I am going to make a simple compromise proposal which will hopefully handle most concerns in a way that makes a maximum fraction of individuals happy. Proposal; I will not start any discussions about any attempt to restore any Brandt related content. This wouldn't stop me from editing say [[Public Information Research]] or [[Scroogle]] or something similar but would prevent me from say starting a DRV on the Brandt article or a the redirect or the CIA cookie exposure (Yes I still remember that. As far as I'm concerned it was one of the best things Brandt has ever done). Dihydrogen Monoxide a bit above this makes a highly reasonable argument for this sort of position. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Great... That just gives him carte blanche to plaster Brandt's name all over any article he wants, doesn't it?
Not good enough.
I guess I'll get to work on those #en-wp-admins logs...
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 4:16pm)
Great... That just gives him carte blanche to plaster Brandt's name all over any article he wants, doesn't it?
Not good enough.
I guess I'll get to work on those #en-wp-admins logs...
I'd most likely post admin IRC logs if I had some, but of course I cannot make any promises until I see them. To take care of possible libel or invasion of privacy, all I have to do is put a footer at the bottom of the page: "These logs from a freenode IRC channel were emailed to PIR by anonymous third parties. They are made available by PIR under Section 230 of the CDA."
Then there is copyright, which is not covered by Section 230. The only credible claims of copyright would be from persons who logged in using their real names. In order to file a take-down with a service provider, you have to declare under penalty of perjury that you are the rightful owner of the copyright for the material you want taken down.
If you file a DMCA takedown request and sign it "Dragonfly1876245" or whatever, my service provider just throws it in the trash. That's because they don't think it's your real name, and fake people don't have real rights. Imagine that! How enlightened!
This already happened to me 2006. The DMCA was emailed to my hosting company from a teenager with only a user name, and the service provider threw it in the trash without even bothering to notify me. They have better things to do than to humor teenagers who hang out on a Wikipedia IRC channel.
Even if a service provider took that person's claim seriously, it would be only one of numerous contributors. The worst case is that you have to take that one person's comments down if you don't want to fight it. You'd probably win if you fought it, since we're talking about fragmented comments and sentences, which are probably not subject to copyright any more than a title of a book or song can be copyrighted.
I'm at an advantage because I lease dedicated servers from a hosting company that will lease to anyone, and has a stack of Better Business Bureau complaints on file at the local BBB office for other sites that they host, none of which they've ever bothered to respond to. My hosting company just doesn't care much at all, as long as you pay your hosting fees. (Not to mention that the BBB has no idea what the Internet is all about.) Other hosting companies are more anal-retentive.
Posted by: Achromatic
QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 5:38am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:32pm)
Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?
If the sockpuppet account only edited Daniel Brandt and Daniel Brandt afds it would arouse instant suspicion- the other edits are necessary to build the account up as different "personality".
Precisely, that's pretty silly - I'm sure here we've all heard the phrase "ripened sock".
Posted by: Moulton
Do you have any evidence and reasoning to support that Durova-like flight of fancy?
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 9:39am)
Do you have any evidence and reasoning to support that Durova-like flight of fancy?
It is by far the most likely explanation for why an account disappears for months on end, then reappears around the time of a big deletion debate, sprinkling a few random edits that look like they're from the recent changes list, just minutes / hours before and after the account adds its vote to the debate. These additional edits decrease the likelihood that a spotter will scan the account's contributions and immediately disqualify the votes.
It worked. Nobody, even here, noticed the unusual Gothnic account voting on these debates, until Jaranda did some digging and spotted the strange editing pattern.
Gothinic made 6 edits the day of one Brandt deletion debate, 11 edits on the day of the next Brandt debate, 12 edits in 3 days surrounding the next, 5 edits in the 2 days on the next, and 5 edits on the day of the Rachel Marsden deletion debate.
That's 44 edits on the day or within a couple of days of 5 key debates over a year. Out 57 edits in all.
With such a bizarre editing pattern, the only serious explanation is that this is a sockpuppet of another user, who closely follows the timings of these debates and is concerned with their outcome. When the CUsers looked for another account dating back to the earlier debates that was using the same IP, they found JoshuaZ. No one else. And as it happens, no one else follows those debates on Wikipedia as keenly as JoshuaZ.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Achromatic @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 10:01pm)
QUOTE(jorge @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 5:38am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:32pm)
Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?
If the sockpuppet account only edited Daniel Brandt and Daniel Brandt afds it would arouse instant suspicion — the other edits are necessary to build the account up as different "personality".
Precisely, that's pretty silly — I'm sure here we've all heard the phrase "ripened sock".
Personally, I try to change my socks before they get that ripe.
Jon
Posted by: Moulton
What troubles me, Kato, is that your "evidence and reasoning" is not dissimilar to that used by Dmcdevit and Durova. I'd want considerably stronger analysis, backed up by more reliable evidence, before setting the kind of precedent in Good-Sock-Hunting that we find so entertaining here.
Don't get me wrong. I'm quite happy that JZ turned in his bits.
But what I'm not happy about is the sloppy quality of the investigation, because that sets a precedent for sloppiness.
QUOTE(Kato)
When the CUsers looked for another account dating back to the earlier debates that was using the same IP, they found JoshuaZ. No one else.
They found a third account, Miles Naismith, too. All accounts appeared to be connecting from Yale computer clusters and/or nearby wi-fi hotspots frequented by Yalies.
In order for them all to be socks of JZ, you have to establish that no other Yalie is a Wikipedian.
Can you demonstrate that no other Yalie is a Wikipedian?
Posted by: Proabivouac
Let's not make it complicated, people: JoshuaZ is corrupt administrator/sockpuppeteer. Caught red handed, some people still want to resysop him or make other excuses for him. The leadership, fully aware of his socking and corruption, grants him considerations and dignities they would never offer to any non-administrator, save perhaps Mantanmoreland.
Regular contributors are indefed for less Why is Zeq worse than JoshuaZ? What if, instead of soliciting others and giving them advice, Zeq had just run a sockfarm like Homerontherange? And even he's been treated better than most sockpuppeteers. It's not about Israel and Palestine. It's about administrators as a class, and the lenience they extend to one another, even to thoroughly corrupt and disgraced one anothers, but not to any other users. See for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:JoshuaZ
His block log is clean! Contrast:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Giano_II
Giano is an honest man. JoshuaZ is not.
See what they punish. See what they protect.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 24th April 2008, 12:56pm)
It's about administrators as a class, and the lenience they extend to one another, even to thoroughly corrupt and disgraced one anothers, but not to any other users.
None of which explains Runcorn.
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Random832 @ Thu 24th April 2008, 2:13pm)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 24th April 2008, 12:56pm)
It's about administrators as a class, and the lenience they extend to one another, even to thoroughly corrupt and disgraced one anothers, but not to any other users.
None of which explains Runcorn.
Ahh, but they decided that Runcorn was an evil WR trojan horse admin and must therefore be terminated.
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 1:55pm)
What troubles me, Kato, is that your "evidence and reasoning" is not dissimilar to that used by Dmcdevit and Durova.
Is it? Well I don't know what "reasoning" either of those two people adapt to a situation, but judging from what I've read, they are no more similar to my methods as they are to yours. I rely on "observation, deduction and knowledge". Which has done me pretty well in life so far.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 1:55pm)
In order for them all to be socks of JZ, you have to establish that no other Yalie is a Wikipedian.
Only JoshuaZ, Gothnic and Miles Naismith appeared on Alison's report (you have misunderstood my other comment, it seems). Gothnic and Miles Naismith are clearly alternative accounts of other very active users. This is beyond any reasonable doubt as evidenced by their edits. As JoshuaZ is the other account, then he is the prime suspect.
The remaining reams of supporting evidence (and I mean reams) backs the conclusion that JZ is the controller of these accounts. To the degree that alternative theories can be dismissed. The only two alternative theories touted (one by you and one by JoshuaZ) are so riddled with holes, laced with a mesh of outrageous improbable coincidences, and beset by basic misunderstandings on the part of the theorists, that no serious person could acknowledge them. And it is too miserable an experience to even engage with them for any length of time here.
There's nothing "sloppy" or even "entertaining" about this banal process of deduction. And when I posted the Orangutan theory I thought you were joking.
As far as this process is concerned, from now on...
I Ignore Moulton
and I'll give you the potential pleasure of enjoying a Socretian moment over the whole thing.
Posted by: Moulton
Consider, for example, User:Cazort. He goes to Yale, and he has a long screed on his user page about notability and deletion policies. And yet he has never actually chimed in or even voted on any deletion debate. So clearly there is another Yalie who has expressed an opinion about deletion policies and practices. Is he also one of JZ's socks? Why or why not?
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Can we transport this e-comium to the shrine already hallowed to his worship now?
Jon
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 7:55am)
They found a third account, Miles Naismith, too. All accounts appeared to be connecting from Yale computer clusters and/or nearby wi-fi hotspots frequented by Yalies.
In order for them all to be socks of JZ, you have to establish that no other Yalie is a Wikipedian.
Can you demonstrate that no other Yalie is a Wikipedian?
In order for them all to be socks of JZ, you have to establish that no other Yalie is a Wikipedian.
Can you demonstrate that no other Yalie is a Wikipedian?
Okay, Moulton, now you're starting to piss me off, and I'm pretty sure you're not alone. There is absolutely no logical basis for making that assertion whatsoever, and coming from someone with your intellectual background, well... let's just say I'm extremely disappointed.
Why would JoshuaZ create the User:Miles_Naismith account, only to not use it in deletion debates? DUH! He was simply hoping to make it appear that User:Gothnic was a sock puppet of "Miles Naismith," who sounds like a real person, except that he's actually a character in a series of sci-fi novels. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Are you doing this as some sort of joke, M? Because if you are, it stopped being funny about 36 hours ago.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 10:34am)
Consider, for example, User:Cazort. He goes to Yale, and he has a long screed on his user page about notability and deletion policies. And yet he has never actually chimed in or even voted on any deletion debate. So clearly there is another Yalie who has expressed an opinion about deletion policies and practices. Is he also one of JZ's socks? Why or why not?
Occam's razor, Moulton - Alexander Cazort Zorach is http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Alexander+Cazort+Zorach%22, using his full name, with all sorts of interesting details about himself and his fascinating life. Meanwhile, "Gothnic" is a common term used for meetups of goth kids, and "Miles Naismith" is a character in fiction.
Which of those three is less likely to be a sock puppet account, I wonder?
Hmmm....
Posted by: Kato
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 24th April 2008, 5:49pm)
He did use it in deletion debates.
Here's the diff...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Barbara_Schwarz&diff=prev&oldid=179508900
Right after Gothnic. Two socks created a year apart return to the same page within a few hours. Extraordinary coincidence.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 24th April 2008, 11:58am)
He did use it in deletion debates.
My bad...
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 24th April 2008, 12:57pm)
Okay, Moulton, now you're starting to piss me off, and I'm pretty sure you're not alone.
You're pretty sure there are others besides me who are starting to piss you off?
You're not the type to easily become pissed off, Somey.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 24th April 2008, 12:18pm)
Can we transport this e-comium to the shrine already hallowed to his worship now?
Jon
Please, Puh-leezzz, stick this ∑where the sun don't shine !!!
Jon
Posted by: thekohser
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 8:55am)
Can you demonstrate that no other Yalie is a Wikipedian?
Can you demonstrate that no other German in the 1930's was anti-Semitic? Therefore, Hitler wasn't guilty of any crimes against Jews. I contend there was a rootkit in his moustache.
Moulton, your repeatedly going to bat here for Joshua Zelinsky is striking many of us as nearly insufferable.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 12:07pm)
You're pretty sure there are others besides me who are starting to piss you off?
Sorry, I'm not alone. I hate it when I do that...
Look, Moulton. There comes a point where we have to agree to disagree, and that time has long since come and gone. If you don't want to believe that JoshuaZ could be a sockmaster, that's fine, but you've made your case already, and now you're beating the dead horse after the horse has already been buried and started to decompose.
The only reason I don't close this thread is because it would be unfair to the rest of us, who I'm sure will find more evidence of JoshuaZ's many, many, many misdeeds, and would perhaps rather not keep adding new threads for each one because it looks overly vindictive. But you might as well know that what you're doing right now has already caused me to look into installing a board modification that would allow us to prevent individual members from replying to individual topics. Don't make me do that, M! Remember, the last time I tried to make a significant non-skin modification to the board, we were completely offline for a whole week!
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 24th April 2008, 1:19pm)
Moulton, your repeatedly going to bat here for Joshua Zelinsky is striking many of us as nearly insufferable.
What I'm going to bat here for, Greg, is evidence-based reasoning.
Greg, I could care less if JZ is guilty of sock-puppetting or not.
But I do care if people who are cheering for one outcome or the other can't do evidence-based reasoning in a rigorous and conscientious manner and come to the ground truth in a mature and professional manner.
And if all that matters to people here is the outcome of the case, I would simply point out that it would be far more embarrassing to WP to have falsely convicted one of their own than to have falsely convicted someone they really did want to get rid of.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 24th April 2008, 5:20pm)
Sorry, I'm not alone. I hate it when I do that...
Look, Moulton. There comes a point where we have to agree to disagree, and that time has long since come and gone. If you don't want to believe that JoshuaZ could be a sockmaster, that's fine, but you've made your case already, and now you're beating the dead horse after the horse has already been buried and started to decompose.
The only reason I don't close this thread is because it would be unfair to the rest of us, who I'm sure will find more evidence of JoshuaZ's many, many, many misdeeds, and would perhaps rather not keep adding new threads for each one because it looks overly vindictive. But you might as well know that what you're doing right now has already caused me to look into installing a board modification that would allow us to prevent individual members from replying to individual topics. Don't make me do that, M! Remember, the last time I tried to make a significant non-skin modification to the board, we were completely offline for a whole week!
I thought WR wasn't a monolithic entity, but rather a bunch of people who each have their own opinion. I mean, if you're going to start shutting people down for differing from the "party line", why not start with barring badlydrawnjeff from posting in threads about BLP?
I think silencing dissent is beneath the dignity of this site - this isn't wikipedia, you know...
Posted by: BobbyBombastic
Mod note: moved from General Discussions to JoshuaZ forum
Posted by: jorge
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 6:35pm)
But I do care if people who are cheering for one outcome or the other can't do evidence-based reasoning in a rigorous and conscientious manner and come to the ground truth in a mature and professional manner.
Moulton, how about this. You go away for a couple of weeks and study this problem (as Shalom has done in Poetlister et al's case) and then come back and post your findings?
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Random832 @ Thu 24th April 2008, 1:40pm)
I thought WR wasn't a monolithic entity, but rather a bunch of people who each have their own opinion. I mean, if you're going to start shutting people down for differing from the "party line", why not start with barring badlydrawnjeff from posting in threads about BLP?
I think silencing dissent is beneath the dignity of this site - this isn't wikipedia, you know...
I think silencing dissent is beneath the dignity of this site - this isn't wikipedia, you know...
No matter where you are on the internet, you're going to find people who are needlessly argumentative, refuse to back down, and feel compelled to draw things out to ludicrous lengths. They don't necessarily do it all the time, and there's often no predicting when they will do it. We're no different from any other site, including (if not especially) Wikipedia itself, in that respect...
"Dissent" actually fuels discussion and keeps the board going. We like dissent... What Moulton is doing stopped being "dissent" almost 2 days ago - now it's just stubborn refusal to stop. What's more, it just plays into "our" hands - just about everything stated in support of JoshuaZ can probably be refuted, including IMO the notion that he's even a human being in the normative sense of the term. Keeping the argument going like this does a disservice to him. The evidence is there, the conclusions are inevitable, so why continue if not to just keep drawing more attention to it? (Which, quite frankly, I have no problem with?)
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(Derktar @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:45pm)
Looks like a nerve was struck, well in that case...
Yes everyone, JoshuaZ did sockpuppet abusively, and some people tried to give him a pass. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15878.
Your lies won't save you this time.
Moulton,
With all due respect, you do have the right to have a wrong opinion.
I reflect on the remote possibility that O.J. could have been innocent, much like I think that Adolf Hitler may have had some redeeming qualities, or that I may not have been an alcoholic during my drinking career.
Then I wake up from my nightmare and get to work trying to do the next right thing.
Please agree to doubt and / or disagree, or admit to being someone that has something to gain by having JoshuaZ cleared of all charges.
The kid is pathetic in many ways; maybe his family can get him some help. Are you a sockpuppet of JZ or someone else at WP? It is getting old, this argument for argument's sake.
Believe what you want and let the rest of us look at cold hard facts.
Daniel has a pretty good handle on this one.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Thu 24th April 2008, 2:18pm)
Daniel has a pretty good handle on this one.
I've had Moulton on "ignore" for the last two days, but I keep seeing his blather when he's quoted by others. He should post copies of his PM correspondence with JoshuaZ — I suspect that Moulton has made an arrangement with JoshuaZ or other Cabalistas to deliberately flood this board with obfuscation and equivocation, any and all of which makes zero sense when dissected by anyone more intelligent than a chimpanzee.
This Board once saw a blitzkrieg from a new member who instantly started posting bizarre, inconsistent responses to challenge every single thread and every recent post on the Board, one right after another. I screamed to get her blocked, and made a reference to how she had managed to scale the wall with a machine gun, and is now spraying everything in sight. Staff agreed within a few hours after she appeared, and she got blocked. End of story.
Moulton is doing the same thing. The difference is that he started slowly and built up over a long period of time. This Board is now getting boiled alive, like that frog that doesn't know when to jump out of the pan. I say the staff should ban Moulton.
Posted by: Moulton
Upthread, I already said I would gladly publish the PMs, if JZ consented.
Posted by: Daniel
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FCompleted_requests&diff=207944978&oldid=207101600
That is the official, public ArbCom findings of fact and remedies from the case they held privately.
Posted by: Kato
I wonder what will happen to JoshuaZ's other "black-ops" sockpuppets User:Rookwood and User:Cyberdalek? Rockwood was created to discredit another of his enemies, Jason Gastrich, and still carries Gastrich's name.
Posted by: Lar
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 24th April 2008, 7:13pm)
Upthread, I already said I would gladly publish the PMs, if JZ consented.
Instead of that... Maybe just try not responding to every single post (or what seems like every single post anyway)? I think you have some important ideas to share but sometimes you have to realize you're not going to get the last word in on something and let it go.
Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Moulton
Well, golly, if I respond and say you're right (which you are), I've also just violated your precept.
I hate these bloody antinomies.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Thu 24th April 2008, 8:52pm)
I say the staff should ban Moulton.
I strongly disagree with this suggestion.
Moulton's defense of JoshuaZ is completely ridiculous, but it's no different that the response given to every other sock report I've ever done re anyone with any friends or POV allies at all: no matter how overwhelming the evidence, there is always someone who who will say, "sure, it's suggestive, but how can you really be sure? I mean, you know, super-duper sure."
That is, when they're not screaming about "witch-hunts", accusing you of pursuing a vendetta, or blocking you for "harassment."
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 24th April 2008, 9:04pm)
Moulton's defense of JoshuaZ is completely ridiculous...
I'm not defending JoshuaZ. I'm expressing skepticism about the investigative work of the prosecution.
To my mind, the best outcome for those who wish to discredit WP would be a demonstration that ArbCom falsely convicted JZ, on account of disgracefully sloppy examination and analysis of the forensic evidence.
Posted by: Random832
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 25th April 2008, 1:25am)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Thu 24th April 2008, 9:04pm)
Moulton's defense of JoshuaZ is completely ridiculous...
I'm not defending JoshuaZ. I'm expressing skepticism about the investigative work of the prosecution.
To my mind, the best outcome for those who wish to discredit WP would be a demonstration that ArbCom falsely convicted JZ, on account of disgracefully sloppy examination and analysis of the forensic evidence.
Notwithstanding anything else, JZ was not falsely convicted. He was not *any kind of* convicted.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 25th April 2008, 1:42am)
Notwithstanding anything else, JZ was not falsely convicted. He was not *any kind of* convicted.
Well, neither was Richard Nixon. But some variety of punishment was served up anyway. I'm sure Nixon hated it, and I'm sure JZ does too.
Posted by: Proabivouac
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 25th April 2008, 1:25am)
To my mind, the best outcome for those who wish to discredit WP would be a demonstration that ArbCom falsely convicted JZ, on account of disgracefully sloppy examination and analysis of the forensic evidence.
It would be, except that won't happen. It'd probably be enough to convict someone of murder, actually: suppose Joe was killed by a package which for a fact was came from Bob's address, a threaning call preceding it was traced to Bob's phone number, and Bob had a known motive for killing Joe (as the motive for vote-stacking here is clear.) Can Bob really say, how do you somebody didn't break into my house and use my phone, and sent the package in my name/address, and expect that to work? The concern here about set-ups ("Joe jobs" as Jehochman puts it) and improbable scenarios is wildly disproportionate to what you'd find in most real-world trials, and the stakes here are far lower.
Even if someone is wrongfully desysoped once in awhile, why is that a bigger deal then someone being wrongfully blocked, which happens all the time on much less, or even zero, evidence? Why is it a bigger deal than allowing rampant administrator socking just to extend the benefit of the doubt to those who are almost certainly guilty anyhow?
QUOTE(Random832 @ Fri 25th April 2008, 1:42am)
Notwithstanding anything else, JZ was not falsely convicted. He was not *any kind of* convicted.
He was convicted in a special court for nobles only, in order to shield him and the aristocracy generally from humiliation before the peasantry.
Posted by: Milton Roe
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 25th April 2008, 2:03am)
He was convicted in a special court for nobles only, in order to shield him and the aristocracy generally from humiliation before the peasantry.
Is this the one where by law they must hang you with a silken rope? I never considered that. Do you suppose the admins all got together on IRC and then one of them slipped old JZ a note with the Black Spot on it? Or do you think this was really his reading of "congress" and figuring he didn't have the votes to fight conviction, now that he was impeached?
You know, now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure JZ does not have the political sense of Tricky Dick or anything like it. Successfully counting up likely votes in his corner is not something that is in his personality. So somebody formally slipping him the Black Spot note seems more than likely. 
Posted by: Jonathan
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 25th April 2008, 2:04am)
Moulton's defense of JoshuaZ is completely ridiculous, but it's no different that the response given to every other sock report I've ever done re anyone with any friends or POV allies at all: no matter how overwhelming the evidence, there is always someone who who will say, "sure, it's suggestive, but how can you really be sure? I mean, you know, super-duper sure."
I believe that is what is called the "Phoenix Wright" principle, in that sure, we've proved A, but how does A prove B and later on C and how does it ultimately come to form the conclusion of Z, which proves damning enough to make the overall claim true?
There's no doubt that JoshuaZ is a condescending prick and that his treatment of Brandt has bypassed pathetic and sad, but much though I sympathise with Brandt, I too have to disagree with the notion of banning Moulton. If I understand what Moulton is saying correctly, he believes that the evidence collected is similar to the sort of evidence that has been used to ban editors and admins who were not guilty of any such offence and thereby resulting in a travesty of judgment. I believe what Moulton is implying is that the evidence needs to be STRONGER, and by stronger I mean greater than that of the MM case, because otherwise the Arbcom people will just throw it out without a second thought (as opposed to the MM Case, where Arbcom gave it a second thought and THEN threw it out).
In cases like this, it's healthy that someone plays the role of Devil's Advocate.
Posted by: Moulton
All I'm saying is, if this case is typical of the quality of evidence and reasoning used to arrive at a finding, then none of the findings in comparable cases can be trusted to be anywhere near the ground truth.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Jonathan @ Fri 25th April 2008, 8:17am)
I believe that is what is called the "Phoenix Wright" principle, in that sure, we've proved ''A'', but how does ''A'' prove ''B'' and later on ''C'' and how does it ultimately come to form the conclusion of ''Z'', which proves damning enough to make the overall claim true?
Don't know it under that name — so far as I know the bit is due to Lewis Carroll, "http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html".
Jon