JoshuaZ, the sockpuppeteer Options

[thekohser]

I've received some highly incriminating evidence via e-mail that Admin JoshuaZ has been carrying on a sockpuppeting campaign with accounts Gothnic and Miles Naismith.

I do have some suspicions about the e-mail (whether it's true documentation or forgery, but if it were forgery, someone spent dozens of hours piecing it together, so I'll assume it's true). I was advised to post the e-mail verbatim, because the mods here have not opened an account for this person using Gmail.

Anyway, if the news breaks soon, you might be able to say "I heard it here first". As things develop, I'll consider posting the contents of the e-mail.

The long and short of it is that JoshuaZ's "defense" is that those other accounts must be run by a roommate or someone else who follows him around Yale, and who also stops editing when Joshua goes to Puerto Rico for winter break. Of course, no cabalist wants to believe it, but the evidence is just about tight as a drum.

Greg

[Castle Rock]

I've received some highly incriminating evidence via e-mail that Admin JoshuaZ has been carrying on a sockpuppeting campaign with accounts Gothnic and Miles Naismith.

I do have some suspicions about the e-mail (whether it's true documentation or forgery, but if it were forgery, someone spent dozens of hours piecing it together, so I'll assume it's true). I was advised to post the e-mail verbatim, because the mods here have not opened an account for this person using Gmail.

Anyway, if the news breaks soon, you might be able to say "I heard it here first". As things develop, I'll consider posting the contents of the e-mail.

The long and short of it is that JoshuaZ's "defense" is that those other accounts must be run by a roommate or someone else who follows him around Yale, and who also stops editing when Joshua goes to Puerto Rico for winter break. Of course, no cabalist wants to believe it, but the evidence is just about tight as a drum.

Greg

Well, Gothnic was already a subject of a CheckUser report weeks ago, Jaranda filed a CheckUser report but it was deleted within minutes. FT2 commented that it was part of an ongoing investigation.

[everyking]

Why are you holding back from posting it? Also, does this claim mere sockpuppetry, or abusive sockpuppetry?

[thekohser]

Why are you holding back from posting it? Also, does this claim mere sockpuppetry, or abusive sockpuppetry?

I'm holding back because I don't want to look foolish if this is a hoax, or perhaps a test of a "leaker", but I suppose with the caveat that I've given those warnings, I will post the contents of the e-mail, which was already formatted to our board's syntax.

I'll post it in a separate thread. I am even suspicious that (maybe) there could be some hacker code in it, since it is so long, and I couldn't possibly read it all without my eyes glazing over. I'm just wondering, "Why did they come to me?" Am I that trusted an authority on counter-Wikipedia leaks?

Greg

[Somey]

Why are you holding back from posting it? Also, does this claim mere sockpuppetry, or abusive sockpuppetry?

I certainly wouldn't put anything past JoshuaZ, with the possible exception of involvement in contact sports. But neither of these accounts have a lot of contribs - it's true that they both voted "overturn" in Deletion Reviews that Joshers took a lead role in, two of them being over the Daniel Brandt BLP article. But I'm sure there was all sorts of sock puppetry going on with both the Brandt and Barbara Schwartz articles... I'd even been hoping we could eventually pin the DennyColt or David Spart accounts on him too, but either he was too careful, or more likely, neither of those accounts were him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=179508900
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=179417891
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=179418031

And this one's particularly artless:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=138161971

Obviously anything that can be used to curtail JoshuaZ's WP activities is a worthwhile endeavor, but I doubt he'd get more than a slap on the wrist for these two accounts - certainly not a desysopping, which is apparently tantamount to capital punishment for most of these folks. Moreover, if his WP activities were to be curtailed, society would also run the risk of having him get more involved in even more damaging activities, such as the development of new "super-invasive" surveillance techniques, or possibly becoming a paid informer for various international espionage organizations, or even a political campaign manager.

[Daniel]

Why are you holding back from posting it? Also, does this claim mere sockpuppetry, or abusive sockpuppetry?

Obviously anything that can be used to curtail JoshuaZ's WP activities is a worthwhile endeavor, but I doubt he'd get more than a slap on the wrist for these two accounts - certainly not a desysopping, which is apparently tantamount to capital punishment for most of these folks.

When you mentioned desysopping, I recalled that I had checked recently about JoshuaZ's administrator status (given his involvement in an incident where a timeline had been produced, and said timeline distinguished between "administrators" and "users" (being non-administrator users) in the list of actions), and found his name on WP:FORMER. A quick check found:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...oshuaZ%40enwiki

I'm not in the business of speculation, so that's for you to make what you want of it.

-Daniel

This post has been edited by Daniel: Fri 15th February 2008, 8:43am

[Poetlister]

Certainly JoshuaZ currently has rollback but not admin status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&group=&limit=5

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Obviously anything that can be used to curtail JoshuaZ's WP activities is a worthwhile endeavor, but I doubt he'd get more than a slap on the wrist for these two accounts - certainly not a desysopping, which is apparently tantamount to capital punishment for most of these folks.

There is some rule that JzG likes to quote a lot, which says that once a user has been banned, all of their contributions, uploaded images, etc. should be deleted. This always struck me as a bit counterproductive. But I digress. You would think that the administrative acts of a disgraced admin would be reversed, in a very similar way.

Disclosure: JoshuaZ was the fellow who permabanned me (at the behest of Will Beback.)

[Piperdown]

Let's make a list of users that JoshZ has banned for sockpuppeting.

JoshuaZ was a Checkuser (is?), so politely declines to ban himself. But lets see how he applies his rules to others.

JoshuaZ, thank you SO much for accusing me of being a sockpuppet of someone who joined almost a month AFTER I did. Thank you for kicking me off wikipedia. Thank you for not checking to see if my internet provider used dynamic IP's, so that muliptle computers could have similar or matching IP addresses. Thank you for never contacting me about this before you made this decision. Thank you for showing me the true nature of Wikipedia, a community of people who will pass judgement on the innocent to punish the guilty. All the times I made articles, all of the vandalism I helped revert, all of the genuinely fun conversations I had with other users, mean nothing becuase my IP address matched some unfriendly user. Thank you JoshuaZ for making me wish I had never even heard of Wikipedia! Coronis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ/Archive002

00:20, 8 January 2008 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Happy Couple2 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet of kdbuffalo)

14:09, 12 October 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Fjse44 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (probably Wordbomb sockpuppet.)

# 02:58, 14 June 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Badlydrawnjeff (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 hours ‎ (gross incivility) [which is OK if you're Gerard or JzG]

06:18, 26 April 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "24.57.157.81 (Talk)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Almost certainly a sock of Benapgar)
03:51, 10 March 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "BRSG (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet of NLSE)

00:20, 9 March 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Lee Nysted (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (per discussion on ANI, sockpuppeting, repeated disruption)

20:37, 30 January 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "BopBeBop (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked, autoblock enabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (confirmed sockpuppet of Larry Darby)
22:15, 5 December 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Cdajmk (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (do not sockpuppet. please use the other account and please use it discuss your proposed changes when you return)
* 02:31, 24 November 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Cplot (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (4RR again)
* 03:39, 23 November 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "ONEILOS (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet)
* 03:38, 23 November 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "CCorum56 (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet)
* 03:37, 23 November 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "ConnorJay (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet)
* 03:36, 23 November 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "JCollinsNRTHSTRN (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet)
* 03:35, 23 November 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "CarterRock (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet)
* 03:32, 23 November 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Richardcmadson (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (abusive sockpuppetry)
* 03:32, 23 November 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "BioBoyTwo (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (sockpuppet)
# 20:50, 8 November 2006 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah Williams (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (confirmed sockpuppet of user)


This post has been edited by Piperdown: Fri 15th February 2008, 4:25pm

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...oshuaZ%40enwiki

I'm not in the business of speculation, so that's for you to make what you want of it.

How about this: he got away with it. Couple of months in the cooler, then he'll be back with as a "reformed" admin.

Twisted.

[Daniel]

Let's make a list of users that JoshZ has banned for sockpuppeting.

JoshuaZ was a Checkuser (is?), so politely declines to ban himself. But lets see how he applies his rules to others.

Nope, has not been appointed checkuser and (therefore obviously) isn't one now: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...oshuaZ%40enwiki

-Daniel

[Aloft]

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=4864

Friend of yours, Mr. Kohs?

[Proabivouac]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...oshuaZ%40enwiki

I'm not in the business of speculation, so that's for you to make what you want of it.

How about this: he got away with it. Couple of months in the cooler, then he'll be back with as a "reformed" admin.

Twisted.

"Personal request?"
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...oshuaZ%40enwiki
As opposed to abusive sockpuppeteer.

Contrast this to Private Musing's ban, not for abusive socking, but for using mere alternate accounts (and he's not even an administrator.) Contrast the betrayal of PM's honesty and confidence by Guy Chapman, an honesty which was punished by the Arbitration Committee, with Joshua Zelinsky's lies.

[thekohser]

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=4864

Friend of yours, Mr. Kohs?

That would conform with the e-mail name who sent me the JoshuaZ news, yes. Friend? No idea who it is IRL.

Greg

[Error59]

Deleted by Secret as "Only one editor has made substantial edits to this page and he or she has requested its deletion or blanked the page" (not true, as FT2 had edited it, twice). I suspect he was told to sweep it under the carpet via IRC.


=== [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Gothnic|Gothnic]] ===
{{checkuser requests to be listed}}
{{rfcu box|case=Gothnic|filed=03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{checkuser|Gothnic}}<!--Please do not edit this line-->
<!-- Add suspected sock puppets and IP addresses below this line. The above line will list an account matching the pagename. -->
* '''Code letter:''' G
* '''Supporting evidence:''' List of DRVs he participated on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9&diff=prev&oldid=177481539 Brandt], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=110776197 another Brandt]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14&diff=prev&oldid=171723125 spolier (another conterversal one)]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Angela_Beesley&diff=prev&oldid=177482270 angela]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt_4&diff=prev&oldid=179418031 another brandt]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Barbara_Schwarz&diff=prev&oldid=179417891 barbara schwarz]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_7&diff=prev&oldid=183003932 Rachel Mardsen]

I first accounted Gothnic today while participating in a DRV discussion. He has been in this project since November 10th, 2006. He only has 56 edits, but for some strange reason, he decided to participate in all the conterversal DRVs in the past year, which indicates an obvious sockpuppet of a banned or experienced user. His 10th edit was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Daniel_Brandt&diff=prev&oldid=110776197 this comment to the Daniel Brandt talk page] which was one of the most conterversal DRVs that arosed in the history of the project at that time. The 14th edit was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=113080233 this addiction to the Essjay conterversy] on an extremely conterversal article, something in which new users doesn't just ston apon. And then are those DRV links I showed above, the only DRVs that he participated so far were the highly-conterversal DRVs. I want to check if it was a possible banned user, so I discussed privately with a checkuser, and the checkuser told me to list it here. So there it is. Thanks [[User:Secret|Secret]] ^{[[User talk:Secret|account]]} 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

: Note for clerks - this matches a case already being looked at by CU's, and was opened at CU request. Please leave open. Thanks. [[user:FT2|FT2]]&nbsp;^{<span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]])</span>} 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Error59: Tue 19th February 2008, 4:54pm

[Daniel Brandt]

JoshuaZ expressed extreme contempt for me in August 2006, even though the first time he showed up on my radar was in February 2007. When he finally showed up, he disguised his contempt by arguing against deletion on the grounds that I was notable, and months later he blocked me for my off-Wikipedia site. He has sponsored Deletion Reviews against me. All of this was because he hated me, and had little to do with his interest in procedural issues. This hatred should have disqualified him from his use of admin tools against me, and his general harassment of me.

While his edits were disgusting and engendered in me a level of contempt I normally have for Daniel Brandt, I'd rather not indefinitely block him since 1) some users respond very negatively to their first block but later become more productive 2) I don't see a compelling policy justification for a much longer block since his previous incivility has been mild and he received no earlier blocks. If however, another admin wishes to increase the block time, I will not object. JoshuaZ 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why ArbCom hasn't open a case on him yet. Should I email Newyorkbrad?

[Somey]

I don't understand why ArbCom hasn't open a case on him yet. Should I email Newyorkbrad?

Newyorkbrad has an e-mail address? I thought he was smarter than that... I've been totally overestimating all of these people, haven't I?

Anyhoo, if JoshuaZ remains desysopped for a reasonable period of time, and I would think "forever" would make for a good minimum starting point, then maybe we should just count our blessings. But we can't dismiss the possibility that he wants to start over with a new account that isn't personally identifiable to him, and that this whole episode has been some sort of diversionary puppet show. I'm still trying to find ways to explain just how dumb this whole thing looks to be, and I'm only up to Wacky Theory #14 at this point. When I have a full 20, maybe I'll post them all in one big list.

[Daniel Brandt]

There's a nice pic of Joshua Zelinsky here.

Joshua Zelinsky (thumbnail of his head)

If you click on "Full resolution" under the pic, it's a 1.9 megabyte file, 3,240 x 2,592 pixels. The width of his face takes up the entire width of a 22-inch monitor, and the height of his face is a bit more than twice the height of this monitor, and requires scrolling.

Rumor has it that the original pic is the actual size of his head!