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

[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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Tue 22nd April 2008, 10:22pm

[jorge]

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?

[Janron]

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?

[Moulton]

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.

[Proabivouac]

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.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:01pm

[Janron]

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.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

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.

[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.

[Moulton]

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.

[Random832]

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.

[Daniel Brandt]

Here's a second case of Gothnic voting on a JoshuaZ-initiated DRV. (Only Brandt-related history entries are shown here.)

JoshuaZ

# 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

# 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)

This comment from Gothnic is rather funny, if it weren't so pathetic:

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.

[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".

[Castle Rock]

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 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.

[Daniel Brandt]

FloNight says:

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."

[Proabivouac]

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.

[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?

[Kato]

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?

[Castle Rock]

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?

Hackers on Steroids!!!!

[Derktar]

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?

Hackers on Steroids!!!!

I guess Josh never invested in dogs and/or shower curtains...alas.