Dmcdevit:

If anything, it looks likely that all three are the same.

• JoshuaZ, Miles Naismith, and Gothnic all vote to overturn Wikipedia:Deletion review/Barbara Schwarz.
• Miles Naismith votes to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Chambers (killer) and then JoshuaZ closes as keep.
• Gothnic and JoshuaZ both argue (strongly) for keeping at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2, and Gothnic's comment even agrees with JoshuaZ by name: [2]
• Gothnic votes to overturn at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14#Template:Spoiler and JoshuaZ closes it as overturn but later reverted himself.
• Gothnic and JoshuaZ both vote to overturn at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_9#Daniel_Brandt_.28redirect.29
• Gothnic and JoshuaZ both vote to overturn at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Angela_Beesley
• Other times IPs that were used by one or more of the users have supported then with reverts and such

Keep in mind that both Gothnic and Miles Naismith have only about 75 edits combined. They start voting and participating in deletion discussions within their first few edits. (Gothnic was discussing the Brandt deletion review on his fourth edit.) Neither of them can be a "sockmaster" if there is one. I would say that based on the IPs alone, Miles Naismith must be JoshuaZ. They share in common every single (five, total) IP address Miles used, in two different ISPs, and it's on not-hugely-dynamic DSL. Basically all the IPs come from New Haven, so Newyorkbrad is probably right about him being at Yale, though it's not clear if those are off-campus IPs or not (I would have assumed that Yale would be its own ISP). Note, for instance, on 69.37.124.45 where Miles' edits are interspersed with JoshuaZ; hard to argue that it was a shared pool there (the ISP reassigned the same IP *back* to JoshuaZ?) or a public terminal at the university. I am essentially ready to confirm the three are the same.

Alison:

Actually, I dug over this case in great detail already today - agonised over it and got a second c/u opinion (Blnguyen - it's in the logs). It's pretty much as you see it. Since everyone here is signed off and we're all checkusers;

* 77.150.37.69.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR 69.37.150.77.adsl.snet.net.
* 251.113.51.64.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR 64-51-113-251.client.dsl.net.

Both of these machines are live right now (I portscanned them). Both of them are on long-term DHCP leases over DSL lines, so they're either domestic or small business. Unlikely latter, I feel. The addresses are ostensibly static.

The fact that JoshuaZ and Gothnic share two very different IPs over two distinct ISPs is pretty damning. All user agents are identical on both of Gothnic's IPs. The additional votestacking on highly controversial DRV cases only confirms it. I'd be pretty certain without the on-wiki evidence here. In fact, I'd just come on here to confirm the case at RFCU having thought about it for some time.

As you pointed out, hostip.info/geobytes.com tell me most of the IPs are in New Haven, CT.

Thoughts?

-- Allie

FT2:

Similarities in edit summary:

• Gothnic "[articlename] - - dead template" [3]
• .....Josh
• ....."[articlename]See also - - research ban, now discussed in article" [4]
• Gothnic "Offensive - oops" [5]
• .....Josh
• ....."Close of DRV - oops" [6]
• ....."[articlename]Menachem Mendel Schneerson - oops" [7]
• ....."Revert warring - ooops" [8]
• ....."[articlename]Controversial remarks - oops" [9]
• ....."[articlename][[[Daniel Brandt]]]
• .....- oops, thanks Milo" [10]
• Gothnic - "+category. more is good" [11]
• .....Josh (too many to list)
• ....."+ [articlename]" [12]
• ....."+ dropping" [13]
• ....."+ molecular similarities. I'll take a look at the paper when I have time" [14]
• ....."+ more citations, expanding. noting controversial nature in lead" [15]
• ....."+ ref" [16]
• ....."+categories" [17]
• ....."+ sourcing, including Schwarz's own words" [18]
• ....."+ deletion category" [19]
• ....."+ Cyde's blog" [20]
• ....."+spa tag" [21]
• ....."++vandal counter" [22]
• ....."+references" [23]
• ....."+AfD stats" [24]
• ....."+wikiquote" [25]
• ....."+refs section" [26]
• Gothnic - '""Hmm - agree" [27]
• .....Josh
• ....."Positive reviews - hmm" [28]
• ....."Hmm, this is probably going to take a bot" [29]
• ....."hmm, now agree with John" [30]
• ....."hmm, recentism is serious problem in this case" [31]
• ....."Blumpkin redirect - hmmm" [32]
• ....."Suggested changes to put in BLP related material - hmm" [33]
• ....."Polls "(quote)" - hmm" [34]
• ....."rv, hmm, apparently correct" [35]
• ....."Notability - hmm" [36]
• ....."Discussion on need for more bureaucrats - hmm" [37]
• Gothnic - ",c -> , c" [38]
• .....Josh
• ....."duscover -> dustcover" [39]
• ....."it's ->its" [40]
• ....."Official response - claimed->state" [41]
• ....."Plot - can't -> cannot per MOS" [42]
• ....."Further study - any->an" [43]
• ....."aren't -> are not per MOS" [44]
• ....."Criticism - can't->cannot" [45]
• ....."IN->In" [46]
• ....."variability -> verifiability + wkfy" [47]
• ....."Libelled -> libeled" [48]
• ....."14-years -> 14 years" [49]
• ....."anm->an" [50]
• Miles - "[articlename] - keep" [[51][52][53][54]
• Miles - "[articlename] - new section" [55]
• Gothnic - "[articlename] - overturn" [56][57][58][59][60]
• Gothnic - "[articlename] - delete" [61];
• .....Josh (too many to list)
• ....."[articlename] - new section" (hundreds)
• .....(To add links for these. This set presently incomplete. See Josh's contribs for examples of all these styles)
• Miles - "Actually...." [62] (dot dot dot)
• .....Josh
• ....."Actually.... - partial agreement" [63]
• ....."Looks like I'm fighting a losing battle here..." [64]
• ....."References - in the meantime..." [65]
• ....."[articlename] - um, I don't think you meant to stick that SPA tag there..." [66]
• ....."Block - ok there..." [67]
• ....."[articlename] - I'm not going to be popular here..." [68]
• ....."Umm ... why is this being closed early?" [69]
• ....."Dinosaurs? - shira is correct but..." [70]
• ....."So-called books by Archimedes Plutonium - and...." [71]
• ....."++vandal counter. I suppose i'm not making Cyde happy..." [72]
• ....."I Just Did a Quick Tally... - yeah, it appears you did" [73]
• ....."Wikipedian... - wow. so it is" [74]
• Other features noted -- habitual starting of edit summary sentences in lowercase; sentences in comments start with lowercase; identical styling, spelling of AfD with lowercase "f" (see Gothnic's edits), meticulous grammar and spelling (a poor speller and grammaticist would find that almost impossible to consistently fake however desirous), .

In short, every notable feature I found to match in their edit summaries, matched.

Regarding the question of stalking, I don't know if anyone noticed this too, but if Gothnic was copying Josh in the above, he must have been doing so since * November 2006 * in some cases.....[75][76] and January/February 2007 in others [77][78][79].

A second person, who not only can edit from the same geographical locations Josh has access to (including at least two IPs that seem to be private residences or non-campus locations Josh edits from), who has advance knowledge what Josh will edit, and who has meticulously copied his every edit summary mannerism since the date of account creation in November 2006... but never sought to out him or be noticed as a sock/meatpuppet.

Josh has never alleged it was a housemate (if innocent he would surely think "who could have a WP account in my circle, let's go ask them"), and yet this person has faithfully mirrored him for * 15 months * now, on two accounts... for what? If it was to impugn or frame him, it's an awfully funny way to go about it, and one might have edited several other articles long ago, then arranged for it to be "noticed". Conclusion - Gothnic was not intended to be noticed, or set Josh up. What Gothnic does do is overwhelmingly edit in a manner almost indistinguishable behaviorally from Josh in almost all the small ways, use the same IPs as Josh, edit with identical style to Josh, vote on controversial articles Josh votes on, and attempt not to get noticed.

So you do not use any other accounts...only JoshuaZ?

I mentioned to Jayjg and Jimbo before there have been three accounts used by me previous. User:Rookwood was before I was an admin when I needed a fake individual to get in Jason Gastrich's good graces. User:CyberDalek was made with a similar idea in mind by me and Will Beback but it never got off the ground. I made a third account a long time ago so that if I ever needed to vanish I could resume editing with an account that would have had some prior history (the account had maybe a handful of edits 2 years ago, and I don't recall its name unfortunately).

Do you have a close friend that edits with you? Someone that might at times supported your same views in discussions? Have you ever told a friend about an issue on wiki-en and they supported the view...what we would call a meatpuppet?

I'm not sure. I rant to Shirahadasha all the time (he and I know each other in real life and he and I have edited from overlapping IP addresses before). Frankly, as should be apparent from my behavior on Wikipedia, I rant to pretty much anyone if I think something is wrong. I've ranted to people about NPOV problems and difficulties on fringe science articles, I've ranted about the BLP policy being taken to an extreme that hurts the project, I've ranted similarly about BADSITES and related proposals, most recently I've started ranting about EPISODES.

It is important to know this because there seems to be strong ip evidence of multiple accounts from the same ip doing stuff that is outside of what would be expected from an experienced and trusted user like yourself. We are trying to consider all options in a case where the evidence is so strong that most users would have already had their multiple accounts blocked. We are being as open minded about this as possible.

That's very kind of you. I've been asking around the places I frequent but had no success. (I know that there has been some limited editing from my brother about a single specific topic Book and Snake that I've never touched (I've tried to get him to abide by COI guidelines with only some success), and my sister who was editing my father's article Edward Zelinsky as Mushupancake (and she lives in New York anyways so our overlap would be small. I've only edited from her apartment about a year ago). I know no other editing has occurred by family members at our house because a) they would have mentioned it and B) I would have seen it in the browser histories. For Yale IPs there are at least 4 people who edit in roughly the same IP range. Shira (who I already mentioned), RageSoss (if he is what is triggering this(possible since we both edit things related to fringe and pseudoscience issues then you can simply verify that both he and I showed up to the last New York meetup). There are a handful of other editors who edit from Yale (one of whom I know keeps forgetting his password and making new accounts- Daniel Hoffman. If the matter has shown up only in say Judaism AfDs then it would probably be due to that. We've discussed some of those at some length).

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.

I might have a better explanation if I had some idea what the accounts looked like or what they were doing. I'm feel somewhat reminded of the old legal issue; any legal system is going to convict some non-zero fraction of innocent people. As a society we make a decision about what level is low enough to be acceptable. But no matter how low we make it, someone is going to get convicted who is innocent, and from that person's perspective, the burden of proof should be set lower. This isn't really that good an analogy since you've gone out of your way (from your description at least) to assume good faith. If Jimbo, wants me to resign my admin tools I'll do it although I would appreciate if that could be done quietly (for that matter, I'm an admin now on Wikinews, so I should probably resign that admin bit also). The integrity of the project is obviously more important than any one administrator, and frankly I don't actually use the tools more than about 15 or 20 times a week, so it isn't like the project is really losing that much given my current level of productivity. I'm more concerned with my reputation among people such as you who I consider to be both friends and colleagues.

Ok, I think I found the account you are talking about. I operated under the assumption that this was Wikipedia Review related which Paul (FeloniousMonk) suggested. Given their obsession with BLP deletion issues and their perception that I am somehow the incarnation of evil on those issues, I assumed that any sock designed to look like me would likely edit such material. Making the sock call for overturns frequently would do the trick. Using this process, I found User:Gothnic. This account screams out sock just from its contributions.

I am almost certain this is the account you were talking about. I don't know whether to be appalled or flattered that you didn't immediately desysop me. Frankly, I'm strongly tempted to ask that my admin tools be taken away until this is resolved; the evidence simply based on contributions is bad enough as is. If there is also checkuser evidence then there should not have been this amount of leeway given to me. Having someone temporarily not have the tools while a serious issue is sorted out isn't going to kill them.

The user also almost never makes edits interwoven with mine. But not to worry too much; I realized an explanation for that; it isn't at all hard to since I almost always have may AIM screename on when I'm editing or when I'm on a computer at all. The AIM sn is JoshuaZelinsky which isn't hard to figure out and I think is known to at least Daniel Brandt(the sn used to be on my facebook profile which Brandt had access to through some Yale connection (I think I mentioned this in another email)). So all one would need to do is to make sure not edit when I'm listed as online. It is a clever little trick which may explain that.

Now, the good news is that assuming this is the account in question (which I grow increasingly confident of), I'm pretty sure that I can show that a) this account made edits when I was in or leaving to Puerto Rico (so unless the IP is also in PR that should clear me) and B) that this account made mistakes in trying to imitate me and c) that the editing style is not mine. Not only is it not mine but my gut is that there are multiple people using the Gothnic account. I'm not entirely sure what makes it seem that way, but I think if I stare at the contributions a bit longer I will be able to make explicit what I'm seeing.

Would it be useful for me to explain my reasoning in more detail?

Ok, I will not use the tools until this is sorted out with one exception; I will continue to use my ability to look at deleted edits in the limited context of searching for the additional socks you mention; if you would prefer that I not do that, I will refrain from that as well. I am at this point strongly convinced that this is related to Wikipedia Review or the Yale kids, possibly both.

A variety of observations follow: First, one piece of evidence that might clear me is that Gothnic edited at 17:01, 21 December 2007. I was on my way to Puerto Rico then; David Gerard can confirm that I had discussed with him that I was leaving to PR. I discussed that with him in the context of Wikien-l. Furthermore, if the software that runs Wikien-l keeps track of time stamps for when people change preferences (I don't know if it does; presumably David does know) it should show that I switched my Wikien-l subscription from recieving emails to not recieving prior to that edit.

Second, the editing style indicates someone who is not me, possibly multiple people. The editor who uses it initially uses frequent edit summaries like an experienced Wikipedian. (Gothnic contribs) As you can also see the account early on does not captalize the first letter of edit summaries. Unfortunately, I don't capitalize them either, so if anything that is evidence against me. However, the account later does start capitalizing, and moreover uses much shorter edit summaries. The only edit summaries from December 12 onwards are simply one word "Overturn" and all but one are capitalized. Note that the account makes other edits but does not make edit summaries. The most reasonable conclusion I can draw from that is that multiple people were using the account and that it swithced sometime after October 9, 2007 which is when the last long edit summary occured.

Further evidence against the editor being me is its second to most recent dif [80] this is interesting; I was briefly in contact with the subject of this article due to concerns about his Wikipedia biography. (Or contact rather someone on Wikipedia claimed to be him and kept adding further problematic material. I contacted Vayner and confirmed that the person not in fact him). A fair number of Yalies know about this; furthermore, I edited the topic of the article and it is a BLP related issue; so it is also prime Wikipedia Review material.

The key here is that this is an edit that I'd never make; I almost always add refs in two steps. adding <ref>www.whatever.html</ref> and then cleaning up the ref using a template. This is minimizes edit conflicts and also makes it easier to deal with the fact that the ref templates and <ref> tags are complicated (and frankly I've never gotten the hang of them). See for example: [81][82][83][84][85][86].

The only examples in my edit history that occured at all recently where I made a full ref in a single step were either a) copying a ref from a deleted version (see the recent edits to Rachel Marsden and B) an example in userspace (so I was more reckless about not carring about screwing up tags badly or edit conflicts). In this most recent example of that I messed up the tagging- [87]

This should convince you that the edit Gothnic makes to Impossible is Nothing is simply not an edit I would have made despite the fact that I've been editing since January of 2006 ane have been an admin for a very long time. The editor correctly added three full refs and additional content in a single edit; I'd like to have the wikiskills to add things like that (although again, given the edit conflict concern even if I could, I wouldn't do it) but I simply don't have that skill with templates. the sockmaster must have assumed that I was as good at Wiki syntax as he or she is; in this case I am lucky enough not to be so skilled.

The editor also fails to anticipate what my actual opinion would be. For example, in the Barbara Schwarz DRV (where as I said before the timestamps should clear me anyways), Gothnic called for overturning based on notability, whereas I shortly thereafter made it clear that Schwarz was a "Clearly notable person", apparently correctly anticipating that I was going to comment. However, I then made clear that I wasn't sure that this was a notable person. It should be implausible that I'd try to make a sock contradict me to hide an account and then didn't bother just using AOL to hide the IP address. The sockmaster must have incorrectly anticipated what I'd think of the article. (Incidentally, checkuser should be able to confirm that my memory that I was already editing from Puerto Rico at the time of the edit).

Nothing I have done has been able to find other possible sockpuppets. It would be helpful to know if these other socks were also votestacking or not. Frankly, it ticks me off that I'm unable to mount any defense that allows me to have knowledge what these accounts are due to what appears to be an intereptation of the checkuser policy that I don't fully understand. Yet if it is decided that I was somehow guilty all the socks will then be appropriately tagged. Thus, I can only offer any evidence after I'm found guilty. I'm particularly perplexed by your ability to confirm that this was one of the accounts after I worked that out simply from the edits; if you think that these can be worked out from the evidence then why not just tell me what the others are? Or if not that, tell me how many we're talking about?

The next part of this email isn't actually evidence, more of a rant but it feels good to get in writing and I'm sick and tired of handling this calmly so:

First I thought this would get cleared up quickly; this is turning into what feels like the longest and most stressful ordeal on Wikipedia ever (and Wikipedia really almost never stresses me out) Once Paul and I decided some sort of framing was likely going on I was mildly impressed at whoever did this; I'm no longer impressed. Just incredibly ticked off. Wikipedia and the sister projects is my life; I've gone to meetups. I'm also an admin on the English Wikinews. I just spent $40 on recording equipment so I could do an interview with Randall Munroe, I have additional interviews lined up, and now these fuckers come along and try to smear me. I'm frankly exasperated that Jimbo and the rest of ArbCom thinks that I would make a sockpuppet like this; it is insulting to both my intelligence and insulting to my loyalty to Wikipedia and its values. I've never before in my life felt genuinely homocidal but I'm pretty close to it right now. If I find out who did this I'm not sure I will be able resist the urge to beat the ever-loving crap out of them. But the bottom line is that pretty much everyone on ArbCom knows me and has worked with me for a long time; at some point they are going to have to ask themselves if they really think I'd do something like this. The evidence above together with your knowledge of me should convince you and the rest of the ArbCom that this is ridiculous.

Also another thought about the style matter; we've already established that the Gothnic account didn't edit when I did. Now, that's reasonably explainable by a sock of mine, or by someone trying to frame me. That's not explainable by me having taken over an old account. As far as I can tell, there are two hypotheses that given the evidence should look plausible to you; straight sockpuppeting or a frameup. Only one of those explains the stylistic and other issues (again, I'm not even sure I'd be able to make Gothnic's penultimate edit if I wanted to and that's strongly borne out by my contribution list; I highlighted relevant examples already)

I think I went over physical locations earlier. I edit from Yale which has a variety of IPs. The physical locations there vary. I've edited from Slifka(the Yale Hillel), Trumbull College, Dunham Labs. Possibly occasionally other Yale buildings but those should be primary. I've also edited from two internet cafes (Au bon Pain and Claire's) (do you want the specific addresses?) and from home which should be a range listed as AT&T. Those are my primary places of editing.

I've occasionally edited from elsewhere; there should be a long range of different IPs I used when in Puerto Rico. Not sure who most of them belonged to, except that one of them should belong to a bar/cafe called the Brass Cactus, and all will correspond to physical locations in Luquillo or Fajardo. I've also edited from Boston, using wireless that should correspond to locations in Boston and Cambridge. And I've edited from NYC which should trace directly back to the Yale Club in New York.

As to the meatpuppeting; if I had asked a friend to edit wouldn't I have had the friend edit at the same time as I did? and if I could find a meatpuppet, why wouldn't I have the meatpuppet use a different IP range? As to the notion of taking over the account, if anything the older style resembles mine more than the new one. Again it is the second most recent edit that I'd be unable to make (as I already outlined evidence for).