| |
|
  |
 The JoshuaZ sockpuppeting post |
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
I was encouraged to post this. I had nothing to do with its formulation. Greg ---- ==== ---- ==== Suspected socksBackgroundSecret (aka Aranda56) noticed Gothnic as an obviuous sock by his contribs on controversial DRVs and obvious knowledge of the system. He asked CU's to look into it. CU's identified Gothnic as using same IP as admin JoshuaZ ( contribs · block log) and a third user, Miles Naismith ( contribs · block log). For a brief time a RFCU was set up, then on advice he tagged it for deletion [1] (note: reproduced at bottom), leaving the handling off-wiki (drama reduction). Due to delicacy of situation (Joshua is a long-standing admin of repute and also someone WR would love to see take a fall) it was handled by inquiry by Jimmy. Joshua agrees the evidence looks "damning", denies socking, states it must be a stetup by someone affiliated with WR using computers he uses, and offered to desysop quietly. Checkusers disagree and conclude very likely socking, noting the identical IPs from a variety of locations used by all 3 accounts in common, some of which appear to be private residences as well as college, plus behavioral mannerisms are very similar. Further info - detail how it came out and why the RFCU was set up, modified, and deleted (if needed)It seems that Aranda56 (User:Secret) spotted the oddness of gothnic, felt there was a good chance it was a GHBH or abusive sock, and likely of an admin making it serious. Seems to have referred it to more experienced users on the basis "possible admin problem; what should I do". One way or another it ended up being passed by him to Alison (it seems), who I gather passed it back without details saying "request checkuser on this one", Secret asked my advice concerned that if he just posted a request it would be deleted as fishing, and wanting it to be opened as per advice. I think I checked for myself to verify there was a concern, then suggested that if he posted RFCU (see above), I would endorse per Alison, to the extent of confirming that this was being looked at, so please leave open. Daniel noticed it and then said that it was a Bad Idea and if there was a problem like this and it might reflect on an admin, handle it at arbcom not on RFCU since it might blacken a user before the case could be checked fully. I concurred, so I explained to Secret, then deleted it at his request/agreement. Notable is that Aranda suspected it was JoshuaZ, and asked me more than once "is the other admin account JoshuaZ, but I did not comment, nor it seems did Alison or anyone else. Which is why the RFCU request does not name JoshuaZ himself -- no checkuser was willing to tell Secret any details, or the name of the admin who turned up, but merely that it was worth a RFCU. Evidence: IP evidenceQUOTE Dmcdevit:If anything, it looks likely that all three are the same. 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. QUOTE 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 Evidence: Behavioral evidenceQUOTE 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. Arbitrator/other discussion(salient emails, others are still on mailing list) - Newyorkbrad - "I took a look at Gothnic's contributions. I think it's public information that JoshuaZ is a student at Yale. A checkuser might want to go to the Yale website, look up their school calendar, and see if the edits also correllate during breaks."
- Jimmy Wales - "I would argue strongly against public disclosure of suspicions unless there is already a public dustup somewhere. There are a number of possible explanations (there always are, of course, checkuser at best only proves that two people were using the same computer(s) at close to the same time)... girlfriend, boyfriend, best friend, co-worker, little sister, etc. JoshuaZ has been around for a very long time and is an admin in good standing. Not a newbie, not even a newbie admin, not a problem admin (unless I have overlooked something). All of those things would argue for a heartfelt effort to understand what has happened, privately, long before the public trolls and conspiracy theorists tear him to shreds for it. Joshua is an inclusionist and has had some dustups with the deletionist camp, but I really can't see him being motivated to cut corners like this. If I had to predict, he will not deny the connection, but will instead produce something that will look a lot like meatpuppetry."
- David Gerard - "I too would be shocked to see him sockpuppeting like this - he's opinionated, but fundamentally a solid fellow IME."
- FloNight - "He couldn't possibly think he would get by with socking, could he?. He is not stupid and understands the ways we look for socks. These are pretty obvious, right? It is kinda hard for me to believe that he would risk everything in order to close a few discussion his preferred way. For that reason, I think a meatpuppet explanation of like minded friends is more likely. According to comments that I've seen on WR he is despised by some folks that 'play hard ball'. They would love to see him discredited. I suggest we (through Jimbo) approach him privately.
- Sam Blacketer - "I think a quiet approach just informing him of concerns and asking if he has any comments to make would be the best. There's no imminent problem and no need to rush into anything. I also suppose that if the response is an admission of past mistakes and a solemn pledge not to do so in the future, then the matter could be closed and there would be no need to mention anything publicly - just keep an eye out to make sure he kept to his word."
- David Gerard - "Joshua emailed me too, asking 'wtf?!' I said there were checkusers concerned at the possibility of a socking admin - a serious worry situation - even though I and others found it highly implausible he as a person would do such a thing. He responded that he's likely to share an editing pattern with lots of people around Yale, such as User:Shirachadasha, who he knows personally. (Was that one of the matching names?)"
- Jayjg - (To JoshuaZ) "Yes. CheckUser has revealed other accounts that, on the face of it, look very much like they are yours. If you have been using other accounts, a full confession and an explanation would probably get the best response."
- Jayjg - "User:Shirahadasha is a respected admin on Wikipedia. His editing interests don't overlap Joshua's, nor is his writing style similar."
- Comment by Dmcdevit:
This is an unacceptable response. Has everyone forgotten the issue here? It is almost a certainty based on the evidence that they are the same person on *the same computer*, and using some implausible defense about sharing the same school with other people shouldn't cut it. If Josh can't even come up with a proper story about his roommate using his computer or something, then it's pretty obvious he's lying and should be desysopped forthwith. This is, basically, a pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry from my end, having not interacted with Josh much before, and I hope he's not getting unfair treatment because you like him.
Remember, he and the sockpuppets shared IPs simultaneously, switching back and forth, the voted at several of the same contentious debates (even though the sock accounts had very few real edits, they still voted in all the Brandt debates), and when Josh even made a couple edits from an ISP he doesn't usually use, the sock account used that IP at the same time, too (so, if it is the "roommate," they must be attached at the hip, too). David, if you think it's implausible, I urge you to actually do the checkuser yourself; it's hard find a way to come up with an explanation that they *aren't* the same person. - David Gerard - "I must admit I haven't actually done the checkuser. I considered it implausible because I can't imagine him being that much of a dick. I could of course be grievously wrong."
- .....Dmcdevit - "Please review [the emails quoted above] again if you've forgotten the evidence. It's not just damning, it's clear-cut. Both of us who looked at it would have given a {{confirmed}} on a hypothetical RFCU on-wiki."
- Jayjg - "I think another of the issues was that these were DSL-type IPs, not shared or dialup. That said, I'd like to assume good faith for now, and give JoshuaZ the opportunity to explain this if possible. Should he be confronted with the evidence, or the names of the accounts?"
- Blnguyen - "Well to be honest, my heart told me that it must have been a joke or something when my head looked at the IPs, which appeared to show a multiple direct hit IPs on an IP range. In high profile DRVs/AFDs, one extra raised hand isn't going to have any useful impact on the result in a numerical sense since there are usually 40+ people on these votes. Since AFDs and DRVs give the closer a lot of room to move wrt numbers and such, anybody who feels strongly, would usually just do a dubious close (or ask a friend to). It seems inexplicable why a veteran admin would do such a thing with basically no possible benefit, on high profile 'political' debates where so many people will sniff for sockpuppets everywhere."
- FloNight to JoshuaZ:
So you do not use any other accounts...only JoshuaZ? 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? 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.
JoshuaZ response to FloNightQUOTE 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. - Dmcdevit - "Basically, it's seems he is trying to imagine all the people he could have talked to about Wikipedia in the real world who could have showed up on an IP he used. It seems to be his defense (ie. he claims innocence). Try reading Josh's email, and then read the email that Allison sent us about her checkuser (I copied it below, after his). He is acting like it's someone that was just found making an edit an an IP he has used. But it's more complex than that since his account and one of the socks shared IPs on two different ISPs, and the other shared all five of its IPs with him, meaning that if it was someone else, they basically had to stalk him to all of his internet connections at about the same time he used them each time. This situation reminds me of NSLE, where he gave an implausible denial and stuck to it anyway."
JoshuaZ further emailQUOTE 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? - FloNight - "I'm going to request that he volunteer not to use his admin tools for now. If he is being set up as he suggests, then a voluntary desyop will be quickly noted and widely discussed in WR. Secret is also likely watching for it so we would have to be prepared to answer questions about it. This should give us time to sort this out."
- FloNight - (To JoshuaZ) "I would appreciate you voluntarily agreeing to not use your tools for now. Requesting a desysop at permissions will generate questions, I think. We are interested in hearing explanations that can explain the appearance of socking and any evidence that you feel will clear you. We identified more than one account with editing from your ips. User:Gothnic was one, yes."
JoshuaZ further email and caseQUOTE 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. - FloNight - (To JoshuaZ) "Sorry not to reply sooner but I was off line for the day when you sent the email. We are still actively discussing the situation. We are thinking of the various possibilities. I spoke with Alison about it yesterday in order to get a clearer idea about how the request unfolded. To the point of your email, the issue of the old edits having different interests and style has been brought up but does not entirely clear you since it could be argued that you took over a friends account to make the edits. Or you had a friend make the edits for you. What will help us is for you to tell us the physical locations where you made the edits to try to help us understand how it is possible for ips to match on several accounts on more than one occasion from more than one location. This correlation in CU results as well as the topic of the evidence is what is causing some people to think that it is likely to be socking or meatpuppeting."
JoshuaZ further emailQUOTE 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). - Dmcdevit - "Just a note that Joshua's argument about the times (that he was in or traveling to Puerto Rico when one of the edits was made) can't be confirmed by the evidence. Both Gothnic and Miles Naismith stop editing around the time of Joshua's Puerto Rico visit. Joshua's last edit from a New Haven IP before a Puerto Rico IP is 1:27 Dec. 21 (UTC), but his first Puerto Rico edit isn't until 16:00 Dec 23. Miles' last edit is on Dec 22, 2:10, and Gothnic has a gap in editing between 17:02 Dec. 21 and Jan 8 (Incidentally, a couple days after Joshua returns from PR). There is plenty of time for any of the three of them to have traveled to Puerto Rico between the last edit in Connecticut and Joshua's first in PR. Which isn't to say that the timestamps prove anything, either, but just that this bit of 'evidence' is really only something we can take him on his word about."
- FloNight - (To JoshuaZ) "[explanation of evidence section above] ... Your time away in PR does not seem to help clear up the issue from the data that we have seen. I plan to review that again to make sure that we are not missing anything there (another CU looked today and said they did not think it helped clear you based on the timestamps of the edits.) Joshua, we are doubling-triple checking the data based on the information that you are providing. I wish I could give you better news but so far the link still seems to be there. We are still open to listening to your ideas about an alternative explanation for this evidence."
- FloNight - "He denies and refutes the evidence the best he can. I think we need to consider the best way to handle this keeping in mind that both JoshuaZ and Alison have the potential to be eaten alive by different segments of the Community and WR. Personally, I do not think that Joshua's offer is good enough if he is guilty of abusing the Community's trust by socking and closing Afd/DRVs. But I'm also not keen on throwing him to the wolves at WR. Possible alternative... A silent passive desysop based on trusting him to not to use admin tools for a period of time say 3 or 6 months. If he toed the line during this time then we give him the tools back. If he had a public desysop then we would likely reconsider giving the tools back at some point so this is not entirely crazy."
- 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.)"
- .....Sam Blacketer - "I can go with that, given his generally trouble free history and length of service. The circumstances are such that it would be inappropriate to take decisive onwiki action if we are not certain sure in our own minds that it is justified. (I read back the archived discussions on the NSLE case this evening to confirm the difference) It may be that JoshuaZ is lying to us, but even if so he will have had a nasty fright in realising that his misconduct was noticed. There is no need to tell someone like JoshuaZ that he will be checked periodically for any similar incidents, is there?"
- .....Dmcdevit - "He isn't giving us anything to go on. His response boils down to the fact that he has no explanation for what happened, but that it's what someone would do to frame him. Putting all technical issues aside, I find it hard to believe that someone could frame him by voting in these deletion debates *before* him; it's hard to buy that they anticipated him commenting."
TO BE CONTINUED, BELOW... This post has been edited by Nathan: |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
As I feared, it's too big for one post. Here's the rest: - ..........Jayjg - "The only explanation I can think of that might go some way to explaining it is if he used a laptop and it was compromised in some way, by spyware, or as a zombie, and someone was able to use it as a proxy. I know it's farfetched..."
- Mackensen - "I've done some of my own checking and reviewed earlier data from Dominic. I find the data conclusive. The question we need to ask is not whether JoshuaZ is socking or not, but rather why he's lying to us about it. Given that he's an otherwise good user (except for abusing our core processes during contentious issues and lying to arbcom) I think a quiet resignation wouldn't be amiss. Done properly, it might not even excite all that much discussion. A public spectacle benefits no one. Re Jay, if that's the case his account is in danger and ought to be de-sysoped anyway, but I find it very unlikely..."
- FT2 - "IÂ’ve had a word with Secret/Aranda56, he;s broadly agreed he understands best to downplay it if asked, since if nothings up it could hurt innocent users. The deleted RFCU page of course can only be seen by admins, and nothing else gives it away. He says he's only spoken to Daniel Bryant, and checkusers (Alison, AaronSchulz/VoA , myself), on it."
- Dmcdevit - "In any case, we've now had four (five? I forget if Blnguyen actually looked at it.) CheckUsers all look at this and all considered the evidence conclusive. In my opinion, none of JoshuaZ responses have held up to a simple reality check, and imagining that this is the result of hacking or spoofing strains credulity. I feel that so far this case hasn't really been taken seriously, either in the interest and speed with which arbitrators are addressing it, or with the unrealistic excuses being made for what amounts to abusive sockpuppetry and administrator abuse (closing the discussions as well), and, to top it off, dishonesty to the Committee about it. I remember the NSLE case, which, incidentally, involved a single revert from a single sockpuppet; in the end the Committee felt that it might have been forgiving if he'd confessed and repented, but took the step of desysopping him mainly since he lost our trust by denying it. [...]"
JoshuaZ emailQUOTE One further thought on this topic, again if the Damocles option is unacceptable and you think that I did this. If you google for my name - [88] the first few hits are anti-Wikipedia websites with Wikipedia Review on top. So publicly announcing that the ArbCom was convinced that I had sockpuppeted would almost certainly make the sockpuppet accusations the first thing one found when one googled for me. For obvious reasons, I would very much not like that. I don't see any compelling benefit to bring this up publicly either since none of the socks altered the decision of any discussion (that should be evidence in my favor anyways since it implies that I sockpuppeted in a manner which is clearly incompetent but that's a separate issue). [re "sword of damocles" option]: I'd like the opportunity, and you still think that I did this, I'd like to be able to resign quietly. - Morven - "I do frankly think that the excuses/reasons given for JoshuaZ's behavior don't hold water. I haven't personally checked the CheckUser results - I've been frankly too busy - but they sound fairly conclusive. I think that behavior such as this is incompatible with retaining adminship. On the other hand, NSLE was desysopped for performing edits on behalf of a banned user, so this isn't QUITE comparable."
- FayssalF - "I haven't followed this issue in depth but if everyone agrees about the results of the CU then probably JoshuaZ has no better option other than voluntarily accept desysopping."
JoshuaZ emailQUOTE I'm emailing about three things: 1) to prod you and the rest of the ArbCom to please hurry up since this is incredibly stressful. 2) To offer an additional piece of evidence that these accounts are not mine. I made a series of edits arguing for the overturning on the most recent Seth Finkelstein DRV. See [89][90][91] and other remarks made by me there. Now, I think everyone will agree that based on public and private comments I've made about BLPs, there are two articles that I strongly think we should have that we don't; Brandt and Finkelstein. Now, if I was going to sockpuppet and not bother hiding my IP addresses, I would have just added a comment on the Finkelstein DRV with a sock. Now, neither Gothnic or Miles Naismith edited this DRV. I would suggest that was for a simple reason; whoever else was running this was a Yale student or other local school and on vacation then . One could posit that I didn't do so because I was in PR which would have given away my socks. But that means that I was trying to cover up the socks by not editing in PR but didn't go through the more basic step of just using AOL or some other hard to trace IP. For reasons that should be obvious, that's not likely. This data point while not convincing by itself should be taken together with the other evidence I've given the ArbCom. I think that it paints a coherent whole of a well-done frame-up attempt. 3) are there any others of these socks? While I'm grateful that you made the decision to let me know about the Naismith account, I still don't know if I'm operating with all the relevant information. 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 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 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 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. FT2 ( Talk | email) 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC) * moderator note: fixed some bbcode on both posts - Nathan |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Oh well, the jig is up. I might as well admit that for the past 12 months, I've been secretly traveling to New Haven, CT, every few weeks, in a van loaded with computers and wireless gear. Once there, I've secretly stolen into JoshuaZ's dorm room, where (while he lay in bed, as if drugged - though I hasten to state that no actual drugs were used, since JoshuaZ has an unusual ability to bore himself into a near-comatose state at almost any time) I managed to create two remarkably similar accounts without leaving any cookie traces on the machine(s) in question, all in order to support his position in a small number of deletion review votes. Naturally, I did all of this with the full knowledge and cooperation of the New Haven Police Department and other law enforcement authorities, who as it turns out have been investigating Josh for quite some time, though they've had to develop special robots to do the necessary research and surveillance because actual human beings refuse to accept the assignment, many preferring to pull their own heads off rather than have to observe Josh's interminable blathering about people "injecting themselves into the public sphere" and "not appreciating the fact that personal privacy no longer exists."
Of course, this was all part of a Wikipedia Review Conspiracy™, financed by the Larouche Organization and ultimately masterminded by our fearless and determined leader, Gary Weiss. And I'd like to apologize to JoshuaZ for not cutting him in on the made-for-TV movie deal that's being negotiated in order to document the incident, though it looks like that's on hold for now, since the writer's strike apparently just ended. (They were only offering 15 bucks and a $10 Best Buy gift card for the rights, though, so no great loss there.)
At least the truth is out now. Everyone can rest assured that our bold, daring plan to ensure adequate support for JoshuaZ's positions in various controversial deletion reviews was a complete success, though unfortunately, the articles in question actually did remain deleted in some (if not most) cases. The important thing, of course, is that we tried. Remember, JoshuaZ cannot do these things himself; that would be wrong.
Ooh lookie, my new 30-day download cycle at eMusic just started! Woo-hoo! See y'all later, folks...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 15th February 2008, 1:36am)  ...So I think maybe you guys have a somewhat exaggerated or distorted impression of him in that regard. Bah! He probably only wrote that stuff because he knows we're on to him. Then again, that may be exactly what he's expecting us to think... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 15th February 2008, 1:48am) Just so you know, I'll be submitting some expense chits, including for a heavier-duty pair of mukluks. Oh, come on! Standard-issue Wikipedia Review-brand™ mukluks are WAY warmer than those cheap mukluks you get at REI and L.L. Bean... Besides, they're designed by Pierre Cardin! This is just a complete disaster... Sometimes I wish we'd never gotten involved in this whole international conspiracy thing in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Aloft |
|
Please stop trying to cause trouble!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 322
Joined:
Member No.: 3,239
|
QUOTE(JoshuaZ) If you google for my name the first few hits are anti-Wikipedia websites with Wikipedia Review on top. So publicly announcing that the ArbCom was convinced that I had sockpuppeted would almost certainly make the sockpuppet accusations the first thing one found when one googled for me. For obvious reasons, I would very much not like that. Yes JoshuaZ, it would be terrible for you to share the same fate as those who Wikipedia deems notable. You don't like your name at the top of a Google search? Submit an OTRS complaint. There are several 15 year olds standing by to assist you. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(Aloft @ Fri 15th February 2008, 8:11am) QUOTE(JoshuaZ) If you google for my name the first few hits are anti-Wikipedia websites with Wikipedia Review on top. So publicly announcing that the ArbCom was convinced that I had sockpuppeted would almost certainly make the sockpuppet accusations the first thing one found when one googled for me. For obvious reasons, I would very much not like that. Yes JoshuaZ, it would be terrible for you to share the same fate as those who Wikipedia deems notable. You don't like your name at the top of a Google search? Submit an OTRS complaint. There are several 15 year olds standing by to assist you. I likewise have no sympathy for one who undeleted Daniel Brandt's bio. Wikipedia contributors who respect others' privacy deserve the same consideration. Wikipedia contributors who don't, don't. Anyhow, from the looks of it, he did sockpuppet, and corruptly, from a position of authority, which is a lot worse than a random user (much less a banned one) who never committed or was expected to uphold the site policies doing the same. ArbCom attacks disfavored contributors routinely, often under their legal names, and JoshuaZ had a lot of time to speak up about that. (Perhaps he did, and I'm not aware of it?) This post has been edited by Proabivouac: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Derktar |
|
WR Black Ops
Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,029
Joined:
From: Torrance, California, USA
Member No.: 2,381
|
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Fri 15th February 2008, 12:22am) QUOTE(Aloft @ Fri 15th February 2008, 8:11am) QUOTE(JoshuaZ) If you google for my name the first few hits are anti-Wikipedia websites with Wikipedia Review on top. So publicly announcing that the ArbCom was convinced that I had sockpuppeted would almost certainly make the sockpuppet accusations the first thing one found when one googled for me. For obvious reasons, I would very much not like that. Yes JoshuaZ, it would be terrible for you to share the same fate as those who Wikipedia deems notable. You don't like your name at the top of a Google search? Submit an OTRS complaint. There are several 15 year olds standing by to assist you. I likewise have no sympathy for one who undeleted Daniel Brandt's bio. Wikipedia contributors who respect others' privacy deserve the same consideration. Wikipedia contributors who don't, don't. Yes it's a bit of poetic justice. Mr. Brandt got a bio he didn't want on top of Google results, now JoshuaZ can have a taste. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Aloft |
|
Please stop trying to cause trouble!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 322
Joined:
Member No.: 3,239
|
QUOTE(Miltopia @ Fri 15th February 2008, 3:20am)
FloNight shows her inferior brainpower once more with this. She gets a whiff of possible serious on-wiki abuse and IMMEDIATELY drags Wikipedia Review into the decision-making rationale.
Exactly. It's simply unthinkable that a Wikipedia admin, pure as the driven snow, did this on his own. There simply MUST have been some outside Wikipedia Review troll influence! He must be given the benefit of the doubt after his years of constant sockpuppeting administrative abuse faithful service. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(Aloft @ Fri 15th February 2008, 10:18am) QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:55am)
Is there a page on wikipedia with this or was it deleted?
It looks to be from the private ArbCom wiki. Which should be made public, obviously. They don't believe in contributor privacy, only in their own unaccountability, and they abuse the former as a cover for the latter. Of all contributors, the Arbitrators should enjoy the least privacy and the most accountability, not the most and the least. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(cyofee @ Fri 15th February 2008, 1:40pm)
Someone needs to tell this to Cade Metz.
I hope that Metz is meeting the 1,841 GW emails, and would be busy interviewing the Arbcommers and the Bomissars on what they have they say about the cavalcade. And that is a lot of bull to wade through. The interrupting bellylaughs would slow the investigation down a bit too. I also hope some honest journalists at other publications with more impact on the business world are reading the 8000 emails. The Sword of DamnByrneocles hangs over the Kangaroo Arbcoms, the Soopersekret Lists, and the Usual Hypocrites. They are probably letting the Star Chamber complete the process of fullying displaying how crooked they are before dropping the sword. Just a guess. I would love to see the Star Chamber's proceedings on my Overblocking and compare it to the JoshuaZ hypocrisy transcripts. Even Samiharris got to opine in that court. I didn't. Everyone enjoying the Jimbo flipflopping? QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 15th February 2008, 1:29pm) QUOTE(Poetlister @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:15pm)
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. And they banned me.
Wow, FloNight herself on Wikipedia Review, reading this thread! Hi Flo! Yes, hello FloNight, liar about MM=Tomstoner=Lastexit while he/she banned and drove off good editors while letting a serially abusive, spamming, POV pusher destroy the integrity of BLPs, religiously and politically charged articles, and turn consensus and voting into a sham. This post has been edited by Piperdown: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(Aloft @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:15pm)
Don't be silly. Jimbo likes to surround himself with yes-men. Those two aren't going anywhere.
The WP Community has, on WP (and other mailing lists), and sometimes realworld: 1 - Asked the oversight abusing "Allegations of <disruption>" Jajyg to leave. Which he did, for awhile. Kind of. 2 - Declared overwhemingly that Mantanmoreland has previously abusively sockpuppeted, and was erroneously let off the hook while others were banned for complaining about, then returned to proxysock as Samiharris. 3 - Declared that Gerard is a WP:DICK, and his inability to understand simple IP range concepts is an embarrassment to WP. Not to mention he has no business editing an encyclopedia, which luckily he's come to realise himself. Just check his contributions. 4 - Declared that JzG has no business adminstrating WP, not to mention a Tourette's Syndrome Support Group 5 - That what Essjay did was wrong, no matter how good of a virtual friend (lol!) he was 6 - That the Vilification of Daniel Brandt was wrong. Keeping posting the dossiers of those 15 yr old liars, Brandt, they didn't give you your day in court. Yet Jimbo didn't have a problem with any of that. Jimbo, you have a problem alright. Your community has come to a consensus that you and your Mizoli meat should go away from WP. You have your Wikia, where you can harvest the peasant's handiwork for your profits. This post has been edited by Piperdown: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rootology |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,489
Joined:
Member No.: 877
|
The really curious bit here isn't did, or didn't JoshuaZ do this--the evidence frankly is damning, and I know for a fact that DSL.net issues static IP addresses. How do I know that? I grew up in that region. I've lived in New Haven, CT, a mere few hundred yards from the very neighborhood JoshuaZ lives in, and have had multiple employers with DSL.net services. Given what sorts of things I do for a living, I know a whole heckuva lot about IP addresses and how they work.
Arbiters or Checkusers I know (even ones who think I don't like them) are free to email me directly for more information on this specific to that ISP provider if needed. How much do I know about that ISP? Hint: I know the physical layout of their main offices and network operation center space from having been there so many times for business. Probably won't be needed to contact me though, because to be frank, if they got him on ISP evidence from that provider, sayonara. That's the level of genetic forensic evidence for that. People get a DSL.net IP, they may have it for years. Basically, guys that are Checkusers, if you're reading this (looking at you, Dom--you know I'm not a bad guy especially: if you got him on DSL.net IP evidence, trust it--that is damn near bulletproof, and sometimes from them a 1:1 mapping for machines to IPs). The only possible defense now is social. That is, if the Arbcom buys what he may or may not spin this as. If he does.
The really curious thing is this: Arbcom communications are no longer secure, with evidence for the very first time. How long till they go nuts trying to find out who talked to Kohs? To the brave person: keep it up. Why? Because change and betterment only happens when someone has the stones to force it.
Second most curious: how long till people get sanctioned or Oversighted for talking about this on Wikipedia?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 15th February 2008, 3:16pm) QUOTE(Joshua Z E-Mail Excerpt) I operated under the assumption that this was Wikipedia Review related which Paul (FeloniousMonk) suggested. Presumably, "Paul" is Paul Mitchell, aka User:OddNature and "Skip" on Google Blogger. Skip posts on Google Blogger from Macy's San Francisco Operations Center. This fits in with other evidence (reported elsewhere) that FeloniousMonk and OddNature are one and the same. hey, they didn't have a problem with SlimVirgin's double-voting sock SweetBlueWater, so anything goes. Even Jimbo personally brushed that one under the rug. Anyone hear from Cyde much lately? No? Giano? No? See a trend? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
JoushuaZ email:QUOTE One further thought on this topic, again if the Damocles option is unacceptable and you think that I did this. If you google for my name - [88] the first few hits are anti-Wikipedia websites with Wikipedia Review on top. So publicly announcing that the ArbCom was convinced that I had sockpuppeted would almost certainly make the sockpuppet accusations the first thing one found when one googled for me. For obvious reasons, I would very much not like that. I don't see any compelling benefit to bring this up publicly either since none of the socks altered the decision of any discussion (that should be evidence in my favor anyways since it implies that I sockpuppeted in a manner which is clearly incompetent but that's a separate issue). Have no fear, Mr. Zelinsky. I will attempt to use my google-bombing arsenal to keep Wikipediareview on top of any sockpuppetting accusations that end up in Google from en.wikipedia.org. After all, everyone enjoys watching that video of you. By the way, did you ever consider my Google ranking in a search for my name? Of course you did — your successful battle against Doc_Glasgow last December to keep that redirect alive means that en.wikipedia.org is still on top in a search for my name. Tit for tat, dude. If you were smart, you'd be begging Doc right now to kill that redirect again. If you were even smarter, you would have killed that redirect yourself weeks ago, once you realized that life at the top of Google is not a bed of roses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nathan |
|
Retired
Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,609
Joined:
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 17
|
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:48am)
Perhaps you've forgotten. I'm on stakeout in Swalwell, Alberta, looking for the poodle. And let me tell you, it is colder than you-know-who's you-know-what up here. Just so you know, I'll be submitting some expense chits, including for a heavier-duty pair of mukluks.
The weather in Swalwell is nothing. It's colder here in Ottawa than it is there! QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 15th February 2008, 8:29am) QUOTE(Poetlister @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:15pm)
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. And they banned me.
Wow, FloNight herself on Wikipedia Review, reading this thread! Hi Flo! Hi Flo! |
|
|
|
|
|
| the fieryangel |
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you...
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,990
Joined:
From: It's all in your mind anyway...
Member No.: 577
|
QUOTE(Nathan @ Fri 15th February 2008, 9:01pm) QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:48am)
Perhaps you've forgotten. I'm on stakeout in Swalwell, Alberta, looking for the poodle. And let me tell you, it is colder than you-know-who's you-know-what up here. Just so you know, I'll be submitting some expense chits, including for a heavier-duty pair of mukluks.
The weather in Swalwell is nothing. It's colder here in Ottawa than it is there! QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 15th February 2008, 8:29am) QUOTE(Poetlister @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:15pm)
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. And they banned me.
Wow, FloNight herself on Wikipedia Review, reading this thread! Hi Flo! Hi Flo! Sheez, here she is again! Hey, Flo! Didn't you get it the first time you read the thread??? I'll give you a hint: if this were the Mickey Mouse Club, JoshuaZ would be "Cubby". Would you be "Annette"? I'll guess we'll have to ask JzG about that one... |
|
|
|
|
|
| msharma |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined:
From: Not Michael Moore
Member No.: 2,466
|
QUOTE(Nathan @ Fri 15th February 2008, 8:01pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 15th February 2008, 8:29am) QUOTE(Poetlister @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:15pm)
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. And they banned me.
Wow, FloNight herself on Wikipedia Review, reading this thread! Hi Flo! Hi Flo! Please, please someone tell me how everyone knows FloNight is reading this!! |
|
|
|
|
|
| guy |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 23
|
QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 15th February 2008, 9:36pm)
Please, please someone tell me how everyone knows FloNight is reading this!!
She isn't at the moment. If you look at the very end of a thread, it tells you which logged-in users are currently looking at it, and it's "guy, Proabivouac, No one of consequence, msharma, the fieryangel, BobbyBombastic". |
|
|
|
|
|
| darbyl |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 57
Joined:
Member No.: 3,453
|
QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 15th February 2008, 6:29am) QUOTE(Poetlister @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:15pm)
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. And they banned me.
Wow, FloNight herself on Wikipedia Review, reading this thread! Hi Flo! You know, the quoting here makes it look like Poetlister is Flo...and that's just weird. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Piperdown |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
|
QUOTE(darbyl @ Fri 15th February 2008, 9:48pm) QUOTE(the fieryangel @ Fri 15th February 2008, 6:29am) QUOTE(Poetlister @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:15pm)
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. And they banned me.
Wow, FloNight herself on Wikipedia Review, reading this thread! Hi Flo! You know, the quoting here makes it look like Poetlister is Flo...and that's just weird. If Poetlister tells you to "kiss my grits !!", then we'll know its a confirmed SSP. http://blog.syracuse.com/houselights/medium_flo.jpgThis post has been edited by Piperdown: |
|
|
|
|
|
| BobbyBombastic |
|
gabba gabba hey
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,071
Joined:
From: BADCITY, Iowa
Member No.: 1,223
|
QUOTE(guy @ Fri 15th February 2008, 4:37pm) QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 15th February 2008, 9:36pm)
Please, please someone tell me how everyone knows FloNight is reading this!!
She isn't at the moment. If you look at the very end of a thread, it tells you which logged-in users are currently looking at it, and it's "guy, Proabivouac, No one of consequence, msharma, the fieryangel, BobbyBombastic". I started reading it last night and I'm still not done! I'm thinking about printing it out and using it as wall paper for my bathroom. (btw The first thing I thought of when I started reading this was "Fascinating. Do these people have jobs?") QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 15th February 2008, 4:36pm)
Please, please someone tell me how everyone knows FloNight is reading this!!
It says at the bottom of the post who is reading a thread. But don't tell Flo that, she probably thinks we are using the same type of technology we used to frame Joshua Z. |
|
|
|
|
|
| msharma |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined:
From: Not Michael Moore
Member No.: 2,466
|
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Fri 15th February 2008, 9:51pm) QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 15th February 2008, 4:36pm)
Please, please someone tell me how everyone knows FloNight is reading this!!
It says at the bottom of the post who is reading a thread. But don't tell Flo that, she probably thinks we are using the same type of technology we used to frame Joshua Z. Right, of course. OK, I feel stupid now. Carry on, everyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
| darbyl |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 57
Joined:
Member No.: 3,453
|
QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:56pm) QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Fri 15th February 2008, 9:51pm) QUOTE(msharma @ Fri 15th February 2008, 4:36pm)
Please, please someone tell me how everyone knows FloNight is reading this!!
It says at the bottom of the post who is reading a thread. But don't tell Flo that, she probably thinks we are using the same type of technology we used to frame Joshua Z. Right, of course. OK, I feel stupid now. Carry on, everyone. Don't worry, it's nothing compared with the fevered pronouncements from the cabalistas that Wikipedia Review, <breathless whisper> records the IP address of every single visitor</breathless whisper>. This post has been edited by darbyl: |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 15th February 2008, 2:10pm)
WHAT ON EARTH ARE THE LIKES OF JAYJG AND DAVID GERARD DOING COMMENTING ON THE ARBITRATORS FORUMS? THEY ARE NOT ARBITRATORS ANYMORE. NOR WOULD THEY STAND A CHANCE OF BEING ARBITRATORS AGAIN AS THEY HAVE NO RESPECT IN THE COMMUNITY. BOTH HAVE BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED GROSS VIOLATIONS ON WIKI, AND THEIR METHODS TO INFLUENCE WIKIPEDIA HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED. WHY ARE THEY STILL ALLOWED TO INFLUENCE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS FROM SMOKE-FILLED BACKROOMS?
Here's a recent list of users with accounts on the arbcom wiki. Many are not current. Blnguyen Charles_Fulton Charles_Matthews Dan_Garry David_Gerard Dmcdevit FT2 FloNight Fred_Bauder James_Forrester Jayjg Jimmy_Wales Josh_Gordon Kirill_Lokshin Matthew_Brown MyRedDice Newyorkbrad Paul_August Rebecca Sean_Barrett Steve_Dunlop Theresa_Knott |
|
|
|
|
|
| LamontStormstar |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,360
Joined:
Member No.: 342
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 15th February 2008, 5:21pm) Joshua Zelinsky has been trying to get the Corey Delaney (aka Corey Worthington) article undeleted. But I ask you, who is more deserving of a promiscuous, tasteless, disgusting video fling in the major media — some major punk (who's a minor and doesn't know any better) in Australia named Corey Delaney, or Yale grad and mathematics critic Josh Zelinsky? Lucky bastard got into Yale. But you got to consider, though, George W. Bush graduated Yale and he's a complete idiot. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Sat 16th February 2008, 12:21am) Joshua Zelinsky has been trying to get the Corey Delaney (aka Corey Worthington) article undeleted. But I ask you, who is more deserving of a promiscuous, tasteless, disgusting video fling in the major media — some major punk (who's a minor and doesn't know any better) in Australia named Corey Delaney, or Yale grad and mathematics critic Josh Zelinsky? Unbelievable. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Daniel |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 71
Joined:
From: Adelaide, Australia
Member No.: 4,657
|
For all those wanting to play along at home but missed the first segment </ Larry Emdur>, the timeline at the top of this noticeboard discussion summarises the various events relating to the CW/CD article(s). -Daniel This post has been edited by Daniel: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this whole thing really has my head spinning, I have to admit! The term "Gothnic" generally refers to a goth meetup, as in a "goth picnic." Here's someone on Yahoo who uses the name - he writes: QUOTE My favorite bands are MCR, FOB, TBS, AFI, P!ATD, im a hug fan of Nirvana. i hate happy people. I hate labels!!! Im not emo, but my therapist thinks so. I also hate poserss. People who lisen to FOB and pritend to cut there wristz are posers. Of course, this is the sort of thing you'd expect from a high-school age goth kid, and I'd be remiss if I didn't show my own cultural literacy and point out that the bands referred to are My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Taking Back Sunday, A Fire Inside, and Panic! At the Disco. (Personally, I'd say a "proper" Goth would be more into Bauhaus, Specimen, Alien Sex Fiend, the Misfits, Fields of the Nephilim, and Siouxsie and the Banshees, but I'm old-school.) However: Gothnic on Wikipedia has never edited a single music-related article, other than The_Spoonman and Lindsay_Lohan. He even made a minor correction to the article on Vern der Herder, an NFL player originally from Iowa. Goths don't do pro football!Then there's this other account, "Miles Naismith," with fewer than 50 edits. This account is named after an alias used by a science fiction character from the Vorkosigan_Saga, a rather turgid-looking series of novels written by Lois_McMaster_Bujold (an Ohio native, sorry folks) involving wormholes, mutants, interstellar warfare, and so on. It looks like JoshuaZ hasn't edited either of the two main articles about this series, nor the article on Bujold, and while JoshuaZ has always been known to be something of a sci-fi fan you would think that if he'd read any of these novels, he would have appeared in some of the relevant page histories. I haven't checked them all, of course - there are 34 articles in the category. (The originator of much of this material is actually User:Phil_Boswell, who hasn't been seen much on WP lately, not that any of this is especially relevant I suppose.) There really is something about this that doesn't add up. Nobody wants to see JoshuaZ roasted 'n' toasted more than I do, except maybe Daniel B., but certainly I'd rather see his comeuppance derive from his efforts to place Wikipedia's "needs" over those of actual human beings (and their privacy rights and reputations) as opposed to something like this. Then again, I suppose you take what you can get... But this is just so clumsy, so artless, that it almost suggests to me that someone on the inside, someone with developer-level access to the WP live database, could be trying to get revenge for something JoshuaZ did by jacking with the stored IP addresses. I'm sure JoshuaZ has done all sorts of things to piss people off on all sides, but what specifically, in this case? I totally don't buy any of this BS about people in the same apartment building or zombie trojan botnets or whatever else they're likely to come up with. But it really is weird. Maybe I just want our various arch-enemies to turn out to be genius masterminds, or at least somewhat competent, if only to make it seem like this anti-WP stuff really is something of a challenge. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 15th February 2008, 9:31pm)
There really is something about this that doesn't add up. Nobody wants to see JoshuaZ roasted 'n' toasted more than I do, except maybe Daniel B., but certainly I'd rather see his comeuppance derive from his efforts to place Wikipedia's "needs" over those of actual human beings (and their privacy rights and reputations) as opposed to something like this. Then again, I suppose you take what you can get...
But this is just so clumsy, so artless, that it almost suggests to me that someone on the inside, someone with developer-level access to the WP live database, could be trying to get revenge for something JoshuaZ did by jacking with the stored IP addresses. I'm sure JoshuaZ has done all sorts of things to piss people off on all sides, but what specifically, in this case? I totally don't buy any of this BS about people in the same apartment building or zombie trojan botnets or whatever else they're likely to come up with. But it really is weird.
Maybe I just want our various arch-enemies to turn out to be genius masterminds, or at least somewhat competent, if only to make it seem like this anti-WP stuff really is something of a challenge.
Your argument is a straw man dressed up as a red herring. Don't you see, it's delicious whether it's true or not! It makes no difference to me whether the screen names you mentioned are JoshuaZ's socks. And it's fair game. With admins hiding behind screen names and getting away with all sorts of unethical tactics as they attack real-world people who never bothered Wikipedia to begin with, and wanted nothing more than to be left alone, it is perfectly reasonable to take these admins down by throwing other screen names in their direction by way of accusation, and seeing if anything sticks. It works both ways, however. If you'd rather sit out this game, then the best way to acquire immunity is to never use a screen name to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
|
| WhispersOfWisdom |
|
Lee Nysted
Group: Regulars
Posts: 543
Joined:
Member No.: 2,310
|
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Fri 15th February 2008, 9:56pm) QUOTE(Somey @ Fri 15th February 2008, 9:31pm)
There really is something about this that doesn't add up. Nobody wants to see JoshuaZ roasted 'n' toasted more than I do, except maybe Daniel B., but certainly I'd rather see his comeuppance derive from his efforts to place Wikipedia's "needs" over those of actual human beings (and their privacy rights and reputations) as opposed to something like this. Then again, I suppose you take what you can get...
But this is just so clumsy, so artless, that it almost suggests to me that someone on the inside, someone with developer-level access to the WP live database, could be trying to get revenge for something JoshuaZ did by jacking with the stored IP addresses. I'm sure JoshuaZ has done all sorts of things to piss people off on all sides, but what specifically, in this case? I totally don't buy any of this BS about people in the same apartment building or zombie trojan botnets or whatever else they're likely to come up with. But it really is weird.
Maybe I just want our various arch-enemies to turn out to be genius masterminds, or at least somewhat competent, if only to make it seem like this anti-WP stuff really is something of a challenge.
Your argument is a straw man dressed up as a red herring. Don't you see, it's delicious whether it's true or not! It makes no difference to me whether the screen names you mentioned are JoshuaZ's socks. And it's fair game. With admins hiding behind screen names and getting away with all sorts of unethical tactics as they attack real-world people who never bothered Wikipedia to begin with, and wanted nothing more than to be left alone, it is perfectly reasonable to take these admins down by throwing other screen names in their direction by way of accusation, and seeing if anything sticks. It works both ways, however. If you'd rather sit out this game, then the best way to acquire immunity is to never use a screen name to begin with. I have a few issues with the real name thesis; I agree everyone should be willing to expose their real life identities: If anyone can, and will edit, with fake profiles, then we will get people with little or no morals and very little wisdom, changing articles and the truth until everything defaults to the medicore and average. Then there are those editors with an intent on hurting people and the world image of same. Ergo, you get Wikipedia, the model that fails. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Exposing the real life identities of administrators and editors that make a mockery of goodness, the truth, and common decency, is a good way to police the net. I also vote to stop people from being able to impersonate and use the real life name of living people as was done to me. A crack down on this issue is happening all over on the social sites. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
By the way, I just discovered that Zoominfo.com picked up my entire deleted bio from a Wikipedia scraper site. It's the bio as it existed in December 2006, when it was about as bloated as it ever got. The entire "AfD" thing is basically a myth when you consider the larger web. I don't know if Zoominfo would honor a request to delete, but even if they did, it's a bit like chasing my tail. There are an increasing number of sites out there now that specialize in real-life names they get by crawling the web. Once your bio is in Wikipedia, it hardly matters much if it's ever deleted. The only reason why it matters a little bit is because of Google's inflated rankings for Wikipedia. Also, once it's deleted from Wikipedia, those teenie-bopper admins can't fiddle with it anymore. If the search engines ever start treating Wikipedia as just another juvenile social-networking site, deletion from Wikipedia might not matter much at all. Josh Zelinsky is also in Zoominfo.com. He's a mere math counselor there. And there are dozens of Linda Macks in Zoominfo but the only one in Canada is in Estevan, Saskatehewan, and someone in that Estevan office already denied that this is our Linda (if you can believe the denial). I have a lot more work to do. http://www.zoominfo.com/About/"ZoomInfo is the premier business information search engine, with profiles on more than 37 million people and 3.5 million companies. ZoomInfo delivers fresh and organized information on industries, companies, people, products, services and jobs." 37 million people! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Look, I agree completely that JoshuaZ deserves whatever he gets for this, as long as it's bad, even if he didn't actually do what he's being accused of. And y'know, he probably did, and I've just been grossly overestimating him this entire time... which, quite frankly, disappoints me. I was just hoping he would end up being more clever than that. Remember (and at the risk of spamming you all), I wrote the book on Multiple Online Personality Management (MOPM), almost two years ago (actually it was more than two years ago, I was just waiting for the right time to post it). JoshuaZ knows perfectly well how the game is played, and when you get caught, you have to keep playing. Those are the rules. The guilty must do whatever they can to appear innocent; there's no other way. Otherwise, you have to start over, and you never get a second chance to get it right the first time, if you know what I'm sayin'. QUOTE The Three Never-A's
The cardinal rule of MOPM is that the veil of smoke and mirrors must be maintained at all costs, since it will always be the user's only real protection. To maintain it, however, the user must at all times unerringly follow The Three "Never-A's": Never Admit, Never Acquiesce, and Never Apologize.
* Admitting to the use of multiple accounts is by far the worst thing any user can ever do, ever. Absolutely nothing, under any circumstances, could ever warrant such an admission, even to one's closest confidantes - online or off.
* Acquiescence, i.e., reducing one's multi-account usage in response to public accusations by other users, only draws suspicion and must be avoided. (Dropping a secondary account completely in response to such an accusation is tantamount to an admission.)
* Apologizing for multiple account use, even without actually admitting it or revealing any particular secondary account name(s), merely places the user who demands the apology in a superior position and gains the apologizing user absolutely nothing. "Our rule is that it's okay to apologize for anything other than using multiple accounts on a wiki," says [insert name of Somey's representational character here]. "But some people have these nagging consciences, and they feel like they have to say something like, 'well, if I've ever done that, gee, I'm sorry!' Why not just tell them, 'Hey, my bad, I've been busy making a total mockery of this entire site all this time, just to feed my massive ego?'" Long story short, I can see why JoshuaZ is trying to weasel out of this - he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying. What I still don't understand is the sheer pettiness of what he was doing with those accounts. Explanations run the gamut from "these are probably just two among dozens, and he got increasingly careless over time," to my earlier "someone is jacking with the database itself to get revenge on him for some past insult." JoshuaZ obviously has a way of pissing people off, apparently without realizing that he's doing it - but that's still just too unlikely for my taste. Meanwhile, JoshuaZ has a Wikipedia Review account, and he's welcome to chime in with more theories if he wants to do so. (As far as I know, it's the only account he has here...?) |
|
|
|
|
|
| msharma |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 112
Joined:
From: Not Michael Moore
Member No.: 2,466
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th February 2008, 3:31am)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this whole thing really has my head spinning, I have to admit!
Maybe I just want our various arch-enemies to turn out to be genius masterminds, or at least somewhat competent, if only to make it seem like this anti-WP stuff really is something of a challenge.
Two things: first, a good point, people usually pick names that are related to what they're going to be editing. Like JayJG means "SPA POV-pusher" in Swedish. Second, however, I remember the Vorkosigan books. (They were awesome, actually, and have won every award imaginable.) Miles Naismith is more than an alias. Its an alter ego created by the central character when he is feeling stifled by what he's being forced to conform to in his main accou - er, life. The alter ego runs around building up a reputation as a Man of Action and conicidentally helping the central character's efforts to do X. If I had to name a sockpuppet, that is the name I would give him. He is totally the sockpuppet of someone with something to hide. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Aloft |
|
Please stop trying to cause trouble!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 322
Joined:
Member No.: 3,239
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th February 2008, 12:40am) JoshuaZ knows perfectly well how the game is played, and when you get caught, you have to keep playing. Those are the rules. The funny thing is that he is following and breaking all three of those rules at the same time. "I don't have any sockpuppets! And even if I do, I'll stop using them, I promise. If I haven't convinced you that I've never sockpuppeted, then I'm terribly sorry for using them." |
|
|
|
|
|
| LamontStormstar |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,360
Joined:
Member No.: 342
|
QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 16th February 2008, 2:34am) QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th February 2008, 12:40am) JoshuaZ knows perfectly well how the game is played, and when you get caught, you have to keep playing. Those are the rules. The funny thing is that he is following and breaking all three of those rules at the same time. "I don't have any sockpuppets! And even if I do, I'll stop using them, I promise. If I haven't convinced you that I've never sockpuppeted, then I'm terribly sorry for using them." Rule #1: You don't talk about Jimbo being wrong. Rule #2: You don't talk about Jimbo being wrong Rule #3: When someone declares a wikibreak or that they're retiring, even if they're just faking it, you don't block them. Rule #4: Only two people to an edit war. Rule #5: One edit war at a time. Rule #6: They edit war without hiding behind proxies or sock puppets. Rule #7: The edit wars go on as long as they have to. Rule #8: If this is your first time at Wikipedia, you have to edit war. Do these rules sound good? This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Sat 16th February 2008, 11:42am) QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 16th February 2008, 2:34am) QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th February 2008, 12:40am) JoshuaZ knows perfectly well how the game is played, and when you get caught, you have to keep playing. Those are the rules. The funny thing is that he is following and breaking all three of those rules at the same time. "I don't have any sockpuppets! And even if I do, I'll stop using them, I promise. If I haven't convinced you that I've never sockpuppeted, then I'm terribly sorry for using them." Rule #1: You don't talk about Jimbo being wrong. Rule #2: You don't talk about Jimbo being wrong Rule #3: When someone declares a wikibreak or that they're retiring, even if they're just faking it, you don't block them. Rule #4: Only two people to an edit war. Rule #5: One edit war at a time. Rule #6: They edit war without hiding behind proxies or sock puppets. Rule #7: The edit wars go on as long as they have to. Rule #8: If this is your first time at Wikipedia, you have to edit war. Do these rules sound good? How about these: 1) Be an administrator. 2) Never admit wrongdoing. 3) Never apologize to those you've wronged. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Aloft @ Sat 16th February 2008, 3:34am) The funny thing is that he is following and breaking all three of those rules at the same time. And that's what's so odd about this, isn't it? When a non-admin, established rank-and-file editor is falsely accused of using multiple accounts, the process is fairly straightforward - editor becomes righteously indignant, admins deliberately interpret indignation as "attacks" and "evidence of bad faith," editor is banned, admins delare victory over "trolls." (Sure, on rare occasions someone might call bullshit and stop or even reverse the trajectory - and if the editor forgives them, he/she might go on normally, but IMO that isn't common enough to even be statistically relevant.) And when an established rank-and-file editor is correctly identified as a sock-puppeteer, the process is almost exactly the same - except that the person usually stops the indignant-act sooner, and is more likely to just start over or even give up completely, rather than become a WP antagonist and join the "opposing team" in order to obtain some measure of vindication. But when the sock puppeteer is a long-term, "respected" admin, and when the offenses make almost no sense whatsoever unless we grant (as I'm perfectly willing to do) that JoshuaZ is so completely pathetic as to need the support of fake-person accounts on a few mostly-boring deletion reviews... how does the "process" play out then? IMO there is no process - it has to be different in every case, and the sequence of events has to depend on both the admin's reputation/popularity as well as his/her psychological tendencies. JoshuaZ is well-liked by the "cabal," and also by the anti-Intelligent Design people, so he's not going to lack support. But he's also capable of collecting WikiEnemies the way crap collects flies, all while being totally oblivious to the fact. Also, is it possible that JoshuaZ is some sort of real-life dual personality, one of which is smart and competent, the other childish and stupid? That would explain almost everything. This incident may even be some sort of "cry for help," and it wouldn't be the first time we'd seen a Wikipedian break a rule or two in order to (apparently) help himself/herself break the addiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Achromatic |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 191
Joined:
From: Washington State
Member No.: 4,185
|
QUOTE The Three Never-A's
* Acquiescence, i.e., reducing one's multi-account usage in response to public accusations by other users, only draws suspicion and must be avoided. (Dropping a secondary account completely in response to such an accusation is tantamount to an admission.)
Does that mean Samiharris really is Mantanmoreland?!? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| LessHorrid vanU |
|
Devils Advocaat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th February 2008, 3:31am)
...
(Personally, I'd say a "proper" Goth would be more into Bauhaus, Specimen, Alien Sex Fiend, the Misfits, Fields of the Nephilim, and Siouxsie and the Banshees, but I'm old-school.)
...
SatB? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!! Look, I really appreciate that you are entitled to your own opinions on anything you care to, and I have a special place for your jokes, but there are certain things that I just cannot allow to pass without comment. It may even be my problem, or a problem of my making (which is different - somehow) but it happens that this is what I am and I cannot be anything else. I must be true to what I was as well as what I am if I am to become what I am supposed to be. I also realise that this post has nothing to do with anything that has gone before, but... oh, carry on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 16th February 2008, 8:10pm) SatB? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!! Right, I'm aware that most (if not all) Siouxsie fans hate it when they're associated in any way with the more recent emo/grind/industrial scene, not to mention even newer genres like "terror" music and dirge rock (though personally I think iLiKETRAiNS isn't really all that bad, for example). Anyway, sorry about that - "post-punk" is too much of a catch-all term, so I think they use the term "proto-goth" sometimes to try and mollify them. (Though I should really say "us," actually.) The important thing, in terms of this staying on-topic for this particular thread, is that JoshuaZ wouldn't know anything about anything even tangentially related to the goth/proto-goth/emo scene if it walked up and wapped him in the face with a Marilyn Manson inflatable doll. Why he would choose that name remains a complete mystery to me, though I suppose we'll never really know... unless of course he tells us, which probably isn't going to happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Aloft |
|
Please stop trying to cause trouble!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 322
Joined:
Member No.: 3,239
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th February 2008, 9:12pm) JoshuaZ wouldn't know anything about anything even tangentially related to the goth/proto-goth/emo scene if it walked up and wapped him in the face with a Marilyn Manson inflatable doll. Which may have been exactly the reason he picked it. Surely he's at least dimly aware of the existence of the goth scene enough to know that it's, well, the farthest thing from him. Makes it the almost perfect sock name. He probably even looked up "goth" on Wikipedia, where he was shocked to learn that it was invented by Benjamin Franklin in the late 1960's. As a side note, nothing would amuse me more than his name being the first Google result for a search on "Marilyn Manson inflatable doll." Marilyn Manson inflatable doll Marilyn Manson inflatable doll Marilyn Manson inflatable doll Marilyn Manson inflatable dollThis post has been edited by Aloft: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Aloft |
|
Please stop trying to cause trouble!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 322
Joined:
Member No.: 3,239
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sat 16th February 2008, 10:47pm) That hasn't worked since what, 1996? Google totally docks people for that!
Oh, did I say Google? I meant Wikia Search. I wonder when this little episode will start to manifest itself on Wikipedia. Sooner or later, some unknowing person is going to approach JoshuaZ and ask for a page to be undeleted, or some other admin task. What will his story be? This post has been edited by Aloft: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 15th February 2008, 1:23am) I was encouraged to post this. I had nothing to do with its formulation. Greg ... Evidence: IP evidenceQUOTE Dmcdevit:
....
If anything, it looks likely that all three are the same. 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.) ... Did anyone bother to check Dmcdevit's assertions here? Here is what I find in Gothnic's Contribution Log... QUOTE(Gothnic Contributions)
# 16:45, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Leo Stan Ekeh‎ (moved LEO STAN EKEH to Leo Stan Ekeh: no need for ALL CAPS)
# 16:45, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) LEO STAN EKEH‎ (moved LEO STAN EKEH to Leo Stan Ekeh: no need for ALL CAPS)
# 16:43, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2‎ (→Daniel Brandt)
# 16:37, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Quirinus Quirrell‎ (removing WP:OR)
# 16:32, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Gothnic‎
# 16:32, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Gothnic‎
# 16:24, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film‎ (→Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film)
# 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)
# 16:15, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) CIA drug trafficking‎ (removing vandalism)
# 16:12, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Gothnic‎
# 23:56, 25 April 2007 (hist) (diff) m The Great Global Warming Swindle‎ (→Other reaction)
# 15:51, 6 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Essjay controversy‎ (→Scandal fallout)
# 06:53, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) User:Gothnic‎
# 06:52, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Blown Entertainment‎ (→Full Blown Entertainment: delete)
# 06:49, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Kope‎ (welcome)
# 06:48, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt‎ (→Hmm: agree)
# 06:46, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Parading on donkey‎ (→Scope)
# 06:44, 25 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Public humiliation‎ (→Private investigation)
# 03:31, 13 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Pac-Man‎ (→Gameplay: - dead template)
# 08:53, 11 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lindsay Lohan‎ (→Offensive: oops)
# 08:53, 11 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lindsay Lohan‎ (→Offensive)
# 18:10, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Gothnic‎ (+category. more is good)
# 18:08, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Lindsay Lohan‎ (removing unsourced edit from IP that has made other questionable edits)
# 18:07, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:88.110.20.196‎ (please don't) (top)
# 18:06, 10 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Graham Norton‎ (removing vandalism. why would people do that?)
Gothnic's 4th edit, on 10 Nov 2006, is on his own User Page. He doesn't come to the Brandt Deletion Review until his 10th edit, 2 1/2 months later. What's true is that Gothnic only edited WP on four different days between 10 Nov 2006 and 25 Feb 2007. It was on the occasion of his fourth visit that he chimed in on the Brandt Deletion Review. Miles Naismith never even voted on any Brandt-related review, an issue that JZ is reputed to be obsessed with. It looks to me like Dmcdevitt's interpretation of the evidence isn't supported by the evidence he's citing and relying on, and his reasoning isn't very well-grounded, either. To my mind, the evidence for sock-puppeting is flimsy, and better explained by the theory that Gothnic and Miles Naismith are just a coupla of Yalies who use the same computer clusters, who also frequent Au Bon Pain for an occasional cup of coffee, and who may not even know JZ. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 9:50am) Were you born in the middle of a battlefield, under a hail of bullets? Musing on a deletion debate on a controversial WP article du jour is hardly comparable to what was going on at the warplane factories in Wichita the year I was born. QUOTE It seems you're being dense on purpose only because Josh took the time to send you a few PMs. Look, I could care less if Josh were guilty or not. What concerns me is how people engage in evidence-based reasoning in general, to arrive at what they envision to be the ground truth. All that's been shown is that three WP weenies were matriculating at Yale in a similar way. Has anyone contacted either Gothnic or Miles Naismith and asked them to come forward and identify themselves as a distinct bag of protoplasm from JZ? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Derktar @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 9:50am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 6:47am)
And I began life on this planet amidst a major world wide conflict. So what?
Were you born in the middle of a battlefield, under a hail of bullets? It seems you're being dense on purpose only because Josh took the time to send you a few PMs. Being Dense On Purpose (WP:DOP) is of course one of the major symptoms of chronic Wikipediosis. IANAWBIPOOTI (I Am Not A Wikiphysician But I Play One On The Internet), Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 10:01am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:59pm) What concerns me is how people engage in evidence-based reasoning in general, to arrive at what they envision to be the ground truth. That's starting to intrigue me as well. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Look, you've got a pile of data, and you're looking for an explanatory theory. Dmcdevitt forms one theory. Florence thinks there must be another, more plausible theory. JZ posits a third (highly implausible) theory involving rootkits and revenge. And I suggest yet another theory, that there are three chaps at Yale who edit WP, who may or may not know each other and who occasionally weigh in on a controversial issue that has come to their attention. Now do we know which of these theories is closer to the ground truth? How do we know? If we don't know, how can we find out? Is there any evidence that might be sought to support or refute any of the alternative theories? |
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:01pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:59pm)
What concerns me is how people engage in evidence-based reasoning in general, to arrive at what they envision to be the ground truth.
That's starting to intrigue me as well. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Hmm. I'll have to go and check what the checkuser said, but I think the issue is that JoshuaZ has had a very consistent IP address, rather than a selection from a pool, and the same IP address occurring on edits very close in time: which just does not happen, even if the pool of IP addresses does get recycled - I don't believe anyone would configure a pool to release IP addresses over a few minutes. So, if the IP addresses are similar, then Moulton's approach holds water. If they are the same, it is unlikely. ... checking the start of this thread ... QUOTE
Checkusers disagree and conclude very likely socking, noting the identical IPs from a variety of locations used by all 3 accounts in common, some of which appear to be private residences as well as college, plus behavioral mannerisms are very similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Random832 |
|
meh
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,933
Joined:
Member No.: 4,844
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:16pm) QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 10:01am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:59pm) What concerns me is how people engage in evidence-based reasoning in general, to arrive at what they envision to be the ground truth. That's starting to intrigue me as well. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Look, you've got a pile of data, and you're looking for an explanatory theory. Dmcdevitt forms one theory. Florence thinks there must be another, more plausible theory. JZ posits a third (highly implausible) theory involving rootkits and revenge. And I suggest yet another theory, that there are three chaps at Yale who edit WP, who may or may not know each other and who occasionally weigh in on a controversial issue that has come to their attention. Now do we know which of these theories is closer to the ground truth? How do we know? If we don't know, how can we find out? Is there any evidence that might be sought to support or refute any of the alternative theories? All I know at this point is that if JZ thinks there's a rootkit, he'd damn sure better have reformatted his computer and changed all his passwords. Have you done so, JoshuaZ? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 10:24am) ... checking the start of this thread ... QUOTE Checkusers disagree and conclude very likely socking, noting the identical IPs from a variety of locations used by all 3 accounts in common, some of which appear to be private residences as well as college, plus behavioral mannerisms are very similar. Did checkusers investigate to see if the three users were logging into WP from campus computer clusters, which would put them on identically configured machines with identical (or nearly identical) IPs? Did checkusers look into the configuration of the wireless hotspots at Au Bon Pain and Claire's to see if they used a NAT setup that puts all customers on a single public IP? Did anybody notice that this damning assertion by Chief Prosecutor Dmcdevitt... QUOTE(Comment by Dmcdevit at ArbCom)
This is an unacceptable response. Has everyone forgotten the issue here? It is almost a certainty based on the evidence that they are the same person on *the same computer*, and using some implausible defense about sharing the same school with other people shouldn't cut it. If Josh can't even come up with a proper story about his roommate using his computer or something, then it's pretty obvious he's lying and should be desysopped forthwith. This is, basically, a pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry from my end, having not interacted with Josh much before, and I hope he's not getting unfair treatment because you like him.
Remember, he and the sockpuppets shared IPs simultaneously, switching back and forth, the voted at several of the same contentious debates (even though the sock accounts had very few real edits, they still voted in all the Brandt debates), and when Josh even made a couple edits from an ISP he doesn't usually use, the sock account used that IP at the same time, too (so, if it is the "roommate," they must be attached at the hip, too).
... is unsupported by the evidence? As I examine the evidence, Miles Naismith did not vote in the Brandt debate. Am I misreading the WP logs? Where else did Dmcdevit misread or misinterpet the evidence, put forth prosecutorial arguments at variance with the evidence, or assert conclusions not supported by the evidence? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 4:05pm) As I examine the evidence, Miles Naismith did not vote in the Brandt debate. Am I misreading the WP logs? Where else did Dmcdevit misread or misinterpet the evidence, put forth prosecutorial arguments at variance with the evidence, or assert conclusions not supported by the evidence? You've got it wrong. Dmcdevit said: QUOTE(Dmcdevit) They start voting and participating in deletion discussions within their first few edits. ...and then goes on to say Gothnic voted on the Brandt deletions. I've already explained how Naismith and Gothnic appeared out of the blue to vote on the same deletion discussion within hours (alongside JoshuaZ). Naismith discussing process on the debate in his first week. But you didn't respond to that highly unlikely coincidence with any meaningful statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
| No one of consequence |
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined:
Member No.: 1,010
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:05pm)
Did checkusers investigate to see if the three users were logging into WP from campus computer clusters, which would put them on identically configured machines with identical (or nearly identical) IPs?
Did checkusers look into the configuration of the wireless hotspots at Au Bon Pain and Claire's to see if they used a NAT setup that puts all customers on a single public IP?
Moulton, I think you need to go back and refresh your memory on the Arbcom leak as well as Joshua's explanation. For one thing, he says he had not been on campus for the last 6 months. If Dmcdevit's summary is accurate, that Gothnic and Joshua appear on the same 5 IPs at the same times, then you could explain that as rooommates who always go out for coffee and edit together. But in that case Joshua would know the roommate's name and would simple provide it rather than fish around for the "I was hacked" explanation, don't you think? I am actually not moved at all by the explanation, "If I was socking I would have taken more precautions." He probably thought he was above the possibility of being checkusered. |
|
|
|
|
|
| No one of consequence |
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined:
Member No.: 1,010
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:15pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 4:05pm) As I examine the evidence, Miles Naismith did not vote in the Brandt debate. Am I misreading the WP logs? Where else did Dmcdevit misread or misinterpet the evidence, put forth prosecutorial arguments at variance with the evidence, or assert conclusions not supported by the evidence? You've got it wrong. Dmcdevit said: QUOTE(Dmcdevit) They start voting and participating in deletion discussions within their first few edits. ...and then goes on to say Gothnic voted on the Brandt deletions. I've already explained how Naismith and Gothnic appeared out of the blue to vote on the same deletion discussion (alongside JoshuaZ). Naismith discussing process on the debate in his first week. But you didn't respond to that highly unlikely coincidence with any meaningful statement. I'm guessing the red flag was raised over Gothnic, and Miles was only caught by accident. I could even believe that Gothnic was a sock but Miles was a friend or roommate, who was recruited for the Barbra Schwarz DRV, but for the silly rootkit explanation. QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:20pm)
My point is that the standards of evidence and reasoning seem to be lacking even in cases where the other side of the stadium is cheering the umpire's haphazard call.
For the record, I am happy that JZ voluntarily resigned his bits.
But not for the reason given.
We are having this conversation based on a (according to FloNight) partial copy of a leaked conversation. We don't have the actual checkuser results, for example. We have assertions by checkusers that the evidence is damning and discussion by non-checkusers that "I don't believe he would do that." We have no idea what the evidence was or what standards were applied, so it seems silly to criticize Arbcom for lack of due process and diligence; we're in Plato's cave, watching the shadows on the wall. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 11:15am) I've already explained how Naismith and Gothnic appeared out of the blue to vote on the same deletion discussion within hours (alongside JoshuaZ). Naismith discussing process on the debate in his first week. But you didn't respond to that highly unlikely coincidence with any meaningful statement. Kato, is it possible that there are three different students at Yale who are Wikipedians, and two of them (Gothnic and Miles Naismith) are good buddies? Also, Kato, please go back to the ArbCom text, and confirm for yourself the part I excerpted, where Dmcdevit (erroneously) asserted that all three voted in all the Brandt debates, whereas the evidence shows that Miles Naismith did not vote on any of the Brandt debates. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 4:31pm)
Also, Kato, please go back to the ArbCom text, and confirm for yourself the part I excerpted, where Dmcdevit (erroneously) asserted that all three voted in all the Brandt debates, whereas the evidence shows that Miles Naismith did not vote on any of the Brandt debates.
Below is the part you excerpted. You've got it wrong. Dmcdevit did not say that "all three voted on the Brandt debates" he said the following: QUOTE(Dmcdevit ) If anything, it looks likely that all three are the same. 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.) ... Meaning that the two accounts (Gothnic and Naismith) started voting in a series of deletion debates. Not the Brandt deletion debate. This is why I explained to you in various forms where you had made an error. And I'm explaining it to you again. In your view there are a bunch of people engaging in "poor standards of reasoning and evidence". Coincidentally, I also believe that there are a bunch of people unable to reason from evidence. And you've just become another member of that group. In my mind, I'm Socrates in sea of irrationality where y'all are just drowning droogs. Well we all have our fantasies and delusions don't we? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 10:49am) In your view there are a bunch of people engaging in "poor standards of reasoning and evidence". Coincidentally, I also believe that there are a bunch of people unable to reason from evidence. And you've just become another member of that group. In my mind, I'm Socrates in sea of irrationality where y'all are just drowning droogs. Well we all have our fantasies and delusions don't we? Exactly. Sometimes a cigar is, as they say, just a cigar.If you read over this thread, you'll see that after my initial unrestrained glee over the JoshuaZ sockpuppetry evidence, I actually started to express some skepticism over it - after all, the two accounts were used in a clumsy, artless way, not the sort of thing you'd expect from an experienced WP'er, much less someone like JoshuaZ who purports to be an intellectual. But the more I've thought about it since then, the more I realize that it's way too easy for us to overestimate these people. The fact is, we want our arch-adversaries to be at least as smart as we are, because that makes the eventual victory (if it ever occurs) taste better, and it makes defeat (if that ever occurs) taste less bitter. I suspect that JoshuaZ is really something more along the lines of a savant, or perhaps just the classic unsociable nerd, who has developed a steel-hard ego facade over years of being taken lightly and dismissed by others, probably because of his appearance and/or personality. Wikipedia is nirvana for people like that. And it probably never even occurred to him that he could be caught, much less would be, nor did it occur to him that what he was doing might be considered "wrong" by others. He did it because it was an efficient means to a desired end, simple as that. Again, there's nothing mysterious about this. We were all fooled. We all overestimated him, and as for those who continue to overestimate him, well... they're just bigger fools than we are. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 11:49am) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 4:31pm) Also, Kato, please go back to the ArbCom text, and confirm for yourself the part I excerpted, where Dmcdevit (erroneously) asserted that all three voted in all the Brandt debates, whereas the evidence shows that Miles Naismith did not vote on any of the Brandt debates. Below is the part you excerpted. You've got it wrong. Dmcdevit did not say that "all three voted on the Brandt debates" he said the following: QUOTE(Dmcdevit ) If anything, it looks likely that all three are the same. 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.)... Meaning that the two accounts (Gothnic and Naismith) started voting in a series of deletion debates. Not the Brandt deletion debate.This is why I explained to you in various forms where you had made an error. And I'm explaining it to you again. That's not the excerpt I was directing you to, Kato. The one I am asking you to look at is this one that I also quoted, downthread a bit, in post #99... QUOTE(Comment by Dmcdevit at ArbCom)
This is an unacceptable response. Has everyone forgotten the issue here? It is almost a certainty based on the evidence that they are the same person on *the same computer*, and using some implausible defense about sharing the same school with other people shouldn't cut it. If Josh can't even come up with a proper story about his roommate using his computer or something, then it's pretty obvious he's lying and should be desysopped forthwith. This is, basically, a pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry from my end, having not interacted with Josh much before, and I hope he's not getting unfair treatment because you like him.
Remember, he and the sockpuppets shared IPs simultaneously, switching back and forth, the voted at several of the same contentious debates (even though the sock accounts had very few real edits, they still voted in all the Brandt debates), and when Josh even made a couple edits from an ISP he doesn't usually use, the sock account used that IP at the same time, too (so, if it is the "roommate," they must be attached at the hip, too).
Do you see that excerpt, Kato? The one where Dmcdevit says they still voted in all the Brandt debates? QUOTE(Kato) In your view there are a bunch of people engaging in "poor standards of reasoning and evidence". Coincidentally, I also believe that there are a bunch of people unable to reason from evidence. And you've just become another member of that group. In my mind, I'm Socrates in sea of irrationality where y'all are just drowning droogs. Well we all have our fantasies and delusions don't we? Please refactor that opinion, Kato, as I believe you had overlooked the excerpt that I had sought (and evidently failed) to bring to your attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 11:51am) QUOTE(dmcdevit) Remember, he and the sockpuppets shared IPs simultaneously, switching back and forth, the voted at several of the same contentious debates (even though the sock accounts had very few real edits, they still voted in all the Brandt debates), and when Josh even made a couple edits from an ISP he doesn't usually use, the sock account used that IP at the same time, too (so, if it is the "roommate," they must be attached at the hip, too). Do you see that excerpt, Kato? The one where Dmcdevit says they still voted in all the Brandt debates? How is that exculpatory? In any way whatsoever? Even if it weren't Dmcdevit, any person making such a statement could have simply meant "all the Brandt debates that have been pointed out as having been double-voted on." We know there weren't that many - but that probably just means is that Joshy let his conscience get the better of him on all the other Brandt deletion debates. |
|
|
|
|
|
| No one of consequence |
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined:
Member No.: 1,010
|
OK, so Dmcdevit misspoke (or lied, I suppose). May I highlight a different part of the exerpt? QUOTE(Comment by Dmcdevit at ArbCom)
This is an unacceptable response. Has everyone forgotten the issue here? It is almost a certainty based on the evidence that they are the same person on *the same computer*, and using some implausible defense about sharing the same school with other people shouldn't cut it. If Josh can't even come up with a proper story about his roommate using his computer or something, then it's pretty obvious he's lying and should be desysopped forthwith. This is, basically, a pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry from my end, having not interacted with Josh much before, and I hope he's not getting unfair treatment because you like him.
Remember, he and the sockpuppets shared IPs simultaneously, switching back and forth, the voted at several of the same contentious debates (even though the sock accounts had very few real edits, they still voted in all the Brandt debates), and when Josh even made a couple edits from an ISP he doesn't usually use, the sock account used that IP at the same time, too (so, if it is the "roommate," they must be attached at the hip, too).
Same quote, different bolding. The fact that JZ kept Miles Naismith in the drawer for the only Brandt discussion that occurred after the account's creation (DRV on 9 December), and that Dmcdevit misspoke about this, is hardly sufficient to overturn the remainder of Dmcdevit's statement, especially considering that all three accounts appeared at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Barbara Schwarz‎]], which is a worse BLP problem than Daniel Brandt. (The poor woman is likely mentally ill, and is "notable" for filing tons of bogus FOIA requests looking for evidence that she was born at a secret submarine base in Utah, among other things. Brandt at least is sane.) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:22pm) Nor can he be trusted as a reliable investigator since he demonstrably exhibits a failure of diligence and care in crafting and presenting a prosecutorial argument and conclusion properly grounded in evidence and reasoning. Okay, so in effect, what you're saying is that JoshuaZ, by virtue of his... what, position? Number of edits? ...deserves an investigation into his "alleged" socking activities that is of a higher standard of diligence, care, and honesty than what he got, or perhaps than what's normally afforded to other users. I doubt that anyone on Wikipedia would dispute that, actually, even if most WR "regulars" would. But what if they simply don't have anyone "better" or more "trusted" by them than Dmcdevit? Do you think they'd admit it? (hint: no)Some problems have no solutions, Moulton - if they don't have anyone capable of figuring this out whom they actually trust, then they don't have anyone, simple as that. But so what? If they come back and say "we know for a fact that JoshuaZ was framed, but sorry, we're not going to tell you why we know that," why should we believe them? They lie, Moulton - it's unfortunate, and it's sad, and it messes with one's otherwise-optimistic view of human nature, but there's just no getting around it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 3:27pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:22pm) Nor can he be trusted as a reliable investigator since he demonstrably exhibits a failure of diligence and care in crafting and presenting a prosecutorial argument and conclusion properly grounded in evidence and reasoning. Okay, so in effect, what you're saying is that JoshuaZ, by virtue of his... what, position? Number of edits? ...deserves an investigation into his "alleged" socking activities that is of a higher standard of diligence, care, and honesty than what he got, or perhaps than what's normally afforded to other users. I'm saying that anyone no matter how despised or beloved, is entitled to fair treatment. It's called Civil Rights. QUOTE(Somey) I doubt that anyone on Wikipedia would dispute that, actually, even if most WR "regulars" would. But what if they simply don't have anyone "better" or more "trusted" by them than Dmcdevit? Do you think they'd admit it?
(hint: no)
Some problems have no solutions, Moulton - if they don't have anyone capable of figuring this out whom they actually trust, then they don't have anyone, simple as that. But so what? If they come back and say "we know for a fact that JoshuaZ was framed, but sorry, we're not going to tell you why we know that," why should we believe them? There is an enterprise that I spent my entire career engaged in, Somey. It's called Research. That's how you find solutions to unsolved problems. WP did have at least a few ethical souls on board. Alas, one of them abruptly disembarked today. And for what it's worth, I don't believe JZ was framed by some nasty Yalie who was out to get him. QUOTE(Somey) They lie, Moulton - it's unfortunate, and it's sad, and it messes with one's otherwise-optimistic view of human nature, but there's just no getting around it. I think they are merely self-deluded, Somey. Self-delusion is much more ubiquitous than deliberate deception. That's why I'm so keen on evidence-based reasoning. It helps to reduce the incidence of self-delusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Not to cherry-pick or anything, but... QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:39pm) There is an enterprise that I spent my entire career engaged in, Somey. It's called Research. That's how you find solutions to unsolved problems. The kind of "research" that would be required on Wikipedia to determine the trustworthiness of a promising new sockpuppetry investigator would generally be referred to by them as "stalking." (And has been, many times.) Even if you could assume the person has (or had) a talent for it, it still takes months, or even years, of loyal sucking up and participation in wagon-circling activities for them to trust someone. Not to mention the fact that in the case of sockpuppetry investigations, the kind of research required to get at the truth is, quite frankly, frightening to them. People who show a talent for it are, if anything, less likely to be trusted by the inner circle(s) than people who don't. Now, part of that is our fault (or at least some of us) for being so damned interested in who they are in real life, but certainly not as much of it as they'd try to make you believe, if you even had the opportunity to ask them. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 8:39pm)
That's why I'm so keen on evidence-based reasoning. It helps to reduce the incidence of self-delusion.
I'm keen on evidence-based reasoning as well. From a non-Science based perspective, but nonetheless it amounts to the same thing as far as we are concerned in this small part of the world. People come to the Wikipedia Review with all manner of theories about Wikipedian behavior. I look at the available evidence and come to a conclusion. Sometimes this is at odds with the promoter of the theory, and I've been known to forcefully make it clear that the theory lacks credibility. Other times I support a theory because of overwhelming evidence. This is one of those latter occasions. The sockpuppet theory is significantly more credible than any other theory. Way past the point where we could seriously entertain ideas involving coffee houses or ghost vectors. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
The need for a Sock-Puppet Investigator at all arises from a systemic flaw in the fundamental architecture of the system. Given that flaw, the possibility of sock-puppetting arises, and hence the necessity to police it.
But as far as I'm concerned, that's neither here nor there, since the need for evidence-based reasoning arises for any thesis one is seeking to establish as the ground truth (including, for example, what's evidently true about the subject of an article appearing in a popularly read encyclopedia).
I suppose if you really wanted to know who User:Gothnic is in real life, there is a more reliable way to find out than the curious method detailed in this thread.
I suppose if people want to believe some amusing theory, that's their God-given right.
What interests me is the process by which people come to adopt their beliefs, whatever they are, and what transpires in the wake of acting upon erroneous beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dogbiscuit |
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
|
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 8:58pm)
The sockpuppet theory is significantly more credible than any other theory. Way past the point where we could seriously entertain ideas involving coffee houses or ghost vectors.
Agreed. In civil law, we would be well beyond the balance of probabilities. It is debatable whether we are beyond reasonable doubt - in part because people distort that concept into the sort of exercise where you consider any implausible but imaginable scenario as a reasonable doubt. That being said, even with almost overwhelming evidence, if someone could come up with solid proof, then that can be overturned. Unfortunately, "because I am innocent" does not fall into that category. What Moulton has posited are some lines of enquiry. They do not necessarily match the evidence presented, but if followed could allow someone to find hard evidence. Such evidence would be: * Evidence that the two other editors exist, and where they could provide their timeline to a reasonable degree. Given that they were physically close, one would assume that a local real world notice might elicit a response. * Evidence about the nature of the networks at each point that would allow for these to assign the same IP at similar times, including evidence as to why the client identities would be the same. * Evidence as to the geography of these IPs being feasible. * Anything else which in the old days would be called an cast-iron alibi. Really though we are saying: unless the whole checkuser thing is going to be followed through to the nth degree, editing Wikipedia ain't that big a deal, it is not worth the effort to do a formal forensic investigation. If JoshuaZ is not a sockpuppeteer to the provided proof, then by the same level of proof, indeed a far lesser degree, we can see that the many other socks are far more unlikely to be socks than JoshuaZ. So I say to the Wikipedian community: if you want to believe that JoshuaZ is innocent of socking, then that is fine, but be aware of the level of evidence here, and in the Gary Weiss scandal, where you are saying that the community has decided that sufficient proof of socking has not been delivered. The only ethical thing, therefore, is to allow any sockpuppeteer or sockpuppet who refutes their accusation that is backed only by a lesser amount of evidence to be allowed to resume editing with their name cleared. So, if you want to keep JoshuaZ and Gary Weiss as editors based on insufficient evidence, then you should accept that editors that claim to be wrongly accused such as Poetlister deserve to be reinstated. You have seen that Piperdown has not been disruptive on Wikipedia, it is no big deal, no great risk, to allow this. And you really need to have a proper think about the whole sockpuppet mess you have gotten into. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Moulton |
|
Anthropologist from Mars
Group: Contributors
Posts: 10,222
Joined:
From: Greater Boston
Member No.: 3,670
|
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 4:40pm) What Moulton has posited are some lines of enquiry. They do not necessarily match the evidence presented, but if followed could allow someone to find hard evidence. Such evidence would be:
* Evidence that the two other editors exist, and where they could provide their timeline to a reasonable degree. Given that they were physically close, one would assume that a local real world notice might elicit a response.
* Evidence about the nature of the networks at each point that would allow for these to assign the same IP at similar times, including evidence as to why the client identities would be the same.
* Evidence as to the geography of these IPs being feasible.
* Anything else which in the old days would be called an cast-iron alibi. Before JZ had any idea what the IPs were in the IP evidence, he disclosed this. QUOTE(JZ) 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. Now it really can't be all that hard to establish that any of the on-campus computer clusters have fleets of identical machines with Class C Subnets. It can't be all that hard to find out the IP for anyone using the wireless hotspots at the two coffee houses. When Alison did the CU, she found these non-Yale IPs... QUOTE(Alison CU Report)
* 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?
Now what Allie probably didn't know at the time was that Josh (and presumably other Yale students) frequented Au Bon Pain and Claire's. So those two IPs may well have been those two small businesses. Allie says Gothnic's useragents are always the same no matter which IP he is at, meaning he always used his own laptop. But note that she doesn't say that Gothnic's useragents match those for JoshuaZ. I'd bet dollars to dunkin' donuts that customers with wifi laptops at those two coffee shops all share a common IP. Moreover, that would mean it's a NAT router, with no inbound ports passed down to the wifi clients. Hence the rootkit theory would almost surely be bunk. How hard would it have been to confirm any of those plausible theories? QUOTE(UseOnceAndDestroy @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 4:44pm) QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 9:19pm) I suppose if you really wanted to know who User:Gothnic is in real life, there is a more reliable way to find out than the curious method detailed in this thread. Sadly, there isn't. The suspicion our puppeteer had lined up someone to act Gothnic would pretty quickly do that one in. Someone would have to do more than just act Gothnic. They'd also have to have a laptop matching Gothnic's useragent, which Allie knows, but which some stand-in would not. And the stand-in would have to know information related to Gothnic's edits over a 2 1/2 year period. That would be a lot of cramming for a stand-in. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 4:21pm) Allie says Gothnic's useragents are always the same no matter which IP he is at, meaning he always used his own laptop. But note that she doesn't say that Gothnic's useragents match those for JoshuaZ. Perhaps she can drop in and clarify for us, then. I don't interpret "all user agents are identical on both of Gothnic's IPs" to necessarily mean she's excluding JoshuaZ's user agents - it's not uncommon for people to write these things without much precision, and frankly, I think that if the user agents had been different they would have mentioned that quite clearly, as possibly being (somewhat) exculpatory. QUOTE How hard would it have been to confirm any of those plausible theories? I guess you'd have to call the Au Bon Pain and Claire's and ask them what their IP's are, eh? And hope the person on the phone has the faintest clue of what you're talking about, and doesn't object to your asking? Also assuming it hasn't changed over the course of two years... QUOTE Someone would have to do more than just act Gothnic. They'd also have to have a laptop matching Gothnic's useragent, which Allie knows, but which some stand-in would not. And the stand-in would have to know information related to Gothnic's edits over a 2 1/2 year period. That would be a lot of cramming for a stand-in. Now you're just being absurd, Moulton. "Useragents" can change, obviously, by installation of a new browser. What's more, if JoshuaZ actually did go to the (equally absurd) extent of hiring an actor to play "Gothnic," he could very easily tell him/her what browser he was using when he made those edits, and write up a nice advance summary of what he/she was supposed to have done. You're grasping at straws. What's more, you know how this will play out: They'll make it clear that everyone is supposed to drop the subject, wait a few weeks, and then pretend nothing had ever happened. That's going to happen no matter what you say in JoshuaZ's defense - even if he himself doesn't want it to go down that way. |
|
|
|
|
|
| No one of consequence |
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all
Group: Regulars
Posts: 635
Joined:
Member No.: 1,010
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 9:21pm) Before JZ had any idea what the IPs were in the IP evidence, he disclosed this. QUOTE(JZ) 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. Come on, Moulton, in his emailed explanation, presumably written later than the comment you quote, he said he had not edited from on-campus in quite some time. Damn, I need to start taking Awbrey's advice. <ignore> |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Rootology @ Thu 24th April 2008, 4:02pm) Josh was indeed nailed by the Arbs for this. You call that being nailed? I hope you didn't use nails like that to build your house with - you'd be safer living in a marshmallow igloo. QUOTE Can we move this thread to Josh's forum? Eventually, sure. But if they're not going to give him even close to what he deserves, why should we be pulling any punches? |
|
|
|
|
|
| WhispersOfWisdom |
|
Lee Nysted
Group: Regulars
Posts: 543
Joined:
Member No.: 2,310
|
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 23rd April 2008, 8:13pm)
When JZ was informed there was a charge of sock-puppetry against him, he was not told the names of the sock-puppet accounts, the IPs they connected from, or the range of dates. At the time he volunteered info on where he posted from he had no idea what the IP evidence looked like.
This ^ appears, not so surprisingly, I might add, to be the writing of someone not only defending JoshuaZ, but maybe even one in the same family, friends, neighbors, professors? Perhaps? Defense to the bitter end of what? Lied and fried...do the time for the crime. Youth slips up and then cannot admit failure. That is true failure. Maybe he should come back as himself following a major overhaul of his personality / morality and following a major amends to the world at large. A surrender story to follow? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
