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

[Jon Awbrey]

JoshuaZ has Dissociative identity disorder, and his multiple personalities were all logging onto Wikipedia and voting in deletion reviews. There is no way that the "Alpha" persona could have known what the "Beta" and so on were doing. He is completely innocent, and by discussing this you are guilty of harassment, e-libel, e-defamation, and e-manslaughter for you have assassinated his character.

Well, yeah, sure, but how does that make him different from all the other Adminds?

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:02am

[Somey]

Right.

OK, let's do the usual B.S. "super-sleuth sockpuppet investigation," shall we? How about the "Essjay controversy" article, for example.

Here's User:Gothnic, adding a nice bit of info to the article at 15:51, 6 March 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113080233

Later, Louisville Courier was able to confirm elements of Jordan's new CV but not all of its claims. In particular, the University of Louisville stated they had no record of Jordan studying there as he had claimed on Wikia CV.

Oops, Gothnic left out the word "his"!

So here's JoshuaZ, two edits and three minutes later, at 15:54, 6 March 2007, adding the word "his":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113080546

Just how bloody stupid do they think we are? I mean, if someone is operating from JoshuaZ's computer via a rootkit, what are the chances that JoshuaZ would show up on the exact same article, three minutes later, to correct that very user's mistake?

Here's a hint: ZERO?

Not to mention the fact that anyone could have found something like this with the tiniest fraction of the effort that's been expended on Poetlister or Piperdown, among thousands of others.

In fact, this was the first example I checked.

For shit's sake, Wikipedia, figure it out already. You've been had, and not even very cleverly.

[Kato]

No, no, Somey. Rootkit. It was the Rootkit.

[Proabivouac]

Right.

OK, let's do the usual B.S. "super-sleuth sockpuppet investigation," shall we? How about the "Essjay controversy" article, for example.

Here's User:Gothnic, adding a nice bit of info to the article at 15:51, 6 March 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113080233

Later, Louisville Courier was able to confirm elements of Jordan's new CV but not all of its claims. In particular, the University of Louisville stated they had no record of Jordan studying there as he had claimed on Wikia CV.

Oops, Gothnic left out the word "his"!

So here's JoshuaZ, two edits and three minutes later, at 15:54, 6 March 2007, adding the word "his":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113080546

Just how bloody stupid do they think we are? I mean, if someone is operating from JoshuaZ's computer via a rootkit, what are the chances that JoshuaZ would show up on the exact same article, three minutes later, to correct that very user's mistake?

Here's a hint: ZERO?

Not to mention the fact that anyone could have found something like this with the tiniest fraction of the effort that's been expended on Poetlister or Piperdown, among thousands of others.

In fact, this was the first example I checked.

For shit's sake, Wikipedia, figure it out already. You've been had, and not even very cleverly.

That's pretty funny.

So there are the Checkusers and Arbitrators, wringing their hands for who knows how long trying to figure out whether to believe him or not, without ever bothering to check contribs to see if they can't solve it for themselves.

[Derktar]

Right.

OK, let's do the usual B.S. "super-sleuth sockpuppet investigation," shall we? How about the "Essjay controversy" article, for example.

Here's User:Gothnic, adding a nice bit of info to the article at 15:51, 6 March 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113080233

Later, Louisville Courier was able to confirm elements of Jordan's new CV but not all of its claims. In particular, the University of Louisville stated they had no record of Jordan studying there as he had claimed on Wikia CV.

Oops, Gothnic left out the word "his"!

So here's JoshuaZ, two edits and three minutes later, at 15:54, 6 March 2007, adding the word "his":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113080546

Just how bloody stupid do they think we are? I mean, if someone is operating from JoshuaZ's computer via a rootkit, what are the chances that JoshuaZ would show up on the exact same article, three minutes later, to correct that very user's mistake?

Here's a hint: ZERO?

Not to mention the fact that anyone could have found something like this with the tiniest fraction of the effort that's been expended on Poetlister or Piperdown, among thousands of others.

In fact, this was the first example I checked.

For shit's sake, Wikipedia, figure it out already. You've been had, and not even very cleverly.

Oh dear...

[Milton Roe]

JoshuaZ has Dissociative identity disorder, and his multiple personalities were all logging onto Wikipedia and voting in deletion reviews. There is no way that the "Alpha" persona could have known what the "Beta" and so on were doing. He is completely innocent, and by discussing this you are guilty of harassment, e-libel, e-defamation, and e-manslaughter for you have assassinated his character.

This would be a good all-purpose one. Instead of My Name is Sybil it would be My Name is JoshuaZ

Another promising defence might be the patented Patrick Kennedy, Jr. "Ambien defence."

Sleepwalking, and eating, or driving, or editing Wikipedia while not fully awake, with amnesia for the event, have been reported. If you experience any of these behaviors contact your provider immediately.

Provider being Jimbo.

Ah, things were so much simpler in the time of Teddy Kennedy, where it was a simple matter of too much alcohol, a lost weekend or night or whatever, and, er, drowning your sorrows. But the adults got wise to that, so nowadays we have medicalization of just about everything. Including, I'm sure, every Wikipedia administrator misdeed. Just wait.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Wed 23rd April 2008, 12:08am

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Well obviously, the evil WR hacker logged in as Sockin' Josh to make the correction, despite not having the password, just to create this example 13 months hence.

The next wikipediot to say "conspiracy theorist" gets laughed at.

Anyway...Flo says "full discussion was not leaked". Wikileaker, is there anything relevant, or is she misdirecting?

[Kato]

Well obviously, the evil WR hacker logged in as Sockin' Josh to make the correction, despite not having the password, just to create this example 13 months hence.

"It was the Rootkit Vector thing-a-ma jig"

[dogbiscuit]

No, no, Somey. Rootkit. It was the Rootkit.

Much though it pains me, I think that logic puts Squeakbox in the frame as another sockmaster 'cos he got there first. What are the chances of that...

Watch list. Only from the history that I can see (article was moved?), JoshuaZ had not edited the page before, therefore he would not have had this on his watch list. (OK, we can play further Russian Dolls with this if you wish).

[Derktar]

No, no, Somey. Rootkit. It was the Rootkit.

Much though it pains me, I think that logic puts Squeakbox in the frame as another sockmaster 'cos he got there first. What are the chances of that...

Watch list. Only from the history that I can see (article was moved?), JoshuaZ had not edited the page before, therefore he would not have had this on his watch list. (OK, we can play further Russian Dolls with this if you wish).

Well it really comes down to what portion JoshuaZ happened to edit as well, Squeak was simply putting up a tag, Joshua corrected himself.

[Moulton]

Surely anyone sophisticated enough for the rest of this can fake a user agent. I've always said checkuser should log the accept mime-types header, since that - while it gives less information - is less likely to be faked than a user agent.

In order to fake a user agent you have to know the user agent.

[Daniel Brandt]

I was going to do a photoshop and replace the face on this:
using this new face:

and add a title: JoshuaGate

and a new caption under the pic: "Screw ArbCom. My cat did it, and they can't prove she didn't. Now give me back my sysop bit."

I'm also conflicted, because I like this pic better, and that would require some resizing.

Alas, I don't have Photoshop, which means a lot of work to pull it off. So use your imagination....

[dogbiscuit]

Surely anyone sophisticated enough for the rest of this can fake a user agent. I've always said checkuser should log the accept mime-types header, since that - while it gives less information - is less likely to be faked than a user agent.

In order to fake a user agent you have to know the user agent.

<sigh> Next you'll be claiming to be knowledgeable on computers and networking, like having degrees or something. That should discount your opinion pretty effectively.

But what are you saying: is it that the hacker is clearly at a higher level of expertese than we already suspected, or is it that IT'S AN INSIDE JOB FOLKS - THE HACKER HAS CHECKUSER.

I'm also conflicted, because I like this pic better, and that would require some resizing.

I swear that nose is getting longer.

[Kato]

Surely anyone sophisticated enough for the rest of this can fake a user agent. I've always said checkuser should log the accept mime-types header, since that - while it gives less information - is less likely to be faked than a user agent.

In order to fake a user agent you have to know the user agent.

This is all pretty academic now. Unless by sheer outrageous coincidence JoshuaZ edited an article for the first time, and just happened to correct an edit 3 minutes earlier by the mysterious hacker who was also editing the article for the first time. The chances of that are so improbable they're funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113080233

This has been a good, fun day at the office. Please peruse those old JoshuaZ excuses for quality squirming. Here's one of his feeble attempts:

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!

[Daniel Brandt]

He's wrong about Facebook. I merely registered with a fake name and throwaway Gmail account, and asked to see his profile. They loosened up about 18 months ago. Now they're really loose. You can find a lot of the pics on Google. If you want the "profile," which is usually just something like your school and year of graduation, then I think you probably still need to log in. You can see everyone's friends if you log in, unless they have opted to keep this info private, in which case you have to already be their friend to see it. But that option is rather new, I suspect, and most of them haven't done this.

Try this Google search.

[Somey]

...there was a group of Yale students who were writing very subtle hoax articles and I got them in trouble.

As I recall, it was actually one Yale student, John Behan, and Josh actually suggested that he should be expelled.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/19805

I suppose if Joshy's rootkit story actually had any credibility whatsoever, it's far more likely that Behan would have been able to pull this off than most, if not all, WR members. He at least would have had easy access to the same network(s)... Of course, since Joshy's rootkit story in fact has no credibility whatsoever, this is a moot point.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

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

JoshuaZ

# 02:48, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia Watch? (restoring full see also)
# 02:47, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Google Watch? (?See also: sp)
# 02:47, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Google Watch? (?See also: restoring partially)
# 02:33, 16 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 3: comment to Squeakbox)
# 14:38, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) NameBase? (rv we easily have sources identifying him as a privacy rights activist)
# 14:16, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Dale Biddle Andrews? (?Annie Dale Biddle Andrews: wouldnt have an OR issue)
# 14:13, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: reply to Starblind)
# 01:02, 15 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (?Daniel Brandt: reply)
# 23:38, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?The 7% Solution: commenting)
# 23:10, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (?Daniel Brandt: commenting to Rock and to Alkivar)
# 22:35, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: comment to ChrisO)
# 21:27, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: comment to Chris)
# 20:48, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?section break 2: comment to Durova)
# 20:41, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (formating)
# 20:14, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (?Daniel Brandt: also restored others)
# 19:59, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alkivar? (Daniel Brandt)
# 19:54, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: there was no stalemate)
# 19:49, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Night Gyr)
# 19:39, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: reply to Messed)
# 19:29, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (Protected Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2: Preemptive - no need for junk [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)))
# 19:19, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to SV)
# 19:12, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: not what he said)
# 19:10, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mike18xx? (Brandt AfD 14)
# 18:46, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?The 7% Solution: comment to SV)
# 18:44, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Moreschi)
# 18:37, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (comment to Coroebus)
# 18:26, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?The 7% Solution: agree with James)
# 18:26, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Starblind)
# 14:08, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m NameBase? (?See Also: + to see also)
# 14:07, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Google Watch? (?See also: + to see also)
# 14:07, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia Watch? (+ to see also)
# 14:06, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) NameBase? (+ see also)
# 14:05, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Google Watch? (+ to see also)
# 14:04, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia Watch? (since merge never occured and Brandt article was broken up, we should go back to this (also adding see also section))
# 13:41, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: comment to Carcharoth)
# 03:51, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: gut in himmel.)
# 03:32, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: reply to Carcaroth)
# 03:23, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: comment to Carcharoth)
# 03:09, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (reply to Carcaroth)
# 03:05, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: comment to Carcharoth)
# 02:54, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (?Daniel Brandt: various comments)
# 02:52, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dmcdevit? (DRV of Brandt)
# 01:42, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (?Daniel Brandt: not process wonkery. this is a bad idea)
# 01:31, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (?Daniel Brandt: noting also prior attempts at merging)
# 01:28, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: now on DRV)
# 01:26, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 14? (+ Daniel Brandt, (sorry!, really!))
# 01:04, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: agree with Seraph)
# 00:31, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Umm ... why is this being closed early?: this seems like a bad idea)
# 23:49, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m User talk:A Man In Black? (?Brandt close: forgot to sign)
# 23:49, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:A Man In Black? (Brandt close)
# 23:39, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Messedrocker? (?Brandt: explanation and possibly funny story)
# 19:02, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Messedrocker? (Brandt)
# 18:39, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Randolph Stetson? (Brandt 14 tagging)
# 18:37, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (rv, hmm, apparently correct that content was not harmed. tagging is still valid so it stays)
# 17:01, 13 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)? (?Section 5: modifying Still's formating)

Gothnic

# 16:43, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt)
# 16:22, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt)
# 16:19, 14 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2? (?Daniel Brandt: overturn)

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

The starter of this DRV gives a good explanation of why this should be overturned.

The "starter of this DRV" is JoshuaZ himself, of course. I guess that proves, by Cabal standards, that they are two different users! One is a Mysterious Spirit Force that chimes in two hours after JoshuaZ's most recent edit, using his laptop, and then two hours later JoshuaZ is back at it.

Two cases of double-voting on a Joshua anti-Brandt DRV, six months apart. Now that's what I call a well-vectored rootkit.

Er ist tote, nicht vahr?


But there was 1 / 1,000,000,000,000 chance that the blood in the Bronco was not that of O.J. !

Ergo, he got off. Maybe JZ could get that type of response from Jimbo and NYB?

[Moulton]

It occurs to me that both theories could be incorrect.

The Essjay Controversy article was created on March 2, 2007. Among the first editors were Miltopia and Random832, who also edited within minutes of each other.

By March 6th, the story (and the article about it) would have been front page news throughout WP.

If Gothnic and JZ were both Yalies, and both sitting in the same coffee house on the afternoon of March 6th with similar wireless laptops behind the same NAT router, discussing the controversy and the WP article about it, they might well have done concurrent edits.

But one would also think that JZ would therefore know Gothnic, be able to name him, and persuade him to come forward, as there wouldn't have been any hoax or frame-up. Just two classmates who almost surely knew each other, hung out in the same coffee house, and shared an obvious interest in the scandal du jour.

[Moulton]

Gothnic may or may not be one and the same as Yalie John Behan.

Nor does the article cited confirm that JZ got them into trouble.

I am troubled by John Behan’s behavior. According to Wednesday’s article “Profs question students’ Wikipedia dependency,” Behan has created multiple hoax articles on Wikipedia. I am forced to wonder what Behan feels he gains from wasting other people’s time and effort tracking down and dealing with his hoaxes.

On the face of it, JZ picked up the news about Behan from an earlier story in the YDN and only commented in Letters to the Editor that it troubled him. The original story about Behan was written by June Torbati of the Yale Daily News. It mentions several other Yalies who use Wikipedia. JZ is not mentioned in the article exposing Behan and his shenanigans.

None of this adds up to a theory that Behan hacked into JZ's laptop the following month. Moreover, a rootkit would be useless if JZ's laptop were in a wireless hotspot behind a NAT router, since NAT routers don't accept incoming Internet connections on behalf of NAT clients.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Sun 27th April 2008, 4:16am

[Kato]

It occurs to me that both theories could be incorrect.

The Essjay Controversy article was created on March 2, 2007. Among the first editors were Miltopia and Random832, who also edited within minutes of each other.

By March 6th, the story (and the article about it) would have been front page news throughout WP.

If Gothnic and JZ were both Yalies, and both sitting in the same coffee house on the afternoon of March 6th with similar wireless laptops behind the same NAT router, discussing the controversy and the WP article about it, they might well have done concurrent edits.

But one would also think that JZ would therefore know Gothnic, be able to name him, and "persuade him to come forward, as there wouldn't have been any hoax or frame-up. Just two classmates who almost surely knew each other, hung out in the same coffee house, and shared an obvious interest in the scandal du jour.

This friend (Gothnic) is from Munich and is called Klaus. He visits his pen pal JoshuaZ in 2007 to chat about the latest news from Bavaria, and entertains Joshua with old stories of life in the divided country during the cold war. And in those hearty sessions, they get drunk and a tear enters Klaus's eye. He recalls the old days of the Motorik and Baader-Meinhof. And then he raises his glass and curses former German chancellor Willy Brandt. He looks up Willy Brandt on Wikipedia to explain the history to Joshua, but finds the Daniel Brandt afd and the deletion reviews.

"Dammit", says Klaus. "I'm going to vote to keep this article". JoshuaZ replies, "Yes, that's a coincidence. I've been campaigning to retain this article myself". And they both vote on the same laptop in the bar.

This incident is repeated three other times over the next 10 months in the same bar on the same computer.

It's another theory?