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

[Moulton]

Gothnic's user page says he's in CT.

And he begins life in WP editing articles on Lindsay Lohan and PacMan. Prolly a US adolescent, especially if ArbCom sez his CU is Yale and environs.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 23rd April 2008, 1:53am

[No one of consequence]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gothnic

Yes, this mysterious ghostly figure votes on a Brandt deletion debate in February 2007. Disappears for a few months. Returns to back up JoshuaZ in another Brandt deletion debate of June 2007. Disappears again for a while. "Vectors" back in during December 2007 on Joshua's computer to comment again on the Brandt debate.

This hacker is extraordinary. He gets into JoshuaZ's laptop 3 times over a period of 10 months to vote on 3 Brandt deletion debates, each months apart. How does this ghostly genius mange this?

But that just proves it's a frame-up by Wikipedia Review. If it was a real hacker, he would have vandalized or deleted the main page or something really disreputable that would have got JZ checkusered immediately.

[Kato]

Gothnic's user page says he's in CT.

Gothnic could be a theatrically trained orangutan-sidekick from a CT Zoo, who has come to accompany JoshuaZ in his travels at all times. Sitting in the passenger seat of the cab, drinking in bars with Joshua, and loafing around cheap motels with his human buddy. But each time JoshuaZ takes a pee, the orangutan takes hold of his laptop, logs into WP under a different account and seeks out the latest Brandt afd news. Voting accordingly?

[Moulton]

Or, more likely, a coupla Yalies, who use the same campus computer labs (which typically have fleets of identical machines), and who hang out in the same coffee house (where they connect via the same wireless link behind the same NAT router) get interested in the same WP scandals as everyone else, and tend to think alike because they are the same age, drink the same WP Kool-Aid, and have similar adolescent values.

[Derktar]

Or, more likely, a coupla Yalies, who use the same campus computer labs (which typically have fleets of identical machines), and who hang out in the same coffee house (where they connect via the same wireless link behind the same NAT router) get interested in the same WP scandals as everyone else, and tend to think alike because they are the same age, drink the same WP Kool-Aid, and have similar adolescent values.

And yet, JoshuaZ, having this great explanation, didn't use it, how curious eh?

[Moulton]

Or, more likely, a coupla Yalies, who use the same campus computer labs (which typically have fleets of identical machines), and who hang out in the same coffee house (where they connect via the same wireless link behind the same NAT router) get interested in the same WP scandals as everyone else, and tend to think alike because they are the same age, drink the same WP Kool-Aid, and have similar adolescent values.

And yet, JoshuaZ, having this great explanation, didn't use it, how curious eh?

Yah, it's curious that the most plausible explanation (at least to me) never occurred to anyone, including JZ. Which is one reason I'd like to interview him. JZ is a math major, which might explain why he can prove an abstract theorem but not construct and prove a scientific theory to explain observed phenomena. JZ doesn't seem to reason from evidence very well. But then neither do a lot of people.

[Proabivouac]

Or, more likely, a coupla Yalies, who use the same campus computer labs (which typically have fleets of identical machines), and who hang out in the same coffee house (where they connect via the same wireless link behind the same NAT router) get interested in the same WP scandals as everyone else, and tend to think alike because they are the same age, drink the same WP Kool-Aid, and have similar adolescent values.

And yet, JoshuaZ, having this great explanation, didn't use it, how curious eh?

Don't ask me. He could have said they're roommates, and his roommate was pissed at Brandt for putting JoshuaZ on Hivemind. We know from past experience that this would have worked, and will work again and again (for administrators only) until WP collectively puts its foot down and says, we don't care what your story is, it's CU 100% confirmed vote-stacking, and that's that.

Like everything else, though, consistency in enforcement removes discretion from the leadership, thus palpably eroding their power. When it comes right down to it, whether people admit it to themselves or not, no one wants the rules to be too clear, here or elsewhere (civility and edit-warring come to mind) not because others will "game the system," but because administrators will no longer be able to "game" enforcement to benefit their favorites.

The upsides include the amount of time the community will save bickering about what should be open-and-shut cases, a much-needed boost in the reputation of the leadership for honest and equitable dealing, a similar boost in contributor morale when they see the system (this part of it, at least) is not corrupt, and a reduction in administrator sockpuppetry.

Who knows how many people advocating going easy on JoshuaZ are doing the same thing now, and hope for the same strained assumption of good faith/lenient treatment if and when they're caught?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Wed 23rd April 2008, 2:43am

[Kato]

Like everything else, though, consistency in enforcement removes discretion from the leadership, thus palpably eroding their power. When it comes right down to it, whether people admit it to themselves or not, no one wants the rules to be too clear, here or elsewhere (civility and edit-warring come to mind) not because others will "game the system," but because administrators will no longer be able to "game" enforcement to benefit their favorites.

Good point.

[jorge]

Yah, it's curious that the most plausible explanation (at least to me) never occurred to anyone, including JZ. Which is one reason I'd like to interview him. JZ is a math major, which might explain why he can prove an abstract theorem but not construct and prove a scientific theory to explain observed phenomena. JZ doesn't seem to reason from evidence very well. But then neither do a lot of people.

Moulton, the most likely explanation is that Joshua Z made sockpuppets to try and keep the Brandt article since he has consistently shown hostility towards him and an intention to annoy. The motive and the evidence is there.

[JohnA]

If Joshua deigns to come here, to WR, I'll engage him in the kind of dialogue that I am known (and taunted) for in these quarters -- a civil dialogue of inquiry designed to arrive at elusive insights, enroute to a more enlightened understanding of the problems that vex him and others with whom he has become increasingly ensnared and enmeshed in persistent adversarial and antagonistic relationships.

You're going to call him a "poopyhead"? That will be fun....

[jorge]

If Joshua deigns to come here, to WR, I'll engage him in the kind of dialogue that I am known (and taunted) for in these quarters -- a civil dialogue of inquiry designed to arrive at elusive insights, enroute to a more enlightened understanding of the problems that vex him and others with whom he has become increasingly ensnared and enmeshed in persistent adversarial and antagonistic relationships.

You're going to call him a "poopyhead"? That will be fun....

[Moulton]

Yah, it's curious that the most plausible explanation (at least to me) never occurred to anyone, including JZ. Which is one reason I'd like to interview him. JZ is a math major, which might explain why he can prove an abstract theorem but not construct and prove a scientific theory to explain observed phenomena. JZ doesn't seem to reason from evidence very well. But then neither do a lot of people.

Moulton, the most likely explanation is that Joshua Z made sockpuppets to try and keep the Brandt article since he has consistently shown hostility towards him and an intention to annoy. The motive and the evidence is there.

I'll leave it to Poetlister to work out the Bayesian analysis of which of two or three proposed explanations is more likely to approach the ground truth.

The theory that User:Gothnic is a JZ sockpuppet has to account for all the unrelated edits that Gothnic made over 2 1/2 years.

Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?

[jorge]

Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?

If the sockpuppet account only edited Daniel Brandt and Daniel Brandt afds it would arouse instant suspicion- the other edits are necessary to build the account up as different "personality".

[Moulton]

If the sockpuppet account only edited Daniel Brandt and Daniel Brandt afds it would arouse instant suspicion- the other edits are necessary to build the account up as different "personality".

Let me rephrase the question...

Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?

[BobbyBombastic]

Don't ask me. He could have said they're roommates, and his roommate was pissed at Brandt for putting JoshuaZ on Hivemind. We know from past experience that this would have worked, and will work again and again (for administrators only) until WP collectively puts its foot down and says, we don't care what your story is, it's CU 100% confirmed vote-stacking, and that's that.

Saying it was a roommate is good, but not as good as The Gay Lover Defense. The Gay Lover Defense actually causes some of your accusers to apologize to you for invading your privacy and elicits all sorts of emotional and soothing messages on your talk page. The Gay Lover Defense is the most effective defense against sockpuppet claims.

[Kato]

JoshuaZ has offered a proposal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207596841

So it seems to my reading that a) there is no consensus for a general ban on this topic and B ) many users who I deeply respect think I should either be banned or should at best take a break from this subject. So I am going to make a simple compromise proposal which will hopefully handle most concerns in a way that makes a maximum fraction of individuals happy. Proposal; I will not start any discussions about any attempt to restore any Brandt related content. This wouldn't stop me from editing say [[Public Information Research]] or [[Scroogle]] or something similar but would prevent me from say starting a DRV on the Brandt article or a the redirect or the CIA cookie exposure (Yes I still remember that. As far as I'm concerned it was one of the best things Brandt has ever done). Dihydrogen Monoxide a bit above this makes a highly reasonable argument for this sort of position. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there going to be a decision on JoshuaZ's sockpuppetry in his campaign against Angela Beesley?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177482270

[jorge]

Has anyone contacted Gothnic and asked him to come forward and demonstrate that he's just another Yalie (who may or may not know JZ)?

How can you contact a person that does not exist?!!!!!

[Moulton]

According to Sec 113 of the Violence Against Women Act, there is a new-fangled kind of 'communication device' that works almost as good as the good old fashioned telephone.

It's called the 'Internet' or something like that.

This post has been edited by Moulton: Wed 23rd April 2008, 7:24pm

[Somey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207596841

So it seems to my reading that a) there is no consensus for a general ban on this topic and b) many users who I deeply respect think I should either be banned or should at best take a break from this subject. So I am going to make a simple compromise proposal which will hopefully handle most concerns in a way that makes a maximum fraction of individuals happy. Proposal; I will not start any discussions about any attempt to restore any Brandt related content. This wouldn't stop me from editing say [[Public Information Research]] or [[Scroogle]] or something similar but would prevent me from say starting a DRV on the Brandt article or a the redirect or the CIA cookie exposure (Yes I still remember that. As far as I'm concerned it was one of the best things Brandt has ever done). Dihydrogen Monoxide a bit above this makes a highly reasonable argument for this sort of position. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great... That just gives him carte blanche to plaster Brandt's name all over any article he wants, doesn't it?

Not good enough.

I guess I'll get to work on those #en-wp-admins logs...

[Daniel Brandt]

Great... That just gives him carte blanche to plaster Brandt's name all over any article he wants, doesn't it?

Not good enough.

I guess I'll get to work on those #en-wp-admins logs...

I'd most likely post admin IRC logs if I had some, but of course I cannot make any promises until I see them. To take care of possible libel or invasion of privacy, all I have to do is put a footer at the bottom of the page: "These logs from a freenode IRC channel were emailed to PIR by anonymous third parties. They are made available by PIR under Section 230 of the CDA."

Then there is copyright, which is not covered by Section 230. The only credible claims of copyright would be from persons who logged in using their real names. In order to file a take-down with a service provider, you have to declare under penalty of perjury that you are the rightful owner of the copyright for the material you want taken down.

If you file a DMCA takedown request and sign it "Dragonfly1876245" or whatever, my service provider just throws it in the trash. That's because they don't think it's your real name, and fake people don't have real rights. Imagine that! How enlightened!

This already happened to me 2006. The DMCA was emailed to my hosting company from a teenager with only a user name, and the service provider threw it in the trash without even bothering to notify me. They have better things to do than to humor teenagers who hang out on a Wikipedia IRC channel.

Even if a service provider took that person's claim seriously, it would be only one of numerous contributors. The worst case is that you have to take that one person's comments down if you don't want to fight it. You'd probably win if you fought it, since we're talking about fragmented comments and sentences, which are probably not subject to copyright any more than a title of a book or song can be copyrighted.

I'm at an advantage because I lease dedicated servers from a hosting company that will lease to anyone, and has a stack of Better Business Bureau complaints on file at the local BBB office for other sites that they host, none of which they've ever bothered to respond to. My hosting company just doesn't care much at all, as long as you pay your hosting fees. (Not to mention that the BBB has no idea what the Internet is all about.) Other hosting companies are more anal-retentive.