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

[BobbyBombastic]

Mod note: moved from General Discussions to JoshuaZ forum

[jorge]

But I do care if people who are cheering for one outcome or the other can't do evidence-based reasoning in a rigorous and conscientious manner and come to the ground truth in a mature and professional manner.

Moulton, how about this. You go away for a couple of weeks and study this problem (as Shalom has done in Poetlister et al's case) and then come back and post your findings?

[Somey]

I thought WR wasn't a monolithic entity, but rather a bunch of people who each have their own opinion. I mean, if you're going to start shutting people down for differing from the "party line", why not start with barring badlydrawnjeff from posting in threads about BLP?

I think silencing dissent is beneath the dignity of this site - this isn't wikipedia, you know...

No matter where you are on the internet, you're going to find people who are needlessly argumentative, refuse to back down, and feel compelled to draw things out to ludicrous lengths. They don't necessarily do it all the time, and there's often no predicting when they will do it. We're no different from any other site, including (if not especially) Wikipedia itself, in that respect...

"Dissent" actually fuels discussion and keeps the board going. We like dissent... What Moulton is doing stopped being "dissent" almost 2 days ago - now it's just stubborn refusal to stop. What's more, it just plays into "our" hands - just about everything stated in support of JoshuaZ can probably be refuted, including IMO the notion that he's even a human being in the normative sense of the term. Keeping the argument going like this does a disservice to him. The evidence is there, the conclusions are inevitable, so why continue if not to just keep drawing more attention to it? (Which, quite frankly, I have no problem with?)

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Looks like a nerve was struck, well in that case...

Yes everyone, JoshuaZ did sockpuppet abusively, and some people tried to give him a pass. Read all about it here.

Your lies won't save you this time.

Moulton,

With all due respect, you do have the right to have a wrong opinion.

I reflect on the remote possibility that O.J. could have been innocent, much like I think that Adolf Hitler may have had some redeeming qualities, or that I may not have been an alcoholic during my drinking career.

Then I wake up from my nightmare and get to work trying to do the next right thing.

Please agree to doubt and / or disagree, or admit to being someone that has something to gain by having JoshuaZ cleared of all charges.

The kid is pathetic in many ways; maybe his family can get him some help. Are you a sockpuppet of JZ or someone else at WP? It is getting old, this argument for argument's sake.

Believe what you want and let the rest of us look at cold hard facts.

Daniel has a pretty good handle on this one.

[Daniel Brandt]

Daniel has a pretty good handle on this one.

I've had Moulton on "ignore" for the last two days, but I keep seeing his blather when he's quoted by others. He should post copies of his PM correspondence with JoshuaZ — I suspect that Moulton has made an arrangement with JoshuaZ or other Cabalistas to deliberately flood this board with obfuscation and equivocation, any and all of which makes zero sense when dissected by anyone more intelligent than a chimpanzee.

This Board once saw a blitzkrieg from a new member who instantly started posting bizarre, inconsistent responses to challenge every single thread and every recent post on the Board, one right after another. I screamed to get her blocked, and made a reference to how she had managed to scale the wall with a machine gun, and is now spraying everything in sight. Staff agreed within a few hours after she appeared, and she got blocked. End of story.

Moulton is doing the same thing. The difference is that he started slowly and built up over a long period of time. This Board is now getting boiled alive, like that frog that doesn't know when to jump out of the pan. I say the staff should ban Moulton.

[Moulton]

Upthread, I already said I would gladly publish the PMs, if JZ consented.

[Daniel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207101600

That is the official, public ArbCom findings of fact and remedies from the case they held privately.

This post has been edited by Daniel: Thu 24th April 2008, 11:40pm

[Kato]

I wonder what will happen to JoshuaZ's other "black-ops" sockpuppets User:Rookwood and User:Cyberdalek? Rockwood was created to discredit another of his enemies, Jason Gastrich, and still carries Gastrich's name.

[Lar]

Upthread, I already said I would gladly publish the PMs, if JZ consented.

Instead of that... Maybe just try not responding to every single post (or what seems like every single post anyway)? I think you have some important ideas to share but sometimes you have to realize you're not going to get the last word in on something and let it go.

Just a suggestion.

[Moulton]

Well, golly, if I respond and say you're right (which you are), I've also just violated your precept.

I hate these bloody antinomies.

[Proabivouac]

I say the staff should ban Moulton.

I strongly disagree with this suggestion.

Moulton's defense of JoshuaZ is completely ridiculous, but it's no different that the response given to every other sock report I've ever done re anyone with any friends or POV allies at all: no matter how overwhelming the evidence, there is always someone who who will say, "sure, it's suggestive, but how can you really be sure? I mean, you know, super-duper sure."

That is, when they're not screaming about "witch-hunts", accusing you of pursuing a vendetta, or blocking you for "harassment."

[Moulton]

Moulton's defense of JoshuaZ is completely ridiculous...

I'm not defending JoshuaZ. I'm expressing skepticism about the investigative work of the prosecution.

To my mind, the best outcome for those who wish to discredit WP would be a demonstration that ArbCom falsely convicted JZ, on account of disgracefully sloppy examination and analysis of the forensic evidence.

[Random832]

Moulton's defense of JoshuaZ is completely ridiculous...

I'm not defending JoshuaZ. I'm expressing skepticism about the investigative work of the prosecution.

To my mind, the best outcome for those who wish to discredit WP would be a demonstration that ArbCom falsely convicted JZ, on account of disgracefully sloppy examination and analysis of the forensic evidence.

Notwithstanding anything else, JZ was not falsely convicted. He was not *any kind of* convicted.

[Milton Roe]

Notwithstanding anything else, JZ was not falsely convicted. He was not *any kind of* convicted.

Well, neither was Richard Nixon. But some variety of punishment was served up anyway. I'm sure Nixon hated it, and I'm sure JZ does too.

[Proabivouac]

To my mind, the best outcome for those who wish to discredit WP would be a demonstration that ArbCom falsely convicted JZ, on account of disgracefully sloppy examination and analysis of the forensic evidence.

It would be, except that won't happen. It'd probably be enough to convict someone of murder, actually: suppose Joe was killed by a package which for a fact was came from Bob's address, a threaning call preceding it was traced to Bob's phone number, and Bob had a known motive for killing Joe (as the motive for vote-stacking here is clear.) Can Bob really say, how do you somebody didn't break into my house and use my phone, and sent the package in my name/address, and expect that to work? The concern here about set-ups ("Joe jobs" as Jehochman puts it) and improbable scenarios is wildly disproportionate to what you'd find in most real-world trials, and the stakes here are far lower.

Even if someone is wrongfully desysoped once in awhile, why is that a bigger deal then someone being wrongfully blocked, which happens all the time on much less, or even zero, evidence? Why is it a bigger deal than allowing rampant administrator socking just to extend the benefit of the doubt to those who are almost certainly guilty anyhow?

Notwithstanding anything else, JZ was not falsely convicted. He was not *any kind of* convicted.

He was convicted in a special court for nobles only, in order to shield him and the aristocracy generally from humiliation before the peasantry.

[Milton Roe]

He was convicted in a special court for nobles only, in order to shield him and the aristocracy generally from humiliation before the peasantry.

Is this the one where by law they must hang you with a silken rope? I never considered that. Do you suppose the admins all got together on IRC and then one of them slipped old JZ a note with the Black Spot on it? Or do you think this was really his reading of "congress" and figuring he didn't have the votes to fight conviction, now that he was impeached?

You know, now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure JZ does not have the political sense of Tricky Dick or anything like it. Successfully counting up likely votes in his corner is not something that is in his personality. So somebody formally slipping him the Black Spot note seems more than likely.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Fri 25th April 2008, 2:14am

[Jonathan]

Moulton's defense of JoshuaZ is completely ridiculous, but it's no different that the response given to every other sock report I've ever done re anyone with any friends or POV allies at all: no matter how overwhelming the evidence, there is always someone who who will say, "sure, it's suggestive, but how can you really be sure? I mean, you know, super-duper sure."

I believe that is what is called the "Phoenix Wright" principle, in that sure, we've proved A, but how does A prove B and later on C and how does it ultimately come to form the conclusion of Z, which proves damning enough to make the overall claim true?

There's no doubt that JoshuaZ is a condescending prick and that his treatment of Brandt has bypassed pathetic and sad, but much though I sympathise with Brandt, I too have to disagree with the notion of banning Moulton. If I understand what Moulton is saying correctly, he believes that the evidence collected is similar to the sort of evidence that has been used to ban editors and admins who were not guilty of any such offence and thereby resulting in a travesty of judgment. I believe what Moulton is implying is that the evidence needs to be STRONGER, and by stronger I mean greater than that of the MM case, because otherwise the Arbcom people will just throw it out without a second thought (as opposed to the MM Case, where Arbcom gave it a second thought and THEN threw it out).

In cases like this, it's healthy that someone plays the role of Devil's Advocate.

[Moulton]

All I'm saying is, if this case is typical of the quality of evidence and reasoning used to arrive at a finding, then none of the findings in comparable cases can be trusted to be anywhere near the ground truth.

[Jon Awbrey]

I believe that is what is called the "Phoenix Wright" principle, in that sure, we've proved ''A'', but how does ''A'' prove ''B'' and later on ''C'' and how does it ultimately come to form the conclusion of ''Z'', which proves damning enough to make the overall claim true?

Don't know it under that name — so far as I know the bit is due to Lewis Carroll, "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles".

Jon