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

[Kato]

I dunno, Mr. Moulton... you may be overstating the complexity of this issue just a tad...
A bit?

JoshuaZ's dispute is bigger than just Brandt. He agitates against a number of BLP victims including Seth Finkelstein. He was plotting against Ed O'Laughlin a while ago to try and restore that deleted biography. He tries to punish anyone who defies him, and swoops down on anyone who tries to escape the icy clutches of The Wiki. Even Angela Beesley has been persecuted by his relentless agenda.

[KamrynMatika]

He gave me permission to post this:

The main evidence for my story is as follows:

0) I've been involved with Wikipedia for over two years and been involved
with many other Wikimedia projects. The idea that I would risk this sort of
thing is a bit absurd.

1) The sockpuppeting if it had been done would have been grotesquely stupid;
no attempt was made to hide the IP addresses at all. It would be easy to use
a different browser along with AOL, or dual boot and use a distinct machine
or something like that.

2) The accounts in question did not edit the Seth Finkelstein DRV despite
editing almost every BLP DRV I was involved in. By all accounts there are
two
articles that I think we really screwed up on and should be restored;
Finkelstein and Brandt. Now, if I we're going to sock, why wouldn't I edit
the Seth article? Especially in contrast to the Barbara Schwartz article
where in my comment I explicitly said that I thought that this might be one
where deletion wouldn't be unreasonable and only called for overturning
weakly. On that article, not one but both the accounts in question -Gothnic
and Miles Naismith voted to overturn. However, if there was a rootkit on my
machine then there's a good explanation for what happened: I was away from
home at the time of the most recent Finkelstein DRV. Although I brought my
laptop with me, I had minimal internet access at the time and when I did
have access I generally edited using other computers. So whoever was running
the rootkit did not have the opportunity to edit from my machine there.
(Checkuser confirms that I was away during that DRV).

3) I've been told that none of these accounts edited from a Yale IP address
as far back as the checkuser data goes. Now, given that I frequently edit
from Yale IP addresses why wouldn't these accounts do so as well if they
edited from all other locations that I edit from? There's a simple answer to
this and I'm glad that whoever was doing this overlooked this issue; my
laptop hasn't connected to the Yale network for over a semester. [He
provided a good, extremely plausible reason for this] This detail should be confirmable both by checkuser data looking at user-agent strings.

4) Checkuser has confirmed that all the edits made by these two accounts appear to be coming from a single machine (unfortunately they haven't given me the user-agent data other than to say it was consistent with a single machine using firefox that updated more or less regularly. However, given the times of some of these edits and some of the overlapping IP addresses the only possible machine these could have come from is my laptop.

5) Checkuser has confirmed (I think. They still aren't be very cooperative
in letting me know what they know which hasn't helped in trying to figure
out what happened) that at some of these locations that overlap I've used
other computers as well. The socks haven't.

2,3,4 and 5 are the really important points. They are only reasonably
explainable by the hypothesis that we're dealing with a rootkit on the
laptop, not by sockpuppetry. 2 in particular has a very good explanation
consistent with the rootkit hypothesis and with checkuser data (and if
necessary, credit cards and other receipts that I could supply demonstrating
that I was away). 2 is not easily explainable by the sockpuppetry
hypothesis.

6) Some of the edits made by the alledged socks don't fit my editing
patterns. For example see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ldid=183006529I
always make edits adding in refs to in two steps first adding
<ref>http//whatever. </ref> and then adding a template (this can be easily
verified by looking at my history of edits).

Some fairly private info that confirms point no. 3 has been removed... make of it what you will.

[No one of consequence]

He gave me permission to post this:

The main evidence for my story is as follows:

{snip}

In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?

[KamrynMatika]

The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess...

A bit?

Haha okay, a lot? To be honest I'm far too uncomfortable about the possibility of sock investigations turning up false positives to be particularly crazy about them.. call me naive but it's a lot easier (and a lot better for my sanity in the long run) to just assume that people are what they say they are. I don't want to end up being one of those people that sees socks everywhere

[Moulton]

The point would be for Joshua and I to explore the issues that drive this long-running conflict and see if we can discover any useful insights leading to either a detente or (Kato's horror at the prospect notwithstanding) a resolution acceptable to the adversarial parties.

OK. So it was faux horror. Sue me.

[Daniel Brandt]

In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?

Slightly better than that. The edits came from my laptop, and showed my IP addresses, and my laptop was with me at all times, but it wasn't me. That's the way I read it.

I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it. Even if it was true, it seems to me that if JoshuaZ cannot keep Mysterious Evil Spirits from gaming Wikipedia through the computer that he owns and controls at all times, then he shouldn't be trusted as a Wikipedia editor.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Weak restatement of a weak defence.

I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it.

Bah. If he chooses not to ask someone who would know, he's making the choice to be The Most Credulous One.



This post has been edited by UseOnceAndDestroy: Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:01pm

[jorge]

Sorry but this is crazy. The very time we get evidence that an administrator is abusively socking, and it's just all a terrible misunderstanding because they were hacked. ABSOLUTE RUBBISH

[Jon Awbrey]

In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?

Slightly better than that. The edits came from my laptop, and showed my IP addresses, and my laptop was with me at all times, but it wasn't me. That's the way I read it.

I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it. Even if it was true, it seems to me that if JoshuaZ cannot keep Mysterious Evil Spirits from gaming Wikipedia through the computer that he owns and controls at all times, then he shouldn't be trusted as a Wikipedia editor.

One damn diagnostic quandary after another!

Is this the:

1. Little Brother Defense?
2. My Dog Typed It Defense?
3. Multiple Personality Defense?

At any rate, we've all seen people get permabanned, often by JoshuaZ himself, for even thinking of trying any one of these defenses.

Jon

[No one of consequence]

In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?

Slightly better than that. The edits came from my laptop, and showed my IP addresses, and my laptop was with me at all times, but it wasn't me. That's the way I read it.

I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it. Even if it was true, it seems to me that if JoshuaZ cannot keep Mysterious Evil Spirits from gaming Wikipedia through the computer that he owns and controls at all times, then he shouldn't be trusted as a Wikipedia editor.

I think he's saying that since the other accounts did not edit when he was away from home, that means it was a rootkit on his laptop that could be accessed from his home but not while he was traveling.

At least its more creative than "my neighbor poached my wi-fi."

I gather he claims he was set up by someone from Wikipedia Review (that is my recollection of the arbcom log post). Which one of you did it, then? It has to be someone in New Haven who spent some time in JZ's apartment and diddled his laptop while no one was looking. Pretty sneaky, and kudos to whoever pulled it off.

Hmm. On further thought I think JZ is going to find it was a strategic mistake to put this out there. Wikipedians as a group are a lot more cynical and technically savvy than Newyorkbrad.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence: Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:08pm

[Derktar]

In other words, the edits came from my IP address and computer but they weren't me?

Slightly better than that. The edits came from my laptop, and showed my IP addresses, and my laptop was with me at all times, but it wasn't me. That's the way I read it.

I can see Newyorkbrad buying this, but I cannot see anyone technically competent buying it. Even if it was true, it seems to me that if JoshuaZ cannot keep Mysterious Evil Spirits from gaming Wikipedia through the computer that he owns and controls at all times, then he shouldn't be trusted as a Wikipedia editor.

I think he's saying that since the other accounts did not edit when he was away from home, that means it was a rootkit on his laptop that could be accessed from his home but not while he was traveling.

At least its more creative than "my neighbor poached my wi-fi."

I gather he claims he was set up by someone from Wikipedia Review (that is my recollection of the arbcom log post). Which one of you did it, then? It has to be someone in New Haven who spent some time in JZ's apartment and diddled his laptop while no one was looking. Pretty sneaky, and kudos to whoever pulled it off.

it was all Somey's idea!

[Moulton]

Joshua doesn't say what operating system he runs on his laptop, but the 'root' in 'rootkit' refers to the 'root' account on Unix. A rootkit is a hack that lets someone log into a machine (say using telnet or rlogin or rsh or ssh) and then promote themselves to the 'root' account.

But if Joshua is only saying that someone gained remote access to his laptop to proxy edit from it, you don't even need a rootkit. Gaining access via an unprivileged user account suffices.

For example, I can use the 'ssh' (secure shell) to log in to a remote Unix host and tunnel X11 through the connection. That would allow me to run Firefox (or any other program) on the remote machine.

So, if Joshua were using Ubuntu Linux on his laptop, and anyone else knew the password to at least one non-privileged login on it, that's all that would be needed for them to appear to be editing from his laptop.

Probably the same thing is possible with Remote Desktop on Windows.

[Derktar]

Joshua doesn't say what operating system he runs on his laptop, but the 'root' in 'rootkit' refers to the 'root' account on Unix. A rootkit is a hack that lets someone log into a machine (say using telnet or rlogin or rsh or ssh) and then promote themselves to the 'root' account.

But if Joshua is only saying that someone gained remote access to his laptop to proxy edit from it, you don't even need a rootkit. Gaining access via an unprivileged user account suffices.

For example, I can use the 'ssh' (secure shell) to log in to a remote Unix host and tunnel X11 through the connection. That would allow me to run Firefox (or any other program) on the remote machine.

So, if Joshua were using Ubuntu Linux on his laptop, and anyone else knew the password to at least one non-privileged login on it, that's all that would be needed for them to appear to be editing from his laptop.

Probably the same thing is possible with Remote Desktop on Windows.

So the real question appears to be, does Joshua still think its the Wikipedia Review conspiracy? Or is it aliens? Or maybe Sasquatch? Or perhaps even a joint Wikipedia Review-Alien-Sasquatch federation.

[Wikileaker]

From dear Sydney's inbox:

I'm getting very sick of having to deal with these users who are banned for good reason. I'd appreciate at least some minimal indication from the ArbCom if my unpleasant efforts in this regard are actually getting anywhere.

Josh Zelinsky

Hi, Josh! I'm still around!

[KamrynMatika]

From dear Sydney's inbox:

I'm getting very sick of having to deal with these users who are banned for good reason. I'd appreciate at least some minimal indication from the ArbCom if my unpleasant efforts in this regard are actually getting anywhere.

Josh Zelinsky

Hi, Josh! I'm still around!

From who's inbox? What efforts? Huh?

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika: Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:38pm

[Jon Awbrey]

I know, let's sic Jpgordon∇∆∇∆ on him!

Make ↑ Your Own Joke Kit

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request.

Request reason: "it was my little brother who did this and i had no intention of harming wikipedia"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decline reason: "Then your little brother has gotten you blocked forever. — jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"

Finally — something that little brothers are good for !!!

Jonny

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Joshua doesn't say what operating system he runs on his laptop, but the 'root' in 'rootkit' refers to the 'root' account on Unix. A rootkit is a hack that lets someone log into a machine (say using telnet or rlogin or rsh or ssh) and then promote themselves to the 'root' account.

"Rooting" is now a common term for breaking into any machine.

For example, I can use the 'ssh' (secure shell) to log in to a remote Unix host and tunnel X11 through the connection. That would allow me to run Firefox (or any other program) on the remote machine.

grep sshd /var/log/auth.log, or similar.

This post has been edited by UseOnceAndDestroy: Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:47pm

[Moulton]

He gave me permission to post this:

The main evidence for my story is as follows:

[Seven suggested reasons for believing the story.]

Kamryn, I recall this observation, from way back...

Joshua Z offers a lot of alternate theories to explain the forensic data, but did he ever come out and unequivocally deny the basic allegations?

If so, I missed his direct denial.

Kamryn, to the best of your knowledge and recollection, did Joshua ever directly deny the allegation? Or did he just provide lotsa good reasons to buy the story (originally suggested by others) as a possible theory to explain the forensic data?

[KamrynMatika]

He gave me permission to post this:

The main evidence for my story is as follows:

[Seven suggested reasons for believing the story.]

Kamryn, I recall this observation, from way back...

Joshua Z offers a lot of alternate theories to explain the forensic data, but did he ever come out and unequivocally deny the basic allegations?

If so, I missed his direct denial.

Kamryn, to the best of your knowledge and recollection, did Joshua ever directly deny the allegation? Or did he just provide lotsa good reasons to buy the story (originally suggested by others) as a possible theory to explain the forensic data?

And in regards to Moulton's question let me be clear; I completely deny any
accusations of sockpuppetry. Neither the Gothnic nor Miles Naismith accounts
are mine. Any other reasonable ways of asking the question have the same
response.

[Moulton]

grep sshd /var/log/auth.log, or similar.

On my Ubuntu Linux host, the auth logs are only kept for four weeks.