Public response to repeated e-mail from JoshuaZ to me
NOTE: Nothing here is private information or is already-known for specific details (Yale, etc.); I was extremely careful about that in drafting this. Any attempts to censor, Oversight, or Delete this would be grossly out of policy and unacceptable.

Regarding your repeated e-mails to me on:

1. June 12 2009 (5 mails, culiminating in a request for discussion of your views on BLP)
2. June 13 2009 (follow up from you)
3. June 15 2009 (follow up from you, then a statement you will follow up again)
4. June 17 2009 (follow up from you)
5. June 25 2009 (follow up from you)

About your desire to discuss with me directly BLP, your views, and incident of your abusive sockpuppetry to abuse User:Daniel Brandt (T-C-L-K-R-D) which led to your desysopping, I have decided that I do not have time for any direct private 1:1 private communication about this, but since based on your volumuous e-mail (and to be completely frank, for follow-up, on a Wikipedia non-issue, this has gone from volumuous to borderline obnoxious) you seem determined to discuss this with me, I will be happy to do it here on my talk page in full view of everyone. You know I actively dislike nearly all backroom political dealings, which is what I see this as, with I suspect you of attempting to turn my view of you around. I have absolutely no problem with transparent politics, however, so let's do this here where anyone can see it. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed about. How about you? I will set the tone with how I see matters. Rebut as you feel you need to, keep it to each section please. If you want to talk about something else, add a new section. This page (and my archives) are NOINDEX, so you have no worries about Google here. X-posted to your talk.[1] rootology ©(T) 12:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Let's get your proven sockpuppetry out of the way first:
JoshuaZ (T-C-L-K-R-D) sock abuse of Daniel Brandt/DRV
In your June 12 2009 e-mail, you characterize yourself as being "disappointed" that I have become "convinced" that Arbcom's "finding regarding the Brandt matter is correct." You also wrote on June 12, which I quote here as fair use and reject any claim that this violates any policy in reposting, "I would think that someone who has had your experiences would have some understanding of how much the ArbCom can mess up." You were desysopped by the Arbcom in February 2008[2], due to the socks you used that are detailed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JoshuaZ, including:

• Gothnic (T-C-L-K-R-D)
• Miles Naismith (T-C-L-K-R-D)
• Barbara Schwarz DRV overlap: [3] & [4]
• Daniel Brandt DRV: [5] and it's your own DRV.

You mailed me directly with all the myriad evidence of your sockpuppetry, while I was still banned back in 2007, looking for technical assistance. We mailed back and forth, and in turn you foolishly CC'd me in your official correspondence with Arbcom-L. Since you released all that information to me, the CUs involved had no problem including me in their own reply, and then I in turn (I probably shouldn't have been as cheeky in my reply) helped to dissect and discard your defenses. As as an added convenience, I'm extremely familiar with both the actual networks in question, as well as the physical location, having lived within 5-10 minutes' drive of downtown New Haven (no secret there, for either of us, so no outing concerns, nor of the fact you're a Yale alumni) for virtually my entire life: 20+ years, I lived in that area. The crux of your "I am innocent" defense of the sockpuppetry charges revolved around disputing:

Bulletproof technical evidence

• You were using a browser with, to be honest, a pretty unique and rare browser string.
• You were caught on IP evidence.
• Yes, the IPs in question where public wi-fi spots. That's irrelevant, however.
• I know the exact physical locations of the places--I've been in them physically or walked past them.
• They are far apart enough that unless someone daisy-chained a LOT of wi-fi repeaters across multiple city blocks, they are separate networks.
• One is a retail-type environment and in literally one of the hearts of downtown New Haven, with massive human traffic.
• You were using a Linux laptop.
• Your argument that you may have gotten it "hacked" is preposterous in it's entirety. Why?
  
  Preface: I have 15+ years of professional experience in 1) Linux administration in a multitude of forms; 2) networking/switching technologies (everything from working for carrier-class ISPs to commercial ones to similar admin gigs for small companies); 3) 6+ years of network security experience, particularly in a heavily Linux environment that was subject to lots of social-type attacks in addition to standard hack attempts up and down from network to service to application level; 4) 10+ years of experience in various closely-related areas; 5) if I actually had the time or motivation to get published literature in at least one of these fields, I myself would trivially be WP:RS, so I can safely say that I am an "expert" here.
  
  So, why is it preposterous as a hacked laptop excuse?
  1. It presumes that someone actually hacked your Linux laptop. Contrary to the nonsense that television and Hollywood shows us, this is not as easy as you'd think. Also, such "hacks" wouldn't normally give someone control of your system, or the ability to post to websites like us, or use your Linux laptop as a proxy host, unless you really, really screwed up it's configurations. Even then, that doesn't account for how the accounts shared your "pretty unique and rare browser string".
  2. It presumes that someone used you not once, but more than once, across different geographical locations and unique ISP connections owned, controlled, and provided by different sources.
  3. It presumes (perhaps) that some Shadowy Figure was physically trailing you in the areas around Yale. You're simply not important enough for this in the grand scheme of things.
  4. It presumes that someone went to all of that above trouble... to "get you" by posting to support you in your own WP:DRV on English Wikipedia. Rather than going after your social security number, or banking, or student logins, or who knows what else... or, if they had a clue about Wikipedia, why didn't they take over your User:JoshuaZ admin-level account and really screw you over? If they had this much tech savvy to post as false names from your laptop across multiple ISPs you employ, and were after you, why would they take action against you by supporting your DRV? They had access to your laptop, your IP, everything--why not make it look like you'd totally flipped out? Why do a couple of supportive socks in the hope they'd be caught? Unless a Matrix-level Machiavelli was physically pursuing you--again, you're not that important--it's preposterous.
  5. Speaking from my professional experience, if it was a "random" hack, i.e. your system was seen online from a crap configuration, and was taken over by Bad People Online who had no idea who "JoshuaZ" was, I can guarantee you the last thing they would have done was post to Wikipedia in your language on your DRV. They would have flooded your system with crap, and begun spamming commercial e-mails from it. Because, in the real world, that's what these people do.

Bringing it home, unless the world's most Genius Linux Hacker was planting long-term seeds of your Wikidestruction, I categorically reject (as did the Arbcom) your entire sockpuppetry defense. You wanted to win those DRVs, and got busted very cleanly for it. rootology ©(T) 12:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

JoshuaZ's hard-driving views on BLP
The subject is obviously easier to sum up. I think your views on BLP, and ardent stances on them, are long-term a clear and present danger to the longevity of this website and the well-being of our subjects. Why?
[list=1]

You are a firm advocate historically of not tightening the screws on BLP and things that could facilitate the tightening of the same screws.

You are this advocate to such a degree that you will abusively sock (see above) to see that happen.

You are this advocate to such a degree that you were forced to stop editing anything to do with Daniel Brandt, and your willingly doing this is the only thing that prevented the Arbcom from making you stop.

The recent David Boothroyd fiasco is further evidence of your zealotry.

Lax BLP policing will destroy Wikipedia some day. All it takes is us to piss off the wrong person who actually is made to understand the financial limitations of the WMF--one well-done, bogus lawsuit by someone with deep enough pockets, and it's over.

There you go. rootology ©(T) 12:18 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Root has "pre-emptively" semi'd his talk page as well...

Thank MediaWiki for that. The WR IP contribs never help any given situation.

Yea, I agree. Why bother following Wikipedia policy when there's a chance some WR'ian might make inappropriate remarks?

Yea, I agree. Why bother following Wikipedia policy when there's a chance some WR'ian might make inappropriate remarks?

IPs should really register so they aren't stereotyped and put out by things like semi-protection and the loss of the minor edit button.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roo...m_JoshuaZ_to_me

Finally something pops up on my watchlist worth reading. The potential entertainment value of this begs for popcorn.

One IP editor I've come across wanted to edit a certain semi-protected article badly enough that s/he registered an account with his ip address, with the periods replaced by x's. :-)

You, sir, have either the largest growth of fungal naiveté that I have ever seen online, or the single biggest pair of testicles I have ever encountered online. I don't know which.

The accounts were registered early on and show a remarkable self-consistency throughout. Moreover, as I explained to the ArbCom, one of the account names, User:Miles Naismith, is a character from one of my favorite book series. The individual in question controlling the accounts also shows a number of stylistic editing quirks which correspond to me. The edit summary usage is almost identical to my own. In order to believe me, one would need to believe that someone spent around a year or so using these accounts hoping they would be caught while carefully imitating me. Alternatively, the individual was waiting to tip off the checkusers the accounts existence at some point when it would be advantageous to them. I completely agree that neither strikes one at first glance as terribly likely.

You are of course also completely correct in your analysis of what a "random" hack would do. I'm not sure why you even bother bringing this up aside from rhetorical effect in the joy of scoring an easy point.

There is, moreover, much stronger evidence supporting the narrative that I sockpuppeted rather than a hack. If you look at [6] this edit by User:Gothnic one sees that the accounts in question made edits concerning Daniel Brandt well before that was well-known as an issue that I cared about. That's easy to explain if one thinks I sockpuppeted. It is much harder for me to explain how those edits came to pass, and I don't have a satisfactory explanation.