JoshuaZ is trying to restore that redirect again. I've been waiting for this for almost three weeks. On April 3 he told User:Prodego that he was planning to do this. I have already expanded the hostmask database from 26,000 lines to 33,000 lines in anticipation of this, but now I'm dusting off the IRC logs for January through April.
If the redirect goes through I will reinstall that old IRC search engine. This is not because IRC is interesting — indeed, compared to 2006 the #wikipedia IRC channel is almost tame these days. But it does give me an excuse to add about 700 HTML pages to Wikipedia-Watch. Based on past experience, this will double the overall traffic to my Wikipedia-Watch homepage.
That's because anytime you add 700 pages to a site, and these pages are filled with a wide variety of keyword-rich content that's interesting to web surfers, you get a lot more clicks once that content is indexed by search engines. Moreover, the two links in the footer of each page will go back to my homepage and to hivemind. These links help direct traffic from those who landed on an IRC chat page, and who find themselves wondering what they're looking at. That's a very common question, as you can imagine if you've ever seen about 600 consecutive lines of chat from #wikipedia on IRC. (These 700 files will average about 600 lines of chat each.)
The links in the footer also tend to give more Google juice to the two target pages, although not a whole lot because they're internal links. Do you know why every few words in Wikipedia articles are linked to another Wikipedia article? It's for the Google juice. Same thing here. (A lot of sites do this sort of thing just so that they have pages that can carry their Google ads, but I've never had any ads on any of my sites. I wonder if other sites will scrape my IRC logs? Google sure encourages a lot of pollution on the web, but then Wikipedia has never done anything to stop scrapers either.)
I'm actually looking forward to doing this if that redirect goes through. Wikipedia-Watch in general, and hivemind in particular, deserve more traffic. It's a quid pro quo because if the redirect is reinstalled, the PIR page in Wikipedia — the one with my name on it in seven places — will be getting more traffic too.
Full Version: JoshuaZ, Stalker Extraordinaire
Look this is a nasally stunted retarded young man whose own Family doesn't even love him. He deserves whatever you bring him.
His logic is exactly based on that which he complains - he is quite open that he is using Wikipedia as an attack site.
However, it then became apparent that as I had predicted Brandt had no intention to stop his campaign on Wikipedia. [... ...] Therefore I am relisting this redirect.
He could have just left it alone - after all he is confused he is not an administrator, just an anorak.
QUOTE
However, it then became apparent that as I had predicted Brandt had no intention to stop his campaign on Wikipedia. [... ...] Therefore I am relisting this redirect.
He could have just left it alone - after all he is confused he is not an administrator, just an anorak.
Oddly enough, he links to a statement by Daniel Brandt about the BLP situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204794773
I happily accept responsibility for reporting the following comment;
"This wording makes this entire effort almost worthless: "An individual who has placed themselves at the forefront of public controversies in order to influence the issues involved." By that measure, I anticipate that if this becomes policy, someone will resurrect my bio based on the new policy, and another 2.5-year battle will ensue. Hivemind will end up twice as big. The proper way to deal with people who are active in specific causes (and no one is active in all causes), is to mention them in an article on that specific issue. It should not be an excuse to start a general bio on that person. I'm presently mentioned on pages about Google-Watch, Scroogle, etc. I have no quarrel with that. I'm mentioned too many times on Public_Information_Research and I have some quarrel with that, as it threatened to become a substitute for my bio once the redirect was in place. Since the redirect was deleted a few weeks ago, I have much less problem with that. By the way, I'm banned from Wikipedia. Does a banned person have any right to comment on issues concerning him, or does his input get summarily deleted regardless of the reasons for the ban or the nature of the comments? --Daniel Brandt
(later deleted by Ryan Postlethwaite because Brandt is a banned user)
JoshuaZ describes this statement as part of a continued campaign by Brandt.
Therefore, as noted by Dogbiscuit, JoshuaZ is placing himself in opposition to Daniel Brandt, and this redirect is a deliberate attempt to sustain a personal battle between himself and Brandt. Recall that JoshuaZ employed sockpuppets to conduct this feud and vote against Brandt in previous debates. Adopting different personas to gain the upper hand.
Why is this kid still allowed to demand polls and start debates on Brandt related matters? Surely a topic ban is in order by now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=204794773
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt)
I happily accept responsibility for reporting the following comment;
"This wording makes this entire effort almost worthless: "An individual who has placed themselves at the forefront of public controversies in order to influence the issues involved." By that measure, I anticipate that if this becomes policy, someone will resurrect my bio based on the new policy, and another 2.5-year battle will ensue. Hivemind will end up twice as big. The proper way to deal with people who are active in specific causes (and no one is active in all causes), is to mention them in an article on that specific issue. It should not be an excuse to start a general bio on that person. I'm presently mentioned on pages about Google-Watch, Scroogle, etc. I have no quarrel with that. I'm mentioned too many times on Public_Information_Research and I have some quarrel with that, as it threatened to become a substitute for my bio once the redirect was in place. Since the redirect was deleted a few weeks ago, I have much less problem with that. By the way, I'm banned from Wikipedia. Does a banned person have any right to comment on issues concerning him, or does his input get summarily deleted regardless of the reasons for the ban or the nature of the comments? --Daniel Brandt
(later deleted by Ryan Postlethwaite because Brandt is a banned user)
JoshuaZ describes this statement as part of a continued campaign by Brandt.
Therefore, as noted by Dogbiscuit, JoshuaZ is placing himself in opposition to Daniel Brandt, and this redirect is a deliberate attempt to sustain a personal battle between himself and Brandt. Recall that JoshuaZ employed sockpuppets to conduct this feud and vote against Brandt in previous debates. Adopting different personas to gain the upper hand.
Why is this kid still allowed to demand polls and start debates on Brandt related matters? Surely a topic ban is in order by now?
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:30pm) 
Why is this kid still allowed to demand polls and start debates on Brandt related matters? Surely a topic ban is in order by now?
What would be sensible for JoshuaZ to consider is, if the powers that be saw this as an embarrassing nuisance, the sockpuppeteer might end up as a banned user himself. If he considered this possibility, he might have an enlightening change of perspective.
There are now some sane observations on the impropriety of this approach being recorded.
In the immortal words of the Simpsons: "Oooh! Let's poke it!"
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 10:56am)
There are now some sane observations on the impropriety of this approach being recorded.
Well, we can all be thankful for that, at least.
But quite frankly, I'm really, really tired of JoshuaZ's crap. He either has to go, or it's off with the gloves.
In particular, I'm thinking it may be time for someone to start releasing #wp-en-admins IRC logs to the public... Whoever does it will probably want to start pulling out the juiciest bits first though, rather than publish them all at once. They'll probably scream "copyright infringement," but as everyone knows, any real action in that regard will only bring vast amounts of additional attention to what's in those logs.
And of course, every page should carry the words "Courtesy of Joshua Zelinsky!" right at the top. At some point, people over there are going to have to wake up to the fact that we're serious about this shit.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 3:56pm)
What would be sensible for JoshuaZ to consider is, if the powers that be saw this as an embarrassing nuisance, the sockpuppeteer might end up as a banned user himself. If he considered this possibility, he might have an enlightening change of perspective.
Did he sock on Brandt DRVs or AfDs? I don't remember the names of the accounts to check.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 5:22pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 10:56am)
There are now some sane observations on the impropriety of this approach being recorded.
Well, we can all be thankful for that, at least.
But quite frankly, I'm really, really tired of JoshuaZ's crap. He either has to go, or it's off with the gloves.
In particular, I'm thinking it may be time for someone to start releasing #wp-en-admins IRC logs to the public... Whoever does it will probably want to start pulling out the juiciest bits first though, rather than publish them all at once. They'll probably scream "copyright infringement," but as everyone knows, any real action in that regard will only bring vast amounts of additional attention to what's in those logs.
And of course, every page should carry the words "Courtesy of Joshua Zelinsky!" right at the top. At some point, people over there are going to have to wake up to the fact that we're serious about this shit.
Yes, I am sure you could and would do that, but then you are just giving the Joshua's of this world a big "I told you so." Wikipedians know you have a big stick and are happy to use it. It strikes me that there are a growing body of Wikipedians that are acknowledging both the issue and that the treatment of you has not been of the highest standard.
I think you gained ground when you made conciliatory noises. Let's be realistic. If we think that there is some possibility that the BLP policy can be improved: there are quite a few people coming at it from different angles, then it is probably unwise to paint them into a corner with threats.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:22pm)
I'm really, really tired of JoshuaZ's crap. He either has to go, or it's off with the gloves.
I'll offer a third alternative -- one that might actually appeal to Joshua if he does get topic-banned.
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.
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:29am)
Yes, I am sure you could and would do that, but then you are just giving the Joshua's of this world a big "I told you so." Wikipedians know you have a big stick and are happy to use it. It strikes me that there are a growing body of Wikipedians that are acknowledging both the issue and that the treatment of you has not been of the highest standard.
Ehhh, this is coming from me, not Daniel... I'll admit, sometimes people get the two of us confused...
Btw, the two JoshuaZ socker accounts were User:Gothnic (contribs) and User:Miles_Naismith (contribs). Neither user page carries a sockpuppet tag, and the Gothnic account did vote with ol' Joshy on a Brandt DRV.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:37am)
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.
After which he'll probably post a biography of you, too.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 4:47pm)
Ehhh, this is coming from me, not Daniel... I'll admit, sometimes people get the two of us confused...
Btw, the two JoshuaZ socker accounts were User:Gothnic (contribs) and User:Miles_Naismith (contribs). Neither user page carries a sockpuppet tag, and the Gothnic account did vote with ol' Joshy on a Brandt DRV.
Thanks, Somey.
Lawrence Cohen has proposed to ban Joshua from the article.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:47pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:37am)
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.
After which he'll probably post a biography of you, too.I'll take my chances.
JoshuaZ expressed extreme contempt for me in August 2006, even though the first time he showed up on my radar was in February 2007:
While his [someone else, not Brandt] edits were disgusting and engendered in me a level of contempt I normally have for Daniel Brandt... JoshuaZ 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Months later JoshuaZ indef blocked me for off-Wiki activity:
Now then, here's a report on his sockpuppetry.
Look at the contribution history of Gothnic. Just do a browser "Find" for "Brandt."
Naturally, the Cabal tried to handle this quietly. Wikileaker brought it to light.
I love Newyorkbrad's comment in that sooper-sekrit report:
I agree, Newyorkbrad is the most credulous one!
QUOTE
While his [someone else, not Brandt] edits were disgusting and engendered in me a level of contempt I normally have for Daniel Brandt... JoshuaZ 16:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Months later JoshuaZ indef blocked me for off-Wiki activity:
QUOTE
14:25, 18 July 2007 JoshuaZ (Talk | contribs) blocked "Daniel Brandt (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (it has come to my attention to Hivemind is back up, brandt is not going to be welcome here as long as he runs an outing website. period)
Now then, here's a report on his sockpuppetry.
Look at the contribution history of Gothnic. Just do a browser "Find" for "Brandt."
Naturally, the Cabal tried to handle this quietly. Wikileaker brought it to light.
I love Newyorkbrad's comment in that sooper-sekrit report:
QUOTE
Newyorkbrad - "Personally I am minded to believe that he's probably telling the truth here (because the conduct if it actually took place makes no sense) and let him continue as an administrator without any restrictions unless there are further incidents. The risk of actual harm to the project going forward is probably slight. (On the other hand, sometimes I think I'm the most credulous one here.)"
I agree, Newyorkbrad is the most credulous one!
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:55am)
I'll take my chances. ^_^
Hmm... this was probably your plan all along, eh?
Who knows, maybe the best way for a person to get an article about himself (or herself) into WP, and keep it there, is to personally attack JoshuaZ on an ongoing basis! If we can get the word out to enough people who are trying to get articles about themselves included, which would be about 100,000 times as many people who are trying to do the opposite, we could turn ol' Josh into one of the world's most unpopular people ever!
Maybe we could lobby the Powers That Be, so as to make him the next James Bond villain, too?
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:01pm)
I love Newyorkbrad's comment in that sooper-sekrit report:
QUOTE
Newyorkbrad — "Personally I am minded to believe that he's probably telling the truth here (because the conduct if it actually took place makes no sense) and let him continue as an administrator without any restrictions unless there are further incidents. The risk of actual harm to the project going forward is probably slight. (On the other hand, sometimes I think I'm the most credulous one here.)"
I agree, Newyorkbrad is the most credulous one!
Don't be so credulous, Daniel. Newyuckbrad is merely pretending to be credulous.
Besides, it's only an exhibition of human credulositude — we don't want them competing for top honors.
But I'm torn in my diagnosis of JoshuassZ —
Is it Redirectile Dysfunction or Resurrectile Dysfunction?
Jon
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 5:47pm)
Ehhh, this is coming from me, not Daniel... I'll admit, sometimes people get the two of us confused...
Bah! Humbug! Bother!
For a few years now, I've been studying an obscure piece of research known as FaceWork Theory. It addresses the issue that Asians call Face.
FaceWork Theory examines 5 or 6 axes:
1. The Respect-Contempt Axis
2. The Approval-Condemnation Axis
3. The Cooperation-Antagonism Axis
4. The Freedom-Taboo Axis
5. The Trust-Mistrust Axis
6. The Comfort-Anxiety Axis
In the Argument/Debate Culture, the participants tend to migrate to the right on each of the above axes, generating mutual and reciprocal disrespect, disapproval, antagonism, and mistrust.
In the Dialogue Model, the participants seek to create common ground, and seek to migrate themselves to jointly shared respect, and mutual approval and cooperation.
It saddens me to note that we are more adept at Negative FaceWork Dynamics than Positive FaceWork Dynamics. We are adept at criticising, shaming, and blaming the other side, and poor at building bridges and finding common ground.
We are gifted at conflict and poor at peacemaking.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:22pm)
In particular, I'm thinking it may be time for someone to start releasing #wp-en-admins IRC logs to the public... Whoever does it will probably want to start pulling out the juiciest bits first though, rather than publish them all at once. They'll probably scream "copyright infringement," but as everyone knows, any real action in that regard will only bring vast amounts of additional attention to what's in those logs.
And of course, every page should carry the words "Courtesy of Joshua Zelinsky!" right at the top. At some point, people over there are going to have to wake up to the fact that we're serious about this shit.
It surprises me that this has not happened. The pseudo copyright lawyers will probably crucify me for saying this, but it's funny to me that anyone would claim copyright over an IRC log. Besides, one could easily avoid any possibility of being discovered by uploading to a free site and using proxies. In the event that the free web hosting finds that posting IRC logs is a copyright violation, the worst they can do is delete the site...then one just moves on to the next free host.
Let's face it though, there probably wouldn't be much damning information there, but it would piss off certain clique members, and I am all for that!
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:14pm)
For a few years now, I've been studying an obscure piece of research known as FaceWork Theory. It addresses the issue that Asians call Face.
I'm sure JoshuaZ has two issues:
1) he believes he is a gifted manipulator and leader online and should be able to manage getting his way. He is discovering that this is untrue.
2) he is publicly embarrassed, and therefore motivated to save face by continuing the battle, seeking new tactics to recover from his public embarrassment by eventually winning the battle (see (1)). (I would presume that he has not kept his identity secret and may have bragged about his influential position to his peers, so this is a real life issue for him).
My theory of mind, based on not much really, is that JoshuaZ has invested heavily in Wikipedia personally, and would find it difficult to withdraw gracefully, having been found out to be a bit of a chump. How does one allow him to withdraw gracefully without too much loss of face.
One sensible move would be to encourage the JoshuaZ persona to die a quiet death and resurrect himself anew quietly under a new name, sticking to doing editing or gnoming in an uncontroversial fashion. As he is not an admin, there should be no real issue about this. It would then be up to him to avoid the conflict with Daniel. As long as he was a well behaved Wikipedian, there would be no need to seek him out. In reality, I suspect he does not have the sense or ability not to attract attention, but that is what I'd suggest.
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 5:23pm)
Besides, one could easily avoid any possibility of being discovered
Considering that the chronological ordering of IRC messages is a partial order rather than a total order, it is in theory possible to use discrepancies in the ordering of messages in different logs significantly narrow down who is recording the logs, provided that whoever it is is an active user. I'm surprised this hasn't been done (or attempted) already, though it would take a fairly large sample, another complete set of logs, and of course the requirement that the user recording the logs is actually participating in discussion.
Proposed topic ban of JoshuaZ on the Brandt related articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...n_Daniel_Brandt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...n_Daniel_Brandt
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.
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.
Joshua is now rushing around to deny the socking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207398547
Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207405073
Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Does he not realise that by making his denials off-wiki, he is looking even more guilty than ever?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207398547
QUOTE
Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207405073
QUOTE
Regarding certain accusations of sockpuppetry that are frankly ridiculous but seem to refuse to die, please see forthcoming email. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Does he not realise that by making his denials off-wiki, he is looking even more guilty than ever?
I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those aspects of his mindset as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.
QUOTE(Random832 @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:37pm)
Considering that the chronological ordering of IRC messages is a partial order rather than a total order, it is in theory possible to use discrepancies in the ordering of messages in different logs significantly narrow down who is recording the logs, provided that whoever it is is an active user.
We've thought of that (for what that's worth)... That's one of the reasons for releasing the material in bits and pieces, and with lines about who's coming in and leaving either removed or repositioned. I'm all for removing them entirely, myself - that should prevent the various log sources from being identified.
There's a lot of material involved, and I did get started at one point on a program to do that automatically, as well as things like translating text-only URL's to HREF tags, randomly changing the time/datestamp formats on each line, maybe adding links from IRC handles to WP userpages, etc., etc.. I'll have to pick that project up again, along with the dozens of other things I've been promising to do around here!
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:53pm)
I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those aspects of his mindset as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.
And would you rather do this in a thread that's write-access-limited to the two of you exclusively? It's technically feasible, but I don't think we've ever done that before. Also, I'm not even sure what the point would be - is there some solution to this situation that doesn't involve him just backing off, preferably for good?
...wow! and on to arbcom already, courtesy of our very old friend NonVocalScream.
JoshuaZ defends his sockpuppeting, under the impression that people are not aware of the full evidence against him, but seems already prepared to concede a topic ban.
JoshuaZ defends his sockpuppeting, under the impression that people are not aware of the full evidence against him, but seems already prepared to concede a topic ban.
If Majorly (Alex on here) after seeing Joshua's email "evidence" that showed he didn't sock was convinced, then I'm tempted to believe that Joshua, in fact, didn't sock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207410540
I have stricken my comment above due to information I have received which shows I jumped the gun a bit when I made that comment. My apologies. I suggest everyone who voted "per Majorly" to think again. Still, I think Josh seriously needs a break from this article. Majorly (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=207410540
QUOTE
I have stricken my comment above due to information I have received which shows I jumped the gun a bit when I made that comment. My apologies. I suggest everyone who voted "per Majorly" to think again. Still, I think Josh seriously needs a break from this article. Majorly (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:00pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:53pm)
I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those aspects of his mindset as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.
And would you rather do this in a thread that's write-access-limited to the two of you exclusively? It's technically feasible, but I don't think we've ever done that before. Also, I'm not even sure what the point would be - is there some solution to this situation that doesn't involve him just backing off, preferably for good?I suppose if 1) Joshua requested it and/or 2) our tete-a-tete became impossible due to disruptive levels of rotten tomatoes jamming the conversation, then your suggestion might be needed.
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.
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:10pm)
If Majorly (Alex on here) after seeing Joshua's email "evidence" that showed he didn't sock was convinced, then I'm tempted to believe that Joshua, in fact, didn't sock...
If this evidence is similar in quality to the kind of evidence they use to make themselves believe that people do use multiple accounts to manipulate WP processes, then I'm tempted to laugh it off as nonsense without even bothering to look.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:11pm)
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.
For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:15am)
For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)
Well please post it here, I would love to see it since the Arb conversation evidence is damning.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:00pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:53pm)
I don't know JoshuaZ well enough to form even a tentative theory of mind encompassing his issues, beliefs, desires, or intentions. But if he has the courage and integrity to come here, I'll do my best to learn those aspects of his mindset as best I can elicit them through a congenial and collegial conversation with him.
And would you rather do this in a thread that's write-access-limited to the two of you exclusively? It's technically feasible, but I don't think we've ever done that before. Also, I'm not even sure what the point would be — is there some solution to this situation that doesn't involve him just backing off, preferably for good?
Couldn't we just all chip in to get them a room at the Motel 6 and save ourselves the expense of buying all those barf bags?
Kinda gives a whole nu nuance to PayPal though, doesn't it?
Jon
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:11pm)
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.
I dunno, Mr. Moulton... you may be overstating the complexity of this issue just a tad...
I mean, this is what we know:
1. D. Brandt doesn't want an article about himself in Wikipedia, or a redirect from his name to another article.
2. JoshuaZ wants to maintain Wikipedia's usefulness as a revenge platform, at all costs.
3. ....
4. Profit!
What's so complicated about this?
I realize the issue for him is that Brandt continues to publish the Hivemind page despite the deletion of both the article and the redirect... But if you get into a "conversation" with Joshy, he's just going to spout a bunch of nonsense about "injecting oneself into the public sphere" and "the integrity of the encyclopedia" and "the whole notion of privacy" being "redefined by the internet." He doesn't care about public editability, the effects of Google rankings, or administrative malfeasance... he might as well not even think those things exist. JoshuaZ is a head-in-the-sand, see-no-evil, hard-line reactionary. Trying to get him to change his mind, or even compromise, is just a waste of time, at least in my opinion.
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:15pm)
The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess...
A bit?
JoshuaZ claims he cannot reveal the details of why his IP showed up to vote on Brandt related articles using a different account. His reasons are that the details are private. They reveal "very personal information regarding my medical history" he says.
QUOTE(Derktar @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:17pm)
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 11:15am)
For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)
Well please post it here, I would love to see it since the Arb conversation evidence is damning.
Alex (Majorly) has been checking out the Arbcom conversation from February which is posted here. Summary was that all the big names, including Jimbo, tried their best to hint to J how to get himself off the hook, but he was not bright enough to take the hint. I think the damning evidence is the double voting ahead of his own vote, which would be a pretty smart trick to achieve.
Ah Joshua is on here at the moment, why don't you have a quick chat with us?
I want to hear about that rootkit. Is it anything like the woman who was sued by RIAA for distribution of music tracks? Her lawyer argued that it may have been a neighbor on Wi-Fi, but it turned out that the woman didn't even have Wi-Fi on her computer. The woman lost the case.
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:15pm)
For what it's worth, I've read the email he's spamming around and I'm now pretty much on the fence.. it is a bit complicated and confusing but seemingly plausible. The story about someone having a rootkit on his laptop is a bit far fetched I guess, but it could happen.. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. (I can give a summarised version if anyone is that interested)
If the summary is "I was h4×0rd by Brandt", is it worth posting?
In the light of the documented evidence, this kind of "defence" would look pretty weak without actual law-enforcement involvement and a prosecution. Sockin' Josh does not have a sufficient reputation for honesty to take his word.
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:28pm)
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.
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.
QUOTE(Joshua Zelinsky)
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.
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:42pm)
He gave me permission to post this:
QUOTE
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?
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:28pm)
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 1:15pm)
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
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:15pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:11pm)
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.
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:50pm)
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.
Weak restatement of a weak defence.
Bah. If he chooses not to ask someone who would know, he's making the choice to be The Most Credulous One.
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 7:55pm)
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.
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
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 2:55pm)
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:50pm)
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:
- Little Brother Defense?
- My Dog Typed It Defense?
- Multiple Personality Defense?
Jon
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 6:55pm)
QUOTE(No one of consequence @ Tue 22nd April 2008, 12:50pm)
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 is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.