Talk:The Jester (hacktivist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not a soldier

there's a blog post at his website where he describes in detail how he set up an interview with a person claiming to be him. this person also claimed that the jester was actually a disabled war vet. I think the reference to this in the page should be corrected. He's not a vet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.212.119 (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the alleged blog post? I can't find it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/if-ya-gonna-troll-do-it-right/ – Never mind. I guess you mean this one. If so, then it doesn't matter. We aren't using the fake interview as a source, and we're not claiming that th3j35t3r is disabled. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion

This article is really not of a person who is notable or notable for short little known incidents. becuase wikipedia is not a indiscriminate souce of information, this can be deleted. Please challenge this proposal through the correct channels, ie this talk page.user:Purplepox01 18:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the references clearly establish this individual is notable, multiple major media organizations covered different things the subject has done. Monty₈₄₅ 18:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say I agree with deleting. I had never heard of this, erm, whatever it is, before, and their most notable act seems to be attacking wikileaks. Unless it does something new and noteworthy soon, it was just a minor blip on the internet radar that came and went, having very little impact on anything. 97.114.141.119 (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There are references to the New York Times, Fox News, Reuters, and the Guardian already in the article. That clearly meets the criteria for notability. Further there are reliable sources for multiple things the subject has done, so it cannot even be claimed to fall into the one event exception. I had never heard of the subject either until I read this article, but that is not the test for inclusion. Monty₈₄₅ 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

One could add the issue linking him to the unmasking of alleged LulzSec members as well, who have been in the public eye for their compromising of corporate websites and databases recently. Ulaire (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I vote for delete he seems to be a self-promoting moron or whatever the NPOV way of saying that is. He tweets a lot about Lulzsec but does not seem to have a clue what his is talking about.--Paul the less (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your personal opinion of him is, he is clearly notable and meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you disagree, the process for starting a formal deletion discussion is found at WP:AFD. Monty₈₄₅ 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

some of the references link are dead such as the newyork times, and others are to his own personal blogs. The only recent information about him is his involvement with lulzsec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzhy (talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times link works; it just takes some time to load. The only link that doesn't work is the information-security-resources.com article. I'll try to find a new source when I have the chance. Concerning the personal blog post:

1. The "About Jester" page is being used as a reference for "self-described […] hackactivist." It's important for the reader to know that "hackactivist" is a title th3j35t3r gave to himself rather than one Wikipedia editors or some critic assigned to him on a whim.
2. The "Unredacted Original Interview with Newspaper 'Die Welt'" page isn't meant as a standalone source; it's a supplement to the welt.de reference. It's meant to augment the welt.de reference. The welt.de is also written in German, so an article in English would be useful. From th3j35t3r: "I tried Google translate on the article but it made not a hint of sense." The blog entry is supposed to help the intrigue reader.

I hope that helps. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly Notable!?!? a couple of fake interviews and nonsensical twitter posts Blog entries as sources please. --Paul the less (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but attacking the subject of the page is hardly appropriate and furthermore, your opinion of him is 100% irrelevant. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am attacking him how? We simply do not have enough valid data. Does every twitiot need a wikipedia entry? This page look like a hobby and self promotion. I propose deletion. which of course is the subject heading so I assume I am on topic --Paul the less (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Which interviews are you claiming to be fake? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

for instance http://www.ethicalhack3r.co.uk/security/interview-the-jester/ has only 36 readers I would call that one blogger interviewing another.

pc mag does not quote him but cites him as one of a group. the welt piece is better but being interviewed by the web edition of germany's second paper hardly recommends one for english wikipedia. (to boot they call him the Joker the whole time do we know that it is the same guy?). I guess if the piece used only the broken nytimes links and the guardian pieces a shorter article could be written but he is hardly a notable character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul the less (talk • contribs) 01:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The ethicialhack3r.co.uk is reliable since it's interviewing th3j35t3r. The amount of readers doesn't devalue th3j35t3r's own words, and that doesn't make the interview "fake". ethicialhack3r / Ryan Dewhurst is a very knowledgeable individual. There's obvious animosity between th3j35t3r and Anonymous and Lulzsec; the PC Magazine reference isn't invalid. As I've said before, the NY Times link isn't broken. The Germans mistranslated his name, and that mistake doesn't invalidate the the entire source. Foreign language sources are permitted on Wikipedia, and I've included the th3j35t3r's English version in order to get around the language barrier. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well if you want a wikipedia article about yourself who am I to stop you (but it does smack of self promotion) --Paul the less (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've been accused of being th3j35t3r. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not her or him. I'm a hacking and trolling enthusiast, so I contribute content and articles to those topics. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out to Paul the Less that saying a user is th3j35t3r could be considered outing (information does not have to be correct to be outing) and is extremely disallowed. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I retract and apologize my intention has never been to break rules. (should I redact my accusation or leave it a evidence?) Also I reverse my vote for deletion The Jesters actions on the 13 of July 2011 are definitely notable http://gawker.com/5821305/vigilantes-out-wrong-guy-as-hacker-mastermind and should be included in this article. --Paul the less (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

nvr mind, it seems recent actions by th3 j3ster are notable actions. I now vote keep.user:Purplepox01 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Question on ethical hacker activity

It is widely known that th3j35t3r uses "XerXeS" a DoS script to bring down websites. In the "hacker" community unless the individual defaced a website, a "hacker" who uses DoS attack is known commonly as a scriptie aka script kiddie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushspeakon (talk • contribs) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Provide a source before changing something like that. What you are doing amounts to an unsourced attack on the subject and is very point of view. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article on Infosec Island that says th3j35t3r AKA the Jester is a script user: https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/2695-Hacktivist-Tactics-Raise-Ethical-Questions.html. The user uses a published Defcon 17 attack known as SlowLoris. The Lulzsec associate known as Laurelai also has commented that the XerXes code works in a similar function: http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Jul/94— Preceding signed comment added by Talkakiser (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the practice of edit Waring I think we can work this out on the talk page and when we have some consensus we can change the wording. I personally don't see some one who seems to only use scripts as a hacker or whatever a hackivist is. I think we are on strange ground with this fellow he is probably a living person but we only have his word for it. Is there a word that we can agree on? --Paul the less (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

According Infosec articles and publications, the individual is clearly using a script known as Xerxes. As an authoritative source (former NSA crypto analyst), the individual has only demonstrate the ability to perform Denial of Service attacks using his Xerxes implementation of the "SlowLoris" method, a HTTP port exhaustion attack published in Defcon 17 - 2009. — Preceding signed comment added by Talkakiser (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool I think he may need a bifurcation of what he is I propose "The Jester is a computer vigilante [1] who describes himself as a greyhat . . . " both hackivist and script kiddie are Jargon and should be avoided in my opinion. (Although the piece cited uses the term.) The scriptkiddie allegation should (if properly cited) be placed the first paragraph or in criticism. --Paul the less (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Question on inclusion

"In July 2011, it was revealed that The Jester was security researcher named John Wilander by an anonymous Twitter employee" This is a line removed from the article. Obviously Pastebin a anonymous paste site is not a reliable or verifiable source. Can Pastebin ever be cited if so in what instance? --Paul the less (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

the Jester was named as a Ryan Michael Berg in gadgetsteria this seems at least as reputable as most of the rest of the referances in this article how should it be included? http://gadgetsteria.com/2011/07/29/anonymous-lulzsec-and-th3j35t3r-internet-spat-continues-jester-allegedly-outed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul the less (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

They're just repeating Anonymous' claims, and such claims have been proven wrong before. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

sure, sure, we know exactly where they got the info http://pastebin.com/r44hzdm5 but wikipedia is not interested in the truth but verifiablity. Truth requires primary research I am not going to include it as new doxes for the joker come out every week but if someone did we would not have a right to remove cited information. Only move it or qualify it. here is the same story in an other place beforeitsnews.com --Paul the less (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The removal of referenced material

The Con references are from a source cited all reputable by the person deleting the material I find that this smacks of dishonesty. should we remove all infosec island references and the material taken from that site? The Fake Raid is part of the jesters story if you would like to elaborate on it from the same article or from other sources feel free but your opinion on the truthfulness of it really does not matter --Paul the less (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to WP:BLP, trthfulness is always a concern. Wikipedia isn't here to promote gossip and misinformation, especially when neither of the sources specified uses the word "conman". Both sources state that the "conning" was the work of an impostor, yet you don't make that clear here. In addition, accusing the subject of being a conman in the first sentence due to the actions of an impostor is inappropriate. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure this is WP:BLP there is no real name associated with the persona (unless you would like to add one) anyway the statements were qualified as "possible conman" and a person "claiming to be the jester". there was no where where anyone was accused of anything. It seems to me that you were removing sourced material because it did not fit your agenda.I am going to compromise and restore the bit in the timeline. Leaving out the possible conman line this is not a fan page the event is significant or as significant as anything else in the time line. If you would like to add further clarifying info feel free. I give you the benefit of doubt on good faith and feel I should be afforded the same --Paul the less (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not commenting on the dispute here, but wish to say that this definitely counts as a BLP, as knowing someone's real name is not a requirement for this. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I covered for WP:BLP there is no libelous statement and took mikes advice and made the story clear that the person that says he is the jester on twitter says that it was an impostor that made the money request. there was no criminal investigation that I have heard of so we just have his word for it. I think this compromise works well. --Paul the less (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Th3j35t3r recently gave a presentation at the Hackers Halted USA conference in Oct. 11. It was a significant event for his bio and there have been many comments and articles on it. I think it should be included here. There are a lot of details to this event. Would appreciate some seasoned guidance on adding this information with as little opening for edit wars as possible. Here is the article: https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/17784-Hacktivist-The-Jester-Draws-Crowd-at-Hacker-Halted.html

Draft (w/out cites) "In October 2011 at the Hackers Halted USA conference, the Jester gave a surprise live presentation and fielded questions through an online chat with presenter Jeff Bardin. His identity was authenticated via his Twitter account. Jester fielded questions about Xerxes and other tools in development, and discussed his motivations for attacking militant jihadi recruiting websites. He also hinted he may have been physically present at the conference."

The article I linked to has the transcript of the interview. Advice on how to add this invited and appreciated =) Ellie Dahl (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: Reference No. 9 is a dead link: http://information-security-resources.com/?7c866be9d8100431e39a9f5b19456cec=325467165&6fa970d50480e816942b6fab7c4e7a23=506683626&5f17a83ba43604eb3d1c06f73d82e119=634584261864254354 Looking for a source for the same information Ellie Dahl (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Two other sources in the article mention that th2j25t3r's possible former career as a soldier, so I decided to use use those as the new citations. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks =) Would you mind looking over my adds & citations? I'm a novice Ellie Dahl (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. I cleaned up some of the references you've added. The information you've added appears fine. I would like to do more work with this article, but I'm busy. Thanks for the updates. I'm committed to other projects at the moment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - watching you work. Much appreciated. Ellie Dahl (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

QR Code Hack March 2012

Hi all - going to update some information on the page related to the recent arrest of "Sabu", correctly identified in Jester's Nov 2011 blog posting, and will add a new section for the QR Code hack that just occurred this past week. Would appreciate help making sure my citations, etc are done correctly. Still buggering those up, even when I think I get them correct. Thx Ellie Dahl (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Pressflow TY for credit to rootdial =) Ellie Dahl (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/accuracy issues

Many of the details of the alleged QR code exploit don't really add up, and all sources are just retellings of The Jester's original blog post. Would it be appropriate to reword this section in a more neutral way? ("According to," "allegedly," etc?) Barring that, there are a number of blog posts and mailing list comments out there detailing a few of these incongruities. Perhaps it makes sense to pull some of them in? As written, this section reads as though the incident definitely happened, which is not my take at all.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.132.68 (talk) 05:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited in the QR Code section include analysis from infosec professionals confirming the exploit is not only possible, but likely to have been successful considering the prevalence of jailbreaks. I have seen several blogs decrying the exploit, but nearly all of these hinge on the foundational point that the exploit used was known and patched. That is already addressed with specificity in the body and the sources cited. And frankly, every time Jester does something he incites a flurry of detractors and critics. Unless they can likewise provide "proof" it didn't happen, adding their theories to the page would (imho) just muck up the waters. Ellie Dahl (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources listed actually involve analyzing the exploit, because Jester was unwilling to share any real technical details. The only technical source listed notes that Charlie's exploit was broken by iOS's ASLR implementation. Additionally, Jester never addressed (even in passing) a number of other implementation details (as you say, neither the iOS nor Android sandbox escapes; the screenshot posted on his website also indicates the same exploit was served to iOS and Android devices, which is particularly odd, especially given that one could have simply used browser detection to serve different exploits to different clients as, you know, most browser drive-bys do).

The attack described is of course possible (though it relies on additional vulnerabilities not indicated in the Jester post, presumably because either the author did not wish to reveal such details or, more likely, because the story is a fabrication by an author who was unaware of the need for such details).

Of course that's my expert opinion, so it's original research. I was hoping the person who authored this article would want to do some real research and improve the details, rather than simply parrot what is in all likelihood a story invented entirely from whole cloth, but if you don't wish to do so, that's your prerogative.

(Honestly, I'm not aware enough of this guy to know that people "always" are skeptical of his claims. That said, it is the assertion of fact that requires "proof," not the skeptical view.)

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.132.68 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well in that vein, I'm having trouble accepting your view as "expert opinion" just because you said so =P

I understand your point, but isn't the objective of the page to explain who/what The Jester is to the reader, as opposed to a detailed lesson on the exploits and speculation about them? A full bodied analysis of the QR Code hack would make a cool page on its own - or a great addition to a page on QR Codes if there is one. It could easily cross reference here.

I could add a section giving some voice to skeptics of the QR Code hack for balance, but most of them are anonymous blog posters offering their own opinions, and they don't all agree. Not sure if that would benefit what is essentially a bio page.

Btw - genuinely do not want to be flamey with you here. I'm a fledgling here - go easy on me! Ellie Dahl (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lance Miller/Infosec Island

Removed a line added identifying The Jester as Lance Miller. On April 1, 2012 Infosec Island ran an April Fools joke article identifying The Jester as Lance Miller. See http://infosecisland.com/blogview/20807-Authorities-Apprehend-the-Hacktivist-Known-as-th3j35t3r.html Miller runs Infosec Island. It was a joke on him written by other contributors, which is obvious if you read the article. Lance Miller is not The Jester =) Ellie Dahl (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiciton

The text says that the hack was in the web page where the QRcode redirected. The quote to back it up suggests that the QR code directly caused the link to the shell. Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

May 14th deleted Twitter account & wordpress blog

Just a caveat: The events surrounding the deletion of the Twitter account and wordpress blog are still unfolding. Kudos for the restraint in simply posting the deletion as fact and not getting bogged into the rapidly changing theories on what is going on. Curious to see how it comes out :) Ellie Dahl (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Kobra (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an add to the introductory paragraph stating the Jester's Twitter account and wordpress blog were deleted. They were actually deactivated for around 48 hours and then restored. Jester later moved his wordpress blog off 2600 and onto a new home. I'll correct the entry. Just want to remind anyone editing this page that when it comes to the Jester, it is probably best to wait and see and watch before deciding what happened =) Ellie Dahl (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Organization & Adds

Under Military History I am thinking the info about Xerxes should get a separate section. "Tools" or whatnot. Also, considering adding a section about false dox & identity, with an ethical concern that no one falsely identified as The Jester should have their name put in Jester's Wikipedia for obvious reasons. Any objections or recommendations? Ellie Dahl (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic

Is this what Wikipedia has become? Posturing, self-promoting kiddies writing articles about themselves. This article is an absolute joke. It reads like it was written by a 12 year old. I propose quick removal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.103.108 (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you jealous or something? There's nothing wrong with the article and the subject's notability seems pretty solid. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally [dis]agree with the OP, because taking down various sites (among various other actions) related to Jihadist and otherwise anti-American organizations (some of which are open to interpretation) is obviously not enough to earn an article. Excuse my extreme sarcasm, but give me a break! The Jester's actions are more than enough to justify making an article. You don't have to be rich and famous (or infamous) to merit an article about you. Notable != rich/famous/infamous. McAfreak (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record - I'm not Jester =P Ellie Dahl (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Gender

I has working on this page and it dawned on me we do not know The Jesters gender. How should we solve this issue saying "he" seems to be inserting information we do not have. While saying He or she seems annoying. any answers? --Paul the less (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Universal_.22he.22 Using He as a gender neutral pronoun is perfectly allowable in the English language. Charwinger21 (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

> Allowable

In other words, one is allowed to allow it, but not obliged to, right? Then I don't allow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.110.7 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest the singular "they" instead, as most readers are doubtfully aware of the gender-neutral usage of "he". It definitely carries a misleading and sexist air about it, and as stated in the article, that usage was only prescribed until half a century ago, and through criticism. Alternatively, "(s)he" could be used, but that seems clunky. --Varkianis (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The gender issue still needs a cleanup. As someone with a background in both English & journalism, I can say a couple things with absolute certainty. First, "they" is never singular. When people use it that way, they're using it wrong (no matter how many of them do it). Second, when you choose a gender to describe a person of unknown sex (which is totally legitimate, whether it be "he" or "she"), you need to start with that gender & stick with it. This article starts with "he or she," then suddenly jumps to "he." That doesn't work. If we're going to use he, we should start with he at the top & stick with it to the end.Ctnelsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This article needs some skepticism

There is significant evidence that most of this guy's claims are complete bogus and/or taking credit from others. Probably not acceptable sources, but very interesting reads:

http://reapersec.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/th3j35t3rs-saladin-tool-exposed/

http://reapersec.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/while-were-waiting-on-the-saladin-full-disclosure/

TL;DR: Most of the websites he claims to have taken down had expired domain names. A few of his other claims which aren't mentioned in this article are debunked, casting doubt on some of his other supposed accomplishments. 68.238.203.115 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no proof whatsoever the jester is behind any attacks. There were never any defaced websites. This article should be deleted. Or do we need an article for everybody who has 30k twitter followers? I dont think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.11.133 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article: "In March of 2011, The Jester employed a different style of attack by using an XXS vulnerability to make it appear as if fabricated articles were inserted online Libyan newspapers The Malta Independent Online and the Tripoli Post. On March 28, 2011 he tweeted links to the forged articles The articles were not visible in search, or to viewers of those websites, and viewable only via the inserted links." That is close enough for government work. Including a watermark included in the cross site scripted pages with his signature. Don't have to be especially skilled to write scripts or do an XSS, but creativity counts in being effective, whether one approves of such activities or not.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting page protection re persistent vandalism

Thanks Ellie Dahl (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please- although I am not sure why Ellie is asking for this as she seems to be in favor of the vandalism and section blanking. Apologies if I am mistaken, but you cannot remove entire sections because you are a fan/friend of the page's subject. Anonymous4223 (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, the only source for Marsden's information is Marsden, and she admits she cannot verify any of it. It's a fluff piece without evidence. The content is laughably lacking NPOV. My opinion of either party is irrelevant. Ellie Dahl (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Just as most of the sources for this article are from the "Jester's" blog, of which ZERO can be verified. Stop removing the section, or I am going to ask for a sockpuppet check. You are heavily invested in this page, and I see from your history you are very biased in your editing of this page. If you have issues with the article, [removed] add your own sources. Do NOT remove information from the page because you are a Jester fan or do not like an article. You do not own this page, and you are not entitled to make it your special pro-Jester project. Anonymous4223 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the rpp. Anonymous4223 it is not vandalism or section blanking to remove text pending sources on a BLP issue. You may or may not be right on this, but please take a look at WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR -- repeatedly adding the same thing back in without consensus on the talk page is frowned upon. --Rhododendrites (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to get into an edit war, just frustrated with the over-eager fans who will put any old blog post in as long as it polishes his apple, yet act like a syndicated column in the Chicago Tribune is a "hit piece." This section is full of the same kind of silliness I wrote about, including several untrue claims about the author of the story. Ellie writes without any evidence whatsoever that jester is a "veteran," yet complains that a well-regarded columnist is making up stories? Bizarre. I just wish they'd host their circus elsewhere, or add a meaningful counterpoint rather than continually treat the article like their own personal infomercial Anonymous4223 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you take issue with specific other sources used on the page. Leaving aside the Marsden piece for a moment, can you be more specific? It does seem true that Wikipedia policy is set up to be more forgiving to positive statements about a living person than negative, which could be abused, but I'm only looking at this one little section at the moment. --Rhododendrites (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

International Spy Museum

In May 2013 The Jester donated his laptop (an Alienware) to the International Spy Museum. They have it on display in a five year exhibit. This is well documented and should be added to the article. Don't know if I can do that while it is protected. Here is the info:

The Intl Spy Museum page with the exhibit: http://www.spymuseum.org/exhibition-experiences/exquisitely-evil/weapons-of-mass-disruption/ Newsweek article on The Jester with reference to Spy Museum: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/05/29/hackers-are-spying-on-you-inside-the-world-of-digital-espionage.html Larry King feature of Peter Earnest, director of the Spy Musuem and 35 year CIA career talking about exhibit, including Jester's laptop: http://www.youtube.com/user/IntlSpyMuseum

So well sourced. Let me know if it is okay to add this information. Thanks Ellie Dahl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Marsden claims

The claims about Jester in the Rachel Marsden opinion piece are speculation, and she admits in her own article she cannot verify any of the information given. Fail doxes for Jester abound. Posting a guessed name for Jester without verified proof isn't factual, especially when the source of the information admits a lack of concrete proof. As a side note, Marsden's criminal stalking/harassment history and dubious credibility is documented on her own wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Marsden ) and in numerous news sources.

See http://jesterscourt.cc/2013/08/07/rachel-marsden-come-on-down/ and http://wwwirritant.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-crazy-is-rachel-marsden.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/03/rachel-marsden-and-jimmy-_n_89566.html Ellie Dahl (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

All of the claims on the page are speculative at best, which includes the majority of Jester's blog posts. Source is a national news column, which is more reputable than most sources on the page. Please do not blank the page. Editted to add: I'd also like to request an admin perform a checkuser on ellie, who I suspect ought not be contributing to this article. subject66.87.137.246 (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Those rebuttals can be mentioned on the page alongside any claims she made. Shouldn't the question be one of notability? 24.112.147.49 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's against my usual inclinations, but I agree with Ellie Dahl. I don't think it's a matter of second order verifiability or the charges against her in the past necessarily, but rather that there are up to two BLP issues (for Jester and whoever this person is that she names) with its inclusion at this point. I think typically if someone who is herself notable writes about another notable person, it's fair game, but the seeming "gotcha!" tone of her post--rather than journalistic--combined with her own admission that what she's saying can't be verified seems like at most her article should be a footnote in a long list of people who have claimed to have identified Jester. Again, pending additional sources. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm not familiar with the BLP guidelines/rules, which is one reason I don't make edits myself, except for restoring one section that was clearly improperly removed a few years ago and replacing the occasional dead link with a live one, but Rhododendrites makes a fair argument. It sounds like the BLP issue for people named might apply even to a "Possible Identities" section, or something along the lines. I'm not a regular editor here by any means, so don't attach a lot of weight to my thoughts on Wikipedia inclusion/exclusion. At the very least the section that was removed would have needed rewriting. FWIW. 24.112.147.49 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There are over 35 "fail doxes" of Jester. Most are real people who have never been proven to be Jester. I think if we start listing "possible identities" we are going to run afoul of libel. Ellie Dahl (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I made an exception to my usual "not an editor" rule to change "revealed the Jester's name" to "revealed what she said was the Jester's name." I thought that one bit might need more careful wording until a consensus is reached on what to do about the whole section. 24.112.147.49 (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI - if you review the Jester twitter feed it is clear the Marsden article has a variety of people pro and anti-Jester in flame wars. This article is likely to be heavily vandalized in the coming weeks. Ellie Dahl (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, this falls under WP:REDFLAG; "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". If someone is to be accused of retaliatory harassment while at the same time revealing what is alleged to be a person's name where it has been until now unpublished, we're going to need more solid sourcing than what was there before I removed it. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am re-adding my comments. I have received an instant delete while trying to initiate discussion about the newsworthiness of a link: http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelmarsden/2013/08/07/meet-the-mysterious-mr-th3j35t3r-n1658032/ This material is newsworthy and notable, and yet I have been "warned" that my comments constitute personal information on a user. They do not, and did not- this appears to be a pretext to scrub the material from view. It seems utterly bizarre to me to claim this information is invented by the Tribune, yet go through such absurd lengths to prevent it from being seen by the readers of this page. This article is about a fugitive criminal, which makes the article and its claims more than relevant, whether his fans wish it to be buried or not. The talk page IS the appropriate place for this discussion. Please stop removing my comments, and please stop making accusations and threats. Anonymous4223 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a blog-like column in a right-wing website, full of "he said, "he claimed", "the man I believe to be...", and the like. Nothing really credible to be found in either the writer or the publisher. Anything else? Tarc (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune is a "right wing website," since when, exactly? And let's not go into what's absurd, given the fact that most of the material on the page is linked to a blog written by a purported hacker and posted on a wordpress linked ".cc" domain? The Trib is a legitimate source, one of the most credible sources to publish on the subject. Almost every other item on this page is someone's anonymously written blog. Anonymous4223 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sensing some comprehension issues on your end; I did not say "the Tribune is right-wing", since the source we were in reality discussing was at townhall.com. But if you wish to talk about the Tribune, I will point out that that isn't an article in the paper but rather just an OpEd. Opinion pieces are generally not considered reliable sources either, especially for contentious claims. It is also, word-for-word, the exact same piece as the Townhall column...well to be precise, the townhall one is a reprint of the Tribune editorial. We're still left with the issue of a single source (reprints don't count as "multiple sources" btw) publishing a single writer's opinion being used to cite contentious BLP material. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone interested in the Tribune article can read it in the Tribune. The problem with it here is it isn't encyclopedia material. This isn't a blog Ellie Dahl (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well...WP isn't an academic journal either, but they're still reliable sources. The issue is not whether a Chicago Tribune blog is a reliable source, because I guarantee it has been approved (not to mention used) as a RS many many times on WP. It leans right, but FOX is also typically acceptable as a reliable source. None of that should matter, though. As has already been pointed out via WP:REDFLAG it's not enough for this because it's a BLP issue. Not just for Jester, but the person Marsden names (regardless of whether or not we say the name here). If there's merit to it, other sources will appear. Otherwise, as I said before it's probably best to leave it as a footnote in a long list of "outings" if at all, rather than paying it any special attention as though it is correct where the others were wrong. --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW that name has been attached to him before. 207.181.180.2 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Over a year ago. Along with all of these and more since: http://jesterscourt.cc/2012/07/10/rumors-of-my-untimely-early-retirement-are-greatly-exaggerated/ Long list, none confirmed, all rumor. WP:REDLFAG issues remain. Ellie Dahl (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)