Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Gary Weiss and his cavalcade of socks _ Sir Fozzie's investigation
Posted by: Proabivouac
G-dett and Cool hand Luke's sections draw attention to idiosyncratic "phraseologies" shared by both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, with Alanyst providing edit time analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox
This looks promising, to say the least. What is needed is more of the same. Such evidence, in combination with a plausible motivation scenario, was enough to convict Oldwindybear straightaway, and, after much strife, convince ArbCom in the SevenOfDiamonds case:
I bear no ill will towards Mantanmoreland/Samiharris. The few interactions I've had with him were entirely positive, and several of his friends I would call mine as well.
But as the evidence approaches the overwhelming - as I sadly imagine it will - the deception that has been foisted upon the project, up to the very highest levels of authority, and the questions of corruption which inevitably follow from its recognition…well, this is serious stuff, folks. There's a lot of money and more than one real-life reputation riding on these issues. A serious shake-up is in order - blocking one retired sock isn't remotely sufficient. Anyone who might reasonably be expected to have known about this should be very closely examined.
Posted by: Peter Damian
G-dett and Cool hand Luke's sections draw attention to idiosyncratic "phraseologies" shared by both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, with Alanyst providing edit time analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox
I ran an enhanced version of the Damian DIY checkuser as follows. Get up to 5000 edits from each user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=200802&limit=5000&target=Mantanmoreland
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=200802&limit=5000&target=Samiharris
copy and paste these as VALUES into separate columns of a spreadsheet. Trim head and tail.
enter the formula =value(left(CELL,5)) into the spreadsheet, where CELL contains the first edit of one user. Copy down. Likewise for the other user. This calculates the timestamp string as a day fraction. Sort each of the day fraction columns, then add a column to the right, numbering the rows from 1 to 5000 (or the actual number of rows, whichever is smaller).
Then chart an x-y graph with the day fraction as x, and the number as y.
Then you get a 'snake' shaped graph, which flattens out as the user makes fewer edits, and steepens as he or she makes more.
The two graphs for Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are highly similar. Both stop editing at 5:30 UCL and resume 13:00. Rapid editing until 17:00, but a pretty consistent pace until 5:30.
Strongly suggests the same user, based in eastern US, subject to the limitations we discussed in an earlier thread. (It may simply mean there are two different users with similar editing patterns).
What is the background to this case, please?
Posted by: Piperdown
G-dett and Cool hand Luke's sections draw attention to idiosyncratic "phraseologies" shared by both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, with Alanyst providing edit time analysis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox
I ran an enhanced version of the Damian DIY checkuser as follows. Get up to 5000 edits from each user.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=200802&limit=5000&target=Mantanmoreland
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=200802&limit=5000&target=Samiharris
copy and paste these as VALUES into separate columns of a spreadsheet. Trim head and tail.
enter the formula =value(left(CELL,5)) into the spreadsheet, where CELL contains the first edit of one user. Copy down. Likewise for the other user. This calculates the timestamp string as a day fraction. Sort each of the day fraction columns, then add a column to the right, numbering the rows from 1 to 5000 (or the actual number of rows, whichever is smaller).
Then chart an x-y graph with the day fraction as x, and the number as y.
Then you get a 'snake' shaped graph, which flattens out as the user makes fewer edits, and steepens as he or she makes more.
The two graphs for Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are highly similar. Both stop editing at 5:30 UCL and resume 13:00. Rapid editing until 17:00, but a pretty consistent pace until 5:30.
Strongly suggests the same user, based in eastern US, subject to the limitations we discussed in an earlier thread. (It may simply mean there are two different users with similar editing patterns).
What is the background to this case, please?
They both post from the same Verizon IP in Brooklyn, NYC, NY, USA.
The older account has revealed his own previous socks through editing gaffes, two of which were quietly shown the door on the same day in 2006. And Arbcom did it with Checkuser proof then too.
The socking is always abusive - consensus illusion, 3RR evasion, double voting
The abuser has returned to the same abuse, although this time used a proxy for sock#2. Most of the time.
Next case please.
Posted by: Moulton
In the real world of writing traditional encyclopedias, everyone knows who the authors and editors are. The sales force also know who the customers are.
In the bizarre world of Wikipedia, the game of concealing and revealing the identity of the players becomes more important than the purported goal of writing an authentic encyclopedia, or serving the consumer of the product.
It's astonishing how much technical work people have put in to address the bizarre world of Wikipedian anonymity. In the world of real encyclopedias, such games of concealing and revealing the identity of editors would never occur.
Posted by: Piperdown
In the real world of writing traditional encyclopedias, everyone knows who the authors and editors are. The sales force also know who the customers are.
In the bizarre world of Wikipedia, the game of concealing and revealing the identity of the players becomes more important than the purported goal of writing an authentic encyclopedia, or serving the consumer of the product.
It's astonishing how much technical work people have put in to address the bizarre world of Wikipedian anonymity. In the world of real encyclopedias, such games of concealing and revealing the identity of editors would never occur.
I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.
I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.
But it is for the admins and management of WP. There's not that many, they should be accountable, and their ID veirfied and presented.
It's what real publishers do.
The editors can continue the MUD games, but the admins who run the joint are the ones doing the real damage. WP has no credibilty has long as you have anonymous COIs, and outed COIs like Jossi, lol, being allowed to do the voodoo they do.
Daniel Brandt has a WP:POINT and I have seen his light, hallelujah.
Posted by: Piperdown
The amazing G-Dett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/G-Dett has found another "asked and answered" used in another completely independent thread/time. He is good, very very good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox&&title=User%3ASirFozzie%2FInvestigation%2FSandbox&diff=190413984&oldid=190360171
Who is PTMcCain?
I read his history and it looks oh so familiar to my tilting at MantanWindmills. How many of us have gone through this schtick with Gary? How many have been ralilroaded? PtMcCain was Shanghai'ed, big-time.
He managed to raise a stink, I was a well-behaved ass kisser in comparison. If I would have known I was going to be banned out of the sweet blue for...nothing...I would have pulled a serious PtMcCain (or Giano) on the way out.
Posted by: WordBomb
Then read http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15518.
As you'll see in the next few days, the number (and positions) of people who have known about this is shocking.
As if that's not bad enough, they've spent the past 570+ days calling me a liar for raising the alarm of this fraud.
Posted by: Piperdown
Then read http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15518.
As you'll see in the next few days, the number (and positions) of people who have known about this is shocking.
As if that's not bad enough, they've spent the past 570+ days calling me a liar for raising the alarm of this fraud.
Do they still have an attack dog BLP of you, and are they still using "fuck off Bagley" all over WP? That's not nice.
Daniel Brandt Deja Vu.
Posted by: Piperdown
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox
This is just rich.
Slrubenstein comes in to say he doesn't care. It's good he cared so much to do that.
Why does Slrube care?
He was the Gerard Lackey who "reviewed" my unblock (original) request in Sept 2007 (see my user talk page link on my WR profile) with a "you just questioned Gerard's Vice Godkingness. How dare you, knave! You stay banned! Nevermind I didn't bother to investigate a damn thing except what my Vice Godking told me in the two minutes I took on this."
I think that about sums up the knee deep bullshit that is slrube almost as well as he shows for himself on the diff at the top 'o this post.
And nice work, Daniel T. You are a good man, even when you sometimes overlook the facts in some cases (yes, Daniel, there is an SEC Commissioner, and he did say "Naked short selling is a problem we are very concerined about" - see the NSS article where I managed to get that in there between getting sock 6RR'ed) in order to play the Rodney King role.
Posted by: Piperdown
Some kind W-R'ian please jonnycache or save SirFozzie's wonderful sandbox, at regular intervals.
Da GodKing will probably roll over and smash it after all the lilliputians get tuckered out.
And I got slrube confused with sandstein. 2 equally but different (far as i know) shallow lochs. Slrubenstein is one of the "I got your back" posse of gary's on WP, and sandstein was just some patsy Gerard drafted to put on a sham appearance of a block review.
Posted by: Achromatic
I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.
I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.
It's a good point. I remember when Amazon introduced the "Real Names" scheme, and it was amazing how night-and-day comments and reviews became. Be it positive, or negative, your input gained so much more value (granted, that's a relative judgment, based on what the original was), by virtue of the fact you were willing, in a public fora, to do the mind-boggling and put your name to it. Especially in such a place where there is a real value in COI, as I believe there is in WP. From publishers, authors, fans and critics trying to organize groundswells of opinion, through to religious ideologies/cults whitewashing what they can to seem more benevolent, there is something that can be had of it.
If Amazon can do it, and do it successfully, why can't WP? Hell, even institute rules (moreso than there are) not allowing you to dismiss other contributors on the basis of your qualifications, but at least real names have value in accountability.
But then, that wouldn't allow the inner circle to easily edit on their favorite closet subjects, from big chested girls to pro-pedo/zoo to adult diapers to, well, you name it. So it won't happen.
Posted by: Piperdown
When the going gets tough, the tough go whip out old socks and post from separate IP's to put on a cu show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doright&action=history
WordB, what's the over/under on DoRight. Funny how and when he pops up. He'll make a fine sleeper account with longtime cred and the usual friends to grow back into the sharkstooth hole.
A quick visual on DoRight vs Mantanmoreland shows another case of Alternating Timelines.
But DoRight would be the oldest account of any of the socks, so that is a new twist. I think it's a friend not a sock, but I was proved wrong with sami too.
Posted by: Amarkov
I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.
I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.
It's a good point. I remember when Amazon introduced the "Real Names" scheme, and it was amazing how night-and-day comments and reviews became. Be it positive, or negative, your input gained so much more value (granted, that's a relative judgment, based on what the original was), by virtue of the fact you were willing, in a public fora, to do the mind-boggling and put your name to it. Especially in such a place where there is a real value in COI, as I believe there is in WP. From publishers, authors, fans and critics trying to organize groundswells of opinion, through to religious ideologies/cults whitewashing what they can to seem more benevolent, there is something that can be had of it.
If Amazon can do it, and do it successfully, why can't WP? Hell, even institute rules (moreso than there are) not allowing you to dismiss other contributors on the basis of your qualifications, but at least real names have value in accountability.
But then, that wouldn't allow the inner circle to easily edit on their favorite closet subjects, from big chested girls to pro-pedo/zoo to adult diapers to, well, you name it. So it won't happen.
Real name policies don't help. It's one thing if you want to wave around credentials, of course. But what if I just want to edit, and don't particularly care to be accountable? Well, then I claim to be a random person from San Jose, and who can prove me wrong? (I've done that before, obviously.) Even better, since my ISP allocates IP addresses over a wide range, I could create sockpuppets over the entire Southwest.
And it's relatively easy to consider that "LegoMan 156" and "Dragonwarrior9" could be the same person. Will anyone think about whether "Andrew Q. Smith, Las Vegas bellhop", and "Enrique Gonzalez, accountant in Phoenix" are really one and the same?
On Amazon, you must use your actual name; your credit card can't sockpuppet for you. That is the only reason why it works there.
Posted by: Piperdown
what is being talked about here in the amazon example is where your account gets a "Real Name" stamp from the site owner, and I think it's done by signing up with credit card information. Which would have to be real and not an alias in two different cities unless you're up to something illegal, lol.
Posted by: Achromatic
what is being talked about here in the amazon example is where your account gets a "Real Name" stamp from the site owner, and I think it's done by signing up with credit card information. Which would have to be real and not an alias in two different cities unless you're up to something illegal, lol.
Exactly. There is verification in place. Though, it also strikes me with another (not that they wouldn't think of plenty) reason it'll never happen on WP, "Discrimination against minors/those of us counter-culture rebels who refuse to enable Visa and Mastercard", etc. (Not that I think it's a perfect way, smells slightly of sites that want your CC no 'to verify age'...)
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
what is being talked about here in the amazon example is where your account gets a "Real Name" stamp from the site owner, and I think it's done by signing up with credit card information. Which would have to be real and not an alias in two different cities unless you're up to something illegal, lol.
Exactly. There is verification in place. Though, it also strikes me with another (not that they wouldn't think of plenty) reason it'll never happen on WP, "Discrimination against minors/those of us counter-culture rebels who refuse to enable Visa and Mastercard", etc. (Not that I think it's a perfect way, smells slightly of sites that want your CC no 'to verify age'...)
Finally more sites are requiring the essence of what you are talking about, including MySpace.
My problems with WP stemmed from the fact that anyone could open an account with my name on it, and claim they are me. Any one of us can still do that of someone else.
I want nothing to do with WP and it took nearly a year to get out of there. I asked, politely, on Jimbo's talk page; NYB deleted the account with my name on the door. I still do not know how to log into an account there, with my name on it. Verification is a good thing.
Posted by: Amarkov
Well, yes, they could demand to check your credit card. Amazon has no problem with that; they need your credit card to sell you stuff anyway.
But Wikipedia isn't selling you stuff. What excuse do they have for seeing your credit card?
Posted by: WordBomb
Warning: it's a long post, and all the reviews mentioned in it were mysteriously and simultaneously deleted the same day it was published, so most of the links to Amazon are broken. But because the original text is cited in the body of the post (which is why it's so long), you'll not miss anything.
Irony Alert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=87435470 in reference to his decision to delete the AfD debate on Gary Weiss's
Posted by: Piperdown
Well, yes, they could demand to check your credit card. Amazon has no problem with that; they need your credit card to sell you stuff anyway.
But Wikipedia isn't selling you stuff. What excuse do they have for seeing your credit card?
Bentheadvocate did something today to fend off a sockhunt involving a long ID string on WP. Not familar with what that is or how much weight it carries. I'll post about it on the "Ben Wakes Up to Poop on Toast" thread.
Posted by: WordBomb
Well, yes, they could demand to check your credit card. Amazon has no problem with that; they need your credit card to sell you stuff anyway.
But Wikipedia isn't selling you stuff. What excuse do they have for seeing your credit card?
I suspect the answer is to have some third party that does nothing but pass a token to non-commercial sites vouching for a user's credit card-verified identity. Let them take care of PCI compliance for everybody else.
Let them also find a sustainable revenue model
.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
^ This, of course, is the reason why KNOL and MSFT/Yahoo will eventually have the WP timeline and database of articles and search plains all drawn and quartered. Wikia is a bit late to the party and, in fact, probably could have had a shot at some of the designs that are now going to take hold. I said a long time ago that the players with deep pockets are going to win. The big money is going to be in the deal-making for the duration.
Posted by: Proabivouac
From Alanyst and Cool Hand Luke:
"removing/rv/rev duplicative text/language/etc."
User:Mantanmoreland:
"removing duplicative text"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Fordham_University_people&diff=prev&oldid=68617733
"rv duplicative language"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Luther&diff=prev&oldid=70308282
User:Samiharris:
"…removing duplicative italicized matter…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ImClone_stock_trading_case&diff=prev&oldid=181194364
"self-rev duplicative cite"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Klein&diff=prev&oldid=177221628
User:Tomstoner:
"removing duplicative comments and reply"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomstoner&diff=prev&oldid=45852319
"removing comments -- duplicative of posting on talk page"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tomstoner&diff=prev&oldid=53771228
Posted by: Moulton
It takes both deep pockets and deep ethics to win in the long run.
Google is far from perfect, but it takes the ethics challenge seriously.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
He's trying to use technicalities to get out of it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=191025066&oldid=191023475
Posted by: Kato
According to Morven, Mantanmoreland has a good case to see the Rfc removed...
lack of an actual dispute is and has always been reason to decertify and delete an RFC.
Lack of an actual dispute? Did he just say "lack of an actual dispute"? I think he did? No, surely not... He did?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Improper_RfC
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
You're not the only one who is sitting here, stunned at the moment. Mantanmoreland is now claiming there is no dispute to be resolved...amazing.
Posted by: Kato
My God. He did say "lack of a dispute". Morven actually wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mantanmoreland#Outside_view_by_Morven along these lines on the rfc. Below, Morven discusses the most bitter and long running dispute in the history of Wikipedia, where details of gross malpractice by the named party have just been revealed only sentences earlier on the page..
Without such a current dispute, this is an unnecessary accusation against two established users whose current conduct is not apparently being called into question. Moreover, since Samiharris has indicated he has left the project, there appears to be no ongoing issue that will be remediable.
...completely out of his depth...
Posted by: Achromatic
My God. He did say "lack of a dispute". Morven actually wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mantanmoreland#Outside_view_by_Morven along these lines on the rfc. Below, Morven discusses the most bitter and long running dispute in the history of Wikipedia, where details of gross malpractice by the named party have just been revealed only sentences earlier on the page..
Without such a current dispute, this is an unnecessary accusation against two established users whose current conduct is not apparently being called into question. Moreover, since Samiharris has indicated he has left the project, there appears to be no ongoing issue that will be remediable.
...completely out of his depth...
Apropos of anything else, isn't standard procedure to get rid of both puppet and master, as a matter of principle?
Posted by: Somey
It makes sense for Gary/MM though, seen in perspective. The dispute is between Overstock.com and Weiss - as long as User:Mantanmoreland and his various other accounts maintain the fiction that they're not Weiss, then he has to claim that the dispute has nothing to do with User:Mantanmoreland and his various other accounts, farcical though it may appear to everyone else.
Morven, though... that's a pretty stupid move on his part. This is probably not the time to be taking over the steering wheel in Gary's little bumper-car ride.
As for the rest, I hate to sound like Devil's Advocate, but I still doubt that Weiss has done anything illegal, or even legally actionable in a realistic sense. People like Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass, and other journos who have filed false news stories, were clearly in violation of their terms of employment, which are usually signed contracts and have provisions for recovery of damages by the employer, etc. I doubt that Gary would have had to sign anything for Forbes.com or Portfolio Trade Publishing stating that he wouldn't promote himself by using multiple accounts on Wikipedia and then lying about it. I wonder if they would even care, to be honest.
I'd still have to say the big loser here is Wikipedia. Particularly if it's true that we're about to see over a thousand e-mails purporting to be from Gary in which he mentions (brags about, perhaps?) his WP editing activities, published by even a semi-reputable source. If I were SlimVirgin, JzG, Dave Gerard, or Jimbo, I'd be absolutely livid over that - they put their WP reputations (or notoriety, if you prefer) totally on the line for this guy, supporting him to an almost ludicrous extent, and he repays them by chattering about it via e-mail with people he doesn't even know personally? Hell, if I were doing what he's being accused of, I wouldn't tell a living soul, unless I had a psychiatrist, which I don't. (Yet...
)I suspect we'll hear a lot of the predictable "but e-mails can be easily forged" sort of talk from these folks in the very near future.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=191038712&oldid=191038401
It seems to me that if serious allegations are going to be made, they should be made in the right forum, which is obviously SSP. I'm a longtime editor and I don't think this is a terribly unreasonable point to raise. -- Mantanmoreland
Posted by: Proabivouac
Morven, though... that's a pretty stupid move on his part. This is probably not the time to be taking over the steering wheel in Gary's little bumper-car ride.
This can't be the same Morven who hunted me down for having a new username without having previously grovelled before the Committee? Who, after 10k edits, a clean block log, a perfectly respectable reputation, multiple nominations for adminship and no active disputes (unless he, too, was adminpuppeting for Elonka?) made up non-existent policies to justify his RWI trolling? And here he is making up more nonsense to defend an long-term pattern of blatantly abusive socking.
Morven reasons:
"Moreover, since Samiharris has indicated he has left the project, there appears to be no ongoing issue that will be remediable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mantanmoreland&diff=prev&oldid=191027809
Um, no, nice try…User:Samiharris is still editing the project as User:Mantanmoreland.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
MONGO has agreed with Morven's view 
Posted by: LamontStormstar
Um, no, nice try…User:Samiharris is still editing the project as User:Mantanmoreland.
They said one of them used proxies and then they said they blocked all the proxies so whoever was using proxies likely had to stop editing as their proxies were all getting blocked.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Um, no, nice try…User:Samiharris is still editing the project as User:Mantanmoreland.
They said one of them used proxies and then they said they blocked all the proxies so whoever was using proxies likely had to stop editing as their proxies were all getting blocked.
Although they did manage to "retire" from Wikipedia. So unless somebody turned a blind eye, they must still have access to proxies.
Posted by: Achromatic
Although they did manage to "retire" from Wikipedia. So unless somebody turned a blind eye, they must still have access to proxies.
Or they didn't use a proxy. And would have left behind a CU'able IP address. (Well, no, most likely, he went down to Starbucks). Cause otherwise, that'd be awkward.
Posted by: Viridae
Although they did manage to "retire" from Wikipedia. So unless somebody turned a blind eye, they must still have access to proxies.
Or they didn't use a proxy. And would have left behind a CU'able IP address. (Well, no, most likely, he went down to Starbucks). Cause otherwise, that'd be awkward.
I asked a checkuser to check on that one - would either find another proxy to block or possibly (but highly unlikely) an address that matanmoreland has previously used. ~~~~
Posted by: Proabivouac
MONGO has agreed with Morven's view
I guess that's the only way to defend his wikially at this point, since no remotely reasonable third party who's examined the situation would say that Mantanmoreland ≠Samiharris.
Look, MONGO, I like Mantanmoreland too, and often agree with him in wikidebates. He stuck up for me a few times, and I appreciated it, and remembered it. On reflection, that's probably the reason I didn't take a closer look at this sooner.
But let's face it 1) this kind of activity is dishonest, corrupt and wrong 2) He's stone cold busted. There's no way out now. Even if Wikipedia were to let him off the hook at first, a la Essjay, it won't go away. Really, should it?
Morven's favoritism in this whole affair, involving many millions of dollars in real people's real money, and which significantly predates this RfC, is more than sufficient cause to seek (at least) his resignation. Morven helped fix Wikipedia to discredit Bagley- who, let's not forget, was telling the truth - and protect Weiss, who was lying through his teeth to protect his COI editing sockfarm, while bearing false witness against others by calling truthtellers liars and harassers.
Mantanmoreland abused the harassment meme to suck honest people, some of whom have actually been real-world harassed (and unjustly,) into protecting him from the consequences of his dishonesty.
And all the while Morven shilled for this game, while harassing (by Wikipedia's own definition) others and exposing them to defamation (by any standard) on the webpages he manages.
Posted by: Kato
Jimbo http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2740#Post2740
I have my own opinions and beliefs, which I have expressed publicly and privately depending on where that might be appropriate. But me wondering about something enough to conduct a thorough investigation personally is not the same thing as "knowing".
To this date, I have seen no convincing proof that Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss. I have seen a lot of bluster and nonsense from people I don't trust. I have followed a lot of blind alleys. But I have no proof.
You'd have to be an idiot not to conclude that Mantan is almost certainly Gary Weiss after sifting through the WP diffs (many edits to Overstock, N-Shorts, Gary Weiss bio, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meyer_Lansky&diff=prev&oldid=152696437 etc etc) and Gary Weiss's blog / career (which has been obsessed with the very same topics down to his writing http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780446613989 on the history of The Mob). Not conclusive proof, I know. But if you're not prepared to take Overstock's word on any of this, then just look it up yourself and see what I mean.
I'm not following the later part of the Wikiback thread where Wales apparently admitted in private that Mantan was Weiss back in September 2007. A fact Wales alternatively describes as "nonsense conspiracy theories" whenever else he can. Could somebody expand on that, or find a link which discusses it?
* edited to fix a link - Nathan
Posted by: Kato
Mantanmoreland abused the harassment meme to suck honest people, some of whom have actually been real-world harassed (and unjustly,) into protecting him from the consequences of his dishonesty.
Well yes. This has been the problem all along. Manipulative characters have maneuvered people like JzG, Herbert and MONGO to beat the drums and whip "the community" into a frenzy of hate against outsiders like Judd Bagley for their own gain. These clueless tubthumpers don't have the capacity to discern what is really going on here, while the community at large is made up of malleable nerds with absolutely no idea about the world at all. The result: gross public miscarriage of justice that drags Wikipedia further into the mire. We told them this long ago, but to quote Jonny Cache, "all we got for our troubles was a constant stream of spit in our faces".
Cool Hand Luke's http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2761&Main=176#Post2762sums up the whole thing well:
Meanwhile, we banned a user (Piperdown) for merely suggesting what Jimbo thought was probable. Meanwhile, I've been busting my butt to show that they're sock puppets (believing it fruitless to convince anyone of the COI issue), when in fact it was a damn open secret.
Look, I've got school work to do, and I should have gone to bed hours ago, but this is the most outraged I've ever been at Wikipedia, and I've seen my share of absurdity and abuse during the four years since I signed up for an account. (Feb 7, 2004 anniversary. Didn't even notice.) You're telling me that black is white. That WordBomb was right the whole time, and everyone sort of suspected it.
I hope that community heads roll.
Goodnight.
Posted by: Proabivouac
I have my own opinions and beliefs, which I have expressed publicly and privately depending on where that might be appropriate. But me wondering about something enough to conduct a thorough investigation personally is not the same thing as "knowing".
Talk about "wikilawyering."
Posted by: Error59
If Weiss had any balls, he would wait until SirFozzie, Luke, FT2 and all the others had spent a further few hundred hours sifting contributions in irreducible detail, and then say in big flashing letters "yes, I am behind Samiharris and Mantanmoreland", making all their comprehensive work pointless. He's basically done for on Wikipedia at this point anyway.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
A problem here is that if Mantanmoreland admits he has been socking or (which won't happen) he admits he is Weiss, then he knows he's fucked. Because from there on in, any edits to the articles involved by new editors will be reverted as "socks of Weiss"
Posted by: Poetlister
Mantanmoreland is now claiming there is no dispute to be resolved...amazing.
It's scarcely a new tactic. When Admin NLU called for moderation between RachelBrown and Lulu/SV, Lulu said that there was nothing to mediate and SV said she hadn't been involved.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Jimbo has now been reported to AN/I regarding the "Weiss/Mantanmoreland" comment on the Sekret list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=191117301&oldid=191112350
Posted by: Piperdown
The elephant in the room - Yesterday Wikipedian user:PatrickByrne announced on his site that among thousands of emails between journalists, internet forum "bashers", money managers, and other...ahem..."sources", lol......., there are 1841 emails from Gary Weiss, many admitting to his editing of Wikipedia. Since the emails are with other people that are also involved in the Byrne saga, it's safe to assume that editing of WP means editing of WP articles in question.
And Mantanmoreland should be banned for Tomstoner/Lastexit alone, regardless of samiharris.
And no one has brought up Doright yet on WP. You should.
Now we have SlimVirgin/GeorgeWilliamHerbert lying on wikback/WP about screen shots, Morven putting up a Johnnie Cochrane routine on WP, and JzG beating the crazy drum again.
Mantanmoreland's Obi Wan Kenobi impression "These are not the socks you want, move along" [waves hand] is quite endearing.
And Byrne's saga is going to be going reliable source public - yet a small circle of morons on WP, and their godkingm, is going to just keep up the same lie until they get made to look very foolish in the media. Again.
Posted by: Piperdown
If Weiss had any balls
Ironically, ask Mantamoreland and his calvacade how many balls they think that Patrick Byrne has. This is an outside joke.
NEWSFLASH - The Magician Reveals A Secret
February 12th, 2008 by Patrick Byrne
...one from within the network of Bad Guys got in touch with me and turned over 8,000 emails from a set of message board bashers, convicted stock swindlers, and financial journalists in their cahoots...All total shysters. They run up through sometime well into 2007.
....I know that I have them legally, and that the person who gave them to me had them legally as well (I’d just start posting the 8,000 emails and let the world decide, but I want this journalist to get the scoop).
What makes for fun reading are the several thousand emails of those well-known New York financial journalists. Understanding how they operate, and with whom, will be the stuff of textbooks someday.
Among those communications are 1,841 emails from a bent reporter named Gary Weiss. Among many other things, in several of those emails Gary Weiss freely discusses his editing of Wikipedia.
...we now also have incontrovertible proof of this also) that while Jimbo Wales has for months been publicly accusing Judd of being a “stalker†and such, Jimbo Wales has known all along that Gary Weiss was indeed using the sockpuppets that Judd has revealed. In other words, Jimbo knew that Judd was right, but he has been lying through his teeth to his own followers.
Again, I am stating this publicly here so that this evidence (including the emails of journalists), can be attributed to me, so that a good journalist can go ahead and publish without fear of legal repurcussion.
http://community.overstock.com/deepcaptureblog/newsflash-the-magician-reveals-a-secret/
Posted by: thekohser
I didn't think I'd ever have anything to do with Weiss/Overstock/WordBomb/Bagley, but thanks to WAS 4.250, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=191135973! I feel so important!
In other words, it's kind of like what I've been saying for about 17 months now. Why was Wikipedia Review a serious conflict of interest (editing for pay in the disinfecting sunlight), when the Reward Board wasn't any conflict of interest, and thousands of "follow" links to Jimbo's for-profit Wikia site wasn't any conflict of interest?
I'm fine if they slaughtered my attempt to start a business, if they would have also shut down the Reward Board and applied the actual "WP:External Links" policy to Wikia links.
That's what Guy Chapman never got through his thick skull. I wasn't hell-bent on editing Wikipedia for payment. I was hell-bent on the equal application of the WP:COI policy (that only came into existence after the advent of Wikipedia Review). I guess that will be my Wikipedia legacy. Were it not for my business, WP:COI would not have been born when it was. Now, it's one of the most complex problems facing the entire project.
Greg
Posted by: WordBomb
I didn't think I'd ever have anything to do with Weiss/Overstock/WordBomb/Bagley, but thanks to WAS 4.250, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=191135973! I feel so important!
Posted by: Piperdown
my first take on the Kohsers activity on WP when I first ran into - gee, that's not right, that shouldn't be allowed on this snowwhite-pure no-COI site. Then I saw Greg's link to the "Reward Board" and thought "holy hypocracy, batman!".
Then I read articles on WP on companies, people, and though "Holy mother of god, these are not only awful, they're unprofessional, often anonymously autobiographical, and open to be vandalised at any time".
Then I thought, hmm. Maybe people like Greg should be editing them (openly, with any COI's disclosed on his user page, and without him having any administrative privilege ala a Jossi), getting his reward board mojo on for it, and if he does anything "wrong", the community could slap his hand and fix it.
I don't think even Greg's "boss's article" would be involved, lol. Greg, have you considered joining a "church", becoming their paid press official, and editing WP for them? I hear it pays real good.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMantanmoreland&diff=191141801&oldid=191141059
I am not Samiharris, and neither I nor Samiharris have ever been blocked or even warned. There are no accusations of edit warring, and the POV pushing accusations come from Cool Hand Luke, who has been a partisan and aggressive editor in [[Patrick M. Byrne]], removing sourced material from the New York Times, claiming that a notable Times columnist, [[Joseph Nocera]], is an "advocacy" and not a reliable source[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_M._Byrne&diff=186656781&oldid=186166391]. He had an extensive but civil exchange with Samiharris on that point, in which he continued stubbornly to his POV position.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Patrick_M._Byrne#WEIGHT_and_Nocera]
Cool Hand and the others pushing this rely on statistics, because we have not ''behaved'' as socks. The section above is a good example. If I was Sami, would not I have chimed in in this faceoff between Sami and an administrator? A consensus was needed, and I could have supplied a consensus. I did not, because I have been trying my best to avoid all of these articles because of a steady drumbeat of off-wiki harassment, originating from an official of Overstock.com who is a banned user.
Similarly, I did not chime in when Samiharris was facing off against Cool Hand and others in Talk:Gary Weiss last December. In fact, I checked that Talk page and I have not one edit there while Sami has many. If we were socks, I'd be all over that talk page and the article.
Also our writing style is different, and I posted some diffs concerning that here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox#Evidence.2FDiscussion.2C_Section_4_Writing_Style].
Posted by: Piperdown
gary is sami is mantan is tomstoner is lastexit is doright and they all post from the same PC from a brooklyn hell hole. the lies roll on, he hasn't stopped.
somebody ask him about his uncle, his tomstoner, etc.
if he says "asked and answered", ask him why he and samiharris are editing from the same computer. Maybe he thinks they're different people inside of his head.
also ask him if he's "having a nervous breakdown" and "being kept up nights" like he tried to provoke me.
then ask him what his excuse will be when Byrne's email stash goes public.
Posted by: Aloft
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
The RFC looks like it's turning towards real-life identify and Wordbomb has been offered an apology by one editor on the ANI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=191150238&oldid=191149777
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Tomstoner blocked as sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATomstoner&diff=191170436&oldid=190330664
Last exit blocked as sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALastexit&diff=191163795&oldid=116446964
Reasoning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=191172635&oldid=191172184
Posted by: Piperdown
Tomstoner blocked as sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATomstoner&diff=191170436&oldid=190330664
Last exit blocked as sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALastexit&diff=191163795&oldid=116446964
Reasoning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=191172635&oldid=191172184
there has to be some way we can tie in the Muppet Show to all this. There's Fozzie(bear), MissLipstickonaPiggy, a bunch of Muppets, etc.
Posted by: One
This is moving really fast. I usually have something to add, but I can't keep track of it all. We have administrators who spontaneously and independently called for the ban of all Mantanmoreland accounts. We have administrators calling Jimbo's behavior "outrageous."
Meanwhile, the sockiness of Samiharris has turned out to be great acid test for the so-called cabal. SV, JzG, GWH: "DUCK, what DUCK?"
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASamiharris&diff=191202824&oldid=190868364
Samiharris blocked as sock of Mantanmoreland
Posted by: One
I have a bad feeling about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC#To_Mantanmoreland
Looks like it could only let the deniers ignore the evidence by saying: Look, they talked at the same time! no matter how marginal their dialog is.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Agreed. He'll get away with it. Someone like Weiss has clearly got friends who would post for him from one of the accounts. Laptop next to him, different IP, telling him what to type.
Posted by: Piperdown
Agreed. He'll get away with it. Someone like Weiss has clearly got friends who would post for him from one of the accounts. Laptop next to him, different IP, telling him what to type.
durova puts up a softball for buddy gary to knock out of the park. this isn't a foreign concept to gary, and he probably suggested it to durova in their recent email exchanges. and they have been emailing each other as durova already said on-WP.
it's a great way to fool people, and WP'ians should see if for the staged nonsense that such an experiment would be. i am shocked gary just didn't do this (get a friend) to perform samiharris all along. that's what I thought was going on since i first ran into this nightmare last spring. even jossi and slim are smart enough to get friends to meatpuppet with.
Posted by: WordBomb
Agreed. He'll get away with it. Someone like Weiss has clearly got friends who would post for him from one of the accounts. Laptop next to him, different IP, telling him what to type.
Who's seriously defending Mantanmoreland anymore? Are they willing to extend this sort of test to every future case? Will they offer it retroactively to every disputed past case?
Here's the real challenge: Will Gary Weiss allow himself to be put on a live *shudder* webcam for the whole hour?
Posted by: Piperdown
here's a clue, WP'ians, and for a growing part of this, they are learning it....don't involve the following people in making any defintive decisions on this matter - witness, yes, decide, no:
Thatcher
Jimbo
FloNight
Fred
Slim
Jay
JzG
Gerard
There is a cast of thousands who can look at this case that haven't had their reputations on the line in seeing it go away. Many are and that's good.
and when those User:PatrickByrne stashed emails come out, "many involving Wikipedia", don't be surprised if the loudest screamers on-WP are the biggest hypocrites off-wp. I know I can't wait for the 8000 emails to come to light. Don't tease us too long, PB.
if i was a nastypedian, I'd preemptively fess up. save your account reputations now, lol.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
A kids version of peek-a-boo. How lame.
Anyone else on earth would have been banned, deleted, and gone months ago.
How can anyone at WP still look at this and keep a straight face.
The whole scene is very 6th grade. I should know... I have a a sixth grader, have had two other 6th graders, and I WAS a sixth grader.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
It's reached Arbcom. About the fifth venue in 24 hours!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Mantanmoreland
Posted by: Piperdown
It's reached Arbcom. About the fifth venue in 24 hours!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Mantanmoreland
mistake for all "sides". arbcom are a small number of people who are mostly compromised already by this. they are going to come out of this badly either way.
it should have been "community ban" of all accounts and fuckall who was behind them would have been the easy way out of this for everyone, and the real world part of this will get its due off-WP anyway. Arbcomming isn't going to help that now.
all this arbcom will succeed in doing is exposing the arbcom for the sham that it is. a small starchamber of voices echo'ing jimbos.
Posted by: One
Yeah, I suspect ArbCom will produce something mutually unacceptable. I doubt they would contradict the 30-odd RfC signers and declare them sock-free, but we won't see a launching pad into a broader inquiry--certainly not when one or more of the parties needing scrutiny sits on ArbCom itself and doesn't feel the need to recuse.
Posted by: thekohser
I have a bad feeling about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC#To_Mantanmoreland
Looks like it could only let the deniers ignore the evidence by saying: Look, they talked at the same time! no matter how marginal their dialog is.
That's strange -- "my" sockpuppet Orgatrope and I were never given this "two simultaneous conversations test" offer from Durova.
Greg
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
In the real world of writing traditional encyclopedias, everyone knows who the authors and editors are. The sales force also know who the customers are.
In the bizarre world of Wikipedia, the game of concealing and revealing the identity of the players becomes more important than the purported goal of writing an authentic encyclopedia, or serving the consumer of the product.
It's astonishing how much technical work people have put in to address the bizarre world of Wikipedian anonymity. In the world of real encyclopedias, such games of concealing and revealing the identity of editors would never occur.
I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.
I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.
But it is for the admins and management of WP. There's not that many, they should be accountable, and their ID veirfied and presented.
It's what real publishers do.
The editors can continue the MUD games, but the admins who run the joint are the ones doing the real damage. WP has no credibilty has long as you have anonymous COIs, and outed COIs like Jossi, lol, being allowed to do the voodoo they do.
Daniel Brandt has a WP:POINT and I have seen his light, hallelujah.
^ The reality 101 class that most of the kids at WP refuse to take.
I must say the stock of WR is rising like a Phoenix from the dust in all of this.
Posted by: LamontStormstar
Most of gary's socks use famous people's real names. Pretty big connection. The socks also always use wordbomb's real name on wikipedia just like gary does in his blog.
Gary basically admits reading Wikipedia Review in his blog:
"Bagley no longer pretends that he is "director of communications" -- he rarely signs off on press releases -- and spends most of his days posting to an anti-Wikipedia website."
Direct link: http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2008/02/depa...y-goodness.html
If Gary Weiss really had nothing to do with his Wikipedia Reivew, he'd not write that. Now let's see if he proves it further by deleting it.
Posted by: Cedric
Well, well! http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2841:
The quote above is misleading to whatever extent it is construed as me "admitting" or "knowing" that Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss. In the quote itself, I am clearly expressing a belief that I held at that time. (I forget now just what prompted me to hold that belief at the time, or to voice that belief in that context, although as I remember it, it was in the context of an attempt to get Mantanmoreland to prove the opposite to me if he would.)
I have to date seen no proof (nor even persuasive or convincing evidence) that Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss. Whether it is true or not, I do not know. What I current believe about it is not really at issue, since we do not ban people (or prevent their bans) based on hunches that I might have.
Also this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Mantanmoreland#Further_clarification_of_my_views_.28Jimbo.29:
Nevertheless, you must have had good reasons for a rather strong statement like that one. I for one would appreciate further, detailed explanation as to what exactly those reasons were, and also (equally important) who else can reasonably be assumed to have had those reasons available to them at or around the time you made that statement. User:Dorftrottel 12:02, February 14, 2008
If there were absolutely no grounds for suspicion whatsoever, then Bagley would not have been able to so successfuly exploit such suspicions. The fact remains that there is no proof, and there never has been. I would say that everybody here is by now so invested in one interpretation or another that ArbCom is probably the only venue for resolution of this matter. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Naturally, Guy swallows Jimbo's "clarification" whole. Who's "wikilawyering" now?
It is true that suspicion does not equal proof. Not in a court of law, anyway. But since when was that true on Wikipedia? Never that I have seen. Yet more proof that on WP, some editors are definitely more equal than others.
Maybe we should start a pool as to what date and time we can expect Jimbo's inevitable non-apology apology concerning his "mistake in judgment", and his hippy-dippy "only love can make us whole" statement.
Ugh!
Posted by: Piperdown
jimbo blanked the Fall 2006 [Gary Weiss] AFD debate where he stated that the "matter had been investigated and the allegations are false", to paraphrase, as I recall recently seeing that uncloaked dagger. Liar.
I can't wait for the 1,841 emails, lol.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
But Jimbo admitting he had suspicion at least is something. Though it does probably cover himself and if (ha ha ha) Arbcom rule anything like we would like them to, he can brush it off as "bad judgement" - if GodKing would dare do that!
Further to the above:
My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. They are apparently trying to spin this was me "knowing" and "lying" about it. The truth is that I do not know, I have my suspicions like anyone might, but there is no proof and I have tried (hard) to get proof.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
* Nevertheless, you must have had good reasons for a rather strong statement like that one. I for one would appreciate further, detailed explanation as to what exactly those reasons were, and also (equally important) who else can reasonably be assumed to have had those reasons available to them at or around the time you made that statement. User:Dorftrottel 12:02, February 14, 2008
* If there were absolutely no grounds for suspicion whatsoever, then Bagley would not have been able to so successfuly exploit such suspicions. The fact remains that there is no proof, and there never has been. I would say that everybody here is by now so invested in one interpretation or another that ArbCom is probably the only venue for resolution of this matter. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting thought - yes, there is suspicion, I don't think anyone is denying that. For example, a post from Gary Weiss's blog saying how he has been in India for "the past few weeks" dated October 17 2006. It would be interesting if those who have been going through edits and compiling graphs could compare Mantanmoreland's edit times for the few weeks prior to that blog post and see if the times are significantly different to what is normally seen Whitstable 14:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Posted by: Piperdown
what's my smoking gun, among many, is Varkala
MM edited that obscure Indian town's article. The edit was out of "character", and months later the Wonderful Weiss wrote a Forbes piece with a byline from that town.
Riddle me this, WP'ians. Based on edit history, nevermind that Judd knows what the IP's were and can prove it.
Who else has the following negative, obscure, biases and interests in common?
Julian Robertson (sued Weiss, and MM+socks fought toothnail to keep BusinessWeek material on it out of BLP - there are 2 or 3 articles related to Robertson on WP that his socks went AFD on)
Patrick Byrne
The Naked City (TV series) -- "film noir" material
Judd Bags
Varkala
Russ Baker
Business Journalism, specifically Pump&Dumps can best be vigilante policed by abusive stock trading
1,841 Emails originated by GW that Byrne has obtained and stated that some of them detail Wikpedia activity he did. Which I know many on WP are waiting with baited breath to see. I've got the popcorn slowly popping in the crockpot waiting on that bomb.
And Judd has years of IP, alias (not just WP), etc, trails. I think he's got a lot more than we've seen too. I believe him and have been given no reason to disbelieve anything yet from him yet.
Posted by: One
Holy shit. I know you guys have seen this before, but I haven't. The Varkala edit is the most conclusive thing I've seen about Mantanmoreland's real identity. Over a million articles, and he happens to edit the one http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/Varkala in India where Weiss went on vacation the next month.
Of course, AGFers like Morven, SV, and GWH are able to look at perhaps the best DUCK report ever assembled and see only a couple of random and-totally-non-Weiss editors--just like "10 million other" New Yorkers says GWH. I'm not optimistic this will be the silver bullet like it should be.
Posted by: Piperdown
Holy shit. I know you guys have seen this before, but I haven't. The Varkala edit is the most conclusive thing I've seen about Mantanmoreland's real identity. Over a million articles, and he happens to edit the one http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/Varkala in India where Weiss went on vacation the next month.
Of course, AGFers like Morven, SV, and GWH are able to look at perhaps the best DUCK report ever assembled and see only a couple of random and-totally-non-Weiss editors--just like "10 million other" New Yorkers says GWH. I'm not optimistic this will be the silver bullet like it should be.
weiss's forbes piece indicates that he married into a family from that town. the edit to WP was well before any mention of varkala by weiss in any of his realworld articles. so if a WP'ian argues that it was just a fan of weiss who saw the piece, got interested in the town, so edited it on WP, that would not hold up.
i expected that the argument that weiss<>mm would be that mm is just a fan of weiss. well, the mm sock activity shows things done on wp that no fan would have known about prior to some of those things later being publicised.
the robertson-related AFD's occurred long before the edit war occurred on WP that the Weiss-Robertson lawsuit, ironically detailed in Weiss's own former employer, BusinessWeek, should be included in the Robertson & Weiss BLPs. Or in Weiss's case, his autobiographical book jacket blurb.
That's another smoker. No weiss-WP fan would have been alerted to be interested in those extremely obscure AFD's. Somone on WP already mentioned this in the Cavalcade of Matanmoreland Wikilawyering Venues that has occurred over the last week.
all this guessing will, i believe, be made moot by the emails that are supposedly going to be exposed, per Byrne's Feb 12th website material.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Things are moving fast.
Who will be the first to respond to this diff?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Mantanmoreland&curid=15739542&diff=191424570&oldid=191424429
One thing has been worrying me the more I watch this. All Jimbo has to do is say "I've met MM and he is not GW" and the whole case collapses. Would he go that far?
Anything that can be corrupted will be corrupted, I guess!
Posted by: WordBomb
It's even better than that. Here are the details:
Weiss wrote http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2006/10/17/india-nuclear-energy-opinion_cx_gw_1017weiss.html, published October 17, 2006. Note the phrase:
Five months earlier, on May 17, 2006, Mantanmoreland http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varkala&diff=prev&oldid=53762562 to the article on Varkala, India:
(On that day, this image appeared in the article)
Mantanmoreland's edits to that article were the 79th and 80th in its history, and he was likely the 30th individual to touch it.
Mantanmoreland and Gary Weiss sure have a lot in common, don't they?
Posted by: Kato
The conclusive edits for me were Mantan's occasional obscure mafia / mob history edits. Take a look yourself. So this guy Mantanmoreland, whose main interest seems to be the financial markets, makes the occasional foray into 1940s mob history on WP. This fits with Weiss's background as a financial journalist who once wrote a book on the mob.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
They could take the Arbcom on a field trip to Weiss's house, find him logged on as Mantanmoreland, and still they would not admit they are the same person. I predict there will be lots of blocks and bans handed out as a result of this case, but none of them on the side of the argument they should be.
I am disturbed by the thought that Sami and MM are not the same person. That is a possibility. And if they can prove that they are different people, then a lot of those who are fighting to sort this will not be able to go for the Mantan is Gary, which is far more likely.
Posted by: Piperdown
I am disturbed by the thought that Sami and MM are not the same person. That is a possibility.
See my sig link.
If you think that Judd is a liar and has forged screen shots, then it is a possibility. I don't think Judd is a liar. I base that on previous crucibles of claims and evidence.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
I am disturbed by the thought that Sami and MM are not the same person. That is a possibility.
See my sig link.
If you think that Judd is a liar and has forged screen shots, then it is a possibility. I don't think Judd is a liar. I base that on previous crucibles of claims and evidence.
No, I agree. But it would be easier for them to discredit Sami = MM than MM = Weiss. So if they go for the easiest option, they'll hope the rest crumbles.
Also, MM's eagerness to have both accounts answering questions at the same time yesterday suggests the SH account, which only used open proxies, was an account used by more than one persona all along.
Posted by: Achromatic
The biggest word for me in Jimbo's quote is "they" - as in "they are trying to spin this".
"They" is of course, code word to the cabal as "BADSITE alert". The ever so mysterious "they".
Posted by: WordBomb
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Arbcom has opened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland
Active arbitrators are:
1. Blnguyen
2. Charles Matthews
3. Deskana
4. FayssalF
5. FloNight
6. FT2
7. Jdforrester
8. Jpgordon
9. Kirill Lokshin (Recused)
10. Matthew Brown (Morven)
11. Newyorkbrad
12. Paul August
13. Sam Blacketer
14. Thebainer
15. UninvitedCompany
Posted by: guy
The question is: have they both edited Twinkle Twinkle Little Star? That's the decisive test.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
WordBomb is SamiHarris
From Thatcher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence
The checkusers have investigated a suspicion that the SamiHarris account was set up by Wordbomb to falsely implicate Mantanmoreland in additional (post-Lastexit) sockpuppetry. The basis for this suspicion is that Wordbomb has also occasionally used proxify.com proxies [1] [2]. Due to the nature of proxy editing, it is unlikely that this suspicion can ever be proved or disproved
Posted by: WordBomb
NO WAY.
NO WAY he actually wrote that!
Look at the first of those two diffs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=88011140]. The editor uses the word "irregardless". It is a well known fact that I would sooner eat my own left kidney than use the word "irregardless".
And BTW...Thatcher hadn't even figured out that Samiharris was using Proxify until I told him last week (such is the degree of my intel gathering prowess). He thanked me by blocking the email-only account I used to contact him.
If Thatcher is worth two bits as a checkuser, he better be compiling a list of all proxify users to see what else comes up.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Jimbo gives his evidence:
Evidence presented by Jimbo Wales
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=191555850
I have personally seen no persuasive evidence
Because there has been unseemly and false speculation in some quarters that I know this (or related claims) to be true, and that I have admitted as such in private forums, it is important for me to state what I know and what I don't know.
Claims about Mantanmoreland being author Gary Weiss have been floating around for a long time. Various claims of "proof" have been made, none of which I have found convincing. At times I have believed one way, at times I have believed another way. I have investigated the claims to the best of my ability and I have been unable to find proof one way or the other.
An email I sent to Mantanmoreland and others has been widely quoted as evidence that I supposedly "know" this claim to be true. Such interpretations are malarky, and most of the people making the claims appear to me to be acting in bad faith. What I said, at a point in time, was that I believed it to be true that Mantanmoreland == Gary Weiss. This was specifically in the context of a conversation in which I was trying to get more evidence... a proof, one way or the other. Me believing at a point in time in an investigation that something was true, is not the same thing as an assertion that it is true, nor of an "admission" or anything else.
Mantanmoreland steadfastly denies being Gary Weiss. Ask him yourself if you want to know.
Related allegations that I am protecting a "friend" are nonsense. Mantanmoreland and I do not get along well at all.
Related allegations that I have some vested interest in the underlying content dispute are even worse nonsense. I have no opinion about "naked short selling". I have never sold a stock short in my life. I have no financial interests of any kind. If you read anything otherwise, or hints to that effect, on the overstock.com blog or elsewhere, well, I don't know was else to say but: nonsense.
Regarding the specific claim at issue here, whether Sami Harris and Mantanmoreland are the same user, I can say quite firmly that I do not believe it to be true. I have interacted (argued!) with both users over an extended period of time by private email, and I have not seen any reason to think it true. The offsite "evidence" relating to this comes from a highly questionable source, and furthermore strikes me as completely unpersuasive. For all we know, these are faked screenshots from someone who has engaged in a campaign of harassment and bad behavior (on-wiki and off-wiki) that has been really astounding to witness.
I have reviewed my email archives to look for similarities between the users. I have examined email headers. I have looked for textual similarities, time patterns, etc. I see nothing to lead me to a conclusion that Sami Harris and Mantanmoreland are the same user.
For these reasons, I do not believe it to be true that Mantanmoreland == Samiharris.
Posted by: Proabivouac
Unbelievable.
These folks mimic to the point of parody the people saying Oldwindybear didn't equal Stillstudying, that Sevenofdiamonds didn't equal Nuclearumpf, etc. The evidence in this report is very strong, but apparently more is needed.
On the line is not only this one instance of abusive socking, but what remains of the integrity of the entire project.
What is being defended here isn't Wikipedia's right to follow its own policies and procedures without giving a hoot about what others think.
It's not even the right of prominent favored contributors ("the cabal") to break Wikipedia policies with impunity.
It's the right of the Jimbo and the cabal to look like asses, the right to be deceived by their own. Why anyone would want that right is beyond me. Better to remain blind, I suppose, than to admit that one once was.
Posted by: Moulton
Ultimately, what to believe or disbelieve comes down to one's religious preferences.
Some people prefer scientific/forensic evidence. Some people prefer to believe their idiosyncratic flights of fancy and dispense altogether with evidence-driven reasoning.
Some people who require scientific/forensic evidence conveniently decline to invest the time needed to examine it. The result is usually, "I have not seen evidence that convinces me." That's true, of course, since they haven't looked at the evidence that is offered for examination.
As for me, I don't know what to believe.
Posted by: guy
Compare the treatment of Poetlister, where the evidence consists of:
* Runcorn once reverted vandalism in an article she edited extensively (hence my "Twinkle Twinkle" jibe).
* She occasionally voted in RfAs and AfDs on the same side as Runcorn or others regarded as Runcorn's socks (though never in the alleged mass vote-stackings like Ryulong's RfA where she would have been expected to, and if that were proof of anything how many well-known people would be blocked?)
* She had previously been linked with Newport by Kelly Martin, evidence that Kelly has now repudiated.
How is that more convincing than this?
Posted by: Poetlister
This and the JoshuaZ case. Yes, I voted the same way as Runcorn on an RfA once; Runcorn pointed out that he'd been meatpuppeting for a banned user and he didn't deny it yet the RfA was overwhelming. Needless to say, the admin in question was among the most vindictive pursuers of both of us.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
Enjoy, everybody, perhaps we should all club together and buy a statue for a small Indian town:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence&curid=15760264&diff=191690538&oldid=191676873
To quote the image caption:
"Mantanmoreland switched to Indian time at the same time W was in India"
Posted by: Piperdown
Enjoy, everybody, perhaps we should all club together and buy a statue for a small Indian town:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence&curid=15760264&diff=191690538&oldid=191676873
To quote the image caption:
"Mantanmoreland switched to Indian time at the same time W was in India"
Looks like a Jackson Pollack masterpiece.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mantanmoreland_date-time.png
It's always been Varkala for me, babe.
I googled MM, saw that on ASM, went to WP and Forbes for myself, and it was "Gary is MM" ever since. All is dancing after that was just entertainment and laughs, because I knew then, without even later seeing Wordy's IP evidence(s) that he's put together on-Wp,off-WP over a period of more than a year, well that was just "yup....yup....uh-huh....still?....jeez....whatanidiot...." for me.
When we get to see the 1,841 emails in Byrne's stash hopefully soon and in a very reliable source way, it will be more than laughs, it will be roflmao's all around. Byrne says on his "Deep Capture" blog (2/12/08) that GW's emails admit editing WP.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
So the evidence that (should) piece Weiss and Mantanmoreland together was freely available all along. On Weiss' own blog and on Wiki. Wonder what Jimbo will have to say about all of this? And it was Jimbo who mentioned Weiss in his evidence, it looked like others were going to just focus on socks.
I want a full copy of that graph blown up as and framed!
Posted by: Piperdown
So it seems the evidence that (should) piece Weiss and Mantanmoreland together was freely available all along. On Weiss' own blog and on Wiki. Wonder what Jimbo will have to say about all of this? And it was Jimbo who mentioned Weiss in his evidence, it looked like others were going to just focus on socks.
I'd like to see the godking's editing activity that occurred to blank the GW article's AFD. I've heard that Jimmy declared MM is not GW at that time, in a definitive statement that an inquiry (lol!) had determined that. This would have been around Oct-Nov 2006 as that is when that AFD occurred according to the recovered version posted here this past week.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
Enjoy, everybody, perhaps we should all club together and buy a statue for a small Indian town:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence&curid=15760264&diff=191690538&oldid=191676873
To quote the image caption:
"Mantanmoreland switched to Indian time at the same time W was in India"
I mostly glaze over with all this discussion of internal wiki-wankery. Clearly we are examining evidence presented/discarded by people who are incapable of making any reasoned evaluation of evidence and who are unable to fairly apply rules to "evidence" in any event. But having said that I have to admit the the graphic analysis of the edits showing a clear diurnal flip contemporaneous with travel half-way across the world in a nice piece of evidence. Better than the "process" is capable of making use of I'm afraid.
Posted by: No one of consequence
"Mantanmoreland switched to Indian time at the same time W was in India"
I mostly glaze over with all this discussion of internal wiki-wankery. Clearly we are examining evidence presented/discarded by people who are incapable of making any reasoned evaluation of evidence and who are unable to fairly apply rules to "evidence" in any event. But having said that I have to admit the the graphic analysis of the edits showing a clear diurnal flip contemporaneous with travel half-way across the world in a nice piece of evidence. Better than the "process" is capable of making use of I'm afraid.
Wiki-wankery indeed. Although the "incapable of making reasoned evaluation" tars a lot of good-minded folks with an awfully broad brush. I for one have been aware of the allegations that GW=MM=SH but never took the time to undertake an exhaustive review. The Varkala Time Warp is truly a smoking gun and I suppose that people who are deeply into the controversy have known about it for some time, but as a casual reader of WR and a never-reader of any of the parties' blogs, I've never heard of it before. I am curious to see how Guy and Jimbo respond here, but don't be so "inside" yourselves that you assume that every fact you know was also known all along to all the Wikipedians involved.
Posted by: Piperdown
The Varkala Time Warp is truly a smoking gun and I suppose that people who are deeply into the controversy have known about it for some time, but as a casual reader of WR and a never-reader of any of the parties' blogs, I've never heard of it before. I am curious to see how Guy and Jimbo respond here, but don't be so "inside" yourselves that you assume that every fact you know was also known all along to all the Wikipedians involved.
It's been known to every Arbcommer 2006-2007, and up to the toppermost of the wikimost. They all read ASM religiously, and they all tried to make sure other WP'ians didn't.
Now you know why. I found out, and verified on my own ability to click URL links lol, just by googling for few minutes. WP 'crats think we're stupid, us peasants toiling the article fields.
I doubt Jimmyhat's flipflopping show, but I do believe his statement that he and MM don't get along. I would imagine that his first interaction was a legal threat, based on what i can see happened during the oct-nov 2006 GW article AFD cover-up. I am reading between the lines, and guessing what i would have done if I were GW.
It's all so agatha christie....
Posted by: guy
The Varkala Time Warp is truly a smoking gun and I suppose that people who are deeply into the controversy have known about it for some time, but as a casual reader of WR and a never-reader of any of the parties' blogs, I've never heard of it before.
That just goes to show how evidence fails to percolate to those who need to know it. Can we set up a special notification service for our most influential readers like NOOC?
Posted by: thekohser
Jimbo gives his evidence:
Evidence presented by Jimbo Wales
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=191555850
I have personally seen no persuasive evidence
...At times I have believed one way, at times I have believed another way. I have investigated the claims to the best of my ability and I have been unable to find proof one way or the other.
...What I said, at a point in time, was that I believed it to be true that Mantanmoreland == Gary Weiss. This was specifically in the context of a conversation in which I was trying to get more evidence... a proof, one way or the other. Me believing at a point in time in an investigation that something was true, is not the same thing as an assertion that it is true, nor of an "admission" or anything else.
...For these reasons, I do not believe it to be true that Mantanmoreland == Samiharris.
The only thing I learned from that post is that Jimbo admits to flip-flopping whenever he damn well pleases, he concedes that he's done it in the past, he professes that he's doing it now, and I therefore conclude he's likely at some point in the future to say something like...
"Come on, Gary, it has long been a known suspicion that you are Mantanmoreland, and I have firmly held this belief at numerous times during this ongoing affair."
Rule #1 of Wikipedia: Jimbo must always appear right.
Rule #2: When Jimbo's wrong, vacillate until Rule #1 is true again.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
So the evidence that (should) piece Weiss and Mantanmoreland together was freely available all along. On Weiss' own blog and on Wiki. Wonder what Jimbo will have to say about all of this? And it was Jimbo who mentioned Weiss in his evidence, it looked like others were going to just focus on socks.
Jimmy says: "Oh the humanity!"
WR will rescue the sanity of many that are still out there at WP...trying so desperately to hang on to the last bastion of super secret sleuthing. Eventually even JzG will succumb to the gravity of a fool’s game. (The kids are still in the sand box, playing with what they think is clay...when in reality it is animal excrement.)
Posted by: papaya
I have to say that the India graph is a brilliant bit of presentation. But I don't think Jimbo's "evidence" means anything other than the assertion/admission that he doesn't have any evidence to give.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
I have to say that the India graph is a brilliant bit of presentation. But I don't think Jimbo's "evidence" means anything other than the assertion/admission that he doesn't have any evidence to give.
It is, in fact, but one of hundreds of pieces of evidence that, when taken together, offer more proof than any of the other super sleuthing cases that have been presented to date.
Only one reason (noun) why this is not cut and dry and open and shut.
Money.
Posted by: LamontStormstar
Rule #1 of Wikipedia: Jimbo must always appear right.
Rule #2: When Jimbo's wrong, vacillate until Rule #1 is true again.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_Club#Plot_summary
Fight club style:
Rule #1: You don't talk about Jimbo being wrong.
Rule #2: You don't talk about Jimbo being wrong
Rule #3: When someone declares a wikibreak or that they're retiring, even if they're just faking it, you don't block them.
Rule #4: Only two people to an edit war.
Rule #5: One edit war at a time.
Rule #6: They edit war without hiding behind proxies or sock puppets.
Rule #7: The edit wars go on as long as they have to.
Rule #8: If this is your first time at Wikipedia, you have to edit war.
Posted by: Somey
This just in, from Gary Weiss's personal blog ("telegenic lifelong bachelor" refers to Patrick Byrne):
http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2008/02/victory-over-pretexting-one-down-one-to.html
At least one forged email was offered up to a reporter for The Register, an Internet tabloid, who was researching a hatchet job on Wikipedia. The SEC needs to find out who forged those emails (as if we didn't know) and make an appropriate criminal referral.
So it seems that he's going to claim that the e-mails purporting to be from him, and mentioning his WP editing activities, are faked. I'm not surprised, but e-mails can also be verified by their recipients - if he chooses to make a case out of this, he could be in some very serious trouble if anyone is willing to go on record. False accusations of forgery are about as clear a case of libel as you can get, at least on the internet.
We really need a "rubbing hands in glee" emoticon here, don't we?
Posted by: Amarkov
Do people on Wikipedia live in a vacuum, or something? They don't seem to understand how bizzare it seems to everyone else when they declare El Reg an "Internet tabloid".
Posted by: Proabivouac
So it seems that he's going to claim that the e-mails purporting to be from him, and mentioning his WP editing activities, are faked.
They must be quite damning, if he already knows they're fake.
Posted by: WordBomb
1% were spectacular
9% were enlightening
90% were mind-numbing
However I will say this: in private email, Gary Weiss actually comes off as a human...nothing like the mouthbreather who writes his blog and edits Wikipedia as Mantanmoreland and Samiharris.
And had he not made it clear that he is in fact Mantanmoreland, I might be made to wonder.
Posted by: The Wales Hunter
And had he not made it clear that he is in fact Mantanmoreland, I might be made to wonder.
How clear is "clear," out of interest?
Posted by: WordBomb
Then there are many others like this: "Blah blah blah I'm Gary Weiss blah blah irrelevant irrelevant blah blah today is April 29, 2006 blah blah."
Then, examining the headers (they all came with full headers! Joy!) you see his IP address on that day was 151.202.91.28. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=6&contribs=user&target=151.202.91.28.
Posted by: Proabivouac
Then there are many others like this: "Blah blah blah I'm Gary Weiss blah blah irrelevant irrelevant blah blah today is April 29, 2006 blah blah."
Then, examining the headers (they all came with full headers! Joy!) you see his IP address on that day was 151.202.91.28. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=6&contribs=user&target=151.202.91.28.
At this point, Mantanmoreland coudl freely admit that he's Weiss, and Samiharris is his sock, and some would still be saying, it's not true, he did it under pressure, Jimbo and JzG and the "cabal" can't be wrong.
Jimbo, JzG, "cabal": you've been had.
Posted by: Aloft
Well, Mantanmoreland has presented his "evidence." It's a rambling screed in which he says that he's not guilty. It looks to be pretty much the same as what Jimbo and JzG posted. No actual evidence, just hand waving about trolls, stalkers, Judd Bagley, they're all out to get me, etc. He's been reading the book "How to 'Play the Victim' For Dummies" by L. Mack.
Is "smear" his favorite word or something? I'd love to see an analysis of how often GaryMantanSamiTomLastmorelandharrisstonerexitWeiss uses that word.
Posted by: Error59
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Mantanmoreland
Nice - three BADSITES in one sentence with no actual point to their being mentioned. Is that a record?
Posted by: One
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Mantanmoreland
Nice - three BADSITES in one sentence with no actual point to their being mentioned. Is that a record?
Heh. And to think of all the times he revert warred to remove "antisocialmedia.net" too.
Classy how he doesn't address the damning evidence that he's Gary Weiss. And that he references Jimbo's "I think they're separate" "evidence" by saying "Jimbo thinks we're separate!"
Posted by: WordBomb
Just a quick note...it seems some of the Gary Weiss India theories emerging assume that he got married during his October, 2006 trip to India. In fact, he was married two or three years earlier.
It appears Weiss goes on annual, month-long trips to India, usually in autumn.
Look at CHL's graph 
and the comparatively barren (though not time-shifted) editing period exactly one year after the now-famous 10/2006 circadian inversion.
Now note the http://www.indiamike.com/india/search.php?searchid=1115651 (as Daveumansky) on the indiamike.com forums in early 10/2004. In them, he references at least one earlier trip to India.
If you're curious, you might consider http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=51 to know how I know that Weiss was "daveumansky".
Posted by: Moulton
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." --Proverb
"Be ye not bamboozled." --The Big Bamboozler
Posted by: guy
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." --Proverb
I don't think that's a proverb but a quote from Walter Scott. Why can you never find a Wikiquote bureaucrat when you need one?