Gary Weiss on the verge of a nervous breakdown Options

[Abd]

There has been no clean-up. I noticed JzG's involvement, a nice neutral sockpuppet report, simultaneously for two editors, basically Mantanmoreland and WordBomb, all wrapped up in one. Never saw that done before. Efficient, I suppose. But here is the problem: if you whack both sides, and nobody cleans up the mess, the article is left as edited by one side, and, mystery of mysteries, things seem to be left in a certain state.. When an editor doesn't like the state it was left in, the editor reverts back to "before the edit war." Taking no responsibility for the content. And, in fact, continuing an edit war instead of considering the content.

SPI/ WordBomb and Mantanmoreland. So where is the article left?

Examples of Smear Campaign

A single web site criticizing something isn't a smear campaign. This was obviously placed in the article pushing a smear agenda against the site operator, Judd Bagley, and Overstock.com. Overstock.com has been openly critical of naked short selling and certain people involved with it. The connection between Overstock.com and Bagley seems to have been well-known, probably open.

The sources are three:

(1) An article by Roddy Boyd in the New York Post, whom Bagley effectively skewers in his slide show. Boyd does not call ASM's "war against its critics," a "smear campaign." Does not support the text.

(2) A 2007 commentary by Susan Antilla on Bloomberg.com. It does not call this a "smear campaign." It says, "The recent Google attack on Weiss [an ad directing searchers to the ASM web site] is but the latest example of the public relations path Overstock and Bagley have taken to wage their bizarre battle against naked shorts."

(3) A 2007 New York Times article, not linked in the reference, here it is.

Note that in these sources we see that "attacks" on Weiss are notable. Are they covered in the Weiss article? Why not?

The New York Times article is pretty neutral, as far as I can see. It is pretty hard on Weiss. Coverage on Weiss is funny as hell:

Beyond calling the accusations “lies,” Mr. Weiss hasn’t addressed most of the details of the site’s “findings,” though he denied having edited Wikipedia entries under a pseudonym. Instead, he pointed out that Mr. Byrne has himself posted under pseudonyms on various message boards.

People use pseudonyms: that, itself, isn't necessarily offensive. Using them to create an impression of support is. And, of course, Weiss was ultimately found by such a wide consensus to be editing Wikipedia under a pseudonym that he stands exposed here as a bald-faced liar. I have seen some statements from Bagley that might have been inadequately "proven," but no lies, so far. He was right in his claims, the ones that Mantamoreland/Samiharris/Weiss was denying.

This item in Smear campaign is a blatant travesty, a misrepresentation of what's in the sources, as is easy to find. So why does it wait for me to find it? My guess is that others know this, and are intimidated. Or banned. Or like it that way.

Who put this in? How about a guess? It's a really easy question! The answer..

Really interesting: the same pattern with the references, was there in the beginning, that two cites had links and one, the New York Times article, is missing a link, making it much less likely to be checked. That's the one source that really treated Weiss as on the attack, himself, and quoted his denial of sock puppetry. This was put in, June 3, 2007, and there it stands. Blatant POV-pushing, part of, ironically, a smear campaign.

Supported by Wikipedia. Given all that time and all the incredible fuss over Mantanmoreland/Samiharris, did anyone care about the content?

JzG restored the POV attack on Overstock.com, edit summary (Reverted to revision 337202894 by Penbat; Restore to last known version before offsite WP:BATTLE particiapants came along..) Not. That would have been back in 2007.

This article was not covered by the article probation implemented by ArbComm. To find the biased edit would have taken a review of the extensive contributions of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris et al. Short of that, users in conflict could be relied upon to find POV text! The policy that banned user contributions should be simply ignored is one that refuses to take advantage of their specific knowledge of the topic. I've argued that self-reverted edits from banned editors should be allowed, which, then, leaves behind no cleanup. But, very much, this has been rejected, and the result is poor content often blatantly biased as would be seen by anyone familiar with the topic, the most knowledgeable editors, frequently, having been excluded from even making suggestions. Is it a coincidence that JzG reverts back instead of leaving the article biased by the other side? (As normal with an interrupted edit war?)

One, you blocked a formally retired SPA whistleblower, who had been following IAR, very clearly, making a big fuss on the noticeboard, but you paid no attention to what the whistle-blower was pointing to. I think the user's position was ultimately correct, but that can be left for another day. Like, maybe, never.

Was the user WordBomb? Maybe. JzG seems to have thought so. It doesn't matter.

Is WordBomb (T-C-L-K-R-D) banned? I see that the initial block was issued by Slimvirgin, and WordBomb's entire history consisted of one day of editing. There seems to have been no ban discussion, which would make the ban be simply one of "no administrator willing to unblock," which isn't really a ban, it's "no administrator willing to unblock." A ban should not be reversed by an admin without a discussion. In this case, there is a request to consult before unblocking. JzG unblocked to reblock in 2008 with email access disabled. JzG is also involved. Still.

Some edits of WordBomb have been oversighted, according to the notes on his user page. From his slide show, he had outed Mantanmoreland as Gary Weiss. Can't allow that, can we? Even when it's relevant to a COI allegation? WordBomb makes his case about guideline or policy conflicts, very well, in the slide show.

As is common, a user who is arbitrarily blocked may create sock puppets. While that is an offense, it appears that WordBomb had email access disabled because of attempts to contact arbitrators. I can't blame WordBomb for IP editing or socking, if he did. I don't see any clear confirmation, but it's a reasonable possibility.

[Jon Awbrey]

The Education — Or Not — of Wiki-Pollyanna

You do all that work and still can't figure out that Wiki-Prevarica is that way because someone wants it that way.

Jon

Well, I can forgive you. I've only said in this thread twice, now (once explicitly and once implicitly if you watch the source I gave, WordBomb's presentation), that it's that way because someone wants it that way. I'll say it again. The evidence is becoming strong that the problems of wikipedia are no longer accidental, even if they were that way originally.

The problems are because someone wants it that way.

Noticeable enough for you, Jon? You can stop beating your head against your own brick wall. Next time, if you have something cogent to say, try supporting it with evidence instead of just loudly proclaiming your conclusions. People who prefer evidence to be strong before concluding bad faith might be more inclined to listen.

I guess it's that attitude of continual wonderment that fools me.

Next Question —

Who wants it that way?

You've only had 5 to 10 years to figure that out …

Jon

[Milton Roe]

The Education — Or Not — of Wiki-Pollyanna

You do all that work and still can't figure out that Wiki-Prevarica is that way because someone wants it that way.

Jon

Well, I can forgive you. I've only said in this thread twice, now (once explicitly and once implicitly if you watch the source I gave, WordBomb's presentation), that it's that way because someone wants it that way. I'll say it again. The evidence is becoming strong that the problems of wikipedia are no longer accidental, even if they were that way originally.

The problems are because someone wants it that way.

Noticeable enough for you, Jon? You can stop beating your head against your own brick wall. Next time, if you have something cogent to say, try supporting it with evidence instead of just loudly proclaiming your conclusions. People who prefer evidence to be strong before concluding bad faith might be more inclined to listen.

I guess it's that attitude of continual wonderment that fools me.

Next Question —

Who wants it that way?

You've only had 5 to 10 years to figure that out …

Jon

It's actually not that easy to figure out. Jimbo doesn't know Gary Weiss, so how did Weiss get such special treatment, for so long?? The answer seems to be that he (as Mantanmoreland) did a complicated little dance to get into the good graces of SlimVirgin, who in turn did a complicated little dance to get into the good graces of certain high mucky-mucky wiki admins, back in the dark ages. So when Bagley wordbomb showed up, the system automatically stomped on him on behalf of Weiss, and the rest of the time was spent in a Watergate coverup of that screwup. In all of this, about a zillion times the effort was spent that should have been spent, mostly because nobody wanted to admit they'd screwed up. So it was all sort of like getting a person who'd been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, out of prison. Even if the evidence is very good, the system has this terrible inertia, because there's something operating that looks a lot like systemic embarassment, when it comes to error.

You wouldn't think institutions would have any emotions, but "embarassment at being caught in error" is probably the place they come the closest to being human. They don't love, lust, hate, or have any sense of humor, justice, or aethetic appreciation. They're not jealous or even proud. But greed and embarassment somehow shine through. In communist societies where individuals are not well-rewarded, even greed doesn't make it through the system, sometimes. But embarassment at being wrong is still left!

[Jon Awbrey]

O, I C, you're still stuck on the individual message again.

I forget what a bunch of Pre-McLuhanies you guys are.

Jon

[Abd]

Next Question —

Who wants it that way?

You've only had 5 to 10 years to figure that out …

Jon

There are two kinds of answers to this. The generic answer is "Those who benefit from the status quo." But there is a specific answer here:
Jimbo Wales.
I certainly haven't had 5 to 10 years to figure that last answer out. The first, sure, and I figured it out long ago. But the general case does not establish the specific.

Any more questions?

[Jon Awbrey]

Next Question —

Who wants it that way?

You've only had 5 to 10 years to figure that out …

Jon

There are two kinds of answers to this. The generic answer is "Those who benefit from the status quo." But there is a specific answer here:

Jimbo Wales.

I certainly haven't had 5 to 10 years to figure that last answer out. The first, sure, and I figured it out long ago. But the general case does not establish the specific.

Any more questions?

Sure, there's always a next question —

Like, what is the relation between the specific Jimbo Wales and the generic Cui Bono?

Jon

[Abd]

It's actually not that easy to figure out. Jimbo doesn't know Gary Weiss, so how did Weiss get such special treatment, for so long?? The answer seems to be that he (as Mantanmoreland) did a complicated little dance to get into the good graces of SlimVirgin, who in turn did a complicated little dance to get into the good graces of certain high mucky-mucky wiki admins, back in the dark ages. So when Bagley wordbomb showed up, the system automatically stomped on him on behalf of Weiss, and the rest of the time was spent in a Watergate coverup of that screwup. In all of this, about a zillion times the effort was spent that should have been spent, mostly because nobody wanted to admit they'd screwed up. So it was all sort of like getting a person who'd been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, out of prison. Even if the evidence is very good, the system has this terrible inertia, because there's something operating that looks a lot like systemic embarassment, when it comes to error.

Oh, this is true, but only explains the community side of this. While I'm aware of the risk in relying on a single source, I'm concluding that if the source is Bagley, it's reliable. Bagley claims that an email from Jimbo to a mailing list acknowledged, early on, that he knew that Mantamoreland was Weiss. Then, later, he's denying it.

The kinds of solutions I've suggested for Wikipedia may be innovative, and could theoretically work even if the WMF and Jimbo were dead-set against them, but the fact is that I'm not the first to see solutions. At any point, Jimbo could have supported one of them, and it would have happened, and once mechanisms were in place to negotiate better consensus and make the project more truly reliable, even better mechanisms could have been developed. He didn't. He's definitely responsible for the way things are, but he can deny it.

It's that funky community, not me, no sirree! If they could just get it together, things would be fine (said out of one side of his mouth), and things are just fine, the wiki gradually and automatically gravitates toward perfection (out of the other side).

You wouldn't think institutions would have any emotions, but "embarassment at being caught in error" is probably the place they come the closest to being human. They don't love, lust, hate, or have any sense of humor, justice, or aethetic appreciation. They're not jealous or even proud. But greed and embarassment somehow shine through. In communist societies where individuals are not well-rewarded, even greed doesn't make it through the system, sometimes. But embarassment at being wrong is still left!

The "institutions" don't really exist, except as patterns, so I don't agree that they have emotions. But the people who are the reality underneath the institutions do, and they then, collectively, appear to have emotions. We say, "an angry crowd," when really we mean "a crowd of angry people," or "the nation was angry," when we mean that many were angry, especially the prominent and influential.

So, how does Jimbo benefit from this NSS affair? Well, it's not impossible that the answer is very simple: money. But there are other possibilities. The lack of a coherent community, which is what would be needed to implement NPOV policy, leaves him in charge, either directly or indirectly. Power is a pretty normal human motivator, all by itself.

Wikipedia stomped on Bagley, or tried to. Bagley was telling the truth. Therefore Wikipedia is an enemy of the truth. It could be fixed, and every Wikipedian who becomes aware of this and continues to support Wikipedia is ... an enemy of the truth, unless they do what they can to remedy the situation. This is the reality of our moral responsibility. I'm not the judge, though, I'm just saying what I see.

Sure, there's always a next question —

Like, what is the relation between the specific Jimbo Wales and the generic Cui Bono?

Jon

I don't know the specific relationship, though it certainly looks like there could be one. I responded to Milton on that. Got any evidence, Jon?

[Moulton]

If institutions have learning curves, then they necessarily have emotions.

[Jon Awbrey]

Sure, there's always a next question —

Like, what is the relation between the specific Jimbo Wales and the generic Cui Bono?

Jon

I don't know the specific relationship, though it certainly looks like there could be one. I responded to Milton on that. Got any evidence, Jon?

Seller, Buyer.

Jon

[Abd]

Gary Weiss is still putting puffery into his article, and it sticks against efforts to take it out. Warning, boring as hell. Do not drive or operate heavy machinery while reading.

Recent Career The last sentence refers to an article by Roddy Boyd, published in January 2010. Definitely not an "independent" source. What's "The Big Money" up to, anyway? Articles by Weiss and Boyd, scratching each other's backs, it looks like.

Weiss is being portrayed as this courageous muckraker, going after corporate greed. But what's he really going after? A CEO who has been, against all reasonable sense of his own interests, pursuing what he sees as a major hazard to the economy, from corporate interests much larger than him. And being somewhat successful, legally. The article's title?

America's Nastiest CEO.

Who is that? Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com, of course! Given what some CEOs of American corporations have done to rape the planet and their customers and even their stockholders, Patrick Byrne, even if he was nasty, which he doesn't seem to be, he seems to me to be calling a spade a spade, or at least trying to, surely isn't the "nastiest." What if he's wrong? He doesn't have billions of dollars behind him! He's small potatoes, David against Goliath. Mean nasty David!

Boyd has this in the article:

I am, in fact, one of the business reporters Byrne has castigated most frequently. While he and his colleagues at his DeepCapture.com site have spewed venom at many business reporters, I am one of only two reporters—the other is my former Fortune magazine colleague Bethany McLean—apparently evil enough in his eyes to warrant a reference to oral sex and ejaculation in his assessment of our ethics and reporting skills.

I have to consider that these commentaries in The Big Money are really unrestrained blogs, because no reporter would be assigned to write a story about himself, and he's very much a part of this story. McLean's reference to oral sex was this pithy "assessment":

Even in that successful year, there were signs that Byrne was remarkably thin-skinned. In the fall of 2004, I wrote a FORTUNE story titled "Is Overstock the Next Amazon?" After the piece came out, Byrne sent me an e-mail saying "Fair. And balanced." Two days later he wrote another e-mail: "I actually thought it was crap.... So, why exactly did you become a reporter? Giving Goldman traders blowjobs didn't work out?"

One thing that Byrne can't be accused of: toadying up to the press. Again, Fortune magazine couldn't notice that McLean might have a conflict of interest?

Byrne is pushing against a massive and highly organized opponent, with far greater resources. Whether he's doing it optimally or not is another question. But to portray Byrne as the monster oppressor, and the business reporters (and their publications) as the innocent small truth-tellers, is way outside of responsible journalism, it's just polemic, skirmishes in a battle.

Who put this in Gary Weiss? 4.231.228.69.

It was removed by 166.205.8.83. Same range as accused of being WordBomb by JzG.

Christofurio reverted, saying no reason was given, though, in fact, one was, and edit warring with IPs resulted, including IP accused by JzG of being Mantanmoreland (Weiss). David Gerard protected..

David Gerard explained on Talk, The article is getting trolled by a slanderous IP. As such, I've semi-protected it for a couple of weeks. I didn't see any slander, the IP was removing puffery. But maybe I missed something.

Off protection, Bagley reverted to remove the stuff, Weiss reverted it back as "vandalism." Eventually, Huldra removed it. Christofurio reverted.

Huldra removed it again. IPs resume edit warring, along with Christofurio and Huidro. MONGO reverted the Boyd story out. JzG removed puffery category and COI tags that had been added by Huldra, with a preposterous argument, but, to be sure, Huldra didn't justify them in Talk. Huldra is a 2005 registered editor with 13,000 live edits, vast majority in article space. No block history.

Supposedly this is an article on probation, order of ArbComm. It's being "protected" by editors who are supporting questionable content. Weiss is being allowed to insert, as IP, material that remains; Huldra was alone against Christofurio and MONGO, among the registered editors, and from what JzG did elsewhere, I'd suspect that if it had been necessary, he'd have put the Boyd story back in as well.

Wikipedia is still being used to further Weiss's agenda. It's not over. WordBomb should be unblocked, at least allowed to participate under restrictions that would allow him to point out the stuff that he's been finding and seeing. He'd need someone to guide and protect him, assuming he'd accept the guidance. (This is in no way a criticism of him; a willingness to follow guidance goes with protection, I sought a mentor, and it was denied.)

Who is Christofurio? Long-term involvement with Naked short selling and Gary Weiss articles. 4K edits. Was briefly blocked in January as a sock of Mantanmoreland, cleared by Alison. Could find no discussion. Started editing Gary Weiss in 2006. Later, he re-asserted the same edit. Started editing Naked short selling in January 2007. Is pretty clearly pushing the Weiss POV, but I sense a difference. Sample edit. No conclusion.

[Abd]

If institutions have learning curves, then they necessarily have emotions.

So does a computer, then. Explains a lot about my PC. Or maybe it just needs more memory.

[The Adversary]

Off protection, Bagley reverted to remove the stuff, Weiss reverted it back as "vandalism." Eventually, Huldra removed it. Christofurio reverted.

Huldra removed it again. IPs resume edit warring, along with Christofurio and Huidro. MONGO reverted the Boyd story out. JzG removed puffery category and COI tags that had been added by Huldra, with a preposterous argument, but, to be sure, Huldra didn't justify them in Talk. Huldra is a 2005 registered editor with 13,000 live edits, vast majority in article space. No block history.

...as I suspect most involved users know; "Huldra" is WR Member No.: 194. And therefore not really to be taken seriously on wp. (And since Jayvd fixed the 48-template: I am quite happy and busy in that field.... )

However, I got involved in Byrne/Weiss area years ago, when I looked at the Byrne-article and found it absolutely horribly slanted. A pure "attack-page", if you ever saw one. And I only dared to get involved....because I am not a native English speaker! "Hence I am clearly no Wordbomb-sock", see this.) Honestly! The times were really, really crazy back then; you got blocked just for sounding like Wordbomb ......

The answer seems to be that he (as Mantanmoreland) did a complicated little dance to get into the good graces of SlimVirgin, who in turn did a complicated little dance to get into the good graces of certain high mucky-mucky wiki admins, back in the dark ages.

Yupp. SV mentioned it here: "I'm reluctant to take action against Mantanmoreland, in part because WordBomb is a troublemaker and troll, and in part because Mantan has been extremely helpful on another page."

I don´t know which "other page" he was "extremely helpful on", but Matan tried to do exactly the same towards Cla68, "smooching up" to him, see this thread. Didn´t work there, though.

Now, if some completely new wiki-stranger ever comes along, and starts helping me with the -48-villages...and then, just by pure chance, gets interested in the Weiss/Byrne/Naked shorting-articles; I tell ya: my sock-alarm will go off like Big-Ben....

It was nothing personal in it when I started editing in this area....but I had to fight every sentence of the way to get the worst attacks out of the Byrne-article ...and get some positive info in. And it turned out my worst opponents were...surprise, surprise; Matan-socks. And, as I have said before; I never wanted the Weiss-article turned into an attack-piece; just to get that outrageous self-inflated puffery out. But obviously it did not work. Perhaps we should go the other way, and mention his Eagle Scout merit badges ?

[Moulton]

If institutions have learning curves, then they necessarily have emotions.

So does a computer, then. Explains a lot about my PC. Or maybe it just needs more memory.

See Do Computers Have Emotional Behavior?

[Milton Roe]

If institutions have learning curves, then they necessarily have emotions.

Why? Learning does not necessarily have anything to do with emotion.

[The Adversary]

If anyone wants to find out which article Matan had been "so helpful" on, then "Wikistalk" still works fine. I guess it boils down to one of these 21 articles

[gomi]

[Modnote: The posts on Martin Luther have been moved to their own thread in "Articles"]

[Somey]

Added text by Weiss in bold.

There has been speculation that naked short selling played a role in driving Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy, but a bankruptcy trustee report on Lehman proved the reports to be wrong.
[reference:]"Don't Blame Shorts for Lehman Demise," by Rachel Beck, Associated Press, March 19, 2010 "Short sellers didn't bring down Lehman; company squashed itself through risk."

The added text is deceptive, not confirmed by source. The source is referring to short selling, not naked short selling. Short selling is quite legitimate. Naked short selling amplifies the effect of short selling, with practically no limit. The trustee report is not cited as addressing naked short selling at all. The edit is blatant POV-pushing, as I immediately saw before looking at the source, because of the telltale word "proved."

You're absolutely correct about the use of the word "proved," but at the risk of playing Devil's Advocate here, if the report attempts to exculpate short sellers I would think it would also exculpate naked shorters too, by simple extension/implication. So... without the word "proved" in it (i.e., something like "suggested that the reports might be wrong" instead), this particular edit by Mr. Weiss might conceivably be valid, though it's obviously self-serving in any case.

[Moulton]

If institutions have learning curves, then they necessarily have emotions.

Why? Learning does not necessarily have anything to do with emotion.

See Cognition, Affect, and Learning.

[WordBomb]

Looks to me like Gary Weiss just edited, five days ago, Naked short selling. diff..

Geolocates to Glenside, Pennsylvania. Yep. Geez he must be getting pretty desperate. Probably a throwaway Starbuck's hotspot IP.

Now this is interesting...that IP does not map to Pennsylvania, but Manhattan, and is clearly Weiss (most of his look like 151.202.x.x or 70.23.x.x). He seems to unplug his modem nightly, so his home IPs are highly dynamic, but almost always within that range. What's fascinating about this IP, however, is that it happens to be the same one he was assigned when he accidentally edited without being logged in nearly four years ago...just as I was beginning to put the pieces together on Weiss as Mantanmoreland.
Looking at the edit history, you can see that IP edited the article on Gary Weiss and added references to him to a pair of other articles.

By the way, I've not read all the other new posts on this thread yet. I sure hope I'm not simply restating something very obvious by now. If so, please don't holler at me.

[Milton Roe]

Looks to me like Gary Weiss just edited, five days ago, Naked short selling. diff..

Geolocates to Glenside, Pennsylvania. Yep. Geez he must be getting pretty desperate. Probably a throwaway Starbuck's hotspot IP.

Now this is interesting...that IP does not map to Pennsylvania, but Manhattan, and is clearly Weiss (most of his look like 151.202.x.x or 70.23.x.x). He seems to unplug his modem nightly, so his home IPs are highly dynamic, but almost always within that range.

So instead of I.P. Freely, he's I.P. Nightly.

Childishly,

MR