Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Cla68

There is already http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=27947 in a separate forum which touches on this subject. Rather than discussing the Robertson lawsuit article itself, however, I'm going to focus this on Weiss. It appears that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnnyB256 was the latest reincarnation of Weiss/Mantanmoreland, although it's not stated that way, instead identifying private evidence as the reason for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJohnnyB256. Nevertheless, assuming that the account was operated by Weiss, here's a few things I take away from this episode:

- Why did Weiss react the way he did when I posted the Robertson lawsuit article? Didn't he notice what happened when SlimVirgin and Will BeBack reacted violently to the Eurasian Land Bridge article? Because of their reaction to that article, they made it very clear to everyone that they are not in the least bit neutral about LaRouche. Like them, Weiss should have ignored the article.

- When Weiss did get involved right away, he didn't even try to appear neutral about it. He changed the article to make Robertson look worse and minimize Weiss' involvement. He drastically shortened the lede at the same time he nominated it for deletion. He removed most of the categories. He removed the wikilinks to the article from the McGraw-Hill and BusinessWeek articles, but not from the Robertson or Tiger Management articles. Obvious POV editing.

- The lawsuit article may or may not survive, but one of the reasons this is only an issue is because Weiss fought so hard in the past to keep any mention of it out of his bio. The story is reported on in too many sources- Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc to ignore it. If he had allowed a short paragraph on it to be added to his bio years ago, then he wouldn't now have to worry about a complete article on the story to exist on Wikipedia or elsewhere (such as Wikipedia Review).

- Has Weiss noticed how many people came out of the woodwork to support keeping the Robertson lawsuit article? Will he now realize that there are now far more people with an interest in seeing him lose his battle over Wikipedia than he has friends willing to help him? (I'm not saying that everyone who voted to delete the article is a friend of Weiss'.)

- Does Weiss realize that the next article about him that may appear in Wikipedia could be titled "Gary Weiss Wikipedia editing controversy", or "Weiss v. Byrne naked short selling feud"? The Register is not the only source to report on these stories, and may not be the main source in the future. Even if the Register was the main source for those articles, from what I'm seeing with regard to the Roberson lawsuit article, it is not a given that the Wikipedia community would vote to delete those articles if created.

- I guess the big question is, will Weiss learn his lesson from everything that has happened so far? Will he realize that he has lost and lost badly his battle to manipulate Wikipedia for his own agenda? Will he now cut his losses and walk away?

Posted by: Somey

I've learned over these last 3-4 years that the real hard-cases go through a lot of denial before they finally realize that they're just not that clever - and that's if they ever realize it. Also, bear in mind that he doesn't like you one bit, and that's putting it mildly... And of course, another thing that might explain his behavior is that he's getting paid for it.


No....

That won't happen until someone he actually respects or fears decides to sanction him for what he's been doing, and nobody on Wikipedia fits that description.

Posted by: One

I think articles should be kept or deleted based on policy, and not as a reaction to those who want them deleted. I don't want JohnnyB256 to "win" a battle, but if that article is notable, a very large number of settled lawsuits with BLP implications are notable. I think that's the wrong result. I hope that this material will instead be covered in Tiger Management with perhaps a sentence from the Weiss article. That his alleged sockpuppets fought the material does not elevate this suit to independent notability.

Wikipedia's AFD process breaks down when debating the retention of articles related to users.

Posted by: WordBomb

People here have been saying for over a year that JohnnyB256 was Weiss, and I've been saying for just as long that I didn't think so. That's because:
a: I've just not been paying very much attention to Wikipedia since Weiss was sent packing the last time, and
b: I couldn't imagine that he could POSSIBLY be so brazen and/or stupid to go right back to the same m.o. as before.

Once Cla68's article on the Weiss libel lawsuit was published, it took about five minutes for Johnny to completely lose his bearings and revert to classic Weiss. This is why I adore this guy: he's enslaved by his emotions. Just a little pushing and it's over.

Somebody please remind me to take advantage of this bug in Weiss's coding more often.

Anyway, I spent a while today looking over JohnnyB's contribs to find the inevitable sockmates, and I think I've found a few, though only one is active.

The obvious socks are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stetsonharry (active) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Janeyryan (retired).

A less obvious but quite likely sock is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Beganlocal, while a darkhorse outside possibility is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Westmorlandia.

I've yet to spot it, but I have a strong feeling that sometime in September of this year, Beganlocal screwed up during an interaction with JohnnyB and revealed their sockiness, which is why that account has been decommissioned.

But with JohnnyB gone, I predict these guys will quickly be dusted off and put back into action...particularly Stetsonharry.

But here's what kills me:

Assuming I'm only right about Stetsonharry, that means in the space of about 18 months, Weiss has made over 8,200 edits. That's 15/day on average (whereas I, in that same time period, have made about 15 total, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Larry_Bergman). And that's fine, except it makes it even harder to answer the question: how does Weiss make a living? His two books were commercial flops so there's no way he's surviving off royalties, much less an advance on a future project. He blogs once or twice a month for Portfolio.com (max $100 a pop). Every quarter he gets a 500 word column in Parade Magazine (max $1,000 each). And that's it.

Or maybe this makes it easier to explain how Weiss makes a living.

Who, but someone getting paid for it, would work so obsessively at injecting misinformation into five articles related to financial fraud on Wikipedia? I mean he had to really, really work at it. Has there ever been a more determined and evasive sockpuppet in the history of Wikipedia?

And of course, this is nothing compared to the Oscar-worthy acting job he pulled of as both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris on ye olde Cyberstalking list two years ago (I've got the emails and have been reading them with great interest).

We knew he was working for the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp back in 2006, but I assumed that ended after we made it public.

Maybe not.

Or maybe he's just lost it. The guy's almost 60 and must be a little crisis-wracked, given the state of his reputation and career.

Whatever the case, my hat's off to Cla68 for creating a compelling article and employing such nimble Weiss-jujitsu when the guy attacked. Very well done.

Posted by: thekohser

And blocked by the Fozz Man, for block evasion.

If Wikipediots were allowed out into the real world with their logic, Enron would be in the Fortune 10 right now, and Sherron Watkins would be serving a life sentence in the federal pen.

Posted by: WordBomb

Go easy on Fozzie. It was entirely my intention to get blocked. I made it very obvious that it was me. I decided to take that route after noticing that JohnnyB256's block message does not tie him to Mantanmoreland.

However you'll note that Larry Bergman's block does tie the account to WordBomb.

Assuming JohnnyB256's situation doesn't change, this inconsistency is how I intend to argue before ArbCom that it should.

So don't be angry at Fozzie.

Posted by: thekohser

I don't understand how Larry Bergman's block "ties" the account to WordBomb.

Posted by: Cedric

While these behaviors of Weiss/Mannisox may perplex you, they do not mystify me. I seem to recall that Somey and others here have pointed out that many of Mannisox's behaviors, both "on wiki" and "off wiki", appear to be narcissistic. I tend to agree. If indeed Mannisox suffers from NPD, lack of empathy http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652. That being the case, Mannisox would have very little if any understanding of actually why others disagree with him, and how they manage to see through him, nor would he care. This would also mean he has essentially learned nothing from his failures on WP, and will keep coming back for more until such time as he receives effective treatment or WP implodes, whichever comes first.

Not a psychologist, YMMV, etc., etc.

Posted by: WordBomb

Look http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Larry_Bergman&action=history: {{Blockedsock|WordBomb}}
Yet there's some reticence to label JohnnyB a Mantanmoreland sock. But it might just be an oversight. Let us hope.


Very astute. I don't know if I've mentioned it here, but Weiss was once a participant on a Yahoo group dedicated to discussing NPD. He claimed it was his brother who had the problem.

Posted by: Cedric

Not sure how astute that is, but thanks. However, I was not previously aware that Mannisox posted on a NPD forum. I find that very interesting.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Indeed. Let's get Paula Deen to come in and make Foz a nice tasty snack:





I gotta tell ya, Paula Deen uses the most butter I've seen this side of "Last Tango in Paris."

Posted by: SirFozzie

No thanks. Make it a country fried steak, and you may have my interest however

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Gee, and I always assumed that you had no taste. My error.

Posted by: tarantino

Stetsonharry has made 95 edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder,%20Inc.%20(film) and 80 edits to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%20Falk, two of his top four frequently edited pages.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Not only is he NPD, he's apparently looking for abuse as well.

Look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naked_short_selling&limit=500&action=history of the naked-shorting article. I would not be surprised to learn that
90% of the editors listed there are Gary Weiss.

Oh,yeah: did you know that Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The (T-C-L-K-R-D) was a sock of Tony Sidaway?

Posted by: WordBomb

Hey Fozzie, as long as you've got your banstick out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AmishPete.

Posted by: Somey

Again, at the risk of being seen to defend someone who has obviously been running multiple WP accounts for some time in near-total contempt of WP's so-called community, this salon.com article does make some extremely salient and valid points about the problem of excessive executive compensation.

Posted by: Piperdown

I think gary's yahoo groups truthseeking was under his "pascallamb" or similar nom. The usenet groups stuff from the 90's under his several guises as seen on the ol' antisocialmedia is a treasure trove of dysfunction. Alky Anon group, itchy cat allergy posts, divorce issues, droopy dick issues, etc. Part of what makes Gary such a lovable interwebber. That was of course before he started going all out railing against P.Byrne's genitalia characteristics on Yahoo Finance. And that was before Byrne had even heard of Gary. Seems Gary didn't much care for Byrne making mincemeat of his Rocker Buddy Jeffie Matthews. Like Word says, Whacky Gawy's buttons get pushed and he has no control over the pavlovian responses.

This one is likely GW--> User:Patchyreynolds
Kept in the hip pocket for periodic sleeper cell-ing.

And it was pretty clear from the get-go that Gary really didn't care that JonnyB256 was obviously him -- it edited New Mexico related articles right along with NSS/Ostock/Byrne. Might as well have edited Varkala while he was at it. But he got to edit for over a year anyway. Some bans are more equal than others.

Posted by: Piperdown

Just read AmishPete's WP missives.

Classic Gary, lol. He's in good spirits it seems and must have enjoyed his Jonny Ban. Since going out crying like a little biatch as Sami/Manny, he's learned to stop worrying and love the ban bomb.

But remember, Gary's got a knitting circle of highly motivated friends (um, at least the ones who haven't already turned over hard drives and emails to the good guys) who are always willing to log on to the WP and timeshare accounts to mess with the WP peckercheckers. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Cla68

Hmm, if the thought of embarassing and negative information piling up in his WP bio isn't enough to get Weiss to walk away, what will, besides what Somey said above? If the ArbCom has enough information to link any of these current and past accounts to Weiss, perhaps they should do like they did with Scientology, and ban Weiss by name. To avoid threatened defamation suits and emails from Mike Godwin, I suggest simply banning Weiss without giving a reason, saying that it is based on private information.

Oh, and Weiss doesn't even appear to be trying to hide that some of the accounts mentioned above, like AmishPete or Stetsonharry, belong to him.

Posted by: Cla68

In my opinion, in order for an event to be notable for Wikipedia, it needs to have some kind of "hook" or something that makes it relevant to a wider audience. This case seems to have been notable for several reasons: (1) the ridiculously high damage claim raised eyebrows in the media, finance, and publishing communities, (2) it highlighted the fact that the definition of publishing in US law needed to be updated to include electronic creation, and (3) (and I didn't stress this well enough in the article) that even though the suit was settled, it appears to have had a chilling effect, at least on those who might otherwise have considered criticizing Robertson using their real names, instead of as anonymous sources. I have 12 solid, independent, unarguably reliable sources listed in that article which discuss these points.

Other facts about the case that I found interesting, but wasn't able to mention in the article because the sources don't discuss them:
1. BusinessWeek's editor in chief sounded fairly conciliatory in his settlement statement. It appears the magazine muzzled Weiss at that time, for it doesn't appear that he was allowed to make a statement to the press about the settlement.
2. When the Tiger fund went kaput (after two years of stellar returns which Weiss had predicted would not happen), BusinessWeek allowed Weiss to do some skull dancing about it in the magazine. I'm not sure who this speaks more poorly of, Weiss or BusinessWeek
3. Ten years later, Weiss is now trying to keep mention of it out of his Wikipedia bio, which he started and has worked really hard (with help from some Wikipedia admins in the past) to keep looking like a promotional brochure or off the end jacket of one of his books.

If you're scared of a slew of articles being created about lawsuits that were settled out of court, I don't think you need to be too worried. Each article will need to carry a "hook" and sources which support the hook. I think I did that here, but am, of course, willing and able to accept the Wikipedia community's decision on that.

Posted by: One

This discussion belongs on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure how you can call the allegedly defamatory article giving rise to the lawsuit and the lawsuit filings themselves "independent."

As for hooks, every lawsuit by a good lawyer has one. Taking a case to trial is at least as much about framing a story as it is about researching legal precedent. High damage demands are hardly rare, and an unresolved legal issue about the statute of limitations in a libel case is not very important even if the court had reached the issue (later resolved by statute).

Some of your remarks on this thread make it sound as if the article was created in response to Gary Weiss' alleged behavior on Wikipedia (that is, that it wouldn't have been created if the lawsuit had been mentioned in the biography, etc.). In my opinion as one who has invested a lot of time on related issues, I think that's a terrible reason to create an article. It might have drawn out the socking issue, which was a good thing and I appreciate that, but I'm worried that the article will become more of a trophy than a piece of the encyclopedia.

Given that the AFD was opened by a sock and probably supported by other socks, there is zero chance that it will result in an accurate read from the "community," but I feel strongly about the issue and hope that you consider redirected and placing most of the material in Tiger Management. Noted inclusionist DGG has voted to delete it; I hope that carries some weight with you.

Posted by: Cla68

I believe that the original edit I made to the Weiss article three or so years ago was to try to add mention of the Robertson lawsuit. That helped set off a chain of events that continues to this day. Although there is plenty of blame to go around, the majority of it falls in Weiss' lap. Weiss himself took a self-promotional http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Robertson&action=historysubmit&diff=53052185&oldid=47801946 at Robertson in Wikipedia with one of his original socks, but as we know, has always fought to try to keep the same rules of reliable sourcing from applying to his bio.

Once the lawsuit article AfD closes, whether kept or deleted, some verbiage about the lawsuit needs to be added to the Robertson, Tiger Management, and Weiss articles. I expect that that will close this episode, and Weiss' remaining socks, of which several are already known to us, can continue to show us why Wikipedia is still such a bush league operation, in spite of the dedicated and sincere efforts of yourself and the rest of the current and new ArbCom to change that.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Hmmm....sounds a bit kinky.




Now, now...no advertising here. You'll have to chase ambulances someplace else.

Posted by: WordBomb

What makes you suspect http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Patchyreynolds? Without looking at any of his contribs, I'm doubtful only because his first edit is logged six months before Weiss's.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

I don't suppose y'all have ever stumbled upon http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3532&mn=8028&pt=msg&mid=2326642.

Posted by: WordBomb

Of course. And yes..."Tamoshanter" is Gary Weiss.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Figured as much.

Posted by: Somey

Well, I'm just sorry that the WP folks finally twigged to the JohnnyB256 (T-C-L-K-R-D) account, because I thought Mr. Weiss had finally "turned the corner" by creating a sock puppet whose name had more than four syllables.

Posted by: Piperdown

Deep Capture opines on the latest Garyfest on the WP

http://www.deepcapture.com/yet-another-naked-shorting-disinformation-campaign-laid-bare/

Posted by: Piperdown

So JohnnyB256's account says "blocked, see Arbcom, yada yada".

So it's been blocked for ban evasion and/or sockpuppeting, what else could it be lol.

Why doesn't it say blocked as a sock of Mantanmoreland at a minimum? Hmmm?

"See Arbcom" doesn't cut it.

Yeah, you're right, I must have been looking at another account's edits. Patchy's kickoff "Ratt" edit completely rulez out lil' GW, lol.



So a Checkuser of Stetsonharry is in order then. The film noir thing always trips him up. Has that CU occurred yet?


Here's an interesting nuevo SPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ColJenkins

Posted by: WordBomb

I've been mulling this one over and have a theory (which I'll admit might give ArbCom more credit than it deserves, but but maybe not). It's like this: I suspect that the reason it took them so long to bust johnnyb256 is that the previous ArbCom decision dealt with sockpuppets of Mantanmoreland, and Weiss (who's an idiot but not stupid) had done enough in the interim to appear sufficiently non-Mantanmoreland-esque, from a technical point of view, that they couldn't justify moving on him given the objective tools at their disposal.

Then, Cla68 brilliantly creates the Robertson v. Satan, et al article, causing Weiss to get careless and give ArbCom probable cause.

Now, ArbCom's challenge is to figure out how to make it easier the next time.

Ideally, that solution would be: make this block based on what they will privately call Gary Weiss, and ban future socks by tying them to a person and not just that person's earlier account. Because they'll never say an account is banned for belonging to a real person. What I'm hoping is that from now on, Weiss socks will all be banned as socks of JohnnyB256.

Let us hope.

Posted by: Piperdown

Some WR fan quickly cut to the chase on JohnnyBBad's user page after reading the earlier post about the murky muddled ban message.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Nice. Isn't that against SEC regulations? Or something?

Posted by: Cla68

The AfD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robertson_v._McGraw-Hill_Co.,_Weiss,_and_Shepard as keep. A couple of editors immediately http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robertson_v._McGraw-Hill_Co.#merge_to_Tiger_Management merging the article with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Management.

Posted by: RDH(Ghost In The Machine)

Gary Weiss is basically the Robert Novak of business journalism.

Posted by: Piperdown

Wonder what these legal eagles (a couple of which have a very Gary-ish editing history) arguing about the notability of Robertson vs Weiss would have to say about this WP law review article, lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule


It's almost as good as the Chewbacca Defense (employed by DTCC-SEC-NYSE lovers everywhere) but not quite.

Posted by: The Adversary

Stetsonharry made an edit back before May 2008, which made me 99,99% sure he was Weiss. I rather not show which edit it was, here in a public forum, but it was sooooo "Weissian". However, CU (naturally) showed nothing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mantanmoreland

Posted by: Milton Roe

user:Stetsonharry only has two edits before May, 2008, neither one substantial. Perhaps you mean 2009?

Posted by: One

Milt, I think you're holding the chart upside-down, or filtering for namespace, or something.

Posted by: thekohser

I'll bet it was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_M._Byrne&diff=prev&oldid=206098067.

Posted by: Cla68

Bingo. Oops, Gary. Looks like you sabotaged your attempt to present that account as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20091209174606&target=Stetsonharry until you needed it, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGary_Weiss&action=historysubmit&diff=335754019&oldid=335753069. Did you forget which account you were using when you made that edit?

Posted by: WordBomb

I'm certain Gary Weiss is convinced that there are untold numbers of people out there who care just as much about how he's perceived as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=335746508&oldid=335745379.

Posted by: Cla68

I just did a search in NewsStand to see if any newspapers in the US or elsewhere had picked up on the Register's reporting on Weiss' activity with Wikipedia. I found one:

"Out of the box: Year after financial meltdown a Utah original shoots from the hip"
Chuck Gates Deseret News. Deseret News. Salt Lake City, Utah: Sep 27, 2009. pg. A.1



I would say that Weiss is in a race against time to promote himself and his views on Wikipedia until the inevitable day when the allegations of what he has been up to finally get added to his bio and the other, NSS-related articles.

Posted by: The Adversary

Heh, good one, but wrong. Stetsonharry made another comment...which was so pure vintage Weissian that it alertet my attention. I 'll pm it to you.

(Waves to Gary! Hiiiiii!)

Posted by: thekohser

It takes an http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APatrick_M._Byrne&action=historysubmit&diff=204079453&oldid=203872068 to know.

Posted by: The Wales Hunter

Why the f**k is Stetsonharry still not blocked?

Posted by: WordBomb

If BSA actually made Weiss an Eagle Scout, I'll return the one they gave me 24 years ago.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

So Weiss and Rlvese have something in common?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Yes, neither has set foot in Boise (or in my kitchen, thank god).

Posted by: Milton Roe

You still have it? I was trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, and even showered every day.

But I was very irreverent, and the BSA doesn't like atheists. So I sent it back.

Which is okay, because by that time I was ready to move on to becoming a girl scout.

Posted by: Cla68

He appears to be emailing editors trying to get them to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Robertson&curid=6459254&diff=335900782&oldid=335757825.

Posted by: Milton Roe

I'd love to be a fly on the wall reading what he sends SlimVirgin.

Okay, I'll bet that's one he doesn't try.

Posted by: Piperdown

Memo To Gary.

Next time you build a gaggle of NSS socks, make sure your ace in the hole one does not edit any old Film Noir related articles pepperred with the occasional WWII Journalism/Judaica BLP? Jeez. Could Stetson be any more obvious?

Well at least Stetson didn't edit Varkala or New Mexico stuff this time.

Posted by: Cla68

Who is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGary_Weiss&action=historysubmit&diff=335946887&oldid=335918577.

Posted by: The Joy

Whoever he is, he has socked before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Copyedeye/Archive

Posted by: everyking

Weiss has got himself into a very difficult position. Really convincing socks for his purposes would need to segregate their editing very consistently, and they'd need to avoid any topic areas favored by already banned socks (even though those subjects are likely to be the ones the sockmaster most wants to write about). But they'd also need to diffuse their editing on a certain level, to provide plausibility when they wanted to wade into whatever controversy was their real raison d'être. So they'd have to edit mostly about one subject, but occasionally about others (but never about the ones already assigned to other socks), while also getting involved in policy discussions, all while ensuring that the edits in non-raison d'être areas heavily outweighed those in raison d'être areas, in order to ensure security and credibility for interventions into the raison d'être areas. In short, it would be really complicated and time-consuming, so only a genius without a full-time job could hope to successfully execute the strategy.

Posted by: Cla68

Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stetsonharry. Good job Alison, Lar, and Seddon.

Edit: And Thatcher also, per Alison below.

Posted by: Alison

Good job, Thatcher, too

Posted by: Mike R

I apologize if someone has answered this already, but what is the reason it is forbidden onwiki to state a connection between these recently blocked socks and Mantanmoreland/Samiharris?
Sorry, I think I looked at JohnnyB's userpage when it just had the "indefinitely blocked" tag and not the "sock of Mantanmoreland" tag, and jumped to conclusions.

Posted by: Alison

It isn't forbidden. Check their userpages.

Posted by: Obesity

It's not. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stetsonharry, for example, states in no uncertain terms that it is Mantanmoreland.

What is a little more frowned upon is to say that the guy behind the keyboard is G.W.

Posted by: Piperdown

Why? Gary Weiss has legally threatened a small boatload of internet denizens. Who eventually figure out that he's full of shit. Then Gary figures out that if such skirmishes actually went legal, he'd get whacked in court. Somehow Wikiepedia is still intimidated by him (but oddly enough not by the lawyer friends of Judd and Patrick, who have been successfully litigating against the Titans of Biggest Dickus Money for years now). I think it must be the psycho phone calls. That sort of visceral interaction always freaks out teenagers and aspies, so the WP reaction makes sense.

Posted by: WordBomb

I agree. Good job to you all.

The good news is, I have to presume Weiss has reached the limits of his sockpuppeting abilities. That will either dissuade him from coming back or (more likely) make him much easier to nail next time. Hopefully this won't end up being an ongoing burden for you folks.

Posted by: Alison

Well, he got a good run at it with one or two of those socks, though. There's a good reason, though, why we're all keeping quiet on the exact details of how he was caught so he can't use that information to his advantage next time. As I said earlier, he'll be back again - his ego demands it

Posted by: One

Coupla socks, yeah.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Mantanmoreland.png

Posted by: Cla68

One thing I've learned from this is that a good, perhaps the best way, to expose POV-pushers or other Wikipedia participants with dishonest agendas is to write a fair, balanced, well-sourced article on a topic that they're trying to control. It worked with Eurasian Land Bridge (that wasn't my intention when I wrote it, I was just writing an article on a topic that I found interesting and was surprised at the outlandish reaction it generated), Will Beback did it to Jossi with the Millenium '73 article, and it worked with the Robertson v. Weiss lawsuit article. In this case it exposed five Mantanmoreland socks.

For some reason, when an article is written in this situation, the editors in question can't seem to stop themselves from reacting and exposing themselves. Perhaps it's ego, NPD, or because they just can't abide seeing their long-term and determined efforts at suppressing or controlling a certain topic get undermined. It's very interesting to watch.

Posted by: Piperdown

Watchout, Allie. He'll get his bud Nocera to start bashing Steve Jobs again in the NYT so Nocera's short friends (well since APPL went 80 to 200 they're probably not friends any more) can put up a fight.

I consider Nocera's interactions with Jobs to be further evidence of: How the fuck did Joe Nocera get to be a NYT demi-god? Has anyone actually read his material or seen his interiviews? Nocera is a retard.

Posted by: WordBomb

I'm so very fond of that chart. I think I'll make it my desktop background.

Poor Gary's annual trips to India must be miserable, since he's learned to stay up all night editing in NY time, so as to not repeat the mistake he made in October of 2006.

Posted by: Wikicrusher2

Of note is Weiss' editing of the Press_TV (T-H-L-K-D) article, with both the MajorStovall (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Copyedeye (T-C-L-K-R-D) accounts. Is there any connection between Gary Weiss and Press TV or Iran, apart from Wikipedia (as there is with Varkala)?

The culture that characterizes Wikipedia encourages deception, behind a shield of anonymity, due to its lack of accountability. Inherent in the culture is susceptibility to gamers and tricksters such as Weiss, because they engage in the same deceptive tactics that Wikipedia encourages.

For the record, I believe this was the impetus for the sock puppet investigation and the following checkuser (this was Pacific Time):

I'm aware that Jonas does not mind, and he is open about his IP address.

Posted by: Alison

Nice one!! You just spammed Jonas Rand's IP address all over the place

Assuming, of course, you're not Jonas himself

Posted by: Milton Roe

Janey does slip there early in Nov 2008, but you're right.

A lovely chart. We're very powerful processors of visual information, which is how we kept up with computers at chess for so long (and "Go" for even longer).

Posted by: WordBomb

Long before Weiss decided to advocate for securities fraud (which is what brought him to my attention), he was an advocate of Jewish issues, particularly with regard to the Israel/Arab situation.

Until we busted him on it, he anonymously wrote http://mediacrity.blogspot.com/, dedicated to criticizing media outlets he perceived as too pro-Palestinian. In addition, his infamous Mantanmoreland account extensively edited the article on Iran's President Ahmadinejad, and even managed to get him added to the Wikipedia category of Anti-Semitic People while it existed (probably a title Ahmadinejad would find fitting).

Back when he was writing for Forbes, his first column dealt with allowing India to build nuclear power as the alternative was to build a gas pipeline through Iran.

So, yeah, he's got "ties" to Iran.

But I'm looking through his work on Press TV and it's more than a little fanatical.

By the way, if you want to have some fun, http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish.moderated/browse_frm/thread/82fa9db05062a605/8890574e83185b3f?#8890574e83185b3f (from the soc.culture.jewish.moderated group), where Weiss was busted for sockpuppeting there back in 2004. Scroll down to message 198 to start, where the subject changes to "Question for Garyw BW". I suspect many here will find his reaction VERY familiar.

Posted by: Piperdown

i'd forgotten about Gary's now-defunct (after the exposer got exposed by our favourite straight shooting Utah Eagle WordScout!) "Mediacrity" blog until recently, then looked for links between its targets and corresponding BLP's on Wikipedia. Ian Williams of UN fame does not have a BLP, but a couple of Gary's NYT targets on Mediacrity do. Did not see any obvious GW turding up of those BLPs right away though, lol.

I just hope Ian Williams has not encountered too much weirdness in the last few years after the UN refused to support Gary's mail order Indian bride's lack of journalistic talent.

Posted by: One

Actually, the 2007 and 2008 months did look strange to me, especially 2008. A drop in activity and he suddenly stopped editing 2300-0200 or so. No noticeable change in 2009 though.

Posted by: cookiehead

I believe this sock bully is back as the so far nice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Figureofnine


I got some shite treatment for this Weisster awhile back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cookiehead#Naked_short_selling

Posted by: Cla68

Like I said before, to draw out a Weiss sock all one needs to do is add one of Cade Metz' Register articles as a source to some otherwise innocuous information in the short selling, Byrne, Weiss, Overstock, or FTCC articles and wait for one of Weiss' socks to remove it. He'll do it even though he probably reads Wikipedia Review.

Posted by: WordBomb

Here's a quick tidbit for dedicated Weiss-watchers (Piperdown, I'm looking at you).

As you may recall, we figured out Weiss's link to the DTCC thanks to an inadvertent IP edit he made from a computer on that organization's network (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_St._Joseph_in_Greenwich_Village&dir=prev&limit=8&action=history). Of course he denies this in his uniquely over-the-top way, but for those who know how to read edit histories, it's really hard to come up with another realistic explanation.

Anyway, I just found another example of this sort of thing, which Weiss won't be able to deny:

Looking at the history of the article on TheStreet.com, you see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TheStreet.com&diff=320046873&oldid=320007418 by an IP address belonging to TheStreet.com.

Five minutes later, Johnnyb256 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TheStreet.com&diff=next&oldid=320046873.

Looking over the history of that article, there very few instances where two distinct editors touch the article on the same day, and with the exception of a reversion, no other instance I can immediately see where it happens within the same hour, much less five minutes. I think it's reasonable to conclude that Weiss made both edits, obviously from TheStreet.com's network.

What makes this interesting is the fact that, unlike DTCC, http://www.thestreet.com/author/1174453/GaryWeiss/all.html?page=1&perPage=20 having a professional relationship with TheSteet.com.

The only question is: if his weekly column gig didn't start until April of this year, what was Weiss doing at TheStreet.com six months earlier?

ps: for the uninitiated, it's worth pointing out that TheStreet.com is the thing a majority of skewed journalism related to illegal naked short selling has in common: they all spent time at this one place. Weiss is a perfect fit with the culture there.

Posted by: Piperdown

So we're a decade on, Herb Greenberg is still fellating hedge fund manager's stock portfolios in the media with the sad desperation of a 1973 42nd st tranny hooker, Gary Weiss is still writing moronic one-pagers in obscurity for enabling friends who are asking themselves why, Patrick Byrne is running a profitable business, Stormy Simon is still living the Secret of My Success americandream, and Jimmy Wales is still wondering why in the fuck he left porn to run Wikipedia.

Wot else is new under the sun? Nuttin.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Well, that the company is indeed making an annual profit is new. Congrats. Those are some of the thinnest profit margins I've seen in long time, but I suppose that's the nature of the overstock business itself. "Needless Markups" is going to continue to have THAT as a business model. Damn if I know how they manage to stay in business in this economic climate. But they're private so we can't exactly tell how much they're hemorrhaging, till they fall over.