FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) JohnnyB256 is gone -
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
There is already a thread 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 JohnnyB256 was the latest reincarnation of Weiss/Mantanmoreland, although it's not stated that way, instead identifying private evidence as the reason for the block. 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?
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 28th December 2009, 10:21pm)
- Why did Weiss react the way he did when I posted the Robertson lawsuit article? ... Weiss should have ignored the article.
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.
QUOTE
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?
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 29th December 2009, 4:21am)
- 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'.)
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined:
Member No.: 309
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 28th December 2009, 9:21pm)
- 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?
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.
A less obvious but quite likely sock is Beganlocal, while a darkhorse outside possibility is 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, including three just today). 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.
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.
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Tue 29th December 2009, 11:55am)
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.
I don't understand how Larry Bergman's block "ties" the account to WordBomb.
QUOTE
17:07, 28 December 2009 SirFozzie (talk | contribs) blocked Larry Bergman (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Block evasion)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined:
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Mon 28th December 2009, 10:21pm)
- 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?
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 is a major indicator. 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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined:
Member No.: 309
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 29th December 2009, 10:00am)
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Tue 29th December 2009, 11:55am)
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.
I don't understand how Larry Bergman's block "ties" the account to WordBomb.
QUOTE
17:07, 28 December 2009 SirFozzie (talk | contribs) blocked Larry Bergman (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Block evasion)
Look here: {{Blockedsock|WordBomb}} Yet there's some reticence to label JohnnyB a Mantanmoreland sock. But it might just be an oversight. Let us hope.
QUOTE(Cedric @ Tue 29th December 2009, 10:04am)
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 is a major indicator. 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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined:
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Tue 29th December 2009, 11:11am)
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.
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.
Greed on aisle 6 By sending its CEO packing, Home Depot revealed once again why huge executive salaries are a scam. By Gary Weiss
…I call it the Falk/Reles Theorem of Executive Compensation. This was set forth not in an academic paper but in a really great 1960 movie, "Murder Inc.," starring Peter Falk as the mob killer Abe Reles. …
Stetsonharry has made 95 edits to Murder, Inc. (film) and 80 edits to Peter Falk, two of his top four frequently edited pages.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(tarantino @ Tue 29th December 2009, 9:07pm)
QUOTE
Greed on aisle 6 By sending its CEO packing, Home Depot revealed once again why huge executive salaries are a scam. By Gary Weiss…
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
QUOTE(Cedric @ Tue 29th December 2009, 6:05pm)
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Tue 29th December 2009, 11:11am)
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.
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(One @ Tue 29th December 2009, 6:53am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 29th December 2009, 4:21am)
- 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'.)
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.
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.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,553
Joined:
Member No.: 4,284
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 30th December 2009, 8:01am)
I have 12 solid, independent, unarguably reliable sources listed in that article which discuss these points.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(One @ Wed 30th December 2009, 8:33am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 30th December 2009, 8:01am)
I have 12 solid, independent, unarguably reliable sources listed in that article which discuss these points.
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."
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.
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 shot 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.
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).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined:
Member No.: 309
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 29th December 2009, 11:42pm)
This one is likely GW--> User:Patchyreynolds Kept in the hip pocket for periodic sleeper cell-ing.
What makes you suspect Patchyreynolds? Without looking at any of his contribs, I'm doubtful only because his first edit is logged six months before Weiss's.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Wed 30th December 2009, 3:38pm)
Of course. And yes..."Tamoshanter" is Gary Weiss.
Well, I'm just sorry that the WP folks finally twigged to the JohnnyB256Â (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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
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.
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Wed 30th December 2009, 4:40pm)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 29th December 2009, 11:42pm)
This one is likely GW--> User:Patchyreynolds Kept in the hip pocket for periodic sleeper cell-ing.
What makes you suspect Patchyreynolds? Without looking at any of his contribs, I'm doubtful only because his first edit is logged six months before Weiss's.
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.
Greed on aisle 6 By sending its CEO packing, Home Depot revealed once again why huge executive salaries are a scam. By Gary Weiss
…I call it the Falk/Reles Theorem of Executive Compensation. This was set forth not in an academic paper but in a really great 1960 movie, "Murder Inc.," starring Peter Falk as the mob killer Abe Reles. …
Stetsonharry has made 95 edits to Murder, Inc. (film) and 80 edits to Peter Falk, two of his top four frequently edited pages.
So a Checkuser of Stetsonharry is in order then. The film noir thing always trips him up. Has that CU occurred yet?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined:
Member No.: 309
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Wed 30th December 2009, 7:41pm)
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 613
Joined:
From: Hell, Your Majesty...
Member No.: 15,578
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Thu 31st December 2009, 3:35am)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Wed 30th December 2009, 7:41pm)
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.
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined:
Member No.: 194
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:Req.../Mantanmoreland
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Sun 3rd January 2010, 9:49am)
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:Req.../Mantanmoreland
user:Stetsonharry only has two edits before May, 2008, neither one substantial. Perhaps you mean 2009?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Sun 3rd January 2010, 11:49am)
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:Req.../Mantanmoreland
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 4th January 2010, 2:24am)
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Sun 3rd January 2010, 11:49am)
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:Req.../Mantanmoreland
Bingo. Oops, Gary. Looks like you sabotaged your attempt to present that account as unrelated until you needed it, such as now. Did you forget which account you were using when you made that edit?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 513
Joined:
Member No.: 309
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 3rd January 2010, 9:39pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 4th January 2010, 2:24am)
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Sun 3rd January 2010, 11:49am)
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:Req.../Mantanmoreland
Bingo. Oops, Gary. Looks like you sabotaged your attempt to present that account as unrelated until you needed it, such as now. Did you forget which account you were using when you made that edit?
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 his many sockpuppets do.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(WordBomb @ Mon 4th January 2010, 4:45am)
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 3rd January 2010, 9:39pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 4th January 2010, 2:24am)
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Sun 3rd January 2010, 11:49am)
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:Req.../Mantanmoreland
Bingo. Oops, Gary. Looks like you sabotaged your attempt to present that account as unrelated until you needed it, such as now. Did you forget which account you were using when you made that edit?
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 his many sockpuppets do.
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
QUOTE
The tip eventually turned into a story authored by Metz telling of a possible conspiracy involving online encyclopedia Wikipedia to discredit Byrne and his naked short selling campaign. Metz also linked Gary Weiss, an author and former Business Week senior writer turned blogger, to the Wikiduggery.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 801
Joined:
Member No.: 194
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 4th January 2010, 3:24am)
QUOTE(The Adversary @ Sun 3rd January 2010, 11:49am)
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:Req.../Mantanmoreland
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,613
Joined:
Member No.: 2,995
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 5th January 2010, 3:10am)
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.
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 5th January 2010, 12:07am)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 5th January 2010, 3:10am)
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 5th January 2010, 4:10am)
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.
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.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
QUOTE(everyking @ Tue 5th January 2010, 5:46am)
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Tue 5th January 2010, 4:10am)
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.
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.
Well, that's done. Good job Alison, Lar, and Seddon.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 111
Joined:
Member No.: 10,394
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.
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
JohnnyB256 is gone, Mantanmoreland reincarnated
