Gary Weiss on the verge of a nervous breakdown Options

[WordBomb]

Wow. There's been a lot of action on this thread that I was not aware of. Somey...I think the email notification thing is broken.

Anyway, to answer some of your questions:
Neither the account nor the IPs mentioned in that sock puppet investigation were me (and if anybody can tell me what "A Ad Dieted Fir Grimy On" means, I'd be very interested to know).

Yes, WordBomb is banned.

All my oversighted edits -- the same for which I was silenced and banished -- said nothing more than what has since come to be regarded as accepted truth today. I suppose I have something in common with Galileo in that sense.

I have created several "sockpuppet" accounts, but not for the purpose of directly influencing wikipedia content. Instead, I created them in order to ensnare Weiss and his defenders, and occasionally inject some information into discussions. I currently do have an active account, which I use to make minor edits in articles that need them. I've not edited any of the four articles on probation, because I've been asked not to.

JGZ is among that startlingly commonplace breed of wikipedian who cannot feel complete without somebody to hate. Because I busted him sockpuppeting at one point, I've intermittently been that person. Because he sees the enemy of his enemy as his friend, Guy sees Gary Weiss is a natural ally. And they deserve each other.

[Milton Roe]

Neither the account nor the IPs mentioned in that sock puppet investigation were me (and if anybody can tell me what "A Ad Dieted Fir Grimy On" means, I'd be very interested to know).

Obviously an anagram, but probably of a proper name. And too long to work on with any online anagram descrambler even if not.

[CharlotteWebb]

Neither the account nor the IPs mentioned in that sock puppet investigation were me (and if anybody can tell me what "A Ad Dieted Fir Grimy On" means, I'd be very interested to know).

Obviously an anagram, but probably of a proper name. And too long to work on with any online anagram descrambler even if not.

"Into fame Gary did ride."

Well, maybe not.

[WordBomb]

Neither the account nor the IPs mentioned in that sock puppet investigation were me (and if anybody can tell me what "A Ad Dieted Fir Grimy On" means, I'd be very interested to know).

Obviously an anagram, but probably of a proper name. And too long to work on with any online anagram descrambler even if not.

"Into fame Gary did ride."

Well, maybe not.

How about (assuming it's ok to add punctuation): "A gary edited, I'd Inform"

That actually works, by the way.

[Abd]

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.

Well, that's what a wikilawyer might assert. It's not valid. Short selling is widely recognized as useful, there is no serious controversy over it. The short seller is taking major risk, bet wrong, lose big. No limit to the loss, in fact, if the price skyrockets. (Whereas, invest in stock, your potential loss is limited to the investment.) But naked short selling allows this balanced beneficial effect to be amplified many times, at least in theory. I'm not taking an overall position on this, only noting that the text is clearly pushing one side, the side that identifies Patrick Byrne as a looney-tune, and that claims that naked short selling is absolutely beneficial, good for General Bullmoose and good for America. So to speak.

Maybe it is beneficial, but that source doesn't establish it. And the reality here is that a banned editor is being allowed to push a POV, while the opposite POV is still being suppressed. I would not ban either side, but limit them to Talk and strictly enforce civility. And bring in whatever neutral resources were necessary to make sure that the article was balanced. That's what I'd do if I were in charge, so to speak. Wikipedia process, in theory, would do this. In fact, it is far from it. And that's what this case showed me, once again, in a matter of such major economic significance that leads me to the conclusion that the deficiencies in Wikipedia process just might, for me, have found an explanation, a position that is leading me into more agreement with some of the old-timers here.

Wordbomb, especially, should be unbanned, if Wikipedia cared about balance. If there is a need for behavioral control, that can be done, rather easily. Blocks, not bans. Too much to explain now how this could be done efficiently, it has to do with networking and, hey, cabals. Only the right kind of cabals, and lots of them. WordBomb, if he was going to be blocked, would be blocked by an editor sympathetic with his POV. Or *at least* by someone completely neutral, based on obviously improper behavior, which, on a Talk page, would pretty much have to be incivility or high disruption.

This is connected to my proposal to consider all who claim expertise as COI. That's counter-intuitive, until we start thinking about real editorial process (i.e., what managing editors do and what they look for in contributions from experts. Do newspapers allow experts to write the articles? Not usually, it's only with editorials that it's common. I.e., expert opinion, attributed.). I've written much more about this elsewhere.

If someone is COI, we restrict their editing on the COI topic because we expect them to have a POV. Properly, they should be allowed to advise the community, but not to control the article. But, too often, editors are blocked because they "push their POV." Which is exactly what any expert will do!

WordBomb, you are an expert on this topic, by reason of your history. It's tragic that your warnings and your commentary was banned. Wikipedia should have, if it were interested in neutrality, found a way to filter your commentary so that what was improper -- if anything! -- about it was left out, and what was important and relevant was left in. The identity of Mantanmoreland was very important, in fact, as long as he was allowed to edit the articles. It's not just COI, it's blatant POV-pushing, once his identity is known. And clearly, it worked, and clearly, it's still going on.

Wow. There's been a lot of action on this thread that I was not aware of. Somey...I think the email notification thing is broken.

Spam filter on your end?

Anyway, to answer some of your questions:
Neither the account nor the IPs mentioned in that sock puppet investigation were me (and if anybody can tell me what "A Ad Dieted Fir Grimy On" means, I'd be very interested to know).

That's fascinating. I believe you, basically because I've seen no history of lying, unlike the other fellow. What that means here is that an editor was indeffed because of POV. I think a checkuser might decide to look at this.

Yes, WordBomb is banned.

All my oversighted edits -- the same for which I was silenced and banished -- said nothing more than what has since come to be regarded as accepted truth today. I suppose I have something in common with Galileo in that sense.

Well, don't let it get to your head. Yes, that's pretty obvious. About what you said. And, sigh, about Galileo, too.

I have created several "sockpuppet" accounts, but not for the purpose of directly influencing wikipedia content. Instead, I created them in order to ensnare Weiss and his defenders, and occasionally inject some information into discussions. I currently do have an active account, which I use to make minor edits in articles that need them. I've not edited any of the four articles on probation, because I've been asked not to.

Care to say by whom? Not, I mean, identity, but class of identity, like arbitrator, administrator, other editor, or, hey, head of certain corporation, friend of yours?

But you obviously don't have to answer that. I'd ask you not to do that as well, were I In Charge. But I'd want you to comment in Talk, and that can't be done now, because the account would quickly be blocked.

JGZ is among that startlingly commonplace breed of wikipedian who cannot feel complete without somebody to hate. Because I busted him sockpuppeting at one point, I've intermittently been that person. Because he sees the enemy of his enemy as his friend, Guy sees Gary Weiss is a natural ally. And they deserve each other.

Oh, oh, oh! Dying to ask!

JzG is occasionally sane and even nice. But it's totally unreliable. He'll turn around the next minute and stab you in the back, if it serves his purposes. He's actually a pathetic figure, in the end. Yes, he and Wikipedia, as it is, deserve each other. It will drive him mad; actually, apparently, it already has.

How about (assuming it's ok to add punctuation): "A gary edited, I'd Inform"

That actually works, by the way.

Assuming you didn't make it up and weren't told, I'm seriously impressed. It does indeed work, quite well, describing the function of the account. If I had a company needing some smart help, and I had the money, I'd be asking you if you need a job.

But I don't have that. Still, good luck!

[Floydsvoid]

Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer not an accountant.

I don't get the dispute about NSS. Now I might understand short selling. If I borrow `x' amount of stock from a lender payable at a later date then I could reasonably assume he has x amount of stock in hand. If the stock goes down like I predicted then I give back to the lender x amount of shares and pocket the difference.

But in NSS if I borrow x amount of stock, the lender might not have x amount of stock on hand and in fact the total shares of stock, lent and otherwise, may exceed the total number shares? This smells of `virtual stock' and can't be a good thing, right?, much less legal?

[WordBomb]

WordBomb, you are an expert on this topic, by reason of your history. It's tragic that your warnings and your commentary was banned.

My mistake (for lack of a better word) was locking horns with SlimVirgin over matters of 'outting'. Her history with regard to her own identity, of which I was entirely unaware at the time, is long and colorful and a point of great sensitivity to her. Why she continues worrying about it, I don't know.

But a bigger problem afflicting WP is neatly encapsulated in something SlimVirgin wrote a while ago, possibly here on WR. Paraphrasing, she said "WP is great because it allows the pizza delivery driver by day to be an expert on Shakespeare by night."

I, on the other hand, would much rather have an expert on Shakespeare by day retain the same title on WP by night. Unfortunately, the culture eschews expertise. I'm quite confident that few people understand short-side stock manipulation as well as myself, Patrick Byrne and a handful of others. And yet we're barred from contributing that insight on Wikipedia, either explicitly or implicitly, as though truth is less valuable coming from one person than another.

Well, don't let it get to your head. Yes, that's pretty obvious. About what you said. And, sigh, about Galileo, too.

OK, the Galileo comparison was being a bit presumptuous. Maybe I should have gone with Harry Markopolos.

I've not edited any of the four articles on probation, because I've been asked not to.

Care to say by whom? Not, I mean, identity, but class of identity, like arbitrator, administrator, other editor, or, hey, head of certain corporation, friend of yours?

No, I'm referring to ArbCom...I suppose...either by order or by fiat. Either way, I recognize that I've been asked not to edit those four articles.

JGZ is among that startlingly commonplace breed of wikipedian who cannot feel complete without somebody to hate. Because I busted him sockpuppeting at one point, I've intermittently been that person. Because he sees the enemy of his enemy as his friend, Guy sees Gary Weiss is a natural ally. And they deserve each other.

Oh, oh, oh! Dying to ask!

Look no further than Cruftbane.

How about (assuming it's ok to add punctuation): "A gary edited, I'd Inform"

That actually works, by the way.

Assuming you didn't make it up and weren't told, I'm seriously impressed. It does indeed work, quite well, describing the function of the account.

Thanks, but I cheated, slightly. Looking at it, I immediately saw "gary" in there, as well as "edited". I took the rest of the letters and put them in an anagram solver, and "A Id inform" was one of 5000 combinations. There's probably a better solution. In fact, let that be a challenge to you all!

If I had a company needing some smart help, and I had the money, I'd be asking you if you need a job.

If you were and I did, I'd accept, based solely on your excellent ability to judge character .

[GoRight]

JGZ is among that startlingly commonplace breed of wikipedian who cannot feel complete without somebody to hate. Because I busted him sockpuppeting at one point, I've intermittently been that person. Because he sees the enemy of his enemy as his friend, Guy sees Gary Weiss is a natural ally. And they deserve each other.

Oh, this sounds interesting. Say more about this. JzG was sock puppeting? Pointers to the juicy parts, please.

UPDATE: Doh, never mind. I now see you answered Abd already.

UPDATE II: Holy crap, the moron not only forgot who he was editing as but he did it right on the evidence page of the Mantanmoreland case! So of course that sock was dumped, but who knows how many more he is using.

FINAL UPDATE: Here's the talk page discussion where he is given his pass.

This post has been edited by GoRight: Tue 6th April 2010, 2:54am

[thekohser]

Neither the account nor the IPs mentioned in that sock puppet investigation were me (and if anybody can tell me what "A Ad Dieted Fir Grimy On" means, I'd be very interested to know).

Obviously an anagram, but probably of a proper name. And too long to work on with any online anagram descrambler even if not.

He seems to be an "Edgy, finer drama idiot".

[CharlotteWebb]

Thanks, but I cheated, slightly. Looking at it, I immediately saw "gary" in there, as well as "edited". I took the rest of the letters and put them in an anagram solver, and "A Id inform" was one of 5000 combinations. There's probably a better solution. In fact, let that be a challenge to you all!

Actually after "Gary" the next name I noticed was "Moriarty" but I was unable to spell anything with the remaining letters.

The best message I've found was self-fulfilling to say the least:

Read me, idiot​​—find 'Gary'.

Or is it perhaps:

Dear idiot,

Find me.

—Gary

Oh, the possibilities.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Tue 6th April 2010, 10:25am

[WordBomb]

Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer not an accountant.

I don't get the dispute about NSS. Now I might understand short selling. If I borrow `x' amount of stock from a lender payable at a later date then I could reasonably assume he has x amount of stock in hand. If the stock goes down like I predicted then I give back to the lender x amount of shares and pocket the difference.

But in NSS if I borrow x amount of stock, the lender might not have x amount of stock on hand and in fact the total shares of stock, lent and otherwise, may exceed the total number shares? This smells of `virtual stock' and can't be a good thing, right?, much less legal?

That a market maker (a subset of stock broker/dealers whose job it is to always be available to buy or sell shares of certain companies -- ie "make a market" in those securities) is able to sell shares not immediately available in its inventory is a good thing. But it should happen rarely and only in the interest of keeping markets fluid.

What we've discovered is that the "hack" (meaning, the flaw in the system) is in options market-making, and the flawed people willing to assist would-be naked short sellers in exploiting that hack are operating in options brokerages in Chicago (precisely where Jimbo Wales made a living, pre-Wikipedia...only a coincidence, but an interesting one).

Here's how it works: the manipulator buys an equal number of at-the-money puts and calls (in huge blocks) with identical expiration dates and strike prices. This is called a perfect hedge and is a riskless investment (also most likely to be worthless, by the way). The short seller then exercises the call options, though in such quantities, the options market maker is almost certainly only able to fill the order through liberal use of "share equivalents" (virtual share IOUs). In this way, the short seller is technically selling shares long, while it's the options market maker who is (naked) short the stock.

At that point, with a huge arsenal of virtual shares, the short seller peppers the market with small quantities of these IOUs, in a manner referred to as "attacking the bid." This simulates high selling demand and price always drops in response.

In and of itself, this practice is antithetical to efficient markets, but the real problem is the false signal this price movement sends real investors, who see downward movement not related to any new information and assume it's insiders unloading shares in response to something the rest of us don't yet know. The result is more and more selling and, if the manipulator goes about it correctly, a "demoralized market" in the security.

It makes no difference what the report says, Lehman Brothers could NOT have been killed in September of 2008 by information unavailable to the market until February of 2010. Instead, Lehman was killed by a plummeting stock price, which was sparked by illegal, manipulative trading and brought to completion by millions of uninformed investors running for the exits in response to what they assumed was informed selling on the part of all the other people whom they suspected knew something everybody else did not.

All this is in my book, by the way...which better fricking be finished this year.

[Cla68]

All this is in my book, by the way...which better fricking be finished this year.

Are you going to talk about the Weiss-Wikipedia episode in your book? If so, I assume that your book could serve as a reliable source for adding information about that saga to the related articles in Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 6th April 2010, 4:22am

[WordBomb]

All this is in my book, by the way...which better fricking be finished this year.

Are you going to talk about the Weiss-Wikipedia episode in your book? If so, I assume that your book could serve as a reliable source for adding information about that saga to the related articles in Wikipedia.

I have PLENTY on this subject. In fact, it comprises the first two chapters I wrote (though these are not the first two chapters in the book...they're middlish). However, at this point the book is running a little long, and I'm coming to accept that these are going to be the first things I cut when forced.

Of course this means I'll have to find another venue to publish some of the SV Wikistalking list emails in my possession...including the one from 2007 in which David Gerard, Jimbo, Mantanmoreland and Samiharris successfully work out among themselves how to confuse AP reporter Paul Foy out of writing a story about the banning of my entire neighborhood and Overstock.com.

I sent that particular email to Mr. Foy a few weeks ago, by the way.

Say, did anybody notice this story today?

[EricBarbour]

Say, did anybody notice this story today?

"Hedge fund towel boy". Heh heh. Nice.

Do a good job on your book. Be careful about documenting everything.
Horse will need some references for his book.

[Cla68]

All this is in my book, by the way...which better fricking be finished this year.

Are you going to talk about the Weiss-Wikipedia episode in your book? If so, I assume that your book could serve as a reliable source for adding information about that saga to the related articles in Wikipedia.

I have PLENTY on this subject. In fact, it comprises the first two chapters I wrote (though these are not the first two chapters in the book...they're middlish). However, at this point the book is running a little long, and I'm coming to accept that these are going to be the first things I cut when forced.

Of course this means I'll have to find another venue to publish some of the SV Wikistalking list emails in my possession...including the one from 2007 in which David Gerard, Jimbo, Mantanmoreland and Samiharris successfully work out among themselves how to confuse AP reporter Paul Foy out of writing a story about the banning of my entire neighborhood and Overstock.com.

I sent that particular email to Mr. Foy a few weeks ago, by the way.

Say, did anybody notice this story today?

I can't wait to see how Weiss' latest sock(s) reacts the first time someone uses your book as a source for information in the NSS (or Weiss!) articles.

[Floydsvoid]

Here's how it works: the manipulator buys ...

Wow! Thanks for the clear and understandable explanation.

It just seems kinda sad that the brightest minds in the financial sector spend their energy finding "hacks" in the system for short term gains rather than sustainable growth into the future. Live for the quarter, die later for the lack of two bits.

[written by he who wrote it]

<snip>

I can't wait to see how Weiss' latest sock(s) reacts the first time someone uses your book as a source for information in the NSS (or Weiss!) articles.

There's a script, which I'm sure you know: a not-canvassed-at-all-no-sir chorus will descend on the page, all singing some variation on the theme of "UNRELIABLE SOURCE! ATTACK PAGE! BANNED USER!". The text will be tossed down the memory hole and an admin who is entirely uninvolved -- entirely, I assure you -- will protect the page, perhaps toss out a few blocks.

I could be wrong. Certainly most of Gary's dupes have realized by now that they were duped; maybe they'll be ready to admit it, or at least to abandon their positions quietly.

[The Adversary]

-- will protect the page, perhaps toss out a few blocks.

..for three months, no less, with all puffery intact.

[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. 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.

Mr. Greensleeves has decided this goes better here in this thread.

Whose sock is this,
Whose ban indef,
On ArbComm’s rep is resting?
Whose short-sell lore has been seen before,
And checkusers now are questing?

This, this is Mantanmoreland,
Whom Wordbomb tracked and Fran Rogers banned:
This, this is Mantanmoreland,
This boob, this Weiss named Gary…

[EricBarbour]

Whose sock is this,
Whose ban indef,
On ArbComm’s rep is resting?
Whose short-sell lore has been seen before,
And checkusers now are questing?

This, this is Mantanmoreland,
Whom Wordbomb tracked and Fran Rogers banned:
This, this is Mantanmoreland,
This boob, this Weiss named Gary…