Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samiharris, One editor is using "open proxies" Options

I think people should certainly research the Gary Weiss / Mantamoreland relationship themselves, free from Wordbomb's claims:[list=1]
...

Wikipedia had better wake up to their previous failings quick. If they don't, it'll keep hitting them in the face harder and harder each time.

I think that was useful to help take stock of the situation. It is clear that as WR has matured, that the wheat is outweighing the chaff (as Wikback has put it) and we are being heard. We are also being watched, so constructive comments to aid the investigation, put forward in an impersonal manner allow those involved at Wikipedia to act, whereas rants are likely to embarrass those who are effectively making our case for us.

My point is that it is really important not to give the likes of Guy any excuses. He has been attacked often enough by WR so that I can quite understand why he would not want to listen to anything he perceives as coming from this source, but at some point he needs to get the message that defending the indefensible is far more damaging than opposing WR/WB as a matter of principle.

This may simply be another campaign in the battle, but every time around, the socking becomes more and more transparent. I think Gary can be left to being the cause of his own destruction. I don't think WB needs any more dubious tactics. Even if this round fails, it sets the scene so that the next time some innocent comes to sort out the disputed articles, any dubious tactics will be called.

The one thing I cannot get my head around is that I sort of understand why WordBomb is fixated with this: we all get motivated by some injustice and it is very difficult to let go, especially in the face of organised deafness, but I do not understand what Gary Weiss would get out of these many years of effort to maintain a point of view on the relatively unimportant platform of a Wikipedia article, which can be readily dismissed as the ravings of an attack site. I mean, if the guy is into all this dubious share dealing, surely he has lots of money and better things to do with his time? Now that is an unhealthy obsession.

Maybe it's just a hobby.

Maybe he just likes the drama like me :-)

I think people should certainly research the Gary Weiss / Mantamoreland relationship themselves, free from Wordbomb's claims:[list=1]
...

Wikipedia had better wake up to their previous failings quick. If they don't, it'll keep hitting them in the face harder and harder each time.

I think that was useful to help take stock of the situation. It is clear that as WR has matured, that the wheat is outweighing the chaff (as Wikback has put it) and we are being heard. We are also being watched, so constructive comments to aid the investigation, put forward in an impersonal manner allow those involved at Wikipedia to act, whereas rants are likely to embarrass those who are effectively making our case for us.

My point is that it is really important not to give the likes of Guy any excuses. He has been attacked often enough by WR so that I can quite understand why he would not want to listen to anything he perceives as coming from this source, but at some point he needs to get the message that defending the indefensible is far more damaging than opposing WR/WB as a matter of principle.

This may simply be another campaign in the battle, but every time around, the socking becomes more and more transparent. I think Gary can be left to being the cause of his own destruction. I don't think WB needs any more dubious tactics. Even if this round fails, it sets the scene so that the next time some innocent comes to sort out the disputed articles, any dubious tactics will be called.

The one thing I cannot get my head around is that I sort of understand why WordBomb is fixated with this: we all get motivated by some injustice and it is very difficult to let go, especially in the face of organised deafness, but I do not understand what Gary Weiss would get out of these many years of effort to maintain a point of view on the relatively unimportant platform of a Wikipedia article, which can be readily dismissed as the ravings of an attack site. I mean, if the guy is into all this dubious share dealing, surely he has lots of money and better things to do with his time? Now that is an unhealthy obsession.

Excellent post. I did not take WR very seriously in the past, and I stand behind that. But things change. I still think there is a fair bit of chaff here (you need a pretty good filter) but the wheat is on the increase and it's more worth being here than before, to learn and listen (and perhaps to offer information that might be helpful in clearing misconceptions).

But I think if WordBomb was socking in regard to this matter, as now seems increasingly likely, it undercuts the specific message because it gives reason to some to dismiss it... it also undercuts taking the rest of WR's wheat seriously because it gives ammo to those that say it's all chaff...

That strikes me as unfortunate, except if the goal is purely to be disruptive rather than to effect change.

I might just go digg up those diffs where "both" Gary's had the exact same hysterical reaction during separate talk page threads.

When I think about WR, I quote myself. Here's a part of the sock show as promised. On top of Bomb already showing us "both" post from the same Verizon IP when theyre not proxying.

Modus operandi - blank a well-sourced edit to provoke. Revert the revert with sock in a rigged 3RR game. Claim that you hate involved people. When stink raised, use passive-agressive "don't be so crazy-angry" retort.

:If it will calm you down, go ahead and revert the link or article from a reporter that you clearly despise. I don't want to keep you up nights about this.--[[User:Samiharris|Samiharris]] 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=143888418

Piperdown, your comments are not only wildly off-base, but they are off-base in the wrong place. The place to be off-base about naked short selling is in the talk page of naked short selling. If you're going to have a nervous breakdown concerning one paragraph of that article, please do it there so that other editors can read your comments.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

re: "If you're going to have a nervous breakdown" Nice. That's just special. I'll post on my talk page in response to posts on it as I please. Thanks for the advise and personal attack. Piperdown 04:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

re: "The place to be off-base about naked short selling". Great. Now there's a fantasticly productive slant on my edits. And they say that wikipedia article watch dogs aren't receptive to well sourced input.Piperdown 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piperdown

But I think if WordBomb was socking in regard to this matter, as now seems increasingly likely, it undercuts the specific message because it gives reason to some to dismiss it... it also undercuts taking the rest of WR's wheat seriously because it gives ammo to those that say it's all chaff...

That strikes me as unfortunate, except if the goal is purely to be disruptive rather than to effect change.

I think many here will have the perspective that, if it is agreed that there has been something going wrong for a long time, it puts WordBomb's activities in a different light.

There are a few things that, viewing from the real world, I do not really grasp what WordBomb has done to be equated with a multiple victim axe murderer. I am unsure what is fact in amongst all the hyperbole, and not very interested in what are clearly some pretty unpleasant goings on the real world - Gary's blog is at best described as embarrassingly unprofessional.

What specific damage has been done to the content of Wikipedia? If there has been a deliberate manipulation by Gary Weiss, what heinous crime has WordBomb done in outing the COI? (I really do not subscribe to the WikiBelief that the revelation of identities is a hideous crime when this anonymity is used as an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia). Given the invective outside of Wikipedia, it is not surprising that things have spilled over onto Wikipedia, and it takes a cool head to separate out what is a very personal and unpleasant battle, and the real meat that is about the core values that should govern Wikipedia.

Wikipedia needs to keep a perspective about itself. When you are involved, it does seem very important, and I think on of our concerns is that it is potentially a very influential medium, but in the end, the social drama has become far too strong.

So, go back and look at the issue with a fresh pair of eyes. If we put history behind us and consider what is best for the future, what is important? I' d suggest showing that the administrators can set aside personal history and come to a decision based on reason would be a big win. If there is someone on Wikipedia who is deliberately conducting a campaign against a real world person, then that needs to be dealt with. Then, a signal is sent that nobody enjoys the protection of an in group of editors, perhaps including members of that in group.

I'd like to think that Wikipedia could get its own house in order, and one of the most important attitude changes to achieving this is to get rid of the cult of "respected admins" who do not command that respect in knowing community. There are a lot less trolls out there than Wikipedia believes.

Excellent post. I did not take WR very seriously in the past, and I stand behind that. But things change.

Indeed, when I first discovered WR, it was dominated by a group of fist-shakers, many of which were banned from WP for good reason, and most of these were eventually banned from this site for similarly good reasons. But this was Miami to Wikipedia's Havana, and the only gathering place for the growing community of exiles. Over time the ratio of principled wheat to chaff has grown enormously.

If the Wikipedia phenomenon is a testament to the deep human need to find others with similar affinities, collaborate, be heard and (most importantly) be understood, Wikipedia Review is a testament to the fact that Wikipedia is failing in at least the final two items on that list.

But I think if WordBomb was socking in regard to this matter, as now seems increasingly likely, it undercuts the specific message because it gives reason to some to dismiss it... it also undercuts taking the rest of WR's wheat seriously because it gives ammo to those that say it's all chaff...

I'm not interested in veering off into semantics, because I think we have much more in common than not, but I want to clarify one thing: a sockpuppet is, by definition, an alternate identity used to give the false impression of more support for an issue than really exists.

Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are sockpuppets.

I, on the other hand, have never used more than one identity at the same time pretending to be different people in order to influence content or policy. I have, on the other hand, created many identities in order to inject information onto Wikipedia for the express purpose of raising awareness of what I feel are activities that history will undoubtedly judge to run contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and the people who reference it.

I will admit to committing precisely one act of vandalism. It was a moment of comedic weakness for which I have already begged forgiveness.

Finally, I feel quite confident that as the true nature of my activities, as well as those of the WP "establishment" come to light, it will be made abundantly clear who was acting reasonably and who was not.

This is precisely the reason I do not believe this matter will be given an ArbCom or other structured hearing: it will prove deeply embarrassing to too many powerful people.

Finally, if you have not yet, I encourage you to read this story to get a deeper understanding of what's motivating me, and why it makes sense for you to be squarely on "my side".

This post has been edited by WordBomb: Thu 7th February 2008, 7:17pm

[*]Take a look at the blog postings from Gary Weiss about Wikipedia.
This isn't some amused or irritated by-stander commenting. This is someone with a good understanding of the inner workings of the dispute. Reading Weiss's postings, it looks to me like someone who is personally involved in Wikipedia, and the Wordbomb / Mantanmoreland dispute. In other words, Judd is Wordbomb, Weiss is Mantanmoreland. Take a look at this blog post by Weiss for example : He just knows too much...

You'll find this interesting...as it turns out, Weiss often quietly edits his blog posts over time. Cataloging these changes has been very instructive. Here's one of my favorites:
In his post “Bagley's Cover Story Falls Apart” published on February 8, 2007, Weiss's original penultimate paragraph read:

Byrne's "investigative reporter" made no effort to contact me about this absolute crap, and a flat-out denial by DTCC's general counsel was disregarded by Bagley. (He didn't even pretend to have contacted me.)

The next morning, he changed that paragraph (changes in red) to read:

Byrne's "investigative reporter" made no effort to contact me about this absolute crap, and a flat-out denial by DTCC's general counsel was, of course, disregarded. Bagley didn't even pretend to have contacted me, not that it would have prevented him from publishing his smears -- just as Wikipedia's denial, and mine, has never prevented him from repeating, again and again, his malicious lie that I have edited Wikipedia.

The next day he thought better of it and changed the paragraph to read:

Bagley didn't even pretend to have contacted me, not that it would have prevented him from publishing his smears.

Please let this sink in...despite all the evidence to the contrary that you've correctly cited, for 24 hours and 42 minutes, Weiss's position was that he had never edited Wikipedia. Ever.

Does that offer some insights as to the mindset of this fellow?

my insight into his mindset was looking at him talk to himself as LastExit/Mantanmoreland, forgettig to change a login from TomStoner to MM (why does NO ONE ADDRESS THAT? it even got noticed on talk pages by admins like LessHeardVanU), and his PLUGGING OF HIS OWN BOOK throughout WP articles.

That he edited from a DTCC computer on Christmas Day 2006 is just a weird bizarre event that is beyond even my concept of what that account and the guy(s) behind it are up to.

Even if Werd was off about MM/sami being GW, and not just some DTCC lackey who lives in a similar IP area (which Werd is not wrong about), then the accounts should be banned,regardless of who is behind them.

Slimmy likes to quote my WR work on WP. How bout this.
-----------

[[User:Lastexit]]
* "This user is an alternate account of another Wikipedian. This template confirms that the user is familiar with Wikipedia policy on using multiple accounts and will not use this account for sock puppetry."

* "I am the uncle of another Wikipedian" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lastexit ]

* 5 hours in wikicareer, 4/22/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=49637513]

* Ceases editing articles (Byrne article last edit) 7/25/06 after sockpuppet incident put on user page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...target=Lastexit]


[[User:Mantanmoreland]]
* "Editor is nephew of [[User:Lastexit|Lastexit]].'''--[[User:Mantanmoreland|Mantanmoreland]] 28 July 2006" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=66272530 ], "uncle" & "nephew" use Wiki talk pages to discuss "collaborative" editing of same stock market issue page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lastexit]

* Warned by Fred Bauder for voting twice via sockpuppet in Julian Robertson related AfD[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=66185496], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Josie_Robertson ], Note: Julian Robertson sued Gary Weiss[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=next&oldid=83314474 ]

* "Acting like two people: You are welcome to edit with more than one account, but not to act like you are two people. This sort of edit [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62596208] is unacceptable. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:14, 23 July 2006 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=65447037]

* " I am at work on a project concerning stock fraud and short-selling." 4/30/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50254637]

* IP edit flurry, [[naked shorting]], 1/27/06-1/28/06, ending 15:19 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/70.23.85.112], username born, first post continues flurry with similar editing style 16:48 1/28/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=Mantanmoreland]

* Created this bio 4/13/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=48341962]

* "My professional interests mainly revolve around the securities industry and trading issues" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=57191552]

* "This user has been stalked by Judd Bagley" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=97347322], admin endorsement [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99531565], revert another editors BLP vio correction [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122194042], "This user has been stalked by an official of Overstock.com" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122207209], Initials JB in userbox [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122207209]

* "If you're going to have a nervous breakdown..." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=117194609]

* Article byline from India town [ http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2006/10/17/..._1017weiss.html], edit to same town's wikipedia entry, months before [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53762562]

* DTCC IP sandwich[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history]

* Forgets to switch account back, edits TomStoner post as his own [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=43586904 ]


[[User:Tomstoner]]

* TomStoner's first post topics: India, Naked Shorting, Patrick Byrne [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...arget=Tomstoner ]

* Ceases editing 7/22/06 3 days before Lastexit last article edit[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=...oner&namespace= ]

This post has been edited by Piperdown: Thu 7th February 2008, 5:56pm

I find your vandalism… …both hilarious, and dryly (not sure if this was intentional) parodical of the sort of he-said-she-said writing which mars Wikipedia's miserable "criticism" and "controversy" sections - sadly, in most cases, these aren't considered vandalism (occasionally they can be appropriate, but in most cases they only reflect the desire of Wikipedians themselves to debate in mainspace.)

This post has been edited by gomi: Thu 7th February 2008, 7:09pm

But this was Miami to Wikipedia's Havana, and the only gathering place for the growing community of exiles.

It is? Then where are the cigars and mojitos??

Over time the ratio of principled wheat to chaff has grown enormously.

True.

If the Wikipedia phenomenon is a testament to the deep human need to find others with similar affinities, collaborate, be heard and (most importantly) be understood, Wikipedia Review is a testament to the fact that Wikipedia is failing in at least the final two items on that list.

True.

'm not interested in veering off into semantics, because I think we have much more in common than not, but I want to clarify one thing: a sockpuppet is, by definition, an alternate identity used to five the false impression of more support for an issue than really exists.

Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are sockpuppets.

Well, it is a bit worse than that. Sockpuppets aren't illegal, and are actually legal per the rules. But the rules are applied at-will and at the behest of the momentary beholder.

This is precisely the reason I do not believe this matter will be given an ArbCom or other structured hearing: it will prove deeply embarrassing to too many powerful people.

I don't think an Arbcom session would do much good. They'd collude and no one would care much, I'm sorry to say.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 7th February 2008, 7:03pm

I'm not interested in veering off into semantics, because I think we have much more in common than not, but I want to clarify one thing: a sockpuppet is, by definition, an alternate identity used to five the false impression of more support for an issue than really exists.

Classically, yes, but it's also commonly used for new accounts evading bans. Though sloppily, for as you observe, it's a different concept. I can't see anything morally wrong with ban evasion in itself - there's no eleventh commandment to this effect, and neither administrators nor the Arbitration Committee (obviously) have, or are expected to have, the moral stature to speak ex cathedra. Ultimately, Wikipedia has only its own interface to blame - mo matter what anyone says on wiki, banned editors are extended the same invitation to create an account and begin editing as anyone else.

What makes it morally problematic is that ban evaders have a strong motive to deny being who they are - again no breach of ethics just yet, but this can easily (and reflexively) lead to bearing false witness against one's accusers ("He/she's only saying I'm so-and-so to get rid of anyone who opposes his/her POV!) - there I draw the line, where contempt for a system that has well earned it becomes dishonesty.

Classically, yes, but it's also commonly used for new accounts evading bans. Though sloppily, for as you observe, it's a different concept. I can't see anything morally wrong with ban evasion in itself - there's no eleventh commandment to this effect, and neither administrators nor the Arbitration Committee (obviously) have, or are expected to have, the moral stature to speak ex cathedra. Ultimately, Wikipedia has only its own interface to blame - mo matter what anyone says on wiki, banned editors are extended the same invitation to create an account and begin editing as anyone else.

True.

What makes it morally problematic is that ban evaders have a strong motive to deny being who they are - again no breach of ethics just yet, but this can easily (and reflexively) lead to bearing false witness against one's accusers ("He/she's only saying I'm so-and-so to get rid of anyone who opposes his/her POV!) - there I draw the line, where contempt for a system that has well earned it becomes dishonesty.

True. It's a mess all around.

But the rules are applied at-will and at the behest of the momentary beholder.

What's not widely appreciated is that the damage this does to the system's credibility arguably outweighs, or at least weighs significantly against, the benefits of flexibility. The system architecture guarantees that the balance of compliance is voluntary. This won't happen if the system isn't worthy of respect, and certainly won't happen when it provokes people on the way out the door (as it invariably does, since there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.)

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Thu 7th February 2008, 7:12pm

... there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.

That is a really useful point to capture. I'm involved in a number of voluntary groups and there are two people that are incredibly disruptive to deal with: the nice but incompetent, and the domineering damager.

The first drives everyone to distraction, but nobody has the heart to tell them to either sling their hook or stop being "helpful". The latter tends to drive others away because it is too nasty to deal with, and people do not want that in a friendly volunteer organisation.

The latter are the worst to deal with, the incompetent you can work around, as long as they don't get too offended when you do something yourself when it was their job, and often they bring other things to the party, if only cakes on their birthday.

The mop and bucket brigade are there to deal primarily with the former, unfortunately a significant number of them are the later.

Given that face to face we cannot deal with this issues well, it is perhaps not surprising that Wikipedia hasn't got a good solution either.

... there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.

I think you maid (sic) an unintentional joke, on what should have been "discreet".

They are acutally quite discrete. Not discreet.

What's not widely appreciated is that the damage this does to the system's credibility arguably outweighs, or at least weighs significantly against, the benefits of flexibility.

Yes. At present, the "flexibility" just means that admins (or gangs) can change rules at will. Arbcom confirms their decisions. There's no due process. Just a sham kangaroo sort of one.

In most legit organizations, you have professional management which can bend rules. In Wikipedia, there's one guy who can do anything on the planet, and he lets the kids run the shop as thanks for the free work. It's quite scary.

I think you maid (sic) an unintentional joke, on what should have been "discreet".

Unintentional it was; apologies:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none

Yes. At present, the "flexibility" just means that admins (or gangs) can change rules at will. Arbcom confirms their decisions. There's no due process. Just a sham kangaroo sort of one.

Right. But that doesn't help them any when their rulings are ignored, or when they're stuck wondering why so many of their ex-volunteers hate them. It's not normal, is it, for any business, much less a volunteer enterprise, to have ex-workers hanging about the shop and vandalizing it or picketing on the sidewalk. Most would at least entertain the possibility that they might be doing something wrong, something other enterprises wisely refrain from doing.

What kind of business, for example, dismisses its employees by hauling them before their coworkers, announcing why they suck, inviting soon-to-be ex-colleagues to list everything they don't like about them, then posts it on the web? That's not a principled management decision, but, like so many other things that are wrong with Wikipedia, an unexamined and uncorrected consequence of the interface.

This post has been edited by Herschelkrustofsky: Thu 7th February 2008, 10:47pm

Right. But that doesn't help them any when their rulings are ignored, or when they're stuck wondering why so many of their ex-volunteers hate them. It's not normal, is it, for any business, much less a volunteer enterprise, to have ex-workers hanging about the shop and vandalizing it or picketing on the sidewalk. Most would at least entertain the possibility that they might be doing something wrong, something other enterprises wisely refrain from doing.

Disgruntled dismissed employees do all kinds of weird things, which is usually why they are often walked to the door by guards. To prevent damage done in anger.

More recently web retaliation is a means of payback.

What kind of business, for example, dismisses its employees by hauling them before their coworkers, announcing why they suck, inviting soon-to-be ex-colleagues to list everything they don't like about them, then posts it on the web?

Well, Florence Devouard did it to Danny Wool, but that's Wikipedia. Most companies don't do it online, quite in Wikipedia fashion. However, they do equally crappy things like announcing it to the press before telling the person (Lee Iaccoca), or generally being nasty (Carly Fiorina), and there's many other examples of how execs get mistreated. Not to mention middle management or regular employees.

Wikipedia's use of 14 year olds to attack is pretty much a Wikipedia specialty, I must say.

Wikipedia is routinely damaging to people for very small petty situations.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 7th February 2008, 8:01pm

Wikipedia is routinely damaging to people for very small petty situations.

It's human nature to enjoy a feeling of power, which finds its evidence in others' distress. What's usually missing (for good reason) is a social framework in which sadistically-motivated aggression is acceptable. Wikipedia hands people that framework on a platter: while the mantra is "comment on content, not contributors," every mechanism provided to resolve disputes mandates exactly the opposite. Thusly does tearing others down become indistinguishable from defending the integrity of the project.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Thu 7th February 2008, 9:54pm

Once again, Cla68 knocks one out of the park:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189838908

The crux of the issue

I believe that not going to the heart of this issue and opening it up for full discussion will only cause unnecessary delay, because the issue will keep coming up. The crux is, speaking of duck is a duck, that why don't we discuss who Mantanmoreland/Samiharris really is? We are allowed to do so because of the obvious COI issues involved.

I read somewhere that before Essjay was "outed", the fact that he was a phony was one of the biggest open secrets in Wikipedia. That it was obvious that this young guy who showed up at meetups wasn't who he said he was was known to a great many project participants. But, Wikipedians chose to ignore it or look the other way because it was obvious that Jimbo and other influential Wikipedians liked Essjay.

We have a similar situation here. The identity of the person behind Mantanmoreland/Samiharris is an open secret in Wikipedia. We don't even need Bagley's evidence to conclude that. We can look at those account's edit histories. They have the same interests in the same subjects. They've been caught socking before. They're fanatic about protecting the Gary Weiss article. Then we can look at Weiss' blog. It's obvious that Weiss is greatly interested in the same topics that those accounts are interested in. He stated in The Register article that he has never edited Wikipedia. But, his blog posts show that he has detailed knowledge of how Wikipedia works. He has also discussed Bagley's/WordBomb's involvement with Wikipedia, but has never mentioned Mantanmoreland's editing of the same subjects and his protection of the Weiss bio.

In past discussions, Jimbo has made it clear that he is aware of the situation. For example, he oversighted the AfD I initiated on the Weiss article almost a year ago. He told admins to "shoot on sight" on the Weiss discussion page after I tried to start an RfC on the article's content. The fact that Jimbo has called for people on one side of the issue, like me, to be blocked but not on the other side in spite of the serious black eye that this episode has given the project, sends a clear message. Just like with Essjay, people are nervous about taking decisive action because they're unsure whether they'll be supported by the project's leadership or not.

Well, if no direct action is taken, this issue will continue to fester and continue to demand we spend hours spinning our wheels trying to deal with it. One side of the issue, Bagley, has been banned. The other side, and we know who that is, continues to operate here in bad faith. Until the remaining antagonist is dealt with appropriately, the problem continues. Is anyone willing to step up, risk taking some heat, and resolve the matter for once and for all? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

why's pouponontoast so interested in defending gary weiss?

The only connection between them is poupon supposedly uses proxies/tor and one of gary weiss's accounts were found to use proxies.

I thought the user:hypocrite guy who poupon used to be was just some mongo buddy trying to hide the 9/11 truth, not into naked short selling and stuff. I mean the guy isnt gary weiss... right?

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar: Fri 8th February 2008, 3:08pm