Overstock vs. Wikipedia, She kidnapped herself Options

Starting new thread where we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right.

Come on, we've got accusers putting together cute little charts and graphs and submitting them as "evidence", self-appointed do-gooders poring over edit histories, investigating trips to India, stuff that would make Durova herself embarrassed to admit to.

On the other hand we have Overstock.com, a company that, as ED might say, is full of fail.

Some "evidence": http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=OSTK&t=2y

If we must play amateur sleuth, or follow the money, or do whatever it is that investigative web forum participants are supposed to be doing, shouldn't we consider the possibility that Overstock.com, a multimillion dollar company with a financial interest in discrediting Wikipedia, is behind some of this drama?

Look again at the timing of this story and Wordbomb's latest crusade vs. the stock price of OSTK. It's no wonder they feel like Wall Street doesn't like them. The company clearly has nothing to offer its investors except excuses.

How can ArbCom be right when they haven't really said anything at all?

What exactly are they right about?

This post has been edited by One:

It's OK, Emperor's just an idiot.

The company clearly has nothing to offer its investors except excuses.

Supposing that's true, how does it in any way bear on the fact that Mantanmoreland has been abusively socking Wikipedia? And how would it abrogate our obligation to write from a neutral point of view, or to avoid using Wikipedia as an attack platform against living persons?

Moderator's note: Moved to appropriate forum

It's OK, Emperor's just an idiot.

Emperor may or may not be an idiot, but he's entitled to his opinion. I'd like to engage him a bit here, but I tend to not talk about Overstock.com in settings like this -- particularly on topics relating to share price.

However, if I were going to engage in this conversation, I'd likely do so by first repeating my earlier request that he do something as simple as back up his comments with something.

Personally I think Emperor is just here for the purpose of stirring shit up for the sake of it, but anyway. He asks whether "we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right". Right about what? The only thing they are right about is that Wordbomb and Piperdown are in some way connected to Overstock, and this is something they freely admit to. The Arbcom is still stating they are not sure that Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are Gary Weiss. Are they right about that? Obviously not.

Personally I think Emperor is just here for the purpose of stirring shit up for the sake of it, but anyway. He asks whether "we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right". Right about what? The only thing they are right about is that Wordbomb and Piperdown are in some way connected to Overstock, and this is something they freely admit to. The Arbcom is still stating they are not sure that Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are Gary Weiss. Are they right about that? Obviously not.

And if they said that much they were wrong. I don't believe Piperdown has any connection to Overstock.com. I got the impression he was an investor in another company attacked by the naked shorts, and his interest in the subject and familiarity with Overstock.com are based only on Overstock's status as illegal NSS poster child and Patrick Byrne as the primary anti-NSS standard bearer.

But to your larger point, I tend to agree that Emperor is probably a kid who enjoys anonymously lobbing grenades to spark flame wars.

And who hasn't done that before?

(before 1996, that is)

Do you mean right about the proposed finding of fact? Because they did not take any position, they voted on a representation of the community position in that regard.

Starting new thread where we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right.

Come on, we've got accusers putting together cute little charts and graphs and submitting them as "evidence", self-appointed do-gooders poring over edit histories, investigating trips to India, stuff that would make Durova herself embarrassed to admit to.

On the other hand we have Overstock.com, a company that, as ED might say, is full of fail.

Some "evidence": http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=OSTK&t=2y

If we must play amateur sleuth, or follow the money, or do whatever it is that investigative web forum participants are supposed to be doing, shouldn't we consider the possibility that Overstock.com, a multimillion dollar company with a financial interest in discrediting Wikipedia, is behind some of this drama?

Look again at the timing of this story and Wordbomb's latest crusade vs. the stock price of OSTK. It's no wonder they feel like Wall Street doesn't like them. The company clearly has nothing to offer its investors except excuses.

I think you have to seperate two things here. The first is that Gary Weiss is basically correct about the naked short seller conspiracy theorists being loons. The second is that he clearly breaks Wikipedia policy in using various socks (and lots of other forums) for blatant self promotion and agenda pushing. The first does not concern us, the second does. We are, after all, the Wikipedia Review. That's why we tend to be so critical, I wouldn't say anyone here that isn't connected with them in some way is pro Overstock as such.

I think you have to seperate two things here. The first is that Gary Weisz is basically correct about the naked short seller conspiracy theorists being loons. The second is that he clearly breaks Wikipedia policy in using various socks (and lots of other forums) for blatant self promotion and agenda pushing. The first does not concern us, the second does. We are, after all, the Wikipedia Review. That's why we tend to be so critical, I wouldn't say anyone here that isn't connected with them in some way is pro Overstock as such.

Would I be right in recalling that you work in the financial markets yourself?

Starting new thread where we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right.

Come on, we've got accusers putting together cute little charts and graphs and submitting them as "evidence", self-appointed do-gooders poring over edit histories, investigating trips to India, stuff that would make Durova herself embarrassed to admit to.

On the other hand we have Overstock.com, a company that, as ED might say, is full of fail.

Some "evidence": http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=OSTK&t=2y

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=OSTK&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=c


Here is a chart of Citigroup versus Overstock.

The largest bank in the U.S. has not done any better.

Try another angle. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

IT News from InformationWeek

In Post-Holiday Online Surge, Success--And Some Turkeys

A Web site overhaul helped Overstock.com avoid the transaction slowdowns that plagued some other sites.
By Mary Hayes Weier
InformationWeek
December 1, 2007 12:00 AM (From the December 3, 2007 issue)

http://www.informationweek.com/internet/sh...cleID=204400391

Sites with slow response times included Buy.com, Costco, Eddie Bauer, Kmart, Lowe's, and Toys "R" Us, according to Web monitoring firms Keynote Systems and WebSitePulse. The most serious slowdowns involved home page connections and product searches that took up to 60 seconds and transactions that dragged on for two minutes. No problems were reported at Amazon.com or Wal-Mart, both of which had significant outages last year during the holidays.

Overstock.com not only survived but thrived amid the traffic spike. Overstock was among the 10 busiest retail sites on Cyber Monday, along with Amazon, Best Buy, Target, and Wal-Mart, according to site tracker ComScore. Overstock ranked second, behind Blockbuster, in a four-week measure of availability and response time by site monitoring firm Gomez. The Gomez assessment concluded on Cyber Monday. Online sales that day rose 21% over last year to $733 million, according to ComScore.

HOLIDAY RUSH
Top Cyber Monday retail sites by visitors. Traffic spike compares with daily average during preceding month.

AMAZON 50%
WAL-MART 103%
TARGET 86%
DELL 106%
BEST BUY 110%
YAHOO SHOPPING 85%
APPLE 5%
OVERSTOCK.COM 139%
CIRCUIT CITY 136%
MSN SHOPPING 261%
Data: ComScore
CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY

Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne credits a Web site overhaul performed by the company's in-house programmers--and specifically not by outsourced developers--for the strong performance. Overstock built up its internal team of Java developers from a handful a few years ago to about 40 today. Those coders spent the past year remaking the site around a service-oriented architecture in order to be more responsive to customer activity. The refurbished site went live last month.

Overstock employed the concept of agile development, where teams of developers work with business units to create new functionality. It moved away from offshore development, which the company had used with little success. "I was the biggest proponent--as a stupid Dilbert management kind of guy--saying, 'Let's outsource.' Now I've come completely 180 degrees to the agile approach," Byrne says, adding, "We found it's worth it to pay up for more expensive and more serious people."

they are right about is that Wordbomb and Piperdown are in some way connected to Overstock, and this is something they freely admit to.

whoa whoa whoa. I am in no way connected to overstock and have never claimed so either. none what-so-ever. I have never even owned their stock. I could give a crap about overstock as a company and its stock. I do wish the best in life for good people like byrne and bagley though. And their efforts on NSS aren't about their own stock price, so you guys here playing the "bait the evil corporate smear campaigners into a sarb-ox offence" game aren't going to get very far with byrne/bagley. got it emperor? you've stunk like rotten fish since your first post here. you have an agenda and it isn't good.

The first is that Gary Weiss is basically correct about the naked short seller conspiracy theorists being loons.

The Commissioner of the SEC is an "naked short seller conspiracy theorist loon" then. Enjoy all the loons taken your loon-callers to the cleaners in the courts soon. I'm sure you'll disregard all the WP:OR facts on the matter because a bunch of imbedded "journalists" have their careers on the line in feeding people like you that big lie.

And I do reserve my somey-given right to defend myself when my editing activity has been questioned, and intentional disinformation about WP article related issues I edited from the likes of UV. The latest on JW just further confirms my resolve to stay away from it and I can't see how anyone else would want to contribute there either.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

I think you have to seperate two things here. The first is that Gary Weiss is basically correct about the naked short seller conspiracy theorists being loons.

yeah, at the risk of appearing to be inflexible and always "on message" here, I have to back up Piperdown and call UV on his imperialism (imperialism being the act of emulating an emperor).

There are loons in every bunch, without exception, pro-market reformers included. I believe you said what you did because Gary Weiss told you it was true.

I would urge you to consider your source.

See, it's no longer a conspiracy theory. It's very much a conspiracy fact. You might consider reading this:

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday proposed tougher rules to curb so-called "naked" short-selling abuses and prevent market price manipulation.
SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said regulation SHO, an existing rule partly aimed at short selling abuses, "needs teeth."
... Sellers sometimes deliberately fail to deliver securities as part of a scheme to manipulate the stock price.

Got anything else, UV?

Personally I think Emperor is just here for the purpose of stirring shit up for the sake of it, but anyway. He asks whether "we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right". Right about what? The only thing they are right about is that Wordbomb and Piperdown are in some way connected to Overstock, and this is something they freely admit to. The Arbcom is still stating they are not sure that Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are Gary Weiss. Are they right about that? Obviously not.

It's still possible that Mantanmoreland (MM) is not Gary Weiss (GW), but rather a relative. Remember, all we know is that MM went to India with Weiss when Weiss got married there, and they both mentioned Varkala, a small town there where Weiss' wife's family is obviously from, making it obvious that if MM is not GW, MM is a close-enough family member to vacation to India with Weiss. Which means either Mrs. Weiss or a father, brother, cousin, who knows?

The other salient thing we know about MM is that he edited the article on the NYC cathedral, which he started, from the DTCC (Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation) office building in NYC. Now, given security there, it's highly unlikely that a visitor would be using a computer from inside the DTCC firewall (which only has two outside ISP numbers). Quite obviously MM either works at the DTCC or has an internship there or something close enough to get him logged in on a building computer.

Now. That STILL does not mean MM is GW. Wordbomb/Overstock has used the connection to make the argument that GW has some nefarious relationship with the DTCC, despite all their lawyer's denials of knowing of any formal one, and the GW is somehow acting as a DTCC agent in a huge plot by the DTCC to cover up scandles about naked short selling (NSS), which is something the DTCC is supposed to be regulating or at least concerned with. Why? Because the six DTCC corps are essentially the "market makers" for the entire equities, bond and money market in the US. http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php They make sure everything is settled up at the end of the trading day, a bit like the CME does for pork belly and soy futures in Chicago. But it's not at all clear to me why the DTCC should want to whitewash NSS, since they're the ones left holding the bag if it ever doesn't work (as I understand it). So if Overstock has a theory about all this, they need to lay it out better. I will admit to only modest financial savvy.

Now, where does this leave us? Well, DTCC is VERY interested in NSS, and MM obviously has some kind of day job at the DTCC, and may be (as he claims) a business student or intern tasked with writing about NSS and explaining it (even the bosses at the DTCC may need some brush up). I can't see GW being terribly interested in this arcane subject in and of itself, given his very broad range of interests in writing. Instead, I think it can make a better case that MM is a younger relative of GW who works at the DTCC and is doing a study of NSS (which is why all his edits are on the subject) and he's the guy who got GW interested in the subject, not the other way around. I would suggest that MM is the future Ms. Weiss, except that HER day job was supposed to be at the UN. And I can't see her being so interested in film and Catholic cathedrals while she's supposed to be working at the DTCC.

Or, GW really is MM and has some nefarious interest which gets him onto the DTCC computers, which he uses to make WP articles about cathedrals. Which do YOU believe? Somehow this just isn't jelling for me, sorry. Yes, MM created the GW bio, but that still may mean that MM is a close family member, say a son for placeholder, not GW himself.

Now, most of the other evidence Wordbomb presents really doesn't bear on this. He sent stuff to SlimV and it got forwarded to MM's IP. That doesn't mean it was forwarded to GW if he isn't MM.

Now, you say-- who cares? If these two people are joined at the hip and vacation together and have the same interests, what does it matter?

Answer: it matters technically. For one thing, it may well be that SH = MM (explaining their similar edit tics and vacation pattern in late Nov, 2007, a year after India). But since neither one of them is actually GW, they may even have convinced Jimbo and some Arbcom members of the existence of a family member.

And of course MM being a younger GW family member, who is a business student and has a job at the DTCC, completely blows Overstock's conspiracy theory about the DTCC. Though it still means that Wordbomb might be perfectly right about the cavalcade of COI editors (SH, MM, Tomstoner, Lastexit) romping though these articles with SlimV's help. Sometimes conspiracy theories are only partly right.

As a last thing, reading some of SH's longer posts on TALK pages, SH doesn't really have MM's writing style. MM is completely American colloquial, though perhaps not up to journalist ease with the language. SH is also, occasionally, but also sometime quite stilted and, well, East-Indian sounding. If I had to pick a sock for the putative Mrs. Weiss, it would be SH. That's not very helpful, is it?

Feel free, all to point out obvious bits of evidence I missed totally, so that my ideas have no chance of being right. I can take it. I'm not pushing one particular conclusion over another there, but still confused and somewhat unsure a bit (and don't mind admitting it).

The beginning of wisdom is admitting you're still out to sea on some aspects. Since of course we all are. Those who tell you they aren't, have an even bigger problem than ignorance. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

-- Milt

And of course MM being a younger GW family member, who is a business student and has a job at the DTCC, completely blows Overstock's conspiracy theory about the DTCC. Though it still means that Wordbomb might be perfectly right about the cavalcade of COI editors (SH, MM, Tomstoner, Lastexit) romping though these articles with SlimV's help. Sometimes conspiracy theories are only partly right.

Sorry I have to say that I just assume you haven't really looked at this case in any detail if you think that MM might be Gary Weiss' nephew. There really is a vast amount of evidence that MM/Samiharris/Tom Stoner is Gary Weiss, but the Arbcom will just not listen to it or admit the blatantly obvious truth, mainly because it shows that their judgement and the judgement of other senior admins and Jimbo Wales to be severely flawed. That is of course AGF and not assuming that most of them in fact know that Weiss has been sockpuppeting for years with Wales' approval.

So they're meatpuppets. That's as bad as sockpuppetry in Wikipedia land (unless you have protection).

Here is a chart of Citigroup versus Overstock.

The largest bank in the U.S. has not done any better.

Try another angle. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Are you serious? The banking industry had some other things going on this year, if you remember.

Try comparing to another online retailer, say Amazon.com - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AMZN&t=2y&...&z=m&q=l&c=ostk

Hmm, 60% up for Amazon, vs. 50% down for Overstock. No wonder Overstock needs an excuse!

The fact is that the thread started as a hurtful testimony about a company and their respective stock price, which may or may not be reflective of what is happening at the company. I have been in the investment business for 30 years; very few charts, if any, tell the correct story about the long term valuation and / or prospects of anything. The fact is this: very few companies outside of gold or oil have done well in the time horizon that was used above. In the long run...50 years...bonds have outperformed most common stocks. The DJIA 30 since inception has returned about 5%. Most individuals have not performed better than the indices.

Maybe I should give a legal disclaimor here...? Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

That is, in fact, since the 1920's. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Your Amazon peaked 8 years ago...btw. Most kids in our business forget that the NASDAQ is still down over 50% since 2000.

Japan is still down 75% from 1985. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

The fact is that the thread started as a hurtful testimony about a company and their respective stock price, which may or may not be reflective of what is happening at the company. I have been in the investment business for 30 years; very few charts, if any, tell the correct story about the long term valuation and / or prospects of anything. The fact is this: very few companies outside of gold or oil have done well in the time horizon that was used above. In the long run...50 years...bonds have outperformed most common stocks. The DJIA 30 since inception has returned about 5%. Most individuals have not performed better than the indices.

Maybe I should give a legal disclaimor here...? Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

That is, in fact, since the 1920's. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Your Amazon peaked 8 years ago...btw. Most kids in our business forget that the NASDAQ is still down over 50% since 2000.

Japan is still down 75% from 1985. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=OSTK&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=c

Here is the comparison again...Citigroup vs. Overstock. Both big downers this last year.

One is a "Blue Chip" having cut their dividend by 40%! The other is a speculative retailer.

How has StarBucks done? Take a look. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=OSTK&...&z=m&q=l&c=sbux

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom:

Hmm, 60% up for Amazon, vs. 50% down for Overstock. No wonder Overstock needs an excuse!

This from the guy begging for anyone to come to his pet encyclopedia?

I wonder how much that one's made...

It's still possible that Mantanmoreland (MM) is not Gary Weiss (GW), but rather a relative. Remember, all we know is that MM went to India with Weiss when Weiss got married there, and they both mentioned Varkala, a small town there where Weiss' wife's family is obviously from, making it obvious that if MM is not GW, MM is a close-enough family member to vacation to India with Weiss. Which means either Mrs. Weiss or a father, brother, cousin, who knows?

Excellent points, but unlikely. Weiss lives with his wife and cat. Several years ago, before he got married, his cousin briefly lived with him, but moved because he was allergic to the cat. Weiss's parents are dead. His one sibling is (or was, until recently) in prison.

Wordbomb/Overstock has used the connection to make the argument that GW has some nefarious relationship with the DTCC

Actually, I was open to a myriad of explanations for Weiss using a computer on the DTCC network. It was their over-the-top lies about never even having met Weiss (which we know to be untrue) that convinced me there's something nefarious afoot.

But it's not at all clear to me why the DTCC should want to whitewash NSS, since they're the ones left holding the bag if it ever doesn't work (as I understand it). So if Overstock has a theory about all this, they need to lay it out better.

The DTCC is owned by the same broker-dealers whose stock loan desks are making a ton of money (under the table) lending mega hedge funds non-existent shares. Their reps on the Chicago Exchange, meanwhile, are also selling married put options to the hedgies at premium rates (the two transactions always go together).

The DTCC's owners have a tremendous financial disincentive to stop NSS.

Or, GW really is MM and has some nefarious interest which gets him onto the DTCC computers, which he uses to make WP articles about cathedrals.

Occam says no way. Also, GW is quite non-technical.

He sent stuff to SlimV and it got forwarded to MM's IP. That doesn't mean it was forwarded to GW if he isn't MM.

You got it backward: I sent something to SlimVirgin, which was opened by Gary Weiss. I knew Gary Weiss's IP at the time...not Mantanmoreland's.

As a last thing, reading some of SH's longer posts on TALK pages, SH doesn't really have MM's writing style. MM is completely American colloquial, though perhaps not up to journalist ease with the language. SH is also, occasionally, but also sometime quite stilted and, well, East-Indian sounding. If I had to pick a sock for the putative Mrs. Weiss, it would be SH. That's not very helpful, is it?

Not too helpful, no. Remember: I have proven that Gary Weiss is Samiharris. To be more specific, I have proven that the person who opens Gary Weiss's email is Samiharris. Could that be his wife? Maybe. But I'd bet against it.

The beginning of wisdom is admitting you're still out to sea on some aspects. Since of course we all are. Those who tell you they aren't, have an even bigger problem than ignorance. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Amen. Good questions, all.

I wonder if the Russian Mob edits Wikipedia?

Russian Mafia in bed with Wall Street, CEO says
By: Dan Treasure
Issue date: 3/5/08

"You don't have to dig very far into this before you get to organized crime," he said.

As an example of its involvement, Byrne told a story from a trip to the East Coast.

"About 15 months ago I was invited by a stranger into a greasy bar in Long Island," he said.

Claiming that he was Russian, the informant told him, "We have a message from Russia. We are about to kill you. We are about to kill if you if don't back down."

Sorry I have to say that I just assume you haven't really looked at this case in any detail if you think that MM might be Gary Weiss' nephew. There really is a vast amount of evidence that MM/Samiharris/Tom Stoner is Gary Weiss, but the Arbcom will just not listen to it or admit the blatantly obvious truth, mainly because it shows that their judgement and the judgement of other senior admins and Jimbo Wales to be severely flawed. That is of course AGF and not assuming that most of them in fact know that Weiss has been sockpuppeting for years with Wales' approval.

Sorry, but I have looked at this in detail. Enough detail that if you'll just mention to me the smoking gun proving GW is anybody on WP, that will do it. I have read the entire case made by Overstock and WP, and don't see it. We know LE is MM, for example, because they edited the same post (forgetting who they were). Wordbomb says GW had the same IP as SH, briefly, but that only means they used the same computer. If they are husband and wife, of course they probably use the same computer. Or they could be the same person and that still would not prove that GW is MM, or connect either SH or GW to MM. And it's SPECIFICALLY the GW=MM connection, not any of the others, that you need to prove a financial conspiracy OUTSIDE WP (ie, the DTCC thing). That connect rests on a trip to India, and so far as I'm concerned, proves only family relationship, not identity. The rest of the connections only amount to an editing/sock/meat conspiracy within WP to do COI editing on financial articles, which is quite a different thing.

Are YOU saying that Gary Weiss took time off during the day from his secret computer at the DTCC to start an article on a Catholic Cathedral for Wikipedia? Took his laptop into the DTCC building, logged onto their intranet, and then STARTED that article on the cathedral on WP?? Say what? If he's not even supposed to be in the building, let alone using their computer net, why in the HELL is he using his spare time to do something like THAT? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) On the other hand, if this is just a bored DTCC employee who is supposed to be there, interested in Catholicism, and who is studing short selling for work and school project, and is GW's relative, it's quite understandable. But not very conspiratorial. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif)

-- Milt

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

Sorry, but I have looked at this in detail. Enough detail that if you'll just mention to me the smoking gun proving GW is anybody on WP, that will do it. I have read the entire case made by Overstock and WP, and don't see it. We know LE is MM, for example, because they edited the same post (forgetting who they were). Wordbomb says GW had the same IP as SH, briefly, but that only means they used the same computer. If they are husband and wife, of course they probably use the same computer. Or they could be the same person and that still would not prove that GW is MM, or connect either SH or GW to MM. And it's SPECIFICALLY the GW=MM connection, not any of the others, that you need to prove a financial conspiracy OUTSIDE WP (ie, the DTCC thing). That connect rests on a trip to India, and so far as I'm concerned, proves only family relationship, not identity. The rest of the connections only amount to an editing/sock/meat conspiracy within WP to do COI editing on financial articles, which is quite a different thing.

At this point, I think I'm safe in saying enough people have looked at this and agree that GW=MM=SH that the burden of proof falls on those who question the relationship. Please head over to the Evidence page, find something you think fails to advance the ball toward the goal line, mention it here and let's discuss it.

Are YOU saying that Gary Weiss took time off during the day from his secret computer at the DTCC to start an article on a Catholic Cathedral for Wikipedia? Took his laptop into the DTCC building, logged onto their intranet, and then STARTED that article on the cathedral on WP?? Say what? If he's not even supposed to be in the building, let alone using their computer net, why in the HELL is he using his spare time to do something like THAT?

Weiss is not a DTCC employee per se. He's more of a contract consultant.

When I was in PR, I contracted with all sorts of organizations. Typically, there were weekly meetings, almost always held at the client's "place". One client had very intense security, for which I'd have to sign in with security, get a badge, be escorted to the meeting room, escorted out, etc. An additional bit of info I got last year suggests Weiss has this sort of a relationship with the DTCC. That's what he was doing there.

The DTCC is owned by the same broker-dealers whose stock loan desks are making a ton of money ...

The beginning of wisdom is admitting you're still out to sea ...

Agreed.

Much about the way you describe the operations in New York work is, in fact, not even close. I am want to tell you that the operations at DTC (DTCC) are really quite legitimate and open, and above all, highly scrutinized. Whereby, it is not like mortgage banking (e.g., having an appraisal of a house based on the purchase price. duh!)

Short selling is legal and it is a necessary part of the investment / lose the investment, process.
Without it, bubbles would occur far more frequently and more people would be wiped out than we would want to think about. Naked selling "short" occurs all of the time in the commodities markets and should in fact be allowed in stocks, provided the stock can ultimately be delivered. That would, however require a distinct contract date. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Wall Street represents sell side economics (the public buys from the insider sellers.) Going short is not un-American, it is very Wall Street. Salesmen /women sell securities to the public.

That connect rests on a trip to India, and so far as I'm concerned, proves only family relationship, not identity. The rest of the connections only amount to an editing/sock/meat conspiracy within WP to do COI editing on financial articles, which is quite a different thing.

Are you LessHeard vanU?

EDIT: I ask because he's the one who seems to be upholding a principled line of, "we can't prove he's Weiss, but we can surmise bad behavior anyway." It's a respectable position (for privacy and epistemological concerns and whatnot), but up until now I thought he was an iconoclast.

This post has been edited by One:

Some "evidence": http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=OSTK&t=2y

Here's some perspective:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=OSTK&t=2y&...&z=m&q=l&c=ebay

I see an Overstock equity that spent half of the past two years outperforming Ebay, and for some time, spectacularly outperforming. Meh.

This is not Yahoo finance. This is Wikipedia Review.

The stock price doesn't really matter unless you're a partisan in this fight, or a wannabe like David Gerard. It simply does not make sense to dismiss years of Mantanmoreland's behavior on the basis of Bagley theoretically being really pissed about January's price drop. "Overstock is a crappy stock, ergo the ArbCom is right"? I think this is trolling.

At this point, I think I'm safe in saying enough people have looked at this and agree that GW=MM=SH that the burden of proof falls on those who question the relationship. Please head over to the Evidence page, find something you think fails to advance the ball toward the goal line, mention it here and let's discuss it.

Well, I think I just did that. The problem is a lack of really good evidence. The best we have for the MM=GW connection is the India trip, and unless we have some evidence he went there alone (or with his cat) we're sort of stuck. At best we still have Ms. Weiss to account for, and her family. GW has no children from prior marriages, you say? I thought he was a guy in his 40's? Is this is first marriage? Are you sure he has no adult children? You said he had a relative living with him. Okay, just because the guy was allergic to his cat, does not mean he didn't go to India with him, unless Weiss really did take the cat. Perhaps this guy is just who we're looking for. Know anything about him? Might he not work for the DTCC, or in the building?

Are YOU saying that Gary Weiss took time off during the day from his secret computer at the DTCC to start an article on a Catholic Cathedral for Wikipedia? Took his laptop into the DTCC building, logged onto their intranet, and then STARTED that article on the cathedral on WP?? Say what? If he's not even supposed to be in the building, let alone using their computer net, why in the HELL is he using his spare time to do something like THAT?

Weiss is not a DTCC employee per se. He's more of a contract consultant.

When I was in PR, I contracted with all sorts of organizations. Typically, there were weekly meetings, almost always held at the client's "place". One client had very intense security, for which I'd have to sign in with security, get a badge, be escorted to the meeting room, escorted out, etc. An additional bit of info I got last year suggests Weiss has this sort of a relationship with the DTCC. That's what he was doing there.

Okay, thank you; now we're getting somewhere. And Weiss, you think, had this kind of high security consulting job, and when he showed up Friday Jan 19, 2007, to work at the DTCC, badge and all, having passed the retinal scan, and having been thinking about St. Joseph's church ever since the previous Christmas morning when he'd been moved enough to start an article on it (one supposes after attending Christmas mass there, hey?), he just can't keep his mind off the economic subjugation of the western world by short sale bandits at the DTCC 3 weeks later, enough to keep himself from using the DTCC computer and internet to continue the editing on the St. Joseph's Church Wiki for an hour, as you so well documented. http://antisocialmedia.net/?page_id=105 Boy, this guy is some piece of work. What do you suppose he said in Catholic confession that NEXT weekend, before continuing on with the St. Joseph's Church article, the next Monday morning? All the while not knowing that we'd be scrutinizing this here, as a series of Mantanmoreland edits. So this charade is not for us. Really, if this is GW, the man must have the most guilty of consciences. As befitting his Jewishness, one supposes. Probably thinking about all the horrors he was causing for that just and profitable company, Overstock.com. The cad. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Come Yom Kippur 9 months later, this is going to cause him further pain.

Of course I'm overstating, for effect. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) But as you can see, I just don't buy it, and I have reason. It just doesn't make any SENSE. In fact, it fits better with the "persona" that Mantanmoreland lays out for himself on his userpage, more than it does with what we know of Weiss and his interests Judaical. If it's a cover, it's so clever that it out-clevered itself. It certainly has ME, even yet. I suppose you see through it, though.

Now, I will admit that I read your article in which you did allege that GW had had a contract relationship with the DTCC, but we never found out what it was, or how you knew. The DTCC itself asked you to provide it (yes, they shouldn't have asserted a negative, but you can't blame them for trying to figure out what the hell you were on about), and you said you couldn't, due to confidentiality. But that sort of leaves them, and me, in the cold. It's not that we doubt your word, but without any specifics, how can we check to see if this was just something that "we" missed, or if it is a genuine conspiracy. I mean, if he'd worked there at a part time job, there'd be W-2 forms. And even as a consultant there'd be 1099 forms and stuff that any lawyer could have checked, IF you'd provided what you knew. But if we don't know what he did or how he was paid (bags of cash?), how can you, or we, confront anybody for not knowing what they "should" have known?? You see the point? Never blame conspiracy for the fact that everybody doesn't know everything they could possibly know. Or for them pretending to have knowledge on a topic they couldn't possibly have full knowledge OF (such as all the people DTCC had had "contact" with). Maybe it's a genuine case of a relationship that went unnoticed. How the hell do you expect the DTCC people to comment on it further, if you won't give them your side? The fact that they made claims of no connection when they couldn't possibly have been able to rule out ANY connection, only means that they're human and arrogant. But geez, that's the normal state of lawyers. And, in truth, most people in power anywhere.

-- Milt

That connect rests on a trip to India, and so far as I'm concerned, proves only family relationship, not identity. The rest of the connections only amount to an editing/sock/meat conspiracy within WP to do COI editing on financial articles, which is quite a different thing.

Are you LessHeard vanU?

I believe LessHeard is LessHorrid vanU here. I could be wrong of course.

Much about the way you describe the operations in New York work is, in fact, not even close. I am want to tell you that the operations at DTC (DTCC) are really quite legitimate and open, and above all, highly scrutinized.

I have a source at the SEC, as well as two sources formerly with the DTCC, one of which actually used to handle clearing several stocks, including Overstock.com, and another who was in administration there, and all three tell a very different stories.

Short selling is legal and it is a necessary part of the investment / lose the investment, process.
Without it, bubbles would occur far more frequently and more people would be wiped out than we would want to think about. Naked selling "short" occurs all of the time in the commodities markets and should in fact be allowed in stocks, provided the stock can ultimately be delivered. That would, however require a distinct contract date. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Agreed. Shorting is fine. Uncovered shorting (where a single share is lent out many, many times concurrently) is illegal, manipulative, and wrong.

Well, I think I just did that. The problem is a lack of really good evidence.

Well then, Milton, if really did read that page and still feel there's no good evidence then certainly nothing I'll write here will change your mind. So...agree to disagree.

Milton, what do you think of the relation between Mantanmoreland and Samiharris? Do you think one is the sock of the other? If yes why was a sock used?

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Milton.

Got anything else, UV?

Nope, on the internet whoever feels strongest about the issue always "wins". And I don't really care at all. I also have absolutely no opinion on OSTK's price because a) I have no expertise in this area (p.s. almost no one has any expertise in this area... have you seen the record of most stock analysts... might as well toss a coin) and (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) if I did I couldn't really give it without compliance issues.

In any case it simply isn't relevant as this website is about Wikipedia and all that needs to be said about this controversy is that it exists and Weisz and his sock/meatpuppets are on one side, Wordbomb/Piperdown/Patrick Byrne on the other and that it impacts negatively on the project. I think we can all agree about that.

P.S. I do think there's something unusual about Weisz's obsession with Naked Short Selling but wouldn't speculate as to what

This post has been edited by Unrepentant Vandal:

Sorry, but I have looked at this in detail . Enough detail that if you'll just mention to me the smoking gun proving GW is anybody on WP, that will do it. I have read the entire case made by Overstock and WP, and don't see it. We know LE is MM, for example, because they edited the same post (forgetting who they were).

Well, you obviously haven't looked at it in that much detail as the account that was caught by fixing a previous edit was Tom Stoner not LastExit (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) . Would you like to tell us whether you are an editor/Arbitrator on Wikipedia? However hard you claim to have looked at this evidence I think you came to the conclusion which you had wanted to come to, not the one that the evidence suggests is true.

At this point, I think I'm safe in saying enough people have looked at this and agree that GW=MM=SH that the burden of proof falls on those who question the relationship. Please head over to the Evidence page, find something you think fails to advance the ball toward the goal line, mention it here and let's discuss it.

Well, I think I just did that. The problem is a lack of really good evidence. The best we have for the MM=GW connection is the India trip,

Do you not realise that it is known that Weiss has admitted in emails that he is Mantanmoreland/Samiharris? I think the problem is that you approached this case thinking it was "just another conspiracy theory". Why don't you actually think about it for a minute? Does Gary Weiss have motive to use sockpuppets to fix his own Wikipedia article and the ones related to Naked short selling and Overstock? Of course he does. Weiss has a record of reviewing his own books on the net and attacking those of his competitors- his editing on Wikipedia is just a step on from that.

Got anything else, UV?

Nope, on the internet whoever feels strongest about the issue always "wins". And I don't really care at all. I also have absolutely no opinion on OSTK's price because a) I have no expertise in this area (p.s. almost no one has any expertise in this area... have you seen the record of most stock analysts... might as well toss a coin) and (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) if I did I couldn't really give it without compliance issues.

In any case it simply isn't relevant as this website is about Wikipedia and all that needs to be said about this controversy is that it exists and Weisz and his sock/meatpuppets are on one side, Wordbomb/Piperdown/Patrick Byrne on the other and that it impacts negatively on the project. I think we can all agree about that.

P.S. I do think there's something unusual about Weisz's obsession with Naked Short Selling but wouldn't speculate as to what

Wikipedia Review as a group has gone way past the point of speculating about his motivations, and his protectors' motivations. What still remains relatively unexplored are the motivations of his accusers. I think that this is fair game given that they've put this person under a microscope for months now.

Got anything else, UV?

Nope, on the internet whoever feels strongest about the issue always "wins". And I don't really care at all. I also have absolutely no opinion on OSTK's price because a) I have no expertise in this area (p.s. almost no one has any expertise in this area... have you seen the record of most stock analysts... might as well toss a coin) and (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) if I did I couldn't really give it without compliance issues.

In any case it simply isn't relevant as this website is about Wikipedia and all that needs to be said about this controversy is that it exists and Weisz and his sock/meatpuppets are on one side, Wordbomb/Piperdown/Patrick Byrne on the other and that it impacts negatively on the project. I think we can all agree about that.

P.S. I do think there's something unusual about Weisz's obsession with Naked Short Selling but wouldn't speculate as to what

Wikipedia Review as a group has gone way past the point of speculating about his motivations, and his protectors' motivations. What still remains relatively unexplored are the motivations of his accusers. I think that this is fair game given that they've put this person under a microscope for months now.

Both sides are scarily obsessed with each other and there's acres of material written by each side about the other, no need for us to get involved.

You want to attack people as fair game become a scientologist.

Wikipedia Review as a group has gone way past the point of speculating about his motivations, and his protectors' motivations. What still remains relatively unexplored are the motivations of his accusers. I think that this is fair game given that they've put this person under a microscope for months now.

I don't think that is a fair characterisation. Over time, plenty of people have tested to see if WordBomb's motivation and case are sound. There are plenty of drive-by moaners who do not gain support.

Without having an opinion on who started it, it is clear that both sides are locked into a fight. My feel is that WordBomb is locked in due to the belief of being unable to walk away from a moral high ground, not being able to let a wrong doer get away with it, whereas Gary Weiss seems to be far more on a personal vendetta. It is not like Gary has let up in his childish and unprofessional abuse, so it is hard to see how WordBomb could walk away, especially if you accept that there is a factual basis to his position, which I do, even though I know not a lot about the American stock market.

But again you are, as they like to say Over There, poisoning the well without making any useful observation as to what the issues might be: produce some specific information that you feel marks WordBomb down as being acting with malice and disinformation rather in defence of a pretty offensive and at times childish real world attack from someone with a track record of deception.