Sir Fozzie's investigation, a proper sockpuppet report Options

[Proabivouac]

G-dett and Cool hand Luke's sections draw attention to idiosyncratic "phraseologies" shared by both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, with Alanyst providing edit time analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzi...igation/Sandbox

This looks promising, to say the least. What is needed is more of the same. Such evidence, in combination with a plausible motivation scenario, was enough to convict Oldwindybear straightaway, and, after much strife, convince ArbCom in the SevenOfDiamonds case:

I bear no ill will towards Mantanmoreland/Samiharris. The few interactions I've had with him were entirely positive, and several of his friends I would call mine as well.

But as the evidence approaches the overwhelming - as I sadly imagine it will - the deception that has been foisted upon the project, up to the very highest levels of authority, and the questions of corruption which inevitably follow from its recognition…well, this is serious stuff, folks. There's a lot of money and more than one real-life reputation riding on these issues. A serious shake-up is in order - blocking one retired sock isn't remotely sufficient. Anyone who might reasonably be expected to have known about this should be very closely examined.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Peter Damian]

G-dett and Cool hand Luke's sections draw attention to idiosyncratic "phraseologies" shared by both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, with Alanyst providing edit time analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzi...igation/Sandbox

I ran an enhanced version of the Damian DIY checkuser as follows. Get up to 5000 edits from each user.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rget=Samiharris

copy and paste these as VALUES into separate columns of a spreadsheet. Trim head and tail.

enter the formula =value(left(CELL,5)) into the spreadsheet, where CELL contains the first edit of one user. Copy down. Likewise for the other user. This calculates the timestamp string as a day fraction. Sort each of the day fraction columns, then add a column to the right, numbering the rows from 1 to 5000 (or the actual number of rows, whichever is smaller).

Then chart an x-y graph with the day fraction as x, and the number as y.

Then you get a 'snake' shaped graph, which flattens out as the user makes fewer edits, and steepens as he or she makes more.

The two graphs for Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are highly similar. Both stop editing at 5:30 UCL and resume 13:00. Rapid editing until 17:00, but a pretty consistent pace until 5:30.

Strongly suggests the same user, based in eastern US, subject to the limitations we discussed in an earlier thread. (It may simply mean there are two different users with similar editing patterns).

What is the background to this case, please?

[Piperdown]

G-dett and Cool hand Luke's sections draw attention to idiosyncratic "phraseologies" shared by both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, with Alanyst providing edit time analysis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzi...igation/Sandbox

I ran an enhanced version of the Damian DIY checkuser as follows. Get up to 5000 edits from each user.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...rget=Samiharris

copy and paste these as VALUES into separate columns of a spreadsheet. Trim head and tail.

enter the formula =value(left(CELL,5)) into the spreadsheet, where CELL contains the first edit of one user. Copy down. Likewise for the other user. This calculates the timestamp string as a day fraction. Sort each of the day fraction columns, then add a column to the right, numbering the rows from 1 to 5000 (or the actual number of rows, whichever is smaller).

Then chart an x-y graph with the day fraction as x, and the number as y.

Then you get a 'snake' shaped graph, which flattens out as the user makes fewer edits, and steepens as he or she makes more.

The two graphs for Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are highly similar. Both stop editing at 5:30 UCL and resume 13:00. Rapid editing until 17:00, but a pretty consistent pace until 5:30.

Strongly suggests the same user, based in eastern US, subject to the limitations we discussed in an earlier thread. (It may simply mean there are two different users with similar editing patterns).

What is the background to this case, please?

They both post from the same Verizon IP in Brooklyn, NYC, NY, USA.
The older account has revealed his own previous socks through editing gaffes, two of which were quietly shown the door on the same day in 2006. And Arbcom did it with Checkuser proof then too.
The socking is always abusive - consensus illusion, 3RR evasion, double voting
The abuser has returned to the same abuse, although this time used a proxy for sock#2. Most of the time.

Next case please.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Moulton]

In the real world of writing traditional encyclopedias, everyone knows who the authors and editors are. The sales force also know who the customers are.

In the bizarre world of Wikipedia, the game of concealing and revealing the identity of the players becomes more important than the purported goal of writing an authentic encyclopedia, or serving the consumer of the product.

It's astonishing how much technical work people have put in to address the bizarre world of Wikipedian anonymity. In the world of real encyclopedias, such games of concealing and revealing the identity of editors would never occur.

[Piperdown]

In the real world of writing traditional encyclopedias, everyone knows who the authors and editors are. The sales force also know who the customers are.

In the bizarre world of Wikipedia, the game of concealing and revealing the identity of the players becomes more important than the purported goal of writing an authentic encyclopedia, or serving the consumer of the product.

It's astonishing how much technical work people have put in to address the bizarre world of Wikipedian anonymity. In the world of real encyclopedias, such games of concealing and revealing the identity of editors would never occur.

I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.

I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.

But it is for the admins and management of WP. There's not that many, they should be accountable, and their ID veirfied and presented.

It's what real publishers do.

The editors can continue the MUD games, but the admins who run the joint are the ones doing the real damage. WP has no credibilty has long as you have anonymous COIs, and outed COIs like Jossi, lol, being allowed to do the voodoo they do.

Daniel Brandt has a WP:POINT and I have seen his light, hallelujah.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Piperdown]

The amazing G-Dett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/G-Dett has found another "asked and answered" used in another completely independent thread/time. He is good, very very good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=190360171

Who is PTMcCain?

I read his history and it looks oh so familiar to my tilting at MantanWindmills. How many of us have gone through this schtick with Gary? How many have been ralilroaded? PtMcCain was Shanghai'ed, big-time.

He managed to raise a stink, I was a well-behaved ass kisser in comparison. If I would have known I was going to be banned out of the sweet blue for...nothing...I would have pulled a serious PtMcCain (or Giano) on the way out.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[WordBomb]

What is the background to this case, please?

Best place to start is here.
Then read this.

As you'll see in the next few days, the number (and positions) of people who have known about this is shocking.

As if that's not bad enough, they've spent the past 570+ days calling me a liar for raising the alarm of this fraud.

[Piperdown]

What is the background to this case, please?

Best place to start is here.
Then read this.

As you'll see in the next few days, the number (and positions) of people who have known about this is shocking.

As if that's not bad enough, they've spent the past 570+ days calling me a liar for raising the alarm of this fraud.

Do they still have an attack dog BLP of you, and are they still using "fuck off Bagley" all over WP? That's not nice.
Daniel Brandt Deja Vu.

[Piperdown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...igation/Sandbox

This is just rich.

Slrubenstein comes in to say he doesn't care. It's good he cared so much to do that.

Why does Slrube care?

He was the Gerard Lackey who "reviewed" my unblock (original) request in Sept 2007 (see my user talk page link on my WR profile) with a "you just questioned Gerard's Vice Godkingness. How dare you, knave! You stay banned! Nevermind I didn't bother to investigate a damn thing except what my Vice Godking told me in the two minutes I took on this."

I think that about sums up the knee deep bullshit that is slrube almost as well as he shows for himself on the diff at the top 'o this post.

And nice work, Daniel T. You are a good man, even when you sometimes overlook the facts in some cases (yes, Daniel, there is an SEC Commissioner, and he did say "Naked short selling is a problem we are very concerined about" - see the NSS article where I managed to get that in there between getting sock 6RR'ed) in order to play the Rodney King role.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Piperdown]

Some kind W-R'ian please jonnycache or save SirFozzie's wonderful sandbox, at regular intervals.

Da GodKing will probably roll over and smash it after all the lilliputians get tuckered out.

And I got slrube confused with sandstein. 2 equally but different (far as i know) shallow lochs. Slrubenstein is one of the "I got your back" posse of gary's on WP, and sandstein was just some patsy Gerard drafted to put on a sham appearance of a block review.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Achromatic]

I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.

I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.

It's a good point. I remember when Amazon introduced the "Real Names" scheme, and it was amazing how night-and-day comments and reviews became. Be it positive, or negative, your input gained so much more value (granted, that's a relative judgment, based on what the original was), by virtue of the fact you were willing, in a public fora, to do the mind-boggling and put your name to it. Especially in such a place where there is a real value in COI, as I believe there is in WP. From publishers, authors, fans and critics trying to organize groundswells of opinion, through to religious ideologies/cults whitewashing what they can to seem more benevolent, there is something that can be had of it.

If Amazon can do it, and do it successfully, why can't WP? Hell, even institute rules (moreso than there are) not allowing you to dismiss other contributors on the basis of your qualifications, but at least real names have value in accountability.

But then, that wouldn't allow the inner circle to easily edit on their favorite closet subjects, from big chested girls to pro-pedo/zoo to adult diapers to, well, you name it. So it won't happen.

[Piperdown]

When the going gets tough, the tough go whip out old socks and post from separate IP's to put on a cu show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

WordB, what's the over/under on DoRight. Funny how and when he pops up. He'll make a fine sleeper account with longtime cred and the usual friends to grow back into the sharkstooth hole.

A quick visual on DoRight vs Mantanmoreland shows another case of Alternating Timelines.

But DoRight would be the oldest account of any of the socks, so that is a new twist. I think it's a friend not a sock, but I was proved wrong with sami too.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Amarkov]

I agree. Ironically, I don't think I should be allowed to edit one of the largest sites in the world, and usually the #1 google result for any subject or person, unless I did so under a real name, verified.

I sometimes cheat on my true love Byrne and shop the Amazon. If you want to slag on something there, and be take n seriously, you have to sign up under a verified identity. I think a credit card. I realise that is not possible for many outside the UK/US, or practical for the number of people that edit WP.

It's a good point. I remember when Amazon introduced the "Real Names" scheme, and it was amazing how night-and-day comments and reviews became. Be it positive, or negative, your input gained so much more value (granted, that's a relative judgment, based on what the original was), by virtue of the fact you were willing, in a public fora, to do the mind-boggling and put your name to it. Especially in such a place where there is a real value in COI, as I believe there is in WP. From publishers, authors, fans and critics trying to organize groundswells of opinion, through to religious ideologies/cults whitewashing what they can to seem more benevolent, there is something that can be had of it.

If Amazon can do it, and do it successfully, why can't WP? Hell, even institute rules (moreso than there are) not allowing you to dismiss other contributors on the basis of your qualifications, but at least real names have value in accountability.

But then, that wouldn't allow the inner circle to easily edit on their favorite closet subjects, from big chested girls to pro-pedo/zoo to adult diapers to, well, you name it. So it won't happen.

Real name policies don't help. It's one thing if you want to wave around credentials, of course. But what if I just want to edit, and don't particularly care to be accountable? Well, then I claim to be a random person from San Jose, and who can prove me wrong? (I've done that before, obviously.) Even better, since my ISP allocates IP addresses over a wide range, I could create sockpuppets over the entire Southwest.

And it's relatively easy to consider that "LegoMan 156" and "Dragonwarrior9" could be the same person. Will anyone think about whether "Andrew Q. Smith, Las Vegas bellhop", and "Enrique Gonzalez, accountant in Phoenix" are really one and the same?

On Amazon, you must use your actual name; your credit card can't sockpuppet for you. That is the only reason why it works there.

This post has been edited by Amarkov:

[Piperdown]

what is being talked about here in the amazon example is where your account gets a "Real Name" stamp from the site owner, and I think it's done by signing up with credit card information. Which would have to be real and not an alias in two different cities unless you're up to something illegal, lol.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Achromatic]

what is being talked about here in the amazon example is where your account gets a "Real Name" stamp from the site owner, and I think it's done by signing up with credit card information. Which would have to be real and not an alias in two different cities unless you're up to something illegal, lol.

Exactly. There is verification in place. Though, it also strikes me with another (not that they wouldn't think of plenty) reason it'll never happen on WP, "Discrimination against minors/those of us counter-culture rebels who refuse to enable Visa and Mastercard", etc. (Not that I think it's a perfect way, smells slightly of sites that want your CC no 'to verify age'...)

[WhispersOfWisdom]

what is being talked about here in the amazon example is where your account gets a "Real Name" stamp from the site owner, and I think it's done by signing up with credit card information. Which would have to be real and not an alias in two different cities unless you're up to something illegal, lol.

Exactly. There is verification in place. Though, it also strikes me with another (not that they wouldn't think of plenty) reason it'll never happen on WP, "Discrimination against minors/those of us counter-culture rebels who refuse to enable Visa and Mastercard", etc. (Not that I think it's a perfect way, smells slightly of sites that want your CC no 'to verify age'...)

Finally more sites are requiring the essence of what you are talking about, including MySpace.

My problems with WP stemmed from the fact that anyone could open an account with my name on it, and claim they are me. Any one of us can still do that of someone else.

I want nothing to do with WP and it took nearly a year to get out of there. I asked, politely, on Jimbo's talk page; NYB deleted the account with my name on the door. I still do not know how to log into an account there, with my name on it. Verification is a good thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Amarkov]

Well, yes, they could demand to check your credit card. Amazon has no problem with that; they need your credit card to sell you stuff anyway.

But Wikipedia isn't selling you stuff. What excuse do they have for seeing your credit card?

[WordBomb]

It's a good point. I remember when Amazon introduced the "Real Names" scheme, and it was amazing how night-and-day comments and reviews became. Be it positive, or negative, your input gained so much more value ...

To bring the conversation full-circle, here's what I discovered about Gary Weiss and Amazon.com book reviews. I suspect anybody following this issue will find many, many parallels.

Warning: it's a long post, and all the reviews mentioned in it were mysteriously and simultaneously deleted the same day it was published, so most of the links to Amazon are broken. But because the original text is cited in the body of the post (which is why it's so long), you'll not miss anything.

Irony Alert: Jimbo had this to say to Cla68 in reference to his decision to delete the AfD debate on Gary Weiss's article autobiography:

Cla68, I very much disagree with you about this. The page contained wildly inappropriate speculation that a notable author was sockpuppeting. As I am sure you are aware, many authors have had their careers badly damaged by being caught sockpuppeting at Amazon, etc., and it is deeply wrong for people to ask me to restore a page with such speculations in Wikipedia after the claims have already been investigated and dismissed.

In case you missed it, that debate has been re-created here.

This post has been edited by WordBomb:

[Piperdown]

Well, yes, they could demand to check your credit card. Amazon has no problem with that; they need your credit card to sell you stuff anyway.

But Wikipedia isn't selling you stuff. What excuse do they have for seeing your credit card?

Bentheadvocate did something today to fend off a sockhunt involving a long ID string on WP. Not familar with what that is or how much weight it carries. I'll post about it on the "Ben Wakes Up to Poop on Toast" thread.

[WordBomb]

Well, yes, they could demand to check your credit card. Amazon has no problem with that; they need your credit card to sell you stuff anyway.

But Wikipedia isn't selling you stuff. What excuse do they have for seeing your credit card?

Amarkov makes a great point here. As soon as credit cards enter the picture, you must meet "PCI Security Standards" which adds a degree of complexity that would make it impractical for a .org.

I suspect the answer is to have some third party that does nothing but pass a token to non-commercial sites vouching for a user's credit card-verified identity. Let them take care of PCI compliance for everybody else.

Let them also find a sustainable revenue model (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) .

This post has been edited by WordBomb:

[WhispersOfWisdom]

^ This, of course, is the reason why KNOL and MSFT/Yahoo will eventually have the WP timeline and database of articles and search plains all drawn and quartered. Wikia is a bit late to the party and, in fact, probably could have had a shot at some of the designs that are now going to take hold. I said a long time ago that the players with deep pockets are going to win. The big money is going to be in the deal-making for the duration. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Proabivouac]

From Alanyst and Cool Hand Luke:
"removing/rv/rev duplicative text/language/etc."

User:Mantanmoreland:

"removing duplicative text"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=68617733
"rv duplicative language"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=70308282

User:Samiharris:

"…removing duplicative italicized matter…"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=181194364
"self-rev duplicative cite"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=177221628

User:Tomstoner:

"removing duplicative comments and reply"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=45852319
"removing comments -- duplicative of posting on talk page"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53771228

[Moulton]

I said a long time ago that the players with deep pockets are going to win.

It takes both deep pockets and deep ethics to win in the long run.
Google is far from perfect, but it takes the ethics challenge seriously.

[The Wales Hunter]

He's trying to use technicalities to get out of it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=191023475

[Kato]

According to Morven, Mantanmoreland has a good case to see the Rfc removed...

lack of an actual dispute is and has always been reason to decertify and delete an RFC.

Lack of an actual dispute? Did he just say "lack of an actual dispute"? I think he did? No, surely not... He did? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...rd#Improper_RfC

[The Wales Hunter]

You're not the only one who is sitting here, stunned at the moment. Mantanmoreland is now claiming there is no dispute to be resolved...amazing.

[Kato]

My God. He did say "lack of a dispute". Morven actually wrote a whole paragraph along these lines on the rfc. Below, Morven discusses the most bitter and long running dispute in the history of Wikipedia, where details of gross malpractice by the named party have just been revealed only sentences earlier on the page..

Where's the dispute? RFCs are supposed to be a means of resolving an actual issue. I don't see an actual dispute being described here, and would suggest that the filers need to have an actual dispute with the users against whom they're filing to have standing.

Without such a current dispute, this is an unnecessary accusation against two established users whose current conduct is not apparently being called into question. Moreover, since Samiharris has indicated he has left the project, there appears to be no ongoing issue that will be remediable.

...completely out of his depth... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Achromatic]

My God. He did say "lack of a dispute". Morven actually wrote a whole paragraph along these lines on the rfc. Below, Morven discusses the most bitter and long running dispute in the history of Wikipedia, where details of gross malpractice by the named party have just been revealed only sentences earlier on the page..

Where's the dispute? RFCs are supposed to be a means of resolving an actual issue. I don't see an actual dispute being described here, and would suggest that the filers need to have an actual dispute with the users against whom they're filing to have standing.

Without such a current dispute, this is an unnecessary accusation against two established users whose current conduct is not apparently being called into question. Moreover, since Samiharris has indicated he has left the project, there appears to be no ongoing issue that will be remediable.

...completely out of his depth... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Apropos of anything else, isn't standard procedure to get rid of both puppet and master, as a matter of principle?

[Somey]

My God. He did say "lack of a dispute". Morven actually wrote a whole paragraph along these lines on the rfc.

It makes sense for Gary/MM though, seen in perspective. The dispute is between Overstock.com and Weiss - as long as User:Mantanmoreland and his various other accounts maintain the fiction that they're not Weiss, then he has to claim that the dispute has nothing to do with User:Mantanmoreland and his various other accounts, farcical though it may appear to everyone else.

Morven, though... that's a pretty stupid move on his part. This is probably not the time to be taking over the steering wheel in Gary's little bumper-car ride.

As for the rest, I hate to sound like Devil's Advocate, but I still doubt that Weiss has done anything illegal, or even legally actionable in a realistic sense. People like Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass, and other journos who have filed false news stories, were clearly in violation of their terms of employment, which are usually signed contracts and have provisions for recovery of damages by the employer, etc. I doubt that Gary would have had to sign anything for Forbes.com or Portfolio Trade Publishing stating that he wouldn't promote himself by using multiple accounts on Wikipedia and then lying about it. I wonder if they would even care, to be honest.

I'd still have to say the big loser here is Wikipedia. Particularly if it's true that we're about to see over a thousand e-mails purporting to be from Gary in which he mentions (brags about, perhaps?) his WP editing activities, published by even a semi-reputable source. If I were SlimVirgin, JzG, Dave Gerard, or Jimbo, I'd be absolutely livid over that - they put their WP reputations (or notoriety, if you prefer) totally on the line for this guy, supporting him to an almost ludicrous extent, and he repays them by chattering about it via e-mail with people he doesn't even know personally? Hell, if I were doing what he's being accused of, I wouldn't tell a living soul, unless I had a psychiatrist, which I don't. (Yet... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif) )

I suspect we'll hear a lot of the predictable "but e-mails can be easily forged" sort of talk from these folks in the very near future.

[The Wales Hunter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=191038401

It seems to me that if serious allegations are going to be made, they should be made in the right forum, which is obviously SSP. I'm a longtime editor and I don't think this is a terribly unreasonable point to raise. -- Mantanmoreland

[Proabivouac]

Morven, though... that's a pretty stupid move on his part. This is probably not the time to be taking over the steering wheel in Gary's little bumper-car ride.

This can't be the same Morven who hunted me down for having a new username without having previously grovelled before the Committee? Who, after 10k edits, a clean block log, a perfectly respectable reputation, multiple nominations for adminship and no active disputes (unless he, too, was adminpuppeting for Elonka?) made up non-existent policies to justify his RWI trolling? And here he is making up more nonsense to defend an long-term pattern of blatantly abusive socking.

Morven reasons:

"Moreover, since Samiharris has indicated he has left the project, there appears to be no ongoing issue that will be remediable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=191027809

Um, no, nice try…User:Samiharris is still editing the project as User:Mantanmoreland.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[The Wales Hunter]

MONGO has agreed with Morven's view (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[LamontStormstar]

Um, no, nice try…User:Samiharris is still editing the project as User:Mantanmoreland.

They said one of them used proxies and then they said they blocked all the proxies so whoever was using proxies likely had to stop editing as their proxies were all getting blocked.

[The Wales Hunter]

Um, no, nice try…User:Samiharris is still editing the project as User:Mantanmoreland.

They said one of them used proxies and then they said they blocked all the proxies so whoever was using proxies likely had to stop editing as their proxies were all getting blocked.

Although they did manage to "retire" from Wikipedia. So unless somebody turned a blind eye, they must still have access to proxies.

[Achromatic]

Although they did manage to "retire" from Wikipedia. So unless somebody turned a blind eye, they must still have access to proxies.

Or they didn't use a proxy. And would have left behind a CU'able IP address. (Well, no, most likely, he went down to Starbucks). Cause otherwise, that'd be awkward.

[Viridae]

Although they did manage to "retire" from Wikipedia. So unless somebody turned a blind eye, they must still have access to proxies.

Or they didn't use a proxy. And would have left behind a CU'able IP address. (Well, no, most likely, he went down to Starbucks). Cause otherwise, that'd be awkward.

I asked a checkuser to check on that one - would either find another proxy to block or possibly (but highly unlikely) an address that matanmoreland has previously used. ~~~~

[Proabivouac]

MONGO has agreed with Morven's view (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I guess that's the only way to defend his wikially at this point, since no remotely reasonable third party who's examined the situation would say that Mantanmoreland ≠ Samiharris.

Look, MONGO, I like Mantanmoreland too, and often agree with him in wikidebates. He stuck up for me a few times, and I appreciated it, and remembered it. On reflection, that's probably the reason I didn't take a closer look at this sooner.

But let's face it 1) this kind of activity is dishonest, corrupt and wrong 2) He's stone cold busted. There's no way out now. Even if Wikipedia were to let him off the hook at first, a la Essjay, it won't go away. Really, should it?

Morven's favoritism in this whole affair, involving many millions of dollars in real people's real money, and which significantly predates this RfC, is more than sufficient cause to seek (at least) his resignation. Morven helped fix Wikipedia to discredit Bagley- who, let's not forget, was telling the truth - and protect Weiss, who was lying through his teeth to protect his COI editing sockfarm, while bearing false witness against others by calling truthtellers liars and harassers.

Mantanmoreland abused the harassment meme to suck honest people, some of whom have actually been real-world harassed (and unjustly,) into protecting him from the consequences of his dishonesty.

And all the while Morven shilled for this game, while harassing (by Wikipedia's own definition) others and exposing them to defamation (by any standard) on the webpages he manages.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Kato]

Jimbo writes on Wikiback

Just to follow up.

I have my own opinions and beliefs, which I have expressed publicly and privately depending on where that might be appropriate. But me wondering about something enough to conduct a thorough investigation personally is not the same thing as "knowing".

To this date, I have seen no convincing proof that Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss. I have seen a lot of bluster and nonsense from people I don't trust. I have followed a lot of blind alleys. But I have no proof.

You'd have to be an idiot not to conclude that Mantan is almost certainly Gary Weiss after sifting through the WP diffs (many edits to Overstock, N-Shorts, Gary Weiss bio, articles on obscure mafia history etc etc) and Gary Weiss's blog / career (which has been obsessed with the very same topics down to his writing a whole book on the history of The Mob). Not conclusive proof, I know. But if you're not prepared to take Overstock's word on any of this, then just look it up yourself and see what I mean.

I'm not following the later part of the Wikiback thread where Wales apparently admitted in private that Mantan was Weiss back in September 2007. A fact Wales alternatively describes as "nonsense conspiracy theories" whenever else he can. Could somebody expand on that, or find a link which discusses it?

* edited to fix a link - Nathan

[Kato]

Mantanmoreland abused the harassment meme to suck honest people, some of whom have actually been real-world harassed (and unjustly,) into protecting him from the consequences of his dishonesty.

Well yes. This has been the problem all along. Manipulative characters have maneuvered people like JzG, Herbert and MONGO to beat the drums and whip "the community" into a frenzy of hate against outsiders like Judd Bagley for their own gain. These clueless tubthumpers don't have the capacity to discern what is really going on here, while the community at large is made up of malleable nerds with absolutely no idea about the world at all. The result: gross public miscarriage of justice that drags Wikipedia further into the mire. We told them this long ago, but to quote Jonny Cache, "all we got for our troubles was a constant stream of spit in our faces".

Cool Hand Luke's post to Wikiback sums up the whole thing well:

This is outrageous. God damned outrageous. And the moment I read the date, I remembered noting Mantanmoreland's puzzling withdrawal from Overstock articles mid-September. See here.

Meanwhile, we banned a user (Piperdown) for merely suggesting what Jimbo thought was probable. Meanwhile, I've been busting my butt to show that they're sock puppets (believing it fruitless to convince anyone of the COI issue), when in fact it was a damn open secret.

Look, I've got school work to do, and I should have gone to bed hours ago, but this is the most outraged I've ever been at Wikipedia, and I've seen my share of absurdity and abuse during the four years since I signed up for an account. (Feb 7, 2004 anniversary. Didn't even notice.) You're telling me that black is white. That WordBomb was right the whole time, and everyone sort of suspected it.

I hope that community heads roll.

Goodnight.

[Proabivouac]

Just to follow up.
I have my own opinions and beliefs, which I have expressed publicly and privately depending on where that might be appropriate. But me wondering about something enough to conduct a thorough investigation personally is not the same thing as "knowing".

Talk about "wikilawyering."