The Register on Weiss and Wikipedia, The story first told here. Options

[WordBomb]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wi...naked_shorting/

[Random832]

I believe Weiss is on record as claiming those e-mails are forgeries. Time will tell, I suppose, if he chooses to sue El Reg for libel on this matter.

[SirFozzie]

Interesting to finally learn the source of those emails.. even talking with Judd as I had being neck deep in this stuff, I didn't know anything about it.

[Cedric]

As I said some weeks ago, now cannot be a fun time to be Gary Weiss. If the mainstream media gets ahold of this finally (which now seems fairly likely), it will be a rather grim time for Jimbo and Stroynaya Deva as well.

That is not to say that Jimbo and Stroynaya Deva are in as much trouble as Weiss (I'm guessing not), but it still cannot be a comfortable prospect to have to sit down with federal agents and answer a bunch of questions about what they knew and when they knew it. Then there is all the negative publicity for WP to consider.

Then on top of that, there is the political factor. If a bunch of angry and ambitious congressmen, backed by an even angrier public, start to demand scalps, there is just no telling how far this thing will go. I suppose it just depends on how big the impending bailout turns out to be and how deep the economic pain goes. Not exactly a fun time for the NSS cabal!

[SirFozzie]

I honestly doubt all of that, Cedric.

Yes, it appears that Patrick and Judd have finally been vindicated.. but what, if anything has been proven to be illegal? (the what did they know, and when did they know it, part). I agree that GW's credibility should look like swiss cheese after being shot by rock salt, but hell, Maureen O'Gara still has a job.. so I don't see anything happening there.

[luke]

Interesting to finally learn the source of those emails.. even talking with Judd as I had being neck deep in this stuff, I didn't know anything about it.

huzzah! huzzah! huzzah! to Wordbomb and those who labored so long and hard in the face of a sublimely skeptical Arbitration Committee which, without exception, refused to clarify its position on the standard of evidence reqired for errm 'harsh' penalty.

perhaps some one could clarify as I'm a bit confused : Gary should be against a bailout of any kind?


THE FOLLOWING ERROR(S) WERE FOUND
It is just not permitted to inline-embed or link to images on that website (www.marxists.org) Please use one of the recognized hosts, or go jump in a lake.

[One]

WordBomb!

Great article, and the source sounds quite credible. I'm glad that El Reg could not be cowed.

Incidentally, could you weigh in on this thread? If there's anyone who has suspicions about who Janeyryan and John Nevard are, it's you.

[Piperdown]

I believe Weiss is on record as claiming those e-mails are forgeries. Time will tell, I suppose, if he chooses to sue El Reg for libel on this matter.

he would have sued Patrick Byrne a long time ago if they weren't genuine. He's a non-stop liar and I feel sorry for him.

but he hasn't done anything illegal that's been made public yet that I know of. But what else lurks on Floyd Schneider's brother's hard drive?

I think Judd just wanted Gary to stop calling Patrick Byrne a nutjob (which he started doing online in January 2006 on Yahoo Finance in a much worse display than he ever did on Wikipedia), and to stop shaming the journalism profession.

The thing that disappoints me the most about Gary and his (former? is he even a journalist any more?) colleagues is their unforgivable affront to journalism, and this covers a large swath of business journalists, who have become nothing more than promo lapdogs for some very rich and powerful hedge fund managers, and captured regulators who eventually go to work for them (every SEC big dick goes on to work for hedge funds or brokerages). They rely 100% on them for material, and its quid pro quo.

If he was up to worse, that remains to be seen I guess. The boys from Utah play it cool it appears.

I've heard unreliable rumours that Weiss was a pretty heavy stock gambler. If he was shorting OSTK while publishing blogs claiming its CEO was crazy for 2 years, that can't be good. Who knows. His friends certainly were shorting OSTK.

Anyone heard anything about Herb Greenberg lately?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wi...naked_shorting/

you're a good egg, judd...

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Piperdown]

A WP'ian in good standing did some venting today on a WP talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=242371441

It was out-of-line for WP and appropriately reverted by another WP'ian in good standing.


I now call on Wikipedia to review all of the edits, and they are many, made by the following WP'ians in mysteriously good standing and some no longer welcome, that unjustly violate the public standing of Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne. The edits are many, are stunning, and are to quote slimmy, legally actionable should Judd and Patrick ever bother with them. Remove from WP all edits made that accuse Byrne of being crazy, unstable, criminal, etc, and Bagley ditto.

I can remember the following editors making such edits, mostly on talk pages related to naked shorting, overstock, the ban review of moi, and other pages:

JzG
SlimVirgin
GeorgeWilliamHerbert
Tony Sidaway's sock farm
Gary Weiss's sockfarm namely Mantanmoreland and Samiharris
...and many more.

If i get some time, I'll go fishing for specific edits, or just look through Cla68's recent arbitrations.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wi...naked_shorting/

Gary Weiss considers The Register a Reliable Source. Good enough for me, add today's El Reg into Wikipedia lore:

Sources

An editor removed this external link:

* "The bizarre world of Patrick Byrne's Overstock" - The Register

With this comment:

* I'm sorry, The Register is not a reliable source[7]

However I don't see how it violates WP:RS. Why is this not a reliable source? -Will Beback 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me answer this way...if you think that article belongs here, then I assume you'll back me up when I add this to Jimbo Wales.
Deal?--Beware of Cow 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That article is obviously a joke. You haven't answered the question. Why is the Register not a reliable source? -Will Beback 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He isn't responding because it is obviously a reliable source. I have reverted.--Mantanmoreland 14:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[Piperdown]

JzG slanders Judd Bagley. Remove it, Wikipedians.

No, I won't be adding an NPOV tag. We already know that Bagley uses disinformation and harassment against anyone who does not uncritically support his company, we can scarcely say that a failure to repeat that harassment here is a failure of neutrality. I see that a couple of you are newish, and the others do nto do much on biographies. Please read up on WP:BLP (which has changed quite considerably in the last year) and WP:RS. We do not include poorly sourced material in biographies, and polemical sources are not reliable. The Cade piece is clearly polemical, Bagley is as polemical as you can possibly get, and the material is stated in terms that are functionally indistinguishable from an outright attack. So, unless we can find better sources and better wording, we shrug it off as "vituperative piece by vituperative person" and ignore it. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Weiss has been the subject of a vicious campaign of harassment by Judd Bagley, who makes a habit of viciously attacking his opponents, and Bagley has finally managed to find, in The Register, a place that will promote the meme for him. That makes this article a hotspot right now. What it needs most is probably not people who, rightly or wrongly, are perceived as associates of Bagley through shared participation in a site that Bagley uses to promote his agenda and his harassment meme. You ocould make yourself lok good here by walking away. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Weiss

Gary Weiss slanders Judd Bagley on the same page"

Dan, it is not our place to "prove Bagley true or false." It is our place to prevent Wikipedia from being a forum for his smears. The fact that he is engaged in a smear campaign against critics of Wikipedia is a matter of public record and is dutifully recorded in the Overstock.com article. As Wikipedia editors, we have an obligation to follow BLP strictly, and to exercise vigilance against introduction of negative and controversial material from dubious sources, i.e. Bagley. We also have an obligation to view with particular concern negative material pushed in BLPs by editors with an axe to grind or agenda. In this article both kinds of trouble have been in abundance. Most recently we have a spate of new editors pushing the Bagley agenda, whipped into a frenzy by a sensational article inspired by Bagley.--Samiharris (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[Cla68]

I sure wish that someone in a leadership position in Wikipedia or Wikimedia would publicly tell Gary Weiss that he's not welcome within 100-feet of Wikipedia, apologize to Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne, and de-sysop the admins (we know who they are) who banned, insulted, hectored, and villianized Bagley and Byrne for so long, plus retaliated against editors who tried to look into it or who refused to condemn websites like this one which were publicizing the details of the story. Truly a dark chapter in Wikipedia's history, among many dark chapters.

That's the thing about these dubious characters who are trying to manipulate Wikipedia for their own, bad-faith ends. It all comes out eventually. Why don't they realize this? If it turns out that anyone was abusing oversight or checkuser to unfairly ban opposing editors, that will come out. If any arbs have ever tried to fix any cases unjustly, it will come out. Why don't they realize this?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[SirFozzie]

They don't tell Andrew Morrow to GTFO.. they leave it to the community to do it, and you expect them to go after GW?

Hell, there are still many who IN GOOD FAITH aren't sure that GW WAS the person behind Mantanmoreland et all.

Plus there's that certain account where depending on the day, I'm either suspicious of, or fairly certain it's GW, come back again...

Although that, and another discussion that I've had with other admins has set in motion a little project of mine, that I've announced on my user page.

[Piperdown]

Byrne has chimed in on the El Reg's comments on this matter, among others. Metz's pieces even lately haven't been all positive towards Byrne, so don't mistake this for a "planted Bagley meme" like your idiot friend Guy Chapman does for anything that "attacks" Mantanmoreland. Like the New York Times or something.

Good reading:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wi...rting/comments/

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[everyking]

I sure wish that someone in a leadership position in Wikipedia or Wikimedia would publicly tell Gary Weiss that he's not welcome within 100-feet of Wikipedia, apologize to Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne, and de-sysop the admins (we know who they are) who banned, insulted, hectored, and villianized Bagley and Byrne for so long, plus retaliated against editors who tried to look into it or who refused to condemn websites like this one which were publicizing the details of the story.

That is exactly what needs to happen. One small but quite meaningful step in that direction would be the unbanning of WordBomb. Not only does he remain banned, despite having been completely vindicated, but he was recently re-blocked with e-mail disabled by JzG for unclear reasons.

[The Adversary]

I sure wish that someone in a leadership position in Wikipedia or Wikimedia would publicly tell Gary Weiss that he's not welcome within 100-feet of Wikipedia, apologize to Judd Bagley and Patrick Byrne, and de-sysop the admins (we know who they are) who banned, insulted, hectored, and villianized Bagley and Byrne for so long, plus retaliated against editors who tried to look into it or who refused to condemn websites like this one which were publicizing the details of the story.

That is exactly what needs to happen. One small but quite meaningful step in that direction would be the unbanning of WordBomb. Not only does he remain banned, despite having been completely vindicated, but he was recently re-blocked with e-mail disabled by JzG for unclear reasons.

I agree with SirFozzie that you really cannot expect that from "the leadership", as they aren´t leading.. But besides that: Yeah, Wordbomb needs to be unblocked. So, Cla or Everyking (or SirF): why don´t you suggest it on AN?

[Cla68]

I remember when I first went to the Gary Weiss article and hit the "edit" tab, after reading about the whole thing here and at Antisocialmedia.net. I had a feeling like Malone and Ness in The Untouchables where Malone tells Ness, "If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they're not gonna give up the fight." Sure enough, that feeling turned out to be true. Not everyone who shares culpability in this episode has been held fully accountable, of course, but at least the truth is coming out more and more, enough, I hope, for more people to make up their minds about what has actually happened in relation to this and who is responsble for allowing it to happen.

[Viridae]

JzG slanders Judd Bagley. Remove it, Wikipedians.

I would, as BLP vio, but I am staying away from JzG. Someone less involved on that front can do it.

[Cla68]

I agree with SirFozzie that you really cannot expect that from "the leadership", as they aren´t leading.. But besides that: Yeah, Wordbomb needs to be unblocked. So, Cla or Everyking (or SirF): why don´t you suggest it on AN?

I'm also supposed to stay away from JzG. Perhaps Judd could give his side of the story about why JzG took that action here?

[Cedric]

That's the thing about these dubious characters who are trying to manipulate Wikipedia for their own, bad-faith ends. It all comes out eventually. Why don't they realize this? If it turns out that anyone was abusing oversight or checkuser to unfairly ban opposing editors, that will come out. If any arbs have ever tried to fix any cases unjustly, it will come out. Why don't they realize this?

It's very simple. Depressingly simple, really. It's all down to arrogance; because of that delusion that one can do no wrong, and that even one's turds smell sweet. Arrogance blinds people to reason, and in due time it also makes them oblivious to danger, leading to an inevitable downfall. Ancient Greek authors wrote plays and prose poems involving this very theme. They called it "hubris". It is truly one of the oldest stories ever told.

Stay gold, Cla. Stay gold. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

That's the thing about these dubious characters who are trying to manipulate Wikipedia for their own, bad-faith ends. It all comes out eventually. Why don't they realize this? If it turns out that anyone was abusing oversight or checkuser to unfairly ban opposing editors, that will come out. If any arbs have ever tried to fix any cases unjustly, it will come out. Why don't they realize this?

It's very simple. Depressingly simple, really. It's all down to arrogance; because of that delusion that one can do no wrong, and that even one's turds smell sweet. Arrogance blinds people to reason, and in due time it also makes them oblivious to danger, leading to an inevitable downfall. Ancient Greek authors wrote plays and prose poems involving this very theme. They called it "hubris". It is truly one of the oldest stories ever told.

Stay gold, Cla. Stay gold. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

Cheeez Whizzz. Youz Guyz probably look at the Bush Election Theft and say, "See, Duh System Works".

The fact is you only catch the dumber crooks and the slower speeders. How many encyclopedic houses will get robbed, how many good editors will get run off the road, never to return, before you tumble to what SlimVirgin et al. really are?

Any Abuse That Can Happen, Will Happen.

Any Abuse That Can Happen Again, Will Happen Again.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: