Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: WordBomb

It's finally time to publish the long awaited emails, starting with the two that prove beyond all doubt that Gary Weiss was indeed Mantanmoreland all along.

I know that presenting these several months ago would have (possibly) made the whole Mantanmoreland RfAr process a little easier, but for several reasons, I opted against it.

I hope you understand.

http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=130

(though not relating directly to Wikipedia, many more fascinating Weiss emails will be published soon. http://antisocialmedia.net/?page_id=128).

Posted by: gomi

Well, that would seem to confirm what we all knew (though there is no inherent proof that will prevent some WP idiot from screaming "forgery").

What I am very curious about is -- what was the compelling reason to wait all this time to release these? They seem straightforward proof of his malfeasance. What was so confidential that you needed to wait 6 months after the fact?

Posted by: WordBomb

More than six months...I've had them since April of 2007.

I waited primarily because of a commitment I'd made to the man who handed the emails over to me. He asked me to wait. And while painful to do so, that's what I did.

Posted by: Rootology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.23.85.112

Sigh. All that fighting, and for what?

Posted by: WordBomb

I suspect another email (to be published tonight or tomorrow) will answer that question.

Posted by: Piperdown

You know, what gets me, is during all the hubbub on WP about how mantanmoreland and his self-talking socks, and the admins who supported him to his wikideath and even now, is all the claims they made of stalking, harassment, jihads, smear campaigns, and worse ...one "Crum375" called me - well. my stupid account name on WP at least lol) a rapist, others with some sort of bizarre, anonymous Wikipedia Clout called Bagley (by real name) a crazed stalker, Byrne (real name) a crazed scammer and worse.....is that none of those WP'ians had any of that actually happening to them...but crying wolf worked really good the first time, so they kept on doing it.

Meanwhile Wordbomb has been dealing with a situation, as Mark Mitchell and Byrne have found out first-hand, involves people who kill other people for a living, for some very rich people, to protect billions in profits. The kind of racket that Gary has purported himself to have made a career of "investigating". Oh the irony, yuk yuk yuk. That's what makes me the most sad about Gary. Supposedly a journalist. I used to hold NBA referrees, ordained ministers, and New York governors in high regard too. Sigh.

I don't know, but I'm going to take a wild guess that Wordbomb has actually been "harassed" and "stalked" in real life for what he's been exposing. Not just words one can throw around on WP to get your editing enemies banned, but actual acts of it.

So what was "Floyd"'s Wikipedia account I wonder. Thanks for posting the evidence as you promised was true earlier this year, and probably started, via WR readership, the WP community towards rectifying the Mantanmoreland situation regardless of what a few badmin apples were trying to hide.

Emails you've had since April 2007? Wow. The self-control to not use that on WP to stop the on-WP slandering of you is amazing. I'd have posted them to Jimbo's talk page immediately if I were called, by real name, the things you were.

Posted by: Piperdown

to play gary's advocate, during the the week that IP was editng NSS, and he started posting as MM, and emailing his shady friend floyd (read ASM, ohmygod), the NSS article was a steaming pile of unsourced crap.

Reading through it, that article in 2006 was 2 wrong sides making a wrong. Gary had a couple of agendas (his book promotion, plus something possibly more sinister), and enough WP:RS's (partial, selective quoting from the SEC) to twist the truths with.....against a slew of IP address editors and green accounts that just had no idea what WP is supposed to be about, and were easy to get banned for WP rule infractions, often provoked ones....it's not the "truth", its what your WP:RS sources say...lol....you make your own fiction, to quote one of his buds, and he produced his own RS's on the matter - himself and his longtime colleagues that put in editorial page soundbites for him.

It was a good gig until Bloomberg reporters, the SEC Chairman, Vanity Fair, and others took notice and did some actual investigation.

Posted by: Aloft

Do you also have a load of emails from the infamous wp-cyberstalking list, or am I misremembering?

Posted by: everyking

Well, this certainly seals it, although I can't imagine anyone out there still had reasonable doubt about it. Surely even his devoted defenders came to realize at some point that he was Weiss (perhaps he told some of them himself).

I'm wondering, Judd: do you think he's still editing Wikipedia now? Or could it be that he's finally given up?

Posted by: Piperdown

wow, check this out:

http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=132

it's about an email involving gary keeping Liz Moyer from getting a job at BusinessWeek.

Ironically, I cited Moyer several times on the NSS article.
I wonder if that made him flinch a bit. I believe they are both employed by the same magazine now, although I haven't seen any evidence lately that Gary actually does any work for them.

_______________________________________________________________________________

...and holy cow, we now have a new word for "sockpuppets" thanks to gary...."gnomes"

http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=131

One of those gnomes wrote on a Yahoo forum about Patrick Byrne's testicles, oddly. I think I posted that message here last fall. While Mrs Slocombe was very concern about the well-being of her pussy, Mr Weiss was very concerned about the number of testicles Patrick Byrne has. Go figure.

Posted by: WordBomb

I was given many of the emails from that group, but by a different individuals, whose identities I'm committed to protect, also until told otherwise.

Posted by: One

Permit me to be cynical, but are you now releasing certain emails because it's helpful to your lawsuit? I assume that's why you sat on them so long in the first place--as a bargaining chip for settlement for those who might be embarrassed by their contents. Not Gary, but others, perhaps.

In any case, good luck, I think. You've always been illuminating.

Posted by: WordBomb

Fair question, but the answer is no. I'd have published these emails the day I got them had the giver given me permission to do so.


I'd bet my meager life-savings that he's back editing.

Like a bacteria given a partial dose of antibiotic, each time he was allowed to survive, he learned how to do it better the next time.

And like bacteria, Weiss does what he does because he is compelled to.

Posted by: Aloft

I doubt many people on here are concerned with the leaker's identity, although I'm sure Slim & Co. would love to know. I'm just wondering if we are going to get a look at those emails as well.

Posted by: Alison

For the record, seeing as it's being mentioned below, I have never leaked anything from that list, other than posting my resignation message on my talk page. SV repeatedly accused me of doing so, however. She was wrong but never did concede that.

Now, I will say this, though; both Mantanmoreland and Samiharris were members of that list, both happily chatting away. This makes me wonder exactly who was taken for a ride here

Posted by: SirFozzie

Wonder if we'll see this link on ASM any time soon

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/business/14sec.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=login&ref=business&adxnnlx=1216033542-Z50NgRAFn84jphuLuBZSZQ

SEC says "Quit it with the Short/Distort"

Posted by: Viridae

Background on this lawsuit.

Posted by: thekohser

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but technically, those e-mails from Gary Weiss never say that he edited Wikipedia. He danced around it, with "You just go into edit mode..." and "I may insert a reference...". But he never expressly said that he edited Wikipedia.

(I'm not an apologist for Weiss, and I consider Judd Bagley a friendly acquaintance, so... you know I'm just pointing it out, that everyone should read carefully.)

Greg

Posted by: Piperdown

then you missed the IP header in the email and the IP editor on WP that day/week.

Posted by: Moulton

It's a Pisser

Don't rely on Brian Bergstein here, Greg. Sometimes you gotta get your news straight from UP and IP.

Posted by: WordBomb

Yeah, Greg, Piperdown nails it. Mantanmoreland aside, the IP from which Weiss sent those emails (70.23.85.112) was on an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.23.85.112 the same day.

Because Verizon residential dsl assigns one IP per house, the only other explanation is that it was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mantanmoreland&diff=66346663&oldid=66272530 who was making those edits.

But wait...that would make Gary Mantanmoreland anyway, wouldn't it...

Posted by: Saltimbanco

From the article:



This parallels a rumor repeated beyond all reason, by my reading of Vanity Fair's article on the matter, by CNBC about Bear Stearns. That the New York Times would report on such a rumor campaign against Lehman in an article on SEC comments and potential action suggests that CNBC either are or soon will have a close going-over from the authorities.

Posted by: thekohser

But, I thought someone could have installed a root kit on Gary's computer? Didn't some young Yale genius demonstrate with authority that this could be done?

Posted by: Piperdown

the last entry, in its entirety, is a jpg of a noose on gary's blog page. quick, send samiharris and mantanmoreland over from slimmy's soopersekret mailing list to make sure he's not trying to hang Martin Luther for Nazi warcrimes again.

I doubt Liz Moyer will be rushing over with milk and cookies anytime soon.

Posted by: gomi

Perhaps. To fill in those of you not paying attention, this war erupted over the issue of Naked short selling, the practice of selling stock one doesn't own and haven't successfully borrowed, in the hopes that it will drop in price before it needs to be returned. This practice (so it is said) is often accompanied by the active spreading of negative news and/or rumors about the company in question, in order to "encourage" that stock to drop.

Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland has been a notable defender of "naked shorting", whilst Judd Bagley/WordBomb (once employed by Patrick Byrne/Overstock.com) has been a critic of it, and Overstock has -- in some views -- been a victim of the practice. Litigation is pending on the subject.

So, ASM could very well quote that article, as it somewhat supports Bagley/Bryne/Overstock's point of view, though it doesn't go directly after the "naked" aspect of short-selling, which is/was key to the dispute. Short-selling itself is a legal and useful part of the overall securities markets. External attempts to manipulate markets are, and have always been, illegal. Naked shorting (IMO) should be illegal, but technical aspects of the market make it difficult to prove, and the SEC has never made it an enforcement priority.

Posted by: One

I assume this is a question?

They have two main suits. One against the brokerages commenced in early 2007 seeking $3.5B: http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/02/02/naked-short-suit-overstock-biz-cx_lm_0202naked.html Bear Stearns was a defendant. LOL. Basically they're suing the I-banks for allowing naked short selling to occur and possibly for facilitating it. In February the court denied the defendant's motion to strike, which was seen as a small victory for Overstock. There might be a full trial in this case.

The other suit commence in 2005 against folk who they allege manipulated the price with short & distort tactics, and possibly illegal naked short selling. Principle defendants are Gradiant and Rocker Partners (associated with the famous "bearish" analyst Herb Greenberg, often seen on Jim Cramer's entertaining show Mad Money). Recently, there was a http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/technology/court-rules-gradient-analytics-cross-complaint-proceed-overstockcom-counts/, but http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/overstockcom-announces-favorable-court-ruling/story.aspx?guid=%7B8E081DE9-8653-4366-BA6B-FE23D68CC78E%7D&dist=hppr. (There doesn't seem to be a neutral story about the court ruling, and I'm too tired to hunt for the order.) Anyhow, they're looking at a full trial on the merits in this case, which is wild. Suggests it's at least not totally frivolous, and lots of businesses might settle at this stage, which is why I asked Wordbomb my question.

Since Overstock retained their firm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O'Quinn on contingency, they seem to be in a very good place. Plaintiff's firms (aka "trial lawyers") don't take cases to loose 'em. Now that they've cleared the preliminary motions, I'd put my money on Overstock.

The defendant's are no doubt paying hand-over-fist for this, while John O'Quinn is paying for Overstock. They're sittin' pretty I think.

If Mantanmoreland is part of these cases, he's probably a very small part.

Posted by: One

I gotta say that there's http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=134 in your latest installment. There's some connection, as you've already proved, but I think it could be ideological coincidence that Gary and the DTCC badmouthed someone who thinks illegal naked short selling is, uh, bad.

That said, Gary seems to take it very passionately, almost like a religion (or Global Warming on WP). He's ether deeply cynical and doublethinking about free markets (that the free market can't regulate itself, ergo let's let unregulated private attacks proliferate), or he has a direct stake in this otherwise esoteric debate. Until now, I've assumed Hanlon's razor, so have pegged Gary as the former. It's increasingly difficult for me to believe that he's not got a palpable COI.

Posted by: WordBomb

I've not polled many tenured WP'ians for their impressions of my interpretation of the edit history described http://antisocialmedia.net/?page_id=105.

What do you think?

By the by, just today I realized that the church described in that article sits about 400 feet away from Weiss's home. Wish I'd checked on that earlier!

Posted by: Proabivouac

I found (and still find) this evidence quite convincing.

Posted by: Cla68

I'd say it's only a matter or time before this new evidence gets mentioned, at least in passing, in a major source like the NY Times, perhaps in a story about either of the two suits Overstock is involved in.

Posted by: Piperdown

although it's still possible - the talk page comment on from MM on that IP page is not typical of his WP career, it's more typical of over-the-top acting of someone who realises they just gave away their IP - it's not solid. The church edits and surrounding edits from that IP and MM do not present any smoking gun for GW=DTCC, imho. I was hoping some of those emails would do that, more so than what's been shown on the asm blog, to be frank.

Like Mrs Slocombe and her....cat....GW is awfully awfully concerned about Mitchell and Trimbath, as you point out, and the "we's" and "us"'s in those emails aren't the royal kind. He wrote his book by himself, purports to blog on his own and to be an independent gumshoe who blesses Forbes with his wisdom once a season, so whats with the we's and us's, unless he's talking about his gnomes and sockpuppets again.

So I'm still open minded to GW=DTCC, but if I was on a panel I'd have to vote not guilty of that due to reasonable doubt with evidence presented so far.

But GW=MM without a Varkala doubt, lol.

in reading the emails on ASM so far, Gary is one fucked up "journalist" to call:

Liz Moyer
- CEO shill
- clown
- lobby against her getting a job at BW, only to end up at the same Forbes years later, lol

Mark Mitchell
- nitwit
- hambone
- concrete skull
- bozo
- jerk

and this was in email conversation to a man he was sending love letters and autographed books to...

I wonder how many other journalists he has such imaginative words for - perhaps his blog Medicrity has some, I wonder if Nocera is aware of how much Gray Lady Love GW has on the mediacrity blog, and if the UN's "Ian Williams" (wtf? talk about a weird obscure grudgefuck report obsession) knows who his secret admirer is too.

Posted by: thekohser

Socks of mine have been convicted with far less reliable evidence. In fact, once I was editing from a Hollywood, CA hotel, and Lord knows, I'm not "local" Hollywood.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

I was going to first make a "receipt joke" and ask you, Greg, if you turned in a receipt to work for a massage parlor in Hollywood, after that trip.

But that would be crass, so I won't.

I was also going to make a dirty sock/laundry joke.

But there's not one good enough, that I can thing of

Ah..... destiny....... destiny....

Posted by: One

I agree with Piperdown. Although the evidence is clearly consistant with the proposition that GW=DTCC, and maybe even suggestive of the identity, I think it's also possible that he had special access to the DTCC one day as a fellow traveller, but that GW is not formally their stooge.

"We" and badmouthing a reporter at about the same time don't add anything the the evidence you already presented, IMO. He was clearly there. More than that would be speculative.

Press doesn't seem interested in the story. Our only hope is that they don't settle, that the trial lawyer tells the jury that they should send a message, and that the jury agrees. I'm sure aa fat verdict will turn some heads.

Posted by: Disillusioned Lackey

Did anyone else notice the DIA mention in the IP address for Weiss?

Is Gary Weiss part of the Defense Intelligence Agency? Or does he use an ISP allied to them?

It would make sense, given his vicious attacks on Byrne, who doesn't toe the party line, as per certain financial practices.

Oh, pardon me. That would be the NSA.

Gary Weiss's IP is out of the NSA. http://cryptome.org/nsa-ip-update.htmon crytome.org.



http://www.frameip.com/forum/1011-blocks-federaux.htm

BellSouth.net Inc. [NSA-affiliated IP ranges]
(reassigned to Verizon and then reassigned to NSA program; Verizon contractors working with NSA involved here)
Atlanta GA
70.144.0.0 - 70.159.255.255
74.224.0.0 - 74.255.255.255
auth-dns.msy.bellsouth.net [205.152.132.24]
auth-dns.asm.bellsouth.net [205.152.37.24]
auth-dns.mia.bellsouth.net [205.152.144.24]
auth02.dns.bellsouth.net [205.152.132.25]
auth00.dns.bellsouth.net [205.152.37.25]
auth01.dns.bellsouth.net [205.152.144.25]

[/color]


Dedicated Internet Access, my buns.


DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY = DIA.