Gary Weiss on the verge of a nervous breakdown Options

[WordBomb]

I'm told that all the recent tinkering with the article autobiography on Gary Weiss has put Weiss himself in a strange place, psychologically. He -- as Mantanmoreland -- has been begging many former allies for intervention and even asked ArbCom -- as Stetsonharry -- to be unbanned.

Of course, Stetsonharry was shown the door, but not before expressing his deep, DEEP, red-faced, vein-bulging, scowling disappointment.

Apparently it was Huldra's inspired addition of the Wikipuffery category that really set him off.

If had a devious side, it might suggest that just a little more improvement of the article (and it could certainly use more than a little improving) would yield some really interesting Weissian fireworks.

[Abd]

There has been no clean-up. I noticed JzG's involvement, a nice neutral sockpuppet report, simultaneously for two editors, basically Mantanmoreland and WordBomb, all wrapped up in one. Never saw that done before. Efficient, I suppose. But here is the problem: if you whack both sides, and nobody cleans up the mess, the article is left as edited by one side, and, mystery of mysteries, things seem to be left in a certain state.. When an editor doesn't like the state it was left in, the editor reverts back to "before the edit war." Taking no responsibility for the content. And, in fact, continuing an edit war instead of considering the content.

SPI/ WordBomb and Mantanmoreland. So where is the article left?

Examples of Smear Campaign

A single web site criticizing something isn't a smear campaign. This was obviously placed in the article pushing a smear agenda against the site operator, Judd Bagley, and Overstock.com. Overstock.com has been openly critical of naked short selling and certain people involved with it. The connection between Overstock.com and Bagley seems to have been well-known, probably open.

The sources are three:

(1) An article by Roddy Boyd in the New York Post, whom Bagley effectively skewers in his slide show. Boyd does not call ASM's "war against its critics," a "smear campaign." Does not support the text.

(2) A 2007 commentary by Susan Antilla on Bloomberg.com. It does not call this a "smear campaign." It says, "The recent Google attack on Weiss [an ad directing searchers to the ASM web site] is but the latest example of the public relations path Overstock and Bagley have taken to wage their bizarre battle against naked shorts."

(3) A 2007 New York Times article, not linked in the reference, here it is.

Note that in these sources we see that "attacks" on Weiss are notable. Are they covered in the Weiss article? Why not?

The New York Times article is pretty neutral, as far as I can see. It is pretty hard on Weiss. Coverage on Weiss is funny as hell:

Beyond calling the accusations “lies,” Mr. Weiss hasn’t addressed most of the details of the site’s “findings,” though he denied having edited Wikipedia entries under a pseudonym. Instead, he pointed out that Mr. Byrne has himself posted under pseudonyms on various message boards.

People use pseudonyms: that, itself, isn't necessarily offensive. Using them to create an impression of support is. And, of course, Weiss was ultimately found by such a wide consensus to be editing Wikipedia under a pseudonym that he stands exposed here as a bald-faced liar. I have seen some statements from Bagley that might have been inadequately "proven," but no lies, so far. He was right in his claims, the ones that Mantamoreland/Samiharris/Weiss was denying.

This item in Smear campaign is a blatant travesty, a misrepresentation of what's in the sources, as is easy to find. So why does it wait for me to find it? My guess is that others know this, and are intimidated. Or banned. Or like it that way.

Who put this in? How about a guess? It's a really easy question! The answer..

Really interesting: the same pattern with the references, was there in the beginning, that two cites had links and one, the New York Times article, is missing a link, making it much less likely to be checked. That's the one source that really treated Weiss as on the attack, himself, and quoted his denial of sock puppetry. This was put in, June 3, 2007, and there it stands. Blatant POV-pushing, part of, ironically, a smear campaign.

Supported by Wikipedia. Given all that time and all the incredible fuss over Mantanmoreland/Samiharris, did anyone care about the content?

JzG restored the POV attack on Overstock.com, edit summary (Reverted to revision 337202894 by Penbat; Restore to last known version before offsite WP:BATTLE particiapants came along..) Not. That would have been back in 2007.

This article was not covered by the article probation implemented by ArbComm. To find the biased edit would have taken a review of the extensive contributions of Mantanmoreland and Samiharris et al. Short of that, users in conflict could be relied upon to find POV text! The policy that banned user contributions should be simply ignored is one that refuses to take advantage of their specific knowledge of the topic. I've argued that self-reverted edits from banned editors should be allowed, which, then, leaves behind no cleanup. But, very much, this has been rejected, and the result is poor content often blatantly biased as would be seen by anyone familiar with the topic, the most knowledgeable editors, frequently, having been excluded from even making suggestions. Is it a coincidence that JzG reverts back instead of leaving the article biased by the other side? (As normal with an interrupted edit war?)

One, you blocked a formally retired SPA whistleblower, who had been following IAR, very clearly, making a big fuss on the noticeboard, but you paid no attention to what the whistle-blower was pointing to. I think the user's position was ultimately correct, but that can be left for another day. Like, maybe, never.

Was the user WordBomb? Maybe. JzG seems to have thought so. It doesn't matter.

Is WordBomb (T-C-L-K-R-D) banned? I see that the initial block was issued by Slimvirgin, and WordBomb's entire history consisted of one day of editing. There seems to have been no ban discussion, which would make the ban be simply one of "no administrator willing to unblock," which isn't really a ban, it's "no administrator willing to unblock." A ban should not be reversed by an admin without a discussion. In this case, there is a request to consult before unblocking. JzG unblocked to reblock in 2008 with email access disabled. JzG is also involved. Still.

Some edits of WordBomb have been oversighted, according to the notes on his user page. From his slide show, he had outed Mantanmoreland as Gary Weiss. Can't allow that, can we? Even when it's relevant to a COI allegation? WordBomb makes his case about guideline or policy conflicts, very well, in the slide show.

As is common, a user who is arbitrarily blocked may create sock puppets. While that is an offense, it appears that WordBomb had email access disabled because of attempts to contact arbitrators. I can't blame WordBomb for IP editing or socking, if he did. I don't see any clear confirmation, but it's a reasonable possibility.

[WordBomb]

Wow. There's been a lot of action on this thread that I was not aware of. Somey...I think the email notification thing is broken.

Anyway, to answer some of your questions:
Neither the account nor the IPs mentioned in that sock puppet investigation were me (and if anybody can tell me what "A Ad Dieted Fir Grimy On" means, I'd be very interested to know).

Yes, WordBomb is banned.

All my oversighted edits -- the same for which I was silenced and banished -- said nothing more than what has since come to be regarded as accepted truth today. I suppose I have something in common with Galileo in that sense.

I have created several "sockpuppet" accounts, but not for the purpose of directly influencing wikipedia content. Instead, I created them in order to ensnare Weiss and his defenders, and occasionally inject some information into discussions. I currently do have an active account, which I use to make minor edits in articles that need them. I've not edited any of the four articles on probation, because I've been asked not to.

JGZ is among that startlingly commonplace breed of wikipedian who cannot feel complete without somebody to hate. Because I busted him sockpuppeting at one point, I've intermittently been that person. Because he sees the enemy of his enemy as his friend, Guy sees Gary Weiss is a natural ally. And they deserve each other.