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]

It's still happening. I was presented by email with a link to WordBomb's account of the whole affair, introducing me to the financial wizardry of NSS. I had previously paid little attention to this, just noticing the Mantanmoreland/Samiharris arbitration for its use of meticulously researched statistical evidence, never realizing that this was all necessary because massive and more direct evidence, surely known to Jimbo et al, provided by WordBomb, was suppressed under various excuses. (Whereas actually illegal evidence was cheerfully used in the EEML case.)

Realizing that the Wikipedia story might be much darker than the AGF I'd been able to sustain, on the theory that setting up processes for mass consensus (very different from mob rule) was not well-understood, and that the chaos that is Wikipedia was, then, simply natural, I've started to look from a new perspective. That AGF is now disintegrating. The chaos is actively being maintained, because it's far easier to manage and control, where control is "important." Community processes that might eventually lead to broad consensus process were crushed, many times.

Looks to me like Gary Weiss just edited, five days ago, Naked short selling. diff..

IP contributions showing multiple proximity to Mantanmoreland (Gary Weiss) establishing substantial presumption.

Ban violation. But that's a technicality, what about the substance? Added text by Weiss in bold.

There has been speculation that naked short selling played a role in driving Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy, but a bankruptcy trustee report on Lehman proved the reports to be wrong.
[reference:]"Don't Blame Shorts for Lehman Demise," by Rachel Beck, Associated Press, March 19, 2010 "Short sellers didn't bring down Lehman; company squashed itself through risk."

The added text is deceptive, not confirmed by source. The source is referring to short selling, not naked short selling. Short selling is quite legitimate. Naked short selling amplifies the effect of short selling, with practically no limit. The trustee report is not cited as addressing naked short selling at all. The edit is blatant POV-pushing, as I immediately saw before looking at the source, because of the telltale word "proved."

Quack!

I'd revert the edit, and I'm under no ban to prevent me, except that my friends at ArbComm have, shall we say, "suggested" that I avoid all controversy. Sorry, friends, but I see blatant disregard of NPOV policy all the time, I'd have to stop looking at Wikipedia and what's related, entirely, and it's entirely too frustrating to see stuff clearly that is damaging the project and say nothing.

I have no prior involvement here at all, but, having read the devastatingly deep research done by WordBomb, I do now have a POV, pending any kind of refutation based on, er, evidence. Pleased to meet you, WordBomb. Excellent work.

[Somey]

Added text by Weiss in bold.

There has been speculation that naked short selling played a role in driving Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy, but a bankruptcy trustee report on Lehman proved the reports to be wrong.
[reference:]"Don't Blame Shorts for Lehman Demise," by Rachel Beck, Associated Press, March 19, 2010 "Short sellers didn't bring down Lehman; company squashed itself through risk."

The added text is deceptive, not confirmed by source. The source is referring to short selling, not naked short selling. Short selling is quite legitimate. Naked short selling amplifies the effect of short selling, with practically no limit. The trustee report is not cited as addressing naked short selling at all. The edit is blatant POV-pushing, as I immediately saw before looking at the source, because of the telltale word "proved."

You're absolutely correct about the use of the word "proved," but at the risk of playing Devil's Advocate here, if the report attempts to exculpate short sellers I would think it would also exculpate naked shorters too, by simple extension/implication. So... without the word "proved" in it (i.e., something like "suggested that the reports might be wrong" instead), this particular edit by Mr. Weiss might conceivably be valid, though it's obviously self-serving in any case.

[Abd]

Added text by Weiss in bold.

There has been speculation that naked short selling played a role in driving Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy, but a bankruptcy trustee report on Lehman proved the reports to be wrong.
[reference:]"Don't Blame Shorts for Lehman Demise," by Rachel Beck, Associated Press, March 19, 2010 "Short sellers didn't bring down Lehman; company squashed itself through risk."

The added text is deceptive, not confirmed by source. The source is referring to short selling, not naked short selling. Short selling is quite legitimate. Naked short selling amplifies the effect of short selling, with practically no limit. The trustee report is not cited as addressing naked short selling at all. The edit is blatant POV-pushing, as I immediately saw before looking at the source, because of the telltale word "proved."

You're absolutely correct about the use of the word "proved," but at the risk of playing Devil's Advocate here, if the report attempts to exculpate short sellers I would think it would also exculpate naked shorters too, by simple extension/implication. So... without the word "proved" in it (i.e., something like "suggested that the reports might be wrong" instead), this particular edit by Mr. Weiss might conceivably be valid, though it's obviously self-serving in any case.

Well, that's what a wikilawyer might assert. It's not valid. Short selling is widely recognized as useful, there is no serious controversy over it. The short seller is taking major risk, bet wrong, lose big. No limit to the loss, in fact, if the price skyrockets. (Whereas, invest in stock, your potential loss is limited to the investment.) But naked short selling allows this balanced beneficial effect to be amplified many times, at least in theory. I'm not taking an overall position on this, only noting that the text is clearly pushing one side, the side that identifies Patrick Byrne as a looney-tune, and that claims that naked short selling is absolutely beneficial, good for General Bullmoose and good for America. So to speak.

Maybe it is beneficial, but that source doesn't establish it. And the reality here is that a banned editor is being allowed to push a POV, while the opposite POV is still being suppressed. I would not ban either side, but limit them to Talk and strictly enforce civility. And bring in whatever neutral resources were necessary to make sure that the article was balanced. That's what I'd do if I were in charge, so to speak. Wikipedia process, in theory, would do this. In fact, it is far from it. And that's what this case showed me, once again, in a matter of such major economic significance that leads me to the conclusion that the deficiencies in Wikipedia process just might, for me, have found an explanation, a position that is leading me into more agreement with some of the old-timers here.

Wordbomb, especially, should be unbanned, if Wikipedia cared about balance. If there is a need for behavioral control, that can be done, rather easily. Blocks, not bans. Too much to explain now how this could be done efficiently, it has to do with networking and, hey, cabals. Only the right kind of cabals, and lots of them. WordBomb, if he was going to be blocked, would be blocked by an editor sympathetic with his POV. Or *at least* by someone completely neutral, based on obviously improper behavior, which, on a Talk page, would pretty much have to be incivility or high disruption.

This is connected to my proposal to consider all who claim expertise as COI. That's counter-intuitive, until we start thinking about real editorial process (i.e., what managing editors do and what they look for in contributions from experts. Do newspapers allow experts to write the articles? Not usually, it's only with editorials that it's common. I.e., expert opinion, attributed.). I've written much more about this elsewhere.

If someone is COI, we restrict their editing on the COI topic because we expect them to have a POV. Properly, they should be allowed to advise the community, but not to control the article. But, too often, editors are blocked because they "push their POV." Which is exactly what any expert will do!

WordBomb, you are an expert on this topic, by reason of your history. It's tragic that your warnings and your commentary was banned. Wikipedia should have, if it were interested in neutrality, found a way to filter your commentary so that what was improper -- if anything! -- about it was left out, and what was important and relevant was left in. The identity of Mantanmoreland was very important, in fact, as long as he was allowed to edit the articles. It's not just COI, it's blatant POV-pushing, once his identity is known. And clearly, it worked, and clearly, it's still going on.

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.

Spam filter on your end?

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).

That's fascinating. I believe you, basically because I've seen no history of lying, unlike the other fellow. What that means here is that an editor was indeffed because of POV. I think a checkuser might decide to look at this.

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.

Well, don't let it get to your head. Yes, that's pretty obvious. About what you said. And, sigh, about Galileo, too.

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.

Care to say by whom? Not, I mean, identity, but class of identity, like arbitrator, administrator, other editor, or, hey, head of certain corporation, friend of yours?

But you obviously don't have to answer that. I'd ask you not to do that as well, were I In Charge. But I'd want you to comment in Talk, and that can't be done now, because the account would quickly be blocked.

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.

Oh, oh, oh! Dying to ask!

JzG is occasionally sane and even nice. But it's totally unreliable. He'll turn around the next minute and stab you in the back, if it serves his purposes. He's actually a pathetic figure, in the end. Yes, he and Wikipedia, as it is, deserve each other. It will drive him mad; actually, apparently, it already has.

How about (assuming it's ok to add punctuation): "A gary edited, I'd Inform"

That actually works, by the way.

Assuming you didn't make it up and weren't told, I'm seriously impressed. It does indeed work, quite well, describing the function of the account. If I had a company needing some smart help, and I had the money, I'd be asking you if you need a job.

But I don't have that. Still, good luck!