Hmm, the defense of MONGO and the input on the expert withdrawal board make more sense now with a few minutes of searching.

Oh and apologies for the slight sidetrack here. I think we are all anxiously awaiting the result of the AN thread now.

Slightly off topic
People often complain that Wikipedia's jargon is impenetrable to newcomers, and I've heard the theory that it's purposeful to maintain the imbalance of power.

But seriously folks. I already knew what this was about having looked over the thread at the Incident's noticeboard first, and I still have no idea what's being said most of the time in the above postings.

Back on topic

The issues I'm able to extract are
1. Was the initial check-user request valid?
2. Were the results posted in good faith?
3. How to sort out the discussions on the noticeboard that followed it.

Leaving aside the first two, the ANI discussion seems fairly even-handed: The gist I'm getting is "don't hunt snarks."

I'm convinced.

This will probably burn some bridges, and I've been mulling over it awhile, but I feel ethically bound to speak up. I have nothing personally against the people concerned - any of them, banned or protected alike - any more than I did against Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos (who was let off the hook) or FM (ditto) but the hypocrisy and dishonesty surrounding this affair is too much to stomach.

I also will agree with you that most people who've read ASM given this some thought probably do figure much of it is true (if not, they have no business anywhere near a sockpuppet investigation.)

If siding with a banned user is the third rail, joining in harassment in the fourth, then add that to BLP…WB is only spoken of in dark mysterious tones as the worst harasser ever to plague WP. Most people have no reason to doubt that, and will take trusted administrators at their word. Blocking him seems like the right thing to do. Perhaps it is the right thing to do, as WB has obviously not played by the rules, and contributors who are there only to pursue other contributors can't be tolerated. However, neither should corruption in the ranks (or gross negligence, or terminal cluelessness.)

All the articles involved, starting with the bios of both sides, should be deleted, not because, in an ideal world, some version of them shouldn't exist, but because WP is obviously terminally incapable of dealing with them in a principled manner under the current system. Any administrator who's mishandled this affair should be desysoped without malice or prejudice, due to the appearance of impropriety.

In light of the current discussion on WP:AN, I'd like to clarify that I haven't looked into the Samiharris allegation in particular - it's been several months since I checked ASM, and don't recall looking through that evidence - but the research as a whole, showing a pattern of socking, COI edits and undue favoritism, struck me as clever and compelling. Wordbomb has blown a few calls, but were there an official WP sockpuppet investigations panel, I'd certainly want him on it.

JzG's comment,

is rich, considering first, that he vigorously defended the last sleuth, and second, that "sleuthing" wasn't the problem per se - or why not start by deleting RfCU and SSP? - but incompetent (and unprovoked) sleuthing. There is no comparison between the caliber of research found on ASM (though not without flaws, but what is?) and that in the infamous document indicting !!; to draw one is an insult to the forensic sciences, and to human intelligence generally.

I think people should certainly research the Gary Weiss / Mantamoreland relationship themselves, free from Wordbomb's claims:

1. Firstly, evidence is ample that Weiss is a full participant in an offsite feud of vast and very nasty proportions with Judd / Wordbomb. Judd's attacks on Weiss are reciprocated, and in fact often doubled by Weiss's obsession with Overstock and Judd. Barely a week goes by without Weiss engaging in some sort of literary attack on Judd. I read two in the last week alone. This is an abnormal situation from the start.
2. Take a look at the blog postings from Gary Weiss about Wikipedia.
   This isn't some amused or irritated by-stander commenting. This is someone with a good understanding of the inner workings of the dispute. Reading Weiss's postings, it looks to me like someone who is personally involved in Wikipedia, and the Wordbomb / Mantanmoreland dispute. In other words, Judd is Wordbomb, Weiss is Mantanmoreland. Take a look at this blog post by Weiss for example : He just knows too much...
3. I couldn't find any reference to Mantanmoreland in Weiss's whole blog. Why would Weiss not mention that for two years, Judd Bagley has been accusing him of being Mantanmoreland? Given that Weiss stops at nothing to attack Judd at every possible juncture, covering the whole Wikipedia dispute, wouldn't mocking the fact that Judd had been accusing him of being some lowly Wikipedia editor be worth a blog post or two? If Weiss isn't Mantamoreland, then you'd have thought Weiss would be making hay at every opportunity? Or is there no mention of it because he doesn't want to draw further attention to his own sockpuppet?

By browsing Gary Weiss's many postings about Wikipedia and Judd, it seems to me that the probability of Mantanmoreland being Weiss is extremely high. Yet the likes of JzG and others have consistently attacked this probable conclusion as "lunatic ravings". Now we all know the state of JzG's judgement on matters. In a word = Useless. And we could find ample evidence for that. So basically, Judd has a really strong case to blame Wikipedia for wantonly negligent and corrupt treatment of this extraordinary situation.

Wikipedia had better wake up to their previous failings quick. If they don't, it'll keep hitting them in the face harder and harder each time.

I'm afraid so. I would find it difficult to believe that Guy is on the take from anyone - he seems nothing if not earnest. Rather, there have been so many situations where (justly) banned users have played AGFing Wikipedians like a collective cheap flute, and others where Wikipedians have been horribly harassed…I surmise that Guy finds a solution in this perfectly understandable, but simplistic, light.

Yes. In lots of ways, I like Guy, sympathize with him, and have been WR's resident "Guy Chapman apologist" many a time. But he just isn't up to the task. And more annoyingly, he doesn't realize it. There comes a point where Guy's buffoonery is tantamount to malevolent corruption regardless of his motivations.

I see that people are continuing to resort to the tactic of "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". It's odd; usually admins TRY to pretend that they listen.

You reading this, Slim?

Mongo's request for a full sockpuppet report seems valid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189623757

First, I think MONGO is a straight shooter. Perhaps not all the people around him (or me now) are…but if MONGO finds a report convincing, I'll guess he'd say so, as he has in the past.

The problem is, how to post it? It would be a post by a banned user, or proxying for him. So, there should be some agreement that WordBomb can post a full sockpuppet report by a trusted (by Wikipedians) proxy, one which steers clear of anything that might be construed as off-wiki stalking or harassment.

Why isn't this being handled by Arbcom? In the open -- with the parties including Judd, Mantamoreland and SamiHarris giving statements. And with the investigation given proper weight? And with no rabble of leering goons like Guy or GeorgeWilliamHerbert interjecting every 2 minutes to scream nonsense about "banned users" and "vile stalkers"??

Or why not deal with this as it is: A proper dispute in the real world? Treat is as such, and apply professional dispute resolution methods, rather than the ridiculous procedures Wikipedia currently employs. Current processes merely result in bawling, bullying and scandals that demean the project and everyone involved with it. Including us.

I think that was useful to help take stock of the situation. It is clear that as WR has matured, that the wheat is outweighing the chaff (as Wikback has put it) and we are being heard. We are also being watched, so constructive comments to aid the investigation, put forward in an impersonal manner allow those involved at Wikipedia to act, whereas rants are likely to embarrass those who are effectively making our case for us.

My point is that it is really important not to give the likes of Guy any excuses. He has been attacked often enough by WR so that I can quite understand why he would not want to listen to anything he perceives as coming from this source, but at some point he needs to get the message that defending the indefensible is far more damaging than opposing WR/WB as a matter of principle.

This may simply be another campaign in the battle, but every time around, the socking becomes more and more transparent. I think Gary can be left to being the cause of his own destruction. I don't think WB needs any more dubious tactics. Even if this round fails, it sets the scene so that the next time some innocent comes to sort out the disputed articles, any dubious tactics will be called.

The one thing I cannot get my head around is that I sort of understand why WordBomb is fixated with this: we all get motivated by some injustice and it is very difficult to let go, especially in the face of organised deafness, but I do not understand what Gary Weiss would get out of these many years of effort to maintain a point of view on the relatively unimportant platform of a Wikipedia article, which can be readily dismissed as the ravings of an attack site. I mean, if the guy is into all this dubious share dealing, surely he has lots of money and better things to do with his time? Now that is an unhealthy obsession.

Maybe it's just a hobby.

Maybe he just likes the drama like me :-)

Excellent post. I did not take WR very seriously in the past, and I stand behind that. But things change. I still think there is a fair bit of chaff here (you need a pretty good filter) but the wheat is on the increase and it's more worth being here than before, to learn and listen (and perhaps to offer information that might be helpful in clearing misconceptions).

But I think if WordBomb was socking in regard to this matter, as now seems increasingly likely, it undercuts the specific message because it gives reason to some to dismiss it... it also undercuts taking the rest of WR's wheat seriously because it gives ammo to those that say it's all chaff...

That strikes me as unfortunate, except if the goal is purely to be disruptive rather than to effect change.

When I think about WR, I quote myself. Here's a part of the sock show as promised. On top of Bomb already showing us "both" post from the same Verizon IP when theyre not proxying.

Modus operandi - blank a well-sourced edit to provoke. Revert the revert with sock in a rigged 3RR game. Claim that you hate involved people. When stink raised, use passive-agressive "don't be so crazy-angry" retort.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=143888418


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Piperdown

I think many here will have the perspective that, if it is agreed that there has been something going wrong for a long time, it puts WordBomb's activities in a different light.

There are a few things that, viewing from the real world, I do not really grasp what WordBomb has done to be equated with a multiple victim axe murderer. I am unsure what is fact in amongst all the hyperbole, and not very interested in what are clearly some pretty unpleasant goings on the real world - Gary's blog is at best described as embarrassingly unprofessional.

What specific damage has been done to the content of Wikipedia? If there has been a deliberate manipulation by Gary Weiss, what heinous crime has WordBomb done in outing the COI? (I really do not subscribe to the WikiBelief that the revelation of identities is a hideous crime when this anonymity is used as an excuse to disrupt Wikipedia). Given the invective outside of Wikipedia, it is not surprising that things have spilled over onto Wikipedia, and it takes a cool head to separate out what is a very personal and unpleasant battle, and the real meat that is about the core values that should govern Wikipedia.

Wikipedia needs to keep a perspective about itself. When you are involved, it does seem very important, and I think on of our concerns is that it is potentially a very influential medium, but in the end, the social drama has become far too strong.

So, go back and look at the issue with a fresh pair of eyes. If we put history behind us and consider what is best for the future, what is important? I' d suggest showing that the administrators can set aside personal history and come to a decision based on reason would be a big win. If there is someone on Wikipedia who is deliberately conducting a campaign against a real world person, then that needs to be dealt with. Then, a signal is sent that nobody enjoys the protection of an in group of editors, perhaps including members of that in group.

I'd like to think that Wikipedia could get its own house in order, and one of the most important attitude changes to achieving this is to get rid of the cult of "respected admins" who do not command that respect in knowing community. There are a lot less trolls out there than Wikipedia believes.

Indeed, when I first discovered WR, it was dominated by a group of fist-shakers, many of which were banned from WP for good reason, and most of these were eventually banned from this site for similarly good reasons. But this was Miami to Wikipedia's Havana, and the only gathering place for the growing community of exiles. Over time the ratio of principled wheat to chaff has grown enormously.

If the Wikipedia phenomenon is a testament to the deep human need to find others with similar affinities, collaborate, be heard and (most importantly) be understood, Wikipedia Review is a testament to the fact that Wikipedia is failing in at least the final two items on that list.

I'm not interested in veering off into semantics, because I think we have much more in common than not, but I want to clarify one thing: a sockpuppet is, by definition, an alternate identity used to give the false impression of more support for an issue than really exists.

Samiharris and Mantanmoreland are sockpuppets.

I, on the other hand, have never used more than one identity at the same time pretending to be different people in order to influence content or policy. I have, on the other hand, created many identities in order to inject information onto Wikipedia for the express purpose of raising awareness of what I feel are activities that history will undoubtedly judge to run contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia and the people who reference it.

I will admit to committing precisely one act of vandalism. It was a moment of comedic weakness for which I have already begged forgiveness.

Finally, I feel quite confident that as the true nature of my activities, as well as those of the WP "establishment" come to light, it will be made abundantly clear who was acting reasonably and who was not.

This is precisely the reason I do not believe this matter will be given an ArbCom or other structured hearing: it will prove deeply embarrassing to too many powerful people.

Finally, if you have not yet, I encourage you to read this story to get a deeper understanding of what's motivating me, and why it makes sense for you to be squarely on "my side".

You'll find this interesting...as it turns out, Weiss often quietly edits his blog posts over time. Cataloging these changes has been very instructive. Here's one of my favorites:
In his post “Bagley's Cover Story Falls Apart” published on February 8, 2007, Weiss's original penultimate paragraph read:
The next morning, he changed that paragraph (changes in red) to read:

The next day he thought better of it and changed the paragraph to read:

Please let this sink in...despite all the evidence to the contrary that you've correctly cited, for 24 hours and 42 minutes, Weiss's position was that he had never edited Wikipedia. Ever.

Does that offer some insights as to the mindset of this fellow?

my insight into his mindset was looking at him talk to himself as LastExit/Mantanmoreland, forgettig to change a login from TomStoner to MM (why does NO ONE ADDRESS THAT? it even got noticed on talk pages by admins like LessHeardVanU), and his PLUGGING OF HIS OWN BOOK throughout WP articles.

That he edited from a DTCC computer on Christmas Day 2006 is just a weird bizarre event that is beyond even my concept of what that account and the guy(s) behind it are up to.

Even if Werd was off about MM/sami being GW, and not just some DTCC lackey who lives in a similar IP area (which Werd is not wrong about), then the accounts should be banned,regardless of who is behind them.

Slimmy likes to quote my WR work on WP. How bout this.
-----------

[[User:Lastexit]]
* "This user is an alternate account of another Wikipedian. This template confirms that the user is familiar with Wikipedia policy on using multiple accounts and will not use this account for sock puppetry."

* "I am the uncle of another Wikipedian" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lastexit ]

* 5 hours in wikicareer, 4/22/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=49637513]

* Ceases editing articles (Byrne article last edit) 7/25/06 after sockpuppet incident put on user page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...target=Lastexit]


[[User:Mantanmoreland]]
* "Editor is nephew of [[User:Lastexit|Lastexit]].'''--[[User:Mantanmoreland|Mantanmoreland]] 28 July 2006" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=66272530 ], "uncle" & "nephew" use Wiki talk pages to discuss "collaborative" editing of same stock market issue page [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lastexit]

* Warned by Fred Bauder for voting twice via sockpuppet in Julian Robertson related AfD[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=66185496], [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Josie_Robertson ], Note: Julian Robertson sued Gary Weiss[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=next&oldid=83314474 ]

* "Acting like two people: You are welcome to edit with more than one account, but not to act like you are two people. This sort of edit [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=62596208] is unacceptable. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:14, 23 July 2006 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=65447037]

* " I am at work on a project concerning stock fraud and short-selling." 4/30/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=50254637]

* IP edit flurry, [[naked shorting]], 1/27/06-1/28/06, ending 15:19 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/70.23.85.112], username born, first post continues flurry with similar editing style 16:48 1/28/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=Mantanmoreland]

* Created this bio 4/13/06 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=48341962]

* "My professional interests mainly revolve around the securities industry and trading issues" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=57191552]

* "This user has been stalked by Judd Bagley" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=97347322], admin endorsement [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=99531565], revert another editors BLP vio correction [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122194042], "This user has been stalked by an official of Overstock.com" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122207209], Initials JB in userbox [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=122207209]

* "If you're going to have a nervous breakdown..." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=117194609]

* Article byline from India town [ http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2006/10/17/..._1017weiss.html], edit to same town's wikipedia entry, months before [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=53762562]

* DTCC IP sandwich[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history]

* Forgets to switch account back, edits TomStoner post as his own [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=43586904 ]


[[User:Tomstoner]]

* TomStoner's first post topics: India, Naked Shorting, Patrick Byrne [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...arget=Tomstoner ]

* Ceases editing 7/22/06 3 days before Lastexit last article edit[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=...oner&namespace= ]

I find your vandalism… …both hilarious, and dryly (not sure if this was intentional) parodical of the sort of he-said-she-said writing which mars Wikipedia's miserable "criticism" and "controversy" sections - sadly, in most cases, these aren't considered vandalism (occasionally they can be appropriate, but in most cases they only reflect the desire of Wikipedians themselves to debate in mainspace.)

It is? Then where are the cigars and mojitos??
True.
True.
Well, it is a bit worse than that. Sockpuppets aren't illegal, and are actually legal per the rules. But the rules are applied at-will and at the behest of the momentary beholder.
I don't think an Arbcom session would do much good. They'd collude and no one would care much, I'm sorry to say.

Classically, yes, but it's also commonly used for new accounts evading bans. Though sloppily, for as you observe, it's a different concept. I can't see anything morally wrong with ban evasion in itself - there's no eleventh commandment to this effect, and neither administrators nor the Arbitration Committee (obviously) have, or are expected to have, the moral stature to speak ex cathedra. Ultimately, Wikipedia has only its own interface to blame - mo matter what anyone says on wiki, banned editors are extended the same invitation to create an account and begin editing as anyone else.

What makes it morally problematic is that ban evaders have a strong motive to deny being who they are - again no breach of ethics just yet, but this can easily (and reflexively) lead to bearing false witness against one's accusers ("He/she's only saying I'm so-and-so to get rid of anyone who opposes his/her POV!) - there I draw the line, where contempt for a system that has well earned it becomes dishonesty.

True.

True. It's a mess all around.

What's not widely appreciated is that the damage this does to the system's credibility arguably outweighs, or at least weighs significantly against, the benefits of flexibility. The system architecture guarantees that the balance of compliance is voluntary. This won't happen if the system isn't worthy of respect, and certainly won't happen when it provokes people on the way out the door (as it invariably does, since there is no discrete way to politely but firmly ask a volunteer to leave.)

That is a really useful point to capture. I'm involved in a number of voluntary groups and there are two people that are incredibly disruptive to deal with: the nice but incompetent, and the domineering damager.

The first drives everyone to distraction, but nobody has the heart to tell them to either sling their hook or stop being "helpful". The latter tends to drive others away because it is too nasty to deal with, and people do not want that in a friendly volunteer organisation.

The latter are the worst to deal with, the incompetent you can work around, as long as they don't get too offended when you do something yourself when it was their job, and often they bring other things to the party, if only cakes on their birthday.

The mop and bucket brigade are there to deal primarily with the former, unfortunately a significant number of them are the later.

Given that face to face we cannot deal with this issues well, it is perhaps not surprising that Wikipedia hasn't got a good solution either.

I think you maid (sic) an unintentional joke, on what should have been "discreet".

They are acutally quite discrete. Not discreet.



Yes. At present, the "flexibility" just means that admins (or gangs) can change rules at will. Arbcom confirms their decisions. There's no due process. Just a sham kangaroo sort of one.

In most legit organizations, you have professional management which can bend rules. In Wikipedia, there's one guy who can do anything on the planet, and he lets the kids run the shop as thanks for the free work. It's quite scary.

Unintentional it was; apologies:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none

Right. But that doesn't help them any when their rulings are ignored, or when they're stuck wondering why so many of their ex-volunteers hate them. It's not normal, is it, for any business, much less a volunteer enterprise, to have ex-workers hanging about the shop and vandalizing it or picketing on the sidewalk. Most would at least entertain the possibility that they might be doing something wrong, something other enterprises wisely refrain from doing.

What kind of business, for example, dismisses its employees by hauling them before their coworkers, announcing why they suck, inviting soon-to-be ex-colleagues to list everything they don't like about them, then posts it on the web? That's not a principled management decision, but, like so many other things that are wrong with Wikipedia, an unexamined and uncorrected consequence of the interface.

Disgruntled dismissed employees do all kinds of weird things, which is usually why they are often walked to the door by guards. To prevent damage done in anger.

More recently web retaliation is a means of payback.
Well, Florence Devouard did it to Danny Wool, but that's Wikipedia. Most companies don't do it online, quite in Wikipedia fashion. However, they do equally crappy things like announcing it to the press before telling the person (Lee Iaccoca), or generally being nasty (Carly Fiorina), and there's many other examples of how execs get mistreated. Not to mention middle management or regular employees.

Wikipedia's use of 14 year olds to attack is pretty much a Wikipedia specialty, I must say.

Wikipedia is routinely damaging to people for very small petty situations.

It's human nature to enjoy a feeling of power, which finds its evidence in others' distress. What's usually missing (for good reason) is a social framework in which sadistically-motivated aggression is acceptable. Wikipedia hands people that framework on a platter: while the mantra is "comment on content, not contributors," every mechanism provided to resolve disputes mandates exactly the opposite. Thusly does tearing others down become indistinguishable from defending the integrity of the project.

Once again, Cla68 knocks one out of the park:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=189838908

why's pouponontoast so interested in defending gary weiss?

The only connection between them is poupon supposedly uses proxies/tor and one of gary weiss's accounts were found to use proxies.

I thought the user:hypocrite guy who poupon used to be was just some mongo buddy trying to hide the 9/11 truth, not into naked short selling and stuff. I mean the guy isnt gary weiss... right?

Hipocrite is a BASITES troll of the worst variety. He's not so much pro-Gary Weiss as he is anti-Wikipedia Review, which he sees as taking a unified stance against Weiss.

Actually, I have evidence that Hipocrite lives in Wyoming, and MONGO admits working for the National Forest Service (which owns about half of Wyoming). Considering there are about 1,000 people in the whole state (+/- 500,000) one has to wonder if they might be the same person.

I would also note that from the beginning, Weiss has worked his way down the foodchain in his recruitment of protectors. Tell me this doesn't represent the various strata of the Wikipedia power structure:

1. SlimVirgin
2. Jayjg
3. Jimbo Wales
4. David Gerard
5. JzG
6. Georgewilliamherbert (aka Jeff Albertson)
   -----entering the non-admin layer-------
7. MONGO
8. EFKAH (Editor Formerly Known as Hipocrite) aka PouponOnToast

So Gary gets away with abusive sockpuppeting again. And again. An again.

The sockpuppeting rules on WP are a farce.

He double votes and triple bully reverts.

He talks to himself. Crazy shit.

He proxies.

He takes out personal real vendettas on WP.
1 - Julian Robertson (lawsuit)
2 - Russ Baker (competitor for occupational award)
3 - Patrick M Byrne (internet wars started Jan 2006. Byrne publicly accused MM's friends/colleagues of yellow journalism and worse, before that in 2005)
4 - Judd Bagley. (If Judd was evil he'd sue WP for his name being slandered all over it)

I know I'm missing some of his targets.

He gets busted on it. His socks get quietly taken away to the "promise you wont post with your main bully account dear sir!" farm.

He main abusive account is let go free continually.

That is Total Bullshit. Total.

Mantanmoreland, I hope you are being "kept up nights" and "having a nervous breakdown". Phrases you used to badger me on WP. You have a self-projection problem, idiot. How's it feel to get the light shone on your abuse?

WP, does he get three strikes? What about the rest of us who didn't do anything wrong in the first place.


Christofurio has been curiously silent on this affair since he came out of the Wikicloset (to his credit).

If Russ Baker could be contacted and invited to WR, and Devlin, that would be really insightful. Robertson would have a gag order so no go there, lol.

I'm sure ArghCom would get some choice retorts from MM's industry buttie Christofurio on what they were doing on WP. That was one tag teamer that wasn't a MM sock. Rare occurence.

I wonder if Cade "Meet the" Metz reads W-R and is following this. Anyone feel another Register coming on?

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I think it's far too early to reach that conclusion.

Samiharris is gone, and Mantanmoreland is flapping in the wind. Even JzG, while still lying, is hedging.

I predict that in order to avoid the ignominy of being pronounced "Gary Weiss," Mantanmoreland will also bolt before the day is over.

if sami was allowed to "retire" without a block (as I was done to), then MM was let off the hook. Butwill the WP community over-ride the few wikicompromised admin(s) who are letting this happen?

people have painted the reputation of their adminships into a corner and they wont let the facts get in the way. We saw that with the history of what happened to the One Day Wonder Wordbomb before all this, and the farce that was my block review.

even money says sami even went to a public wifi or a mobile ISP just to post today and continue the checkuser farce.

Did they use the same web browser versions, oh admins? you guys collect that info.

You're telling me that for as long as IP records exist, there isn't one instance of Samiharris editing from a non-proxy IP? From the same Verizon IP pool as MM?

There needs to be more (but privacy compliant of course) disclosure on what Checkusering those two accouts found.

Analyzing edit timing is nice and telling, but won't be enough to overcome the b.s. excuses that come back from Team Gary about it.

The articles gary weiss controlled need to be completely rewritten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=190063429

Heh. It's hard to keep things straight, isn't it, MantanHarris?

I now pronounce you man and Weiss... you may kiss the sockpuppet.

I note that JzG said "I would be very angry and disappointed if Mantanmoreland were to be credibly identified as Weiss"... so, everybody who wants to see JzG angry and disappointed, get cracking on proving this identification credibly!

In fairness, I'd say he pasted that from an email of someone else's analysis of his editing, hence the error

Bentheadvocate has set out a pretty good alternate theory, way to think outside the box!

What leads you to believe that?

Well, gay lovers might run afoul of this policy.

Just a guess, really - I could see it happening very easily. I also suspect a lot of folks' inboxes are very busy right now ....

ROFLMAO.

It's hard to maintain a web of lies, and he always slips up. Tomstoner slip-up (finally getting airplay today).

I was very resistant to pegging Sami as Gary/MM. I was convinced that Gary was smarter than that, and like Christofurio, Gary had found another Journaslistisimpatico to play with. I was convinced by an IP edit before login slip up than Sami was editing from Northwestern U in Chicago. Maybe that was Gary visting the old school. NWU alumnus. That IP then Sami edit was on Short&Distort I believe, around 3/07. I'd detailed that on my Piperdown/1 subpage that had 150 views while undeleted on during my GerardScamBlock review the other week.

But I saw Word's IP evidence here. Samiharris is Gary Weiss. And we already know Mantanmorelad (aka Frankie "Byrne has one Ball" Darrow" on stock message boards) is GW from a litany of Varkala plus many more coicidences that are too many to be coincidences.

Who's crossed swords with Julian Robertson, Russ Baker, & Patrick Byrne, 3 diverse and obscure characters, on WP and in real life? Who's edited WP about Varkala, and Forbes from Varkala?

One man.

And he's dancing as fast as he can on WP.

I thought there was an article on Herbert at one point. Jeff Albertson? What?

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showt...8671&hl

WP Folks, you keep on getting this part wrong:

Lastexit is the sock that Fred busted, not Tomstoner. No one called MM out on Tomstoner until now.

Gary Weiss admitted on his blog (long gone) that he edited wikipedia along with his nephew who was "visiting" him. LOL. And they had to converse on talk pages instead of across a room. Someone sent me a link to that a long time ago, and it's gone daddy gone.

Lastexit claims to be an uncle of anohter WP'ian. He was also forced to put "alternate account" on his page.

That same day that Mantanmoreland put on his page that he is a nephew on another wikipedian. Which he later deleted.

This is all on my piperdown/1 subpage, as well as on the post I pasted here in the past 24 hours with the WP links to all of this.

DoRight is another SPA sock he never got called on either. Or Emilywelles, a foray into montypythonery.

For the post pattern trackers, look at

Naked City (TV series)

on WP.

as Tomstoner/Emilywelles, he edited that article. As MM, he started/edited articles on that shows's cast members. What with his Tomstoner show shut down the same time as his Lastexit (from Brooklyn! Get it?) show.

The things Wikipedia doesn't get. Let's see...

* WordBomb has sufficiently done what wikipedia calls "heavily stalking" of the Gary Weiss socks so if WordBomb knows they're all one person, then you better believe they are.
* WordBomb has never been wrong about wikipedia stuff.
* WordBomb already has proof the accounts are one person based on what either Crum or SlimVirgin (I get those two mixed up) often call "IP catching tricks".

Them's the funnies, kid! Jeff Albertson is the name of "Comic Book Guy" on the Simpsons. There's another thread about that allegedly striking resemblance.
[/simpsons trivia]

Sorry. Sometimes I project my formerly unhealthy Simpsons trivia prowess onto others. Jeff Albertson is the name of the character who runs the Android Dungeon on The Simpsons. I had previously posted this image to the Tar Pit, with the challenge to spot the subtle differences between the image of Albertson and GHW's self portrait:

Exactly what WordBomb has been saying this entire time from his "morally depraved, but true"â„¢ attack site.

Just like administrator/puppeteer Orderinchaos, his ex-gay lover, and his ex-gay lover's new gay lover, all hovering around the same computer, taking turns logging in and communicating with one another that way - ArbCom let him off the hook, even after two of his socks being caught in a positive CU.

Sigh. How about this: I live in a refugee camp with 253 other people, all gay, hindu and related, using one computer. If you block my 253 socks, you're anti-gay, anti-hindu, anti-family and closed-minded. Did I mention I'm a triple amputee and a war veteran? What kind of people are you? Oh yeah, "assume good faith!"