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.

Looks like MONGO is back to fight his corner!!

The downside of being really successful at gaming the WP system is that one runs the risk of eventually becoming [ahem] Notable. I am waiting for the inevitable Linda Mack (T-H-L-K-D) edit war to erupt.

Can you imagine how awkward that conversation was?
"Hello, MONGO. It's me. Mantanmoreland. Yeah...I know...I lied to you big time. And really embarrassed you. And your whole Cabal. Actually, it wasn't me, it was Samiharris. And he only lied because Bassettcat and Janeyryan told him to. I know...it's really complicated. Anyway, I was wondering if you could do me a favor. I'm not Gary Weiss or anything, but maybe you could help me fend off improvements to his article. I know...it's complicated. If you don't want to do it, I'll just ask David Gerard. No big deal."

Crap. That would be worse than asking the ex-girlfriend you broke up with if she would mind giving back that cassette tape of U2's The Joshua Tree which you said she could keep back when you were still dating during your freshman year of college.

Tip: let her keep the tape.

This advice would have saved me a lot of grief.

I've never understood MONGO's relationship to Weiss. Even Slim Virgin more or less acknowledged that Weiss had played them from the beginning. I think MONGO somehow still thinks its 2007 and that Weiss was unjustly banned.

Gawy's prolly peeved that Word-B is now being quoted more than he is in his own backyard on things NSS:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/shor...J#ixzz0gYj5GRDg



Mongo has no relationship with Weipped other than a shared batshit insane anger over being on the same wrong side of a flame war. Which usually explains much of WP's weirdness, and Usenet's weirdness before that. I think Mongo's pawning in the game of NSS started with his attempt to Down the Piper on Gary's bidding after I got on the wrong right side of both of them.

"Mongo only pawn in game of life..."

Only Gary Weiss would hop back on the "Smear Campaign" and GW articles with his local IP. WP addicktion is a hard thing to get down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/98.14.254.27

It might be dawning on Weiss that he has lost control over his WP bio. Perhaps we might soon see an OTRS request to the Foundation asking for its deletion?

... and it will be instantly acted upon in the affirmative?

Put him out of his misery and start an AFD on his bio.

Pfft. That helped Cla's adminship get derailed the first time. (Interesting in retrospect how pivotal this case was in wiki-politics. In (un)real terms, it might have all gone towards helping One to ArbCom, apart from ending the rest of our wiki-careers, such as they are, or "were.")

So, if you could go back and change one thing about it…

Well; I´m not interested in seeing the Weiss-article as an attack-article; but: there is, or should be, a space between having it as an attack-article and a puffery-piece.

Which it is today, unfortunately.

When one reads the "back-ground"-articles, the presentation in the article today looks insane. Take the Roddy Boyd January 2010-article: it is an attack-piece on Patrick Byrne/Overstock, and Weiss is mentioned ......once!...on page 5, together with several other journalists. Needless to say, the article is not mentioned in the bios of the other journalists...

However, with people like Mongo and JzG protecting the article; it will remain a puffery-piece.

....and it gets me angry, thinking back on the time I spent discussing with Stetsonharry et al. over at the Byrne-article: there he did everything he could to keep positive information out of the article. So, it is one rule for himself, and another rule for others.

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.


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.

Geolocates to Glenside, Pennsylvania. Yep. Geez he must be getting pretty desperate. Probably a throwaway Starbuck's hotspot IP.

I was asked to provide the URL of the blog post that led me to the WordBomb slide show. Done. I had been asked to look at this by private email.

It only takes a few minutes to find duck droppings, looking around this. The last paragraph in the article at this moment is

Cool! The text carefully wikilawyers the presumption of reliable source, i.e, it actually mentions Slate, but the actual source is Mantanmoreland Gary Weiss. Now, that's balance for you! Why not just say that the article was authored by Gary Weiss? And then fix the Gary Weiss article! (But it should probably be mentioned that Gary Weiss is not exactly a neutral reporter here...., and if there isn't reliable source on that.... weird.)

What does Mr. Weiss say?

So, the real source is the paper. Published? Not independently. The paper itself says only that the authors are "at" the University of Oklahoma. Students, I presume. The paper is not even hosted by the University of Oklahoma, but by cfri-cologne.de. Some reliable source, eh? "Little noticed?" For sure.

In any case, what does the paper actually say?
Notice that the paper contradicts the SEC chairman's statement, but Weiss pushes the paper as having "completely debunked" the "conspiracy theorists." It's another source being distorted to make a point.

It's tempting to comment on the argument in the paper, which is logically shallow, but I won't. I'm not writing about naked short selling, per se.

Who made that edit? AmishPete. The Weiss story was dated November 12. Amish Pete pops the reference to the "University of Oklahoma" paper November 14. Reverted as non-RS by Cojoco, AmishPete comes back with the ref to Slate. No mention of Weiss, the author, in the note. Cojoco is apparently satisfied. The full reference mentioning Weiss was filled out by WJhonson on November 30. Nobody seems to have noticed.

AmishPete was indeffed on January 5, 2010, by Lar, citing strong correlation to JohnnyB256. The editor registered fifteen minutes before making his first edit, to Lehman Brothers, about naked short selling. The editor proceeded to edit highly related articles including the NSS article itself, Patrick Byrne, Overstock.com. But AmishPete made a remarkable disclosure: SPA, for sure. More than that? I can smell "experienced editor" here. Ikip thought so, too. The response was classic.

In spite of Lar's block log annotation, the checkuser finding was for Mantanmoreland, i.e., Gary Weiss.

What does this mean about the ability of the Wikipedia community to watch for POV-pushing in an article that is supposedly highly watched due to prior controversy? The reference is still there, without the explicit attribution (and explanation of relationship) that would be necessary to use it properly for balance. But writing by Patrick Byrne, whose opinions on naked short selling are very notable, is being kept out of the article. The Rolling Stone article was by an independent journalist ... being balanced by someone highly enmeshed in the controversy.

And the WMF can just wring its hands and say, "We can't micromanage the project, the community is responsible for that." And whenever the community begins to develop structures that might actually do this, it's mysteriously crushed. And when the community is defiant, Jimbo steps in, as with WikiVersity, and he delayed the day of reckoning for Mantanmoreland and dismissed the charges as rubbish. I'm coming to the conclusion that it's deliberate, which means that Wikipedia is, as many have said here many times, a positive harm as to the collection of "all human knowledge." It will be allowed to harmlessly collect trivia or even useful scientific fact, but nothing that offends the masters. And it will succeed as long as the larger community remains in naive trust, and is passive or in despair.

Again, I cannot remove that text because of my MYOB ban as it is being interpreted by ArbComm.

Pass me some wikiswill, whoever you are sitting next to me, I've had a hard day. I think I'm giving up. People interested in fixing this can come to me. And I'm not preparing for a flood of them. The ones who might actually be able to help don't believe anything is possible.

The Education — Or Not — of Wiki-Pollyanna

You do all that work and still can't figure out that Wiki-Prevarica is that way because someone wants it that way.

Jon

Well, I can forgive you. I've only said in this thread twice, now (once explicitly and once implicitly if you watch the source I gave, WordBomb's presentation), that it's that way because someone wants it that way. I'll say it again. The evidence is becoming strong that the problems of wikipedia are no longer accidental, even if they were that way originally.

The problems are because someone wants it that way.

Noticeable enough for you, Jon? You can stop beating your head against your own brick wall. Next time, if you have something cogent to say, try supporting it with evidence instead of just loudly proclaiming your conclusions. People who prefer evidence to be strong before concluding bad faith might be more inclined to listen.

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: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.

I guess it's that attitude of continual wonderment that fools me.

Next Question —

Who wants it that way?

You've only had 5 to 10 years to figure that out …

Jon

It's actually not that easy to figure out. Jimbo doesn't know Gary Weiss, so how did Weiss get such special treatment, for so long?? The answer seems to be that he (as Mantanmoreland) did a complicated little dance to get into the good graces of SlimVirgin, who in turn did a complicated little dance to get into the good graces of certain high mucky-mucky wiki admins, back in the dark ages. So when Bagley wordbomb showed up, the system automatically stomped on him on behalf of Weiss, and the rest of the time was spent in a Watergate coverup of that screwup. In all of this, about a zillion times the effort was spent that should have been spent, mostly because nobody wanted to admit they'd screwed up. So it was all sort of like getting a person who'd been convicted of murder and sentenced to death, out of prison. Even if the evidence is very good, the system has this terrible inertia, because there's something operating that looks a lot like systemic embarassment, when it comes to error.

You wouldn't think institutions would have any emotions, but "embarassment at being caught in error" is probably the place they come the closest to being human. They don't love, lust, hate, or have any sense of humor, justice, or aethetic appreciation. They're not jealous or even proud. But greed and embarassment somehow shine through. In communist societies where individuals are not well-rewarded, even greed doesn't make it through the system, sometimes. But embarassment at being wrong is still left!

O, I C, you're still stuck on the individual message again.

I forget what a bunch of Pre-McLuhanies you guys are.

Jon

There are two kinds of answers to this. The generic answer is "Those who benefit from the status quo." But there is a specific answer here:
Jimbo Wales.
I certainly haven't had 5 to 10 years to figure that last answer out. The first, sure, and I figured it out long ago. But the general case does not establish the specific.

Any more questions?

Sure, there's always a next question —

Like, what is the relation between the specific Jimbo Wales and the generic Cui Bono?

Jon

Oh, this is true, but only explains the community side of this. While I'm aware of the risk in relying on a single source, I'm concluding that if the source is Bagley, it's reliable. Bagley claims that an email from Jimbo to a mailing list acknowledged, early on, that he knew that Mantamoreland was Weiss. Then, later, he's denying it.

The kinds of solutions I've suggested for Wikipedia may be innovative, and could theoretically work even if the WMF and Jimbo were dead-set against them, but the fact is that I'm not the first to see solutions. At any point, Jimbo could have supported one of them, and it would have happened, and once mechanisms were in place to negotiate better consensus and make the project more truly reliable, even better mechanisms could have been developed. He didn't. He's definitely responsible for the way things are, but he can deny it.

It's that funky community, not me, no sirree! If they could just get it together, things would be fine (said out of one side of his mouth), and things are just fine, the wiki gradually and automatically gravitates toward perfection (out of the other side).

The "institutions" don't really exist, except as patterns, so I don't agree that they have emotions. But the people who are the reality underneath the institutions do, and they then, collectively, appear to have emotions. We say, "an angry crowd," when really we mean "a crowd of angry people," or "the nation was angry," when we mean that many were angry, especially the prominent and influential.

So, how does Jimbo benefit from this NSS affair? Well, it's not impossible that the answer is very simple: money. But there are other possibilities. The lack of a coherent community, which is what would be needed to implement NPOV policy, leaves him in charge, either directly or indirectly. Power is a pretty normal human motivator, all by itself.

Wikipedia stomped on Bagley, or tried to. Bagley was telling the truth. Therefore Wikipedia is an enemy of the truth. It could be fixed, and every Wikipedian who becomes aware of this and continues to support Wikipedia is ... an enemy of the truth, unless they do what they can to remedy the situation. This is the reality of our moral responsibility. I'm not the judge, though, I'm just saying what I see.

I don't know the specific relationship, though it certainly looks like there could be one. I responded to Milton on that. Got any evidence, Jon?

If institutions have learning curves, then they necessarily have emotions.

Seller, Buyer.

Jon

Gary Weiss is still putting puffery into his article, and it sticks against efforts to take it out. Warning, boring as hell. Do not drive or operate heavy machinery while reading.

Recent Career The last sentence refers to an article by Roddy Boyd, published in January 2010. Definitely not an "independent" source. What's "The Big Money" up to, anyway? Articles by Weiss and Boyd, scratching each other's backs, it looks like.

Weiss is being portrayed as this courageous muckraker, going after corporate greed. But what's he really going after? A CEO who has been, against all reasonable sense of his own interests, pursuing what he sees as a major hazard to the economy, from corporate interests much larger than him. And being somewhat successful, legally. The article's title?

America's Nastiest CEO.

Who is that? Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com, of course! Given what some CEOs of American corporations have done to rape the planet and their customers and even their stockholders, Patrick Byrne, even if he was nasty, which he doesn't seem to be, he seems to me to be calling a spade a spade, or at least trying to, surely isn't the "nastiest." What if he's wrong? He doesn't have billions of dollars behind him! He's small potatoes, David against Goliath. Mean nasty David!

Boyd has this in the article:
I have to consider that these commentaries in The Big Money are really unrestrained blogs, because no reporter would be assigned to write a story about himself, and he's very much a part of this story. McLean's reference to oral sex was this pithy "assessment":
One thing that Byrne can't be accused of: toadying up to the press. Again, Fortune magazine couldn't notice that McLean might have a conflict of interest?

Byrne is pushing against a massive and highly organized opponent, with far greater resources. Whether he's doing it optimally or not is another question. But to portray Byrne as the monster oppressor, and the business reporters (and their publications) as the innocent small truth-tellers, is way outside of responsible journalism, it's just polemic, skirmishes in a battle.

Who put this in Gary Weiss? 4.231.228.69.

It was removed by 166.205.8.83. Same range as accused of being WordBomb by JzG.

Christofurio reverted, saying no reason was given, though, in fact, one was, and edit warring with IPs resulted, including IP accused by JzG of being Mantanmoreland (Weiss). David Gerard protected..

David Gerard explained on Talk, The article is getting trolled by a slanderous IP. As such, I've semi-protected it for a couple of weeks. I didn't see any slander, the IP was removing puffery. But maybe I missed something.

Off protection, Bagley reverted to remove the stuff, Weiss reverted it back as "vandalism." Eventually, Huldra removed it. Christofurio reverted.

Huldra removed it again. IPs resume edit warring, along with Christofurio and Huidro. MONGO reverted the Boyd story out. JzG removed puffery category and COI tags that had been added by Huldra, with a preposterous argument, but, to be sure, Huldra didn't justify them in Talk. Huldra is a 2005 registered editor with 13,000 live edits, vast majority in article space. No block history.

Supposedly this is an article on probation, order of ArbComm. It's being "protected" by editors who are supporting questionable content. Weiss is being allowed to insert, as IP, material that remains; Huldra was alone against Christofurio and MONGO, among the registered editors, and from what JzG did elsewhere, I'd suspect that if it had been necessary, he'd have put the Boyd story back in as well.

Wikipedia is still being used to further Weiss's agenda. It's not over. WordBomb should be unblocked, at least allowed to participate under restrictions that would allow him to point out the stuff that he's been finding and seeing. He'd need someone to guide and protect him, assuming he'd accept the guidance. (This is in no way a criticism of him; a willingness to follow guidance goes with protection, I sought a mentor, and it was denied.)

Who is Christofurio? Long-term involvement with Naked short selling and Gary Weiss articles. 4K edits. Was briefly blocked in January as a sock of Mantanmoreland, cleared by Alison. Could find no discussion. Started editing Gary Weiss in 2006. Later, he re-asserted the same edit. Started editing Naked short selling in January 2007. Is pretty clearly pushing the Weiss POV, but I sense a difference. Sample edit. No conclusion.

So does a computer, then. Explains a lot about my PC. Or maybe it just needs more memory.

...as I suspect most involved users know; "Huldra" is WR Member No.: 194. And therefore not really to be taken seriously on wp. (And since Jayvd fixed the 48-template: I am quite happy and busy in that field.... )

However, I got involved in Byrne/Weiss area years ago, when I looked at the Byrne-article and found it absolutely horribly slanted. A pure "attack-page", if you ever saw one. And I only dared to get involved....because I am not a native English speaker! "Hence I am clearly no Wordbomb-sock", see this.) Honestly! The times were really, really crazy back then; you got blocked just for sounding like Wordbomb ......
Yupp. SV mentioned it here: "I'm reluctant to take action against Mantanmoreland, in part because WordBomb is a troublemaker and troll, and in part because Mantan has been extremely helpful on another page."

I don´t know which "other page" he was "extremely helpful on", but Matan tried to do exactly the same towards Cla68, "smooching up" to him, see this thread. Didn´t work there, though.

Now, if some completely new wiki-stranger ever comes along, and starts helping me with the -48-villages...and then, just by pure chance, gets interested in the Weiss/Byrne/Naked shorting-articles; I tell ya: my sock-alarm will go off like Big-Ben....

It was nothing personal in it when I started editing in this area....but I had to fight every sentence of the way to get the worst attacks out of the Byrne-article ...and get some positive info in. And it turned out my worst opponents were...surprise, surprise; Matan-socks. And, as I have said before; I never wanted the Weiss-article turned into an attack-piece; just to get that outrageous self-inflated puffery out. But obviously it did not work. Perhaps we should go the other way, and mention his Eagle Scout merit badges ?

See Do Computers Have Emotional Behavior?

Why? Learning does not necessarily have anything to do with emotion.

If anyone wants to find out which article Matan had been "so helpful" on, then "Wikistalk" still works fine. I guess it boils down to one of these 21 articles

[Modnote: The posts on Martin Luther have been moved to their own thread in "Articles"]

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.

See Cognition, Affect, and Learning.

Now this is interesting...that IP does not map to Pennsylvania, but Manhattan, and is clearly Weiss (most of his look like 151.202.x.x or 70.23.x.x). He seems to unplug his modem nightly, so his home IPs are highly dynamic, but almost always within that range. What's fascinating about this IP, however, is that it happens to be the same one he was assigned when he accidentally edited without being logged in nearly four years ago...just as I was beginning to put the pieces together on Weiss as Mantanmoreland.
Looking at the edit history, you can see that IP edited the article on Gary Weiss and added references to him to a pair of other articles.

By the way, I've not read all the other new posts on this thread yet. I sure hope I'm not simply restating something very obvious by now. If so, please don't holler at me.

So instead of I.P. Freely, he's I.P. Nightly.

Childishly,

MR

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.

Obviously an anagram, but probably of a proper name. And too long to work on with any online anagram descrambler even if not.

"Into fame Gary did ride."

Well, maybe not.

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

That actually works, by the way.

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.

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


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!

Dammit Jim, I'm a programmer not an accountant.

I don't get the dispute about NSS. Now I might understand short selling. If I borrow `x' amount of stock from a lender payable at a later date then I could reasonably assume he has x amount of stock in hand. If the stock goes down like I predicted then I give back to the lender x amount of shares and pocket the difference.

But in NSS if I borrow x amount of stock, the lender might not have x amount of stock on hand and in fact the total shares of stock, lent and otherwise, may exceed the total number shares? This smells of `virtual stock' and can't be a good thing, right?, much less legal?

My mistake (for lack of a better word) was locking horns with SlimVirgin over matters of 'outting'. Her history with regard to her own identity, of which I was entirely unaware at the time, is long and colorful and a point of great sensitivity to her. Why she continues worrying about it, I don't know.

But a bigger problem afflicting WP is neatly encapsulated in something SlimVirgin wrote a while ago, possibly here on WR. Paraphrasing, she said "WP is great because it allows the pizza delivery driver by day to be an expert on Shakespeare by night."

I, on the other hand, would much rather have an expert on Shakespeare by day retain the same title on WP by night. Unfortunately, the culture eschews expertise. I'm quite confident that few people understand short-side stock manipulation as well as myself, Patrick Byrne and a handful of others. And yet we're barred from contributing that insight on Wikipedia, either explicitly or implicitly, as though truth is less valuable coming from one person than another.

OK, the Galileo comparison was being a bit presumptuous. Maybe I should have gone with Harry Markopolos.

No, I'm referring to ArbCom...I suppose...either by order or by fiat. Either way, I recognize that I've been asked not to edit those four articles.

Look no further than Cruftbane.

Thanks, but I cheated, slightly. Looking at it, I immediately saw "gary" in there, as well as "edited". I took the rest of the letters and put them in an anagram solver, and "A Id inform" was one of 5000 combinations. There's probably a better solution. In fact, let that be a challenge to you all!

If you were and I did, I'd accept, based solely on your excellent ability to judge character .

Oh, this sounds interesting. Say more about this. JzG was sock puppeting? Pointers to the juicy parts, please.

UPDATE: Doh, never mind. I now see you answered Abd already.

UPDATE II: Holy crap, the moron not only forgot who he was editing as but he did it right on the evidence page of the Mantanmoreland case! So of course that sock was dumped, but who knows how many more he is using.

FINAL UPDATE: Here's the talk page discussion where he is given his pass.

He seems to be an "Edgy, finer drama idiot".

Actually after "Gary" the next name I noticed was "Moriarty" but I was unable to spell anything with the remaining letters.

The best message I've found was self-fulfilling to say the least:

Read me, idiot​​—find 'Gary'.

Or is it perhaps:

Dear idiot,

Find me.

—Gary

Oh, the possibilities.