Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Chicago This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

Restrictions...Editors are directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article in the press is stating that Weiss used an account called User:Mantanmoreland here in Wikipedia to push POV in the Naked Short Selling, Patrick Byrne, and Overstock.com articles. The article is here [1]. I've committed not to edit this article, but anyone else should feel free to add this material and cite it to the link I posted here. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the article but I have doubts about its usability here, without confirmation elsewhere.--Stetsonharry (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be mentioned, but... with BLP and all, we might need articles from more than one newspaper in order to include it. The end of the article talks about user SlimVirgin and she's had several hundred news articles about her and still that doesn't seem to meet BLP to put all the negative controversy in an article. Hmm the register has another thing at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/24/byrne_back_conspiracy_theory_with_cash/ which is not about Weiss, but about a wikipedia and wall street conspiracy. Unfortunately, there's no mention of the current Wall Street conspiracy of how the US government wants to give $700 billion and likely trillions more not to stimulate the economy but to purely to inflate the salaries of rich CEOs who are friends of the Bush administration and both Obama and McCain support it (but not Ron Paul). Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the required 'confirmation' within the wikipedia logs and article history themselves, as documented here http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=130 - that source is obviously biased, but the substantial proof of the main thrust of The Register's allegations seem to be embedded within wikipedia already. It is unfortunate that in this case decisions resulted in Wikipedia 'becoming the story' rather than enabling it to be documented with NPOV - but the full naked-short/overstock/Weiss/wikipedia story is one that really SHOULD be fully covered here - treating wikipedia's part in the story dispassionately as though it were some third-party media. Short version: It's absurd, when the actual proof is right here in the logs, to pretend that it's not well-sourced.Jaymax (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can speak on some authority when I say that these sources are not up to WP:BLP standards. The alleged Wikipedia activity should be left out of the article. Wikipedia's logs and history are the raw material for original research, and this potentially-damaging claim has not been confirmed by reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed an edit inserted by an anonymous editor relating to the Register article.[2] The content removed varied from information in the single source and thus does not meet the standards of our biography of living persons policy. I believe that this information needs to appear in more than one reliable source; it is extraordinary information and thus needs to be referenced extraordinarily well. Risker (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is Weiss still employed by forbes? He hasn't published anything there in six months. [3] --Duk 04:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear if this is employment per se.--Stetsonharry (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A thread on Wikipedia Review has just pointed out these articles about Weiss in reliable sources, but which aren't mentioned in this article, even in passing: [4] [5] [6]. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Two seem like minor "pissing match" stuff. The third might be important if it was instrumental in the lawsuit. Kind of old, too. Is that a representative sampling of what is in the Times?--Stetsonharry (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those could support statements like this:

• "He also has been critical of the treatment of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz,[18] opposed astroturfing,[19] argued against Wal-Mart's new venture in India,[20], criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne and his campaign against naked short selling, and criticized the ethics of Mark Cuban's Sharesleuth, Cuban’s Web publication that investigates companies’ business practices [7]."

• "Weiss debated Mark R. Mitchell, an editor for Columbia Journalism Review’s blog, CJR Daily's financial column, The Audit over a story about Warren Buffet published in the Wall Street Journal.[8]"

• "While at Business Week, Weiss and the magazine were sued by Julian H. Robertson Jr. for libel over an article authored by Weiss in 1996 titled, "Fall of the Wizard of Wall Street." The case was settled out of court.[9] [10]"

That should cover what those three sources say. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot would depend on the overall coverage. I looked at the Times website and there were other items, a first amendment dustup from one of his books, as well as reviews that we are not picking up. Not sure about adding blog controversies and a withdrawn lawsuit from ten years ago. Also I read the second item and I think this was after Weiss left Business Week.--Stetsonharry (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to remove that from the second one. I think the most significant of the three is the libel lawsuit, because that is mentioned in more than one article in reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know about the Cuban/blog thing. It seems like something WP:BLP might keep out. But, there is other coverage of it. I dug up one print story some time ago.

We have to wonder whether criticizing a businessman is WEIGHTy just because the businessman criticizes the critic back. Maybe, but it's not obvious to me. Cool Hand Luke 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban ended up mentioning the incident as it related to Wikipedia in his blog. But, if not mentioned in passing, then it probably isn't notable enough to be in the article. Cla68 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same (as Cool Hand Luke). The lawsuit bothered me because it was old (11 yrs.) and withdrawn, though I see Cla's point on the two sources. --Stetsonharry (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this article based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, so any change to the protection will be dependent on support from or appeal to the Committee. Regards,  Skomorokh  19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I sprotected outside of the juridstiction of ArbCom - as I recall during the case. The juridstiction seems to relate to the consequences of edit/pov warring rather than stopping some classes of editors using the talkpages. As such, I am unsprotecting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the matter needs rather more discussion before the decision to unprotect is taken. I'm willing to protect on my own account if you no longer are, pendindg discussion. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LHvU; I posted the above comment under the advice of an arbitrator. See the AN thread for more. Regards,  Skomorokh  02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what exactly are you guys talking about? The article hasn't been protected since my protection expired on October 20, 2008. I don't see any reason to have the talk page protected when the article has been freely editable, without issue, for close to a year. Brandon (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments above seem to imply a misunderstanding about the remedies proposed in the Mantanmoreland case. None of them required or implied an order to protect the article or the talk page. Only the talk pages of four related articles remained semiprotected, the article semiprotections having long ago expired or been lifted manually. --TS 02:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the protection completely, debating this is rather silly. Brandon (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit involved Weiss. FYI. Ikip 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once the AfD closes, whether kept or deleted, I think we should discuss adding a few sentences to this, and the other, related articles, about the story. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I read your comments on Wikipedia Review. Shouldn't you be disclosing here, as required by the article probation, that you are involved in the off-wiki battle between Overstock.com and Weiss? The article probation was politely pointed out to me very recently. COI disclosure is mandatory.

I disclose as follows: I have in the past been a short-seller of Overstock.com. However, I have no current position in the stock, and have had no position in the stock for two years. I am a member of message boards and occasionally post on the Weiss-Overstock conflict. I am not acquainted with Mr. Weiss personally, but admire his journalism. --AmishPete (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the lawsuit had resulted in a trial or a well-publicized apology or a monetary settlement, it would be a notable event in the life of Gary Weiss. Since it did not (and since the only argument for the notability of the underlying case is the fact that it almost, but didn't, consider a notable legal technical issue that has nothing to do with Weiss), it has no business being mentioned in this article. THF (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. While we probably don't need this level of discussion, some discussion seems appropriate, and the article should be referenced from the See Also section. The article as it stands now lacks balance, it's almost a hagiography. ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's something to be said that isn't synthesis, I wouldn't object. I also wouldn't object to something like "While Weiss was at Business Week, he and the magazine were sued for a billion dollars by Julian Robertson, the subject of one of Weiss's articles. The case settled out of court with no money changing hands," though I fail to see what that really adds to the article, and I wouldn't object to a See also. But it's UNDUE to include allegations of a lawsuit that didn't result in any damages or in apologies that weren't covered by the press. The Truell article makes it clear that Business Week viewed the result as a nuisance settlement that didn't implicate the quality of their journalism, and doesn't even mention Weiss. Was there some other source you wished to cite that I'm not aware of?

I've toned down some WP:PUFF in the article, such as removing a self-serving press release. If you think there are RS on Weiss being omitted that would balance the article further, I have no objection to including them. But it's a stretch to include the Robertson allegations as somehow damning of Weiss. Journalists get sued all the time, especially by the wealthy--it's a way that some members of the rich try to intimidate against negative press coverage. THF (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were right in your first post. This lawsuit is "peripheral to Robertson," as you said in removing a reference to the suit from "Julian Robertson," and it is even more peripheral here. The only reason we're even having this discussion is that an editor who doesn't like Weiss, and who has made accusations about him in the media, is on a campaign to create articles about him and to add links about those articles everywhere in Wikipedia. That's what this is all about. This whole affair is a complete embarassment to Wikipedia. --AmishPete (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content not contributors. The answer on content is no. The article is barely more than a stub, and seems to be shrinking. A reference to the suit or a link to the lawsuit article would be excessive emphasis of a minor settled lawsuit that truly is meaningless. WP:UNDUE requires that articles treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the event was established by the AfD. The lawsuit was covered in at least 10 independent sources, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Daily News, as well as a publishing industry trade publication. So, THF's suggestion about adding two sentences or so, but no more, is appropriate. I'll suggest a two or three sentence addition shortly, which could also be used for the Julian Robertson article. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is UNDUE, and was the last time it was the last time you brought it up as well. It is not an issue of notability or sourcing. The language you propose below would be one paragraph added to a three-paragraph section. Stetsonharry (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make a similar proposal on the talk page for Julian Robertson. I suggest the following be added to this article in the "Magazine articles" section:

“

While at BusinessWeek, Weiss authored a cover story carried in the April 1, 1996 edition of the magazine, titled "Fall of the Wizard," that was critical of Julian Robertson's performance and behavior as manager of hedge fund Tiger Management. In response, Robertson sued Weiss and BusinessWeek for $1 billion for defamation. The suit was settled with no money changing hands.[1]

”

(References)

After the merge discussion is completed, a "further details" template can be added with a link to either the lawsuit article or to Tiger Management. Actually, a link could be placed now since the the link would redirect if the merge takes place. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're enthusiastic about this, but devoting one-quarter of the "magazine" section to the Robertson lawsuit is pretty darn ludicrous. Stetsonharry (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

are there other notable articles the subject has written? It would seem that one that involved an actually filed lawsuit (rather than the usual legal threats to the publisher who ignores them), would be a good candidate for inclusion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we're going to increase the size of the "magazine" section quite this substantially to add controversial derogatory information, we're going to need a clear consensus and also agreement on what to add. The haste and enthusiasm here really troubles me. Stetsonharry (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding three sentences to an article of this length on a topic that has already been established as notable enough to merit its own article does not violate undue. Do you have any problems with the content of the three sentences? Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit article is being considered for merger to Tiger Management, and there it belongs. In fact, the point of the merger would be to add what's important to Tiger Management, and this lawsuit is not important. Yes, three sentences omprising a paragraph, 25% of the "magazine career" section, that is correct. I see that you recognized this raised an undue weight issue during one of the several times you've raised this issue in the past[11]. Since the final status of the lawsuit article itself is up in the air, this discussion is premature, as is the one in Julian Robertson, where I you want to add a longer paragraph to a shorter section. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess comparing three sentences to the rest of its section versus the article as a whole makes it appear like more of an undue issue, but I've never seen that done before until now. Anyway, the status of the Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. article is under discussion, but not the notability of the topic. Now, do you have any concerns about the wording of the three suggested sentences? If not, we'll leave this discussion open for other editor input over the next day or so. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, it is undue when compared to the remainder of the discussion of Weiss' Business Week career, and I assume that must have been the basis of your acknowledging there would be an undue issue a few years ago. It's superfluous to discuss the content of a paragraph that undermines the neutrality of an article, as well as premature. I think you may be misconstruing the merger discussion. What's being discussed there is precisely how to place what's important in the Tiger Management article. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with Stetsonharry. This is way too much about an old case that chiefly just demonstrates the ease with which lawsuits are brought in the US. How about putting this material in the article on tort reform instead? --Christofurio (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson asked me pff-line to take a look at this. A cover story in business week about this particular person, especially when even an inconclusive lawsuit followed, would seem to be worth a paragraph. The proposed addition does not seem disproportionate. I don;t think it violates NPOV with respect to any side of the issue. I don't think it violates BLP with respect to any person involved: the reports on it are from unquestionably RSs.. FWIW, I neither know nor care about the merits of the case or the personalities involved. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then in that case there should be paragraphs on all of Weiss' cover stories in Business Week to put this one in proper perspective, which would make that a long section. Then I imagine one would want to add whatever covers he did for Portfolio. Right now there are only three mentioned and this Robertson one would be four. That is why it seems disproportionate at the current length of the article. --AmishPete (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note to point out that another editor has supported mentioning the lawsuit in this article, but prefers that it simply be listed as a "See also" link. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me. Just dropped by to say that if you can't reach consensus to include details about the case, it seems the best workaround would be to include it in the see also section. Then you don' have to worry about undue weight, while still linking to the article of which Gary is the main subject. I did this but Stetsonharry kindly reverted it. For what it's worth, it seems to make much more sense to include brief details of the case in this article, as opposed to Robertson's. This is further discussed in the page Cla68 linked to, btw.—DMCer™ 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on a frivolous lawsuit dating 14 years back that was settled for NO MONEY would seem to violate wikipedia rules regarding libelous comments about living persons. Judging by the long, about-to-be-deleted wikipedia article on this suit, it seems Business Week merely acknowledged (obviously under pressure from billionaire Julian Robertson) that the article in question did not predict the future with precise accuracy. This kind of stuff belongs in a law journal article, not on wikipedia. I agree with Stetsonharry's reversion.Copyedeye (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with copyedeye, the article on the suit was 'kept' at AFD, if we are going to pretend that we are developing an encyclopedia, we need to not keep notable events out of people's biographical articles. The wee bit of text presented above seems adaquate to me. not a huge piece and not a brush off of the subject. If Mr. Weiss also wrote other articles that might generate a wikipedia article (i.e., something notable, we should look at how to include them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both StetsonHarry and AmishPete have been blocked as sockpuppets of Mantanmoreland, a sockpuppeteer and bad faith editor who has been banned from Wikipedia. I'd say we have clear consensus here to add the material and I'm going to go ahead and do so. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68: I'd request that you NOT do so until I can have a word with you privately, please. SirFozzie (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, You've gotta be kidding me. The above discussion leads you to declare a "clear consensus"? What would look like dissensus to you ... bombs bursting in air? --Christofurio (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody, except the newly-blocked user, has raised any concerns with including the case in the see also section. As I stated in my reasoning above, that seems the best workaround, as it avoids the WP:UNDUE issue that is still being worked out. Remembering when this issue was in the news, this article is incomplete without any mention of the case on the page.—DMCer™ 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christofurio: If we take away Mantanmoreland's cavalcade of socks, we are left with you on one side and everyone else on the other side of the discussion. That looks like consensus to me. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me that THF is on your "side," but it is clear he his not one of "Mantanmoreland's cavalcade of socks." I don't see any rush on the matter. Remember WP:BATTLE. Cool Hand Luke 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of personal privilege, I want to state that I was blocked last night on the basis of the alleged "misuse of multiple accounts." Because I dislike making things personal, I won't name the editor who did the blocking. I will, though, give the exact number of accounts I have used throughout my entire (six-years-long) experience with wikipedia: one. It is clear that the block didn't stay, because here I am. I will not charge that anyone here would use a false block in order to silence dissent to bolster a claim of consensus, because I assume good faith. Let us not press against the limits of the plausibility of that assumption. --Christofurio (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I haven't heard any objection to including the case in the See Also section, I'm going to move forward with that soon, while discussion continues about a broader mention in the article. Thoughts welcome. @Christofurio: I would be steaming; way to keep a cool head.—DMCer™ 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we just had various IPs doing lots of stuff, they check out as very likely Mantanmoreland socks. Thanks, Christofurio for reverting them. However, I've restored the See Also that sparked so much contention, because consensus seems pretty clear for its inclusion. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the merger, "See also" to an article that isn't there anymore makes little sense. Sending someone from here to the article on "Tiger Management" is simply confusing. --Christofurio (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is getting trolled by a slanderous IP. As such, I've semi-protected it for a couple of weeks - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two maintenance tags from the article as neither has a current rationale here; past involvement of the subject on this article is likely irrelevant by now given the volume of edits by editors in good standing. I have also filed a checkuser request following the recent edit war between two anonymous users: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WordBomb, Mantanmoreland

On the 23 January an IP (who only edited this article and nothing else, and geolocates to New York, Elmhurst) made these changes to the article, which, basically, have stayed in the article ever since. Firstly, s/he removed parts which were discussed above, and which I cannot see there were any consensus for removing. Secondly, s/he inserted a part which I consider some of the sillier puffery I have seen on wp: in a 5-page article by Roddy Boyd, Weiss is mentioned -once- and that just as one in a long list of who the article-writer thinks as "good guys".

Now, strangely, no-one has considered inserting this ref. into the other "good-guys" who have a wp-article, (Herb Greenberg, Carol Remond, Joe Nocera, and Floyd Norris) ..... doesn´t that make people think? Hmmmmm? Use your brains here, please. Seriously. Thank you, Huldra (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has no wikipedia name keeps trying to insert the statement that Weiss was "let go" from Forbes. The phrase "let go" is usually employed when there is an employment relationship in the first place and it was severed at the employer's discretion. "Let go" is a vernacular synonym of "fired." Is there any evidence that this was the case here? If not, please stop inserting it. --Christofurio (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Forbes website. Weiss stopped writing abruptly in March 2008. Was it to spend more time with his family? 174.253.170.12 (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't surmise what happened to living people based on searches of magazine articles. Without a reliable source providing a reason for departure, even saying the column ran through Mar. 08 is chancy, but I don't see the harm since nearly three years have passed. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was unsourced and not accurate. Please exercise greater care with biographies of living people, for the rules are stringent and extensive. Also I see that this article is under special Arbitration Committee sanctions, which are described in a noticed at the top. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the references in this article point to the subject's own self-written website [12]. Reading it, I found that portions of this article are taken almost verbatim from that same site. That, plus evidence suggesting the subject himself originally wrote the article makes me think it deserves a comprehensive re-writing (or elimination?).174.253.190.211 (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the tone here is neutral and the personal website is used appropriately. You've just returned from a 72 hour block for BLP violations in this article, for adding negative unsourced information, and appear to have a personal animosity toward this subject suggestive of a conflict of interest. Please be aware of the "Article probation" section at the top of this page applies, as it concerns adherence to site policies and disclosure of "any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page." ScottyBerg (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra extra: I can't comment on the version of 17 May 2011, but the version I saw a half an hour ago was mostly a puff-piece sourced to the subject's own site and containing a huge number of "references" that led to the subject's articles. Note: I do not have a COI with the subject, unless he's the dude who did it with my girlfriend a decade or more ago. But that seems unlikely. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A person who appears to have a very close relationship to the article's subject has been editing the article for some time now, employing numerous socks and, unfortunately, hasn't been completely honest in his approach to the article's content. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the story goes. I have no reason to doubt it, but I am not privy to the evidence. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another puff piece that we should keep our eyes on. It was protected in the past (2010) because of socking. If it happens again, and you happen to see it, feel free to drop me a line if RPP isn't quick enough. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit by an IP because (1) link was broken and (2) it was added to 'External Links' (and really doesn't fit there). The addition appears to be this 2007 Register article if anyone wants to use it as a source (I may get back to it at some point but just wanted to flag it as a possible source and explain revision). AnonNep (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more interesting; it mentions Gary Weiss by name. Adding that. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the info because the external links section is not a place to include controversial information that per discussion above seems to have been deliberately left out of the Wikipedia article. If you think the information should be in the article, you should start a new discussion about that. Iselilja (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO has reverted every copy edit I made to improve the quality of the article yesterday. Reason for Mongo's reversal was "Massive changes best to discuss on talkpage first".

I broke the work up in small steps and provided edit summaries for what are mostly minor edits of layout, language, incomplete refs, or removing duplications. These kinds of edits and placing tags to point out quality issues / spots for improvement do not require discussions in advance. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand. Can we incorporate any of the following links...

• bussinessweek
• Bloomberg

--MONGO 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, that's no discussion of the reversal of my edits! First the in retrospect completely false "sure, I understand" - you understood nothing, given that you reverted again today. Then you dare to bait me with "Can we incorporate any of the following links". Thats no discussion of the reversal of my clean up edits. you were basically testing if you could intimidate me !

But let me start from the beginning: do you know how to ping? MONGO I ping you, you ping me, clear? I watch hundreds of pages and my watch list loads slowly. if you cant ping me that isnt my problem.

Unless you revert your last edit, I will take this to another level. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to self revert. I watch thousands of pages. Threatening me with this "another level" childishness is not going to do anything but get you banned from this BLP article. Yes I know how to ping....no you do not own the page....this is a wiki so your edits can be removed or altered at anytime.--MONGO 05:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing controversial in the edits Wuerzele made to the page. MONGO please list your concerns with any of the edits you reversed with diff's to the edit and reasons why they were removed. Not just that the article is under probation. AlbinoFerret 12:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not each edit he made but the bulk of them. I have the article watched so pings are not needed. The fact that the article is under probation is exactly why the editor making sweeping changes needs to discuss why the changes are needed not me who is keeping the status quo.--MONGO 15:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing edits you have no issue with by a sweeping revert is not helpful, and I asked for specifics for the edits you have reverted, reasons why they were removed. Please provide them with diffs and the reason why they were removed. Simply sighting prohibition is not enough. Looking at the edits, and the restrictions placed on the article, also please mention the prohibitions that were violated by the edits with diffs proving they have been violated. AlbinoFerret 16:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cease with your pedantic nonsense. The arricle had been stable for sometime and these changes happened with nary a mention of why they were needed. I'm going to go back through them and restore those that are beneficial and keep removed those that are not. It's better in a BLP to remove any unsubstantiated statement rather than slap cite needed tags up in a BLP.--MONGO 16:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not pedantic nonsense to ask you to give reasons, if you persist in not giving reasons, you are removing material for no reason, and that is a major problem. For a third time I ask for your reasons for removing the material. As for stability, the article remained the same for 6 months. Thats stable.AlbinoFerret 17:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...the article WAS stable for six months which is why I reverted him. I'm working on fixing things now so chill out. It's in progress.--MONGO 17:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this strait, you reverted the edits, wont discuss why, but you are going to make sweeping edits, without discussion? AlbinoFerret 17:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced claim

With this edit diff MONGO removed "news organizations in Connecticut and Washington, D.C., and" from the article. The Connecticut part of the claim is unsourced. But the Washington part is sourced to the reference at the end of the sentence. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) The Connecticut claim can be refrenced to here AlbinoFerret 17:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Barrons article in 2012 on naked short selling

• Barrons article profile on Abraham Briloff

• argued for a limit on leverage in 1998

• profile on Tim Geithner in 2008

• wrote about how to prevent another Madoff

• wrote a piece with Richard Behar on how the AP botched an investigation of Gaza casualties

--MONGO 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to answer the questions in the previous section, or self revert your removal before moving on to any other edits. AlbinoFerret 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see...so the other editor can make major changes without discussion first but I have to discuss any I make. Anyway, hence the reason I posted these links here first... if we are going to make changes they won't be done unilaterally, they will be done together. Nice try to bully but it will not work on me.--MONGO 14:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Per WP:BRD you reverted, but you have refused any discussion. I am about to head over to AN/I because of ownership WP:OWN issues because you revert, refuse to discuss, then inserting edits without discussion and refusal to discuss the reasons for the revert. Then without finishing the issue you want to add more, by just revealing sources without specific edits. AlbinoFerret 22:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You go right ahead. I brought links here before adding them for discussio. I readded much of what the other editor had altered as I said I would. Stop being ridiculous. I parked these sources here as there may or may not support current or new changes....which YOU refuse to discuss. What's wrong with these links? Least I posted item here before adding them! They show mostly more recent writing contributions that this article lacks.--MONGO 02:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those links and the two above could be useful. We'll have to be careful not to synthesize anything controversial, but they can be used to support other sources and as external links. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to update the existing links by making sure they are formatted correctly and to eliminate bare url links if there are no objections...I'll wait a few days before doing so to allow others time to chime in.--MONGO 14:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albino and Wuerzele, see here if you want to learn why this article has such close supervision. Cla68 (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to remove sanctions related to this topic area which appear to be no longer required. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to bring up the need to add reference to a Wired Magazine article here. I don't know what the conventions are. Can I get some guidance, or an opposing opinion to respond to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B138:CFC4:F45E:23E5:B0A:DBF9 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That piece is an opinion piece. It's speculative and draws conclusions not based in reality. See our policy on biographies of living people...one opinion piece making unsubstantiated claims is not nearly adequate. Besides, when an IP shows up to add derogatory info to a BLP that's an immediate red flag.--MONGO 16:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'draws conclusions not based in reality'? Wikipedia doesn't do that - its called original research. Wikipedia quotes & references WP:RS as frustrating as that often is for topics ignored by mainstream media or academia, or those deluged by them. WP:BLP will always overide but unless there is clearly lawsuit material (noting that threatening lawsuits is grounds for blocks & bans) then the Wired article, presented in context, is a reasonable addition. AnonNep (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add (from the ArbCom summary [13]) =

Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or closely related pages or discussions on any page is directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account; (B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration; (C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and (D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

A note concerning these restrictions shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles. In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance.

Any uninvolved administrator may impose a reasonable restriction (e.g., a revert or civility limitation) or page-ban against any editor who, after receiving a warning containing a link to this decision, edits naked short selling, Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, Gary Weiss, or any related page or discussion in a disruptive or uncivil fashion, who edits them in contravention of site policies and guidelines, or who attempts to reintroduce subtle or overt partisan advocacy regarding any external dispute concerning these subjects into Wikipedia.

Continuation, including now lapsed warnings, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland Please add to anything relevant I've missed. AnonNep (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO: I have two questions. First, did the things the Wired claims happened actually happen? If so, then I don't know why it being an opinion piece (which does not appear to be the case) should matter.

Second, is Wikipedia itself considered an accurate source? If so, it seems like there should be a record on here of whatever led to Gary Weiss's discovery and ejection from the site. Can that be referenced? Was that an official action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B14F:E41:8DD9:CB04:6053:962B (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its a no and a no. The article doesn't accurately reflect what transpired.--MONGO 00:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, I'm confused. Sincerely. Please help me by answering these questions with some detail and not using all these acronyms that non wiki people don't understand.

1) You're saying there is no official record of Gary Weiss being associated with some pseudonym here?

2) What did the Wired article get wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B135:41A0:B5AA:B8A4:1031:33CA (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary Weiss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714135520/http://www.businessweek.com:80/1996/14/b34691.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1996/14/b34691.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]