This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Restrictions...Editors are directed:
Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
is Weiss still employed by forbes? He hasn't published anything there in six months. [3] -- Duk 04:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Lawsuit involved Weiss. FYI. Ikip 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- MONGO 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- MONGO 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland Please add to anything relevant I've missed. AnonNep ( talk) 18:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Restrictions...Editors are directed:
Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
is Weiss still employed by forbes? He hasn't published anything there in six months. [3] -- Duk 04:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Lawsuit involved Weiss. FYI. Ikip 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- MONGO 22:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- MONGO 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland Please add to anything relevant I've missed. AnonNep ( talk) 18:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)