Finding the laugh in slaughter, or, Orwell’s that ends well
Nobody aspires to have "enemies." I suspect, even the super-villainous would probably prefer to go about their villainy unopposed.
But just as the Yin and the Yang are opposite ends of the same stick, when one acquires a new friend, one often acquires that friend's enemies, too.
Over the past month, it has become evident that AntiSocialMedia.net, which rarely boasts enough traffic to register on any scale, has acquired the least likely set of enemies: the leadership of Wikipedia (the ninth most popular website on the earth).
I’ll admit, it's not easy finding the Zen in being on my side of such a grossly unfair fight.
To understand how unfair, I offer some perspective:
- It takes AntiSocialMedia.net about one week to log as many unique visitors as Wikipedia logs in less than one minute.
- Googling "AntiSocialMedia.net" returns 2,327 results.
- Googling "Wikipedia.org" returns 43,100,000 results (7,000,000 more than you get by googling "Google.com").
- Of the three most frequently-cited sources of Wikipedia criticism (AntiSocialMedia.net, Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica), AntiSocialMedia.net is the smallest, the most obscure, most infrequently updated, most understaffed, and the only one not focused exclusively on "Wikipedia criticism.”
Given these extreme imbalances, how strange that Wikipedia would make AntiSocialMedia.net, the focus of its epic "BADSITES" initiative.
What's "BADSITES," you ask?
"BADSITES" apparently beat out "UNGOODSITES" as the shorthand name assigned to the month old (and counting) effort by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) to officially forbid any reference to AntiSocialMeida.net on Wikipedia, under penalty of immediate banning.
To understand how extreme that move is, keep in mind the fact that Wikipedia currently endorses mentions of, and links to, websites that advocate pedophilia, racism, and related moral deprivation. Yet, the one website soon to be stricken as a matter of official Wikipedia, and which ArbCom member Fred Bauder claims “displays moral depravity,” is the one you’re reading now.
There have literally been scores, and likely more, of instances where the mere questioning of the validity of the claims against AntiSocialMedia.net results in immediate banning and removal of the comment.
If there is Zen to be found in these atrocities, it’s the de facto confirmation of the existence of “thoughtcrime” on Wikipedia.
Here's a perfect example, engineered by me specifically to demonstrate this point.
For a month, a carefully managed discussion of the issues surrounding BADSITES has been taking place on a half-dozen sufficiently cloistered corners of Wikipedia. This is where naive and well-meaning editors go to die.
One week ago, User:Greenstick Break (previously created by me) jumped into the middle of one of these conversations to ask Fred Bauder what should have been the obvious question.
(Note: this is actually a two-fer, in that Fred's comment nicely confirms one of the central theses of this site, as well as the searing dishonesty of Gary Weiss/Mantanmoreland.)
Fred Bauder: "…For example, one claim is that Matamoreland (sic) uses sockpuppets. Well, he did, when he first started editing two years ago. And he got caught, was warned, AND QUIT USING SOCKPUPPETS…"
Greenstick Break: "Now help me out here, Fred. You just confirmed that WordBomb was correct when he said Mantanmoreland was using socks. In another venue you confirmed that WordBomb was correct when he said Mantanmoreland had a [conflict of interest] problem. Whether or not you think the User:SlimVirgin/ User:Sweet Blue Water connection + User:jayjg oversight issue is a problem, I think it's generally understood that WordBomb got those facts right, too.
Yet WordBomb is the one that's banned and whose site cannot be named???
Will somebody PLEASE show me what WordBomb got so wrong as to justify all this?"
It took less than four minutes from the time that comment was posted until the time ArbCom member Jpgordon had removed it and banned Greenstick Break, claiming (impossibly), that he had managed to squeeze a completed CheckUser search in there, as well.
Greenstick Break mounted a tepid defense, partly for show and partly to force Jpgordon to actually consult CheckUser (as you'll see, that was a necessary part of this plan).
About 45 minutes later, while Jpgordon remained actively editing, I created User:Fjse44 via precisely the same connection, IP address and browser (with all cookies intact) that I had used when editing as Greenstick Break just moments before.
I wanted it to be very easy for Jpgordon or any other CheckUser to know, if they cared at all, that Greenstick Break and Fjse44 belonged to the same banned user.
The only thing that made Fjse44 different from Greenstick Break was sentiment, as I used the account (for the greater good and while holding my nose) to respond dismissively to a perfectly logical comment by Dan Tobias on the same page as Greenstick Break's.
*Dan T.*: "One should note that The New York Times linked to ASM when it was relevant to a controversy they were covering. But I guess we're so much more mature, sophisticated, and tasteful in our editorial judgment than they are."
Fjse44: "The New York Times gets to set its content policies as we do ours. Apples/oranges."
Ten days later, the pro-BADSITES comment remains in place, and pro-BADSITES commenter Fjse44 remains a Wikipedian in good standing (though that will likely change soon, now that Fjse44 is tied to WordBomb).
The take home lesson here is that under otherwise identical circumstances, Jpgordon banned one user based entirely on his opinion.
That is thoughtcrime.
Normally, this lack of judgment would land even an ArbCom member in hot water. But by now, any sentient observer of the process has seen enough to know that when it comes to AntiSocialMedia.net, the rules have been officially suspended.
Here's a beautiful example of Wikipedia's new thoughtcrime paradigm.
It's a portion of an exchange between the uncommonly gutsy User:G-Dett (whom I'm reticent to praise for fear of what might befall her) and User:Ryulong, shortly after the latter banned User:Onomato as a WordBomb sockpuppet, based on nothing more than his having made some minor changes to the Wikipedia article on Patrick Byrne.
G-Dett : "Would it be fair to say that Wikipedia's current working definition of a WordBomb sockpuppet is anyone whose edits focus (either wholly or in part) on naked-short-selling -related articles, and who opposes User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris?"
Ryūlóng: "They would be common traits as far as I know."
G-Dett : "Of course they're common traits; my question was whether they're enough for a positive ID."
Ryūlóng: "I would say so."
Thoughtcrime. You may not like it, but at least it's out in the open now.
Having laid that foundation, allow me to return to my initial point: that there's an enormous disconnect between what's been published on AntiSocialMedia.net so far, and the severity of Wikipedia leadership's response to it.
I believe the reason these efforts are aimed against AntiSocialMedia.net, as opposed to the other, more obvious targets, is that I alone possess the past Wikipedia database dumps which, through analysis of what has since been covertly removed, provide unambiguous roadmaps of disturbing behavior at the highest levels of Wikipedia leadership.
I believe their primary concern – and the motive for such Orwellian behavior – is not for what I have published, but for what they know, based on the data in my possession, I potentially could publish.
Nobody aspires to have "enemies," particularly when ambushed by a brass knuckle-wielding band of them. But if there is Zen to be found in the experience, it's realizing that the subjects of my efforts – my self appointed "enemies" – appear to place a higher value upon my work than even I do.
My email must be broken
| It’s been one year since the launch of AntiSocialMedia.net, and what better way to start another year than asking those who’ve publicly assailed the accuracy of our reporting to offer suggestions on how to improve?Over two days I’ve sent email to this blog's harshest critics, asking each to favor me with a specific instance of inaccuracy on these pages.
Below, you can see a reproduction of the email I sent on the left, and the response, when applicable on the right. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Albert Kidd (aka ScipioAfricanus) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The most persistent critic of AntiSocialMedia.net is Albert Kidd, whose blog boasts roughly ten times more content than the site it purports to deconstruct. Kidd's reply arrived quickly, but was only a "reply" in the technical sense, as you'll read: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: ScipioAfricanus Date: Sep 11, 2007 Albert,I'm tying up some loose ends and am looking for your help. your most recent piece, you include:"...most of [AntiSocialMedia.net’s] major findings are simply wrong." I'm hoping you can take a few minutes and outline which major findings you feel are "simply wrong," and where you're able, please also include the truth as you see it. Do me a favor and please try to be fairly specific. |
From: ScipioAfricanus
To: Judd Bagley Date: Sep 11, 2007 The weiss=mantanmoreland theory seems to have a problem.No interest in debating it as it's not my problem, regardless of what you imagine. I'll leave it to you to figure out why or dismiss it as you see fit. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Seth Jayson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| While Fool.com writer Seth Jayson has been rather liberal with his criticism of AntiSocialMedia.net, it's the sort of multipurpose criticism that leaves me unconvinced that he's ever actually read any of it.But just in case, I asked Seth for some advice. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: Seth Jayson Date: Sep 11, 2007 Sorry to bother you, Seth.I just had a quick question...I noticed that in May, you compared the record of accuracy on AntiSocialMedia.net to "batting 0.000." I would really appreciate it if you might help me out by pointing to some specific examples of inaccuracy on AntiSocialMedia.net. I suppose if you really think ASM is 100% wrong, this won't take you too long. Thank you for your time and I look forward to reading your insights. |
From: Seth Jayson
To: Judd Bagley Date: n/a (No reply) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sam Antar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The only person who might know the content of AntiSocialMedia.net better than me is Sam Antar, who admits to essentially loitering here during the day. Because Sam has likely memorized ASM by now, I felt he would be eager to get specific on some of his many criticisms. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: Sam Antar Date: Sep 11, 2007 Sam,I'm working on a new post for ASM and need your help, please.I noted in a recent post on your own blog you said, referring to ASM: “vile and malicious false accusations, threats, and smears that he has posted on antisocialmedia.net” I would really appreciate it if you would show me some specific vile and malicious false accusations, threats, and smears that you've encountered. If there are too many, just tell me your favorites. Have fun with it! |
From: Sam Antar
To: Judd Bagley Date: n/a (No reply) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Chris Faille | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In addition to being Senior Financial Correspondent for HedgeWorld.com, Chris Faille writes a blog of his own.Recently, Faille mashed the two up by blogging about a past HedgeWorld column. In his blog, Faille made reference to AntiSocialMedia.net’s “demonstrably false assertions.” | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: Chris Faille Date: Sep 11, 2007 I'm most interested to know what the "demonstrably false assertions" on AntiSocialMedia.net that you make reference to are.You'd be doing me a huge favor as a writer if you’d be specific and show me how you might have done things differently. I hope this is not a big inconvenience for you, but then again, having made the claim months ago, you've probably got the information handy anyway. So I trust it won't be a real burden. |
From: Chris Faille
To: Judd Bagley Date: n/a (No reply) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Zac Bissonnette | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| It might surprise Zac to learn that he was the inspiration for this project.In June, Zac emailed me, asking that I list some of the untruths I’ve accused Albert Kidd of knowingly publishing in his blog. My response was quite specific and filled a page; it might have been much longer, given the time.I incorrectly presumed critics of my work – Zac in particular – might appreciate the same opportunity. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: Zac Bissonnette Date: Sep 11, 2007 Hello Zac. Hope you're well.You've been fairly critical of AntiSocialMedia.net, as is your right. I'm wondering if you might help me out by pointing to some specific instances of inaccurate reporting on the site, and maybe a little about why you feel that way.Thanks for your time and I look forward to receiving your insights. |
From: Zac Bissonnette
To: Judd Bagley Date: n/a (No reply)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Gary Weiss | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| AntiSocialMedia.net’s most vocal critics is Gary Weiss.But you probably knew that.Recently things took an interesting turn when Senior Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder endorsed the central claim of AntiSocialMedia.net: that Gary Weiss is a deeply conflicted editor of Wikipedia.This, by extension, means Gary was some explaining to do for all the times he called me a liar for saying as much.
With that in mind, I sent the following to Gary. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: Gary Weiss Date: Sep 11, 2007 Good day to you, sir.I'm tying up some loose ends and wanted to give you a chance to elaborate on something from Mitchell's piece in the NY Times a few months ago: “Beyond calling the accusations "lies," Mr. Weiss hasn't addressed most of the details of [AntiSocialMedia.net’s] "findings," though he denied having edited Wikipedia entries under a pseudonym.” Now it would appear, based on the recent statement of Fred Bauder, that you have in fact edited Wikipedia under a pseudonym...or two. Will you comment on that apparent contradiction? And on the general topic of calling AntiSocialMedia.net's findings "lies," might you indulge me by listing some specific lies as you see them, including, specifically, how the truth differs from what appears on ASM? |
From: Gary Weiss
To: Judd Bagley Date: n/a (No reply) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTE: Weiss has confirmed having received and read my email to him, based on the following, which recently appeared – and then swiftly disappeared – from his blog:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| UsuallyReasonable | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The link in Weiss’s fleeting acknowledgement of receipt of my email above points to a message board post by the pseudonymous blogger and frequent fool.com message board poster “UsuallyReasonable” (“UR” for short).Like Seth Jayson, I feel it’s unlikely that UR has ever actually read AntiSocialMedia.net, though he is a studious reader of ASM criticism sites. Despite what he believes, I have never posted to any fool.com discussion board, and had never interacted with him in any way until I sent him the following... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: UsuallyReasonable Date: Sep 11, 2007 I've not corresponded with you in the past, to my knowledge, but it's been pointed out to me several times that you're especially critical of the accuracy of the content on my blog, AntiSocialMedia.net.I'm wondering if you might help me out by pointing to some specific instances of inaccuracy, and whatever commentary you might deem beneficial. Thank you for your time and I look forward to receiving your insights. |
From: UsuallyReasonable
To: Judd Bagley Date: n/a (No reply) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTE: While he has not yet replied to me, UsuallyReasonable posted this non-response to a certain stock message board:
As I stated above, and reiterate now, I have never once posted on any fool.com message board, nor directed anybody else to do so. If that’s what’s keeping UR from replying, I hope he will reconsider. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| But wait, there’s more.Last week, Wikipedia took unprecedented steps to keep me (or any who might agree with me) from accessing the encyclopedia that “anyone can edit.”
Specifically, MediaWiki Foundation employee David Gerard blocked every computer on my employer’s network from accessing Wikipedia. Because it’s impossible to justify such a sweeping and ostensibly permanent block for the sake of one non-vandal, Gerard instead claimed it was to thwart “commercial spamming.” As if on cue, Hu12 jumped to attention, saying “They’ve been very naughty” and promising to rid Wikipedia of inappropriate links to Overstock.com. Over the next five minutes, the hard-working Hu12 managed to eradicate a total of four links, added over the course of six months by four separate editors. For those unfamiliar with the problem of Wikipedia spam, let’s just say four links falls so short of the threshold of “spam” as to not be worth mentioning. To put a finer point on it, Gary Weiss added double that many references to his own book, each of which remains to this day. Perplexed, I emailed Hu12 to learn more. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: Hu12 Date: Sep 4, 2007 On the Overstock.com spamming issue...was this the extent of the problem, or might there have been other instances that you didn't personally delete? |
From: Hu12
To: Judd Bagley Date: n/a (No reply) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Apparently realizing the indefensibility of the “corporate spammer” accusation, David Gerard upped the ante by claiming to have found “a pile of obvious overstock.com socks” using the company’s IP range.If that were true, Gerard would have then blocked some of those “obvious socks.” But because it’s not true, he did not.
Curious, I emailed Gerard to learn more. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: David Gerard Date: Sep 4, 2007 You refer to "a pile of obvious overstock.com socks." Can you point me toward a few of them? |
From: David Gerard
To: Judd Bagley Date: n/a (No reply) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A few days later, I encountered debate on Wikipedia over the newsworthiness of AntiSocialMedia.net’s recent revelations of gross abuses by administrators at the highest levels.The rudderless Phil Sandifer objected, stating AntiSocialMedia.net is filled with “some deeply unseemly things about a number of editors.”
In response, I created and posted the following table, listing all Wikipedia editors named on these pages, the claim made about them, and any confirmation of that claim. I also left a column for Sandifer to note any applicable unseemliness. Of course that column remains unchanged. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David Gerard offered three responses.
To justify yet another unprecedented move, Gerard noted:
As this record of anon edits (of which none is mine) attests, it most certainly is an actively used IP, but hardly exclusive to me, and never by Overstock.com. More to the point, the now blocked IP is the exact opposite of an open proxy, in that only paying subscribers may access it. Wanting to help Gerard do the right thing, I sent him the following email: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: Judd Bagley
To: David Gerard Date: Sep 12, 2007 Mr. Gerard,Based in part on what I see here, it appears that you're unclear on the definition of an "open proxy" web server.Because this might prove embarrassing to someone in your position, I suggest you read this Wikipedia article on the topic. Judd Bagley ps: I'm concerned my email is broken. Would you kindly confirm receipt of this message with a quick reply in the affirmative? |
From: David Gerard
To: Judd Bagley Date: n/a (No reply) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Over the space of one week, I’ve asked nine people to help me understand why they’ve taken what I see as irresponsible positions.Of those, only one has managed anything resembling a reply, however feeble.
Obviously, something is broken. Is it my email, or those on the receiving end? Because my email seems to be working for everybody else, I’m going to say the problem is limited to the above nine people and their inability to defend their shameful actions. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hoosier daddy? ScipioAfricanus uncovered in Indiana.
As much as everybody seeks after the easy win, there’s also a unique sense of satisfaction to be found in confronting a truly worthy opponent.
AntiSocialMedia.net spent its first few months essentially shooting fish in a barrel. That’s because for over a decade, Gary Weiss and his many identities had stomped around the internet, leaving tracks behind that were far too easy to find and connect. When confronted with the evidence, the best Gary could do was accuse me of lying and/or “cyberstalking,” characterize me as “nauseating,” and go out of his way to avoid addressing any real issues.
Then came Albert Laverne Kidd of Connersville, Indiana.
“ScipioAfricanus,” as Albert dubbed himself, initially played the part of a voice of intellectual honesty, whose job it was to ensure that the process of exposing Weiss did not devolve into a witch hunt.
Where Weiss lacked the technical ability to aptly cover his tracks online, Albert, a software engineer by training, proved very adept and disciplined at taking the steps necessary to remain anonymous.
Albert Kidd was a worthy opponent.
Yet, by early December of 2006, Albert’s moderating tone had grown quite shrill, and it became apparent that his role was in reality that of assigned advocate for Gary Weiss. This became undeniable when it was discovered that hidden within the code of O-Smear (the site created specifically to attack and mischaracterize me), was an inadvertent reference to the location inside Albert’s own computer’s directory structure where the data destined for his blog was stored:
C:/Documents and Settings/Big Al/My Documents/Weiss/
This confirmed what had become clear: that in Albert’s mind, this process was not about “truth” or “O-smear” or “Anti-AntiSocialMedia,” but about “[Gary] Weiss.”
And indeed, Albert’s attacks expanded beyond this site and me as its creator, and soon eerily mirrored those of Weiss himself.
Two months ago, I erred in claiming that fellow named Al Petrofsky was ScipioAfricanus. The body of evidence supporting that conclusion was overwhelming, but in the end, circumstantial and flawed.
The evidence tying Albert Kidd to ScipioAfricanus, on the other hand, is incontrovertible. As eager as I am to share it, I do not intend to do so, as it would expose specific “sources and methods” used to arrive at the conclusion, in addition to crossing certain personal boundaries that I feel compelled to respect, while recognizing that it’s very unlikely that I would be afforded the same courtesy were the tables turned.
However, if in responding, ScipioAfricanus or any of his allies should question the veracity of these claims, the evidence will be presented, and Albert can deal with the consequences.
DTCC caught covering-up
There has been much speculation as to the root of Gary Weiss’s abiding interest in the personalities voicing their objections to the practice of illegal naked short securities trading.
In February of this year, some felt that question was answered in the form of a minor yet tremendously significant incident from which it could be fairly deduced that Weiss was, on the morning of January 19, 2007, using a computer on the network of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC).
The basis of that deduction is explained in detail here.
Given the enormous value of the financial assets over which the DTCC is steward, and the high level of security that must necessarily mediate access to the organization’s premises, much less data networks, one can immediately rule out any scenario in which Weiss might have been using that computer in anything other than a sanctioned capacity.
Over four days, DTCC Spokesman Stuart Goldstein ignored two emailed requests for comment on this situation. When he finally did respond to a third request received by a staffer over the phone, it was in the form of a blank email. A quick request to re-send the missing content was denied, and five repeat requests over the space of one week were ignored.
Then, in one of the strangest turns of events observed in this saga to date, on February 9, 2007, Goldstein’s reply was delivered, unprompted, by New York Post reporter Roddy Boyd.
From: Boyd, Roddy
Date: Feb 09 2007 - 1:03pm
Subject:judd,
I spoke to corp comm at DTCC and they told me, on the record, that weiss is not, nor has he ever, been employed or used by DTCC in any capacity, formally or informally. They categorically reject it and tell me that none of them have any recollection of ever talking to him, meeting with him or having any dealings with him.
categorically rejects it.
thats a big hump for a real reporter to get over.let me put this politely:
As an investigative reporter, laughably per PB, you really, really are a much better PR person.
Lest its meaning be lost on anybody, please carefully re-read and reflect on the sweeping significance of Mr. Boyd’s second sentence:
They categorically reject it and tell me that none of them have any recollection of ever talking to [Gary Weiss], meeting with him or having any dealings with him.
Now, please carefully read and consider the meaning of the following:
In recent weeks, a confidential source has delivered to AntiSocialMedia.net multiple emails, all pre-dating Mr. Boyd’s DTCC proxy denials, in which Gary Weiss refers to active consultations between himself and unnamed DTCC officials on a specific media-related matter.
These emails make no reference to the basis (whether paid or otherwise) of the relationship, but given the extreme lengths to which DTCC leadership has gone to deny so much as a conversation with Weiss, this development is suggestive of what can only be interpreted as unmitigated deception at the highest levels within that organization.
In February, Weiss called claims of a relationship between himself and the DTCC "absolute crap."
Wishing to rule out the possibility that Roddy Boyd delivered anything but an accurate reflection of the DTCC’s position, earlier this week Stuart Goldstein was asked to affirm the accuracy of Boyd's statement, as well as to comment on the existence of unspecified evidence that Gary R. Weiss has or has had a professional relationship with the DTCC.
Goldstein's pithy reply consisted of three words:
From: Stuart Goldstein
date: May 23, 2007 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Request for commentSend your evidence.
Because the nature of the evidence does nothing to change the facts at hand, and in order to honor commitments of confidentiality made to sources, Goldstein’s request was not honored.
An additional request for comment has been ignored by Goldstein.
Given the length to which Goldstein has gone to obscure the truth in this matter, and the length to which Weiss regularly goes to specifically malign critics of the DTCC’s defense of illegal and abusive stock trade settlement failures, a disturbing picture of that organization’s policy of defamatory, surrogate-driven, scorched-earth public relations is beginning to emerge.
Update: 5/31/2007
An alert reader brings to our attention an earlier incident appearing to confirm Goldstein's lax regard for truth when confronted with questions relating to the DTCC's role in empowering illegal market manipulation by crooked stock lenders.
The following originally appeared here on May 11, 2004.
FinancialWire received a confidential email between a reporter and Stuart Z. Goldstein, Managing Director of Corporate Communications for the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. in which Goldstein was represented as denying that a lawsuit filed by Nanopierce Technologies exists.
The chief spokesperson for the DTCC, whose board of directors represent a who's who of financial entities, including Lehman Brothers, Citigroup / Solomon Smith Barney's Corporate Investment Bank, and Morgan Stanley, was quoted as stating that the "lawsuit" did not exist and was simply "charges being leveled by internet crackpots."
FinancialWire sent Goldstein a scanned copy of the actual court filing, which occurred April 29 at 12:15 p.m., and asked Goldstein if he or the DTCC still denied its existence or had any comments. No response was received.
It would be strange, but not unreasonable, had Goldstein himself not yet heard of the lawsuit when asked. But if that were the case, the proper response would be to explain as much. Instead, Goldstein was dismissive and insulting: the general embodiment of his employer.
But beyond Goldstein's obviously striking social shortcomings, these are the mannerisms of an organization with something dark to hide, but utterly lacking in accountability.
What is that dark thing?
We know that it includes records of billions upon billions of dollars of failed stock trades (the one thing the DTCC is tasked with completing successfully). Some allege that beyond the records, there is also proof that elements within the DTCC are profiting wildly from this fraud.
Given what I've seen, I'm inclined to believe it's true.
Wall Street versus America versus my better judgement
A friend who's been following this blog for the past few months paid me a striking compliment recently. She said I am "the anti-Gary Weiss."
As she explained, that's not to say I'm necessarily anti-Gary Weiss, but that where Gary is in all things the Yang, I am the Yin, thus maintaining balance in the universe.
When I asked her for an example, she pointed to our respective approaches to Amazon book reviews.
Where Gary has dedicated an enormous amount of energy toward inventing dozens of over-the-top raving reviews of his own books, I only review media I've legitimately purchased and consumed, and on the one occasion I've had to light-heartedly comment on something I had in fact written, I clearly disclosed that I was the author.
I suspect that is what left me so bothered by the accusation leveled by Gary's minion-for-hire ScipioAfricanus that I had panned Gary's book when, as he wrote, "the evidence seems to indicate that he has never even read the book."
Evidence? What evidence might that be?
To put a fork in that entire line of (il)logic, I offered this visual restatement of my initial Amazon review (click to enlarge).
Upon further reflection, I remembered that if I've learned anything about Gary Weiss over the past year, it's that his sketchy relationship with Truth always provides solid content for this blog. And so with that in mind, I decided to not just re-read, but to study Gary's book and report to you, my loyal readers, anything exceptional I might find therein.
Consider this exception #1.
On page 33 (of the hardcover version), Weiss holds up the trading history of Genesis Intermedia (GENI) as indicative of the excesses of a stock promoter known as The Waaco Kid.
Unfortunately, a brief consultation with the truth reveals that the company in question was actually Genesis International Financial Services (GIFS).
Much like network hardware maker Cisco and foodservice product distributor Sysco.
.
After all, both try to make things get from one place to another. Cisco moves bits of data, while Sysco moves cases of Vegeline non-stick cooking spray. They are identical, for all practical purposes.
Oh man. Is it obvious I'm lingering here to avoid getting back to the book?
The Antilla method
Preface: A word about the law and the press.
It’s safe to say that, thanks to the protections rightly granted journalists in the Bill of Rights, almost nobody ever successfully sues a reporter. The standard of proof is too high and the weight of case law too overwhelming for even blatantly egregious cases to succeed in the courts. That’s because libel requires that one not merely prove inaccurate reporting and damages as a result, but a reckless disregard for the truth motivated by malice on the part of the writer. It’s that last part – the presence of malice – that presents the highest hurdle to clear, as it requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt, often years after the fact, the state of the defendant’s mind.
Which brings us to Susan Antilla.
In 1994, Antilla was a New York Times business writer. In the fall of that year, she learned of a rumor suggesting Robert Howard, head of Presstek, might actually be Howard Finkelstein, a convicted felon known to use various aliases, including “Robert Howard”. Antilla would not reveal the source of the rumor, other than to acknowledge that it came from short sellers of Presstek stock.
A quick word about good journalism.
There’s an easy way to discern a responsible journalist from an irresponsible one: irresponsible journalists are willing to write about rumors. Responsible journalists may investigate rumors, but insist on reporting facts.
Following interviews with 30 people, including Robert Howard himself and his son, in which Antilla found nothing to support the Howard-as-Finkelstein rumor, she opted to write anyway…about the rumor.
The day the story ran, Howard’s attorneys met with Antilla’s bosses, showing them proof of Howard’s identity. The following day, the Times ran something even Gary Weiss acknowledges is exceedingly rare: a correction.
An article in Business Day yesterday discussed rumors affecting the stock of Presstek, an imaging technology company. The rumors suggested that Presstek's chairman, Robert Howard, might actually be Howard Finkelstein, a convicted felon. Mr. Howard's lawyers presented The Times yesterday with documents and other information regarding his identity. After inspecting them, The Times finds no credible evidence to support the rumor. Details appear today on page D1.
The Times regrets having printed the rumor.
Needless to say, Howard sued Antilla, claiming defamation and false light invasion of privacy, for which a jury ordered Antilla to pay Howard nearly $500,000 in damages.
Antilla appealed and a panel comprised of three appellate court judges overturned the jury decision, based – of course – on the inability to prove Antilla acted maliciously.
And indeed, it’s unlikely Antilla was motivated by malice. I believe that in 1994, Antilla was motivated by something much more base.
Draw your own conclusions by considering this pattern:
- Falsehoods peddled about a CEO of a company by investors shorting that company's stock
- A reporter repeatedly told, by those who would know best, that there is no truth to the claims
- The reporter shoehorning a hatchet job into print anyway
In fairness to Antilla, there was one difference between her tactics then and now: in 2007 she knew enough to insulate herself by calling her work “opinion.”
Coming next: how a shared legacy of libel suits comes to unite Gary Weiss and Susan Antilla.
NOTE (03/14/2007): This post was edited to reflect confirmation of Antilla's divorce, finalized in November of 2006.
The root of the problem, Part Four
Preface and editor’s note: As stated previously, AntiSocialMedia.net has issues with Gary Weiss, not his wife.
As is happens, one of the more startling examples of abuse of social media we’ve discovered anywhere – and the central theme of this, the fourth and final part of this series on the history of Gary Weiss's pathology – cannot be told without making reference to that relationship.
However, because her identity is ultimately not material to this situation, we shall only refer to her as “Mrs. Weiss” (though Weiss is not her real last name), and have set this site’s comment filter to immediately reject any comments that contain either her first or last name.
Also, all references to her are redacted from the document included in this post. The only circumstance under which that will change is if Gary Weiss (or his known surrogates) choose to call into question the document’s validity, or claim the redacted name is that of someone else.
Finally, Gary Weiss was invited to comment on the claims that follow, but ignored multiple requests to do so.
Background
Through parts one, two and three of this series, we established that in April of 2005, Gary Weiss created the Mediacrity blog, which from the beginning dedicated a substantial amount of space to attacking writer and former president of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA), Ian Williams.We also established that in March of 2005, Mrs. Weiss, who for three years held UN media accreditation as a correspondent for The Pioneer of India newspaper, suddenly lost her media credentials.
Two months before the launch of Gary Weiss's Mediacrity blog, in February of 2005, a media criticism website ran suspiciously-timed stories attacking both Ian Williams and his wife, a BBC World Service reporter and native of Uzbekistan; the former for accepting media training assignments from UN agencies, and the latter over what were ultimately shown to be unfounded questions relating to her visa status in the US. At the time, Williams’s wife also held a paid position within UNCA, one to which those familiar with the situation confirm Mrs. Weiss aspired.
But as mentioned, not only did Mrs. Weiss not get that job, one month later she was permanently barred from the UN.
One month after that, Gary Weiss created Mediacrity, which, among other things, he used as a platform for casting further aspersions upon Williams’s wife, calling her an “obscure hack” and continuing the fruitless challenges to her immigration status.
When securing her own permanence in this country, Mrs. Weiss, an Indian national, requested then-UNCA President Tony Jenkins write a letter to the State Department verifying her employment as UN correspondent for the Pioneer of India newspaper, which Jenkins did.
Keep that in mind as you read this document (click to enlarge) in which it is revealed that Mrs. Weiss had no connection to the Pioneer of India whatsoever, and that the three years she spent acting like a reporter at the UN were all a sham.
These circumstances invoke myriad questions, but for now we’ll focus on those involving Gary Weiss; specifically, how could Gary justify attacking another on baseless immigration issues when his own wife’s residence had been founded at least in part on a shockingly brazen and possibly illegal misrepresentation?
Also, it’s generally understood by those I spoke with that Mrs. Weiss is not exactly “computer savvy.” If that’s true, what role did Gary Weiss have in the annual creation of forged documents that the Pioneer’s Chandan Mitra termed “computer generated?”
Gary will likely try to divert the issue, claiming this is an attack on his wife. Indeed great lengths have been taken to ensure that such is not the case. Instead, this is the culmination of a four-part series demonstrating the foundations of Gary’s unfortunate pattern of deception and abuse of social media for personal gain, which his come to permeate his professional and personal lives.
-------------------------
postscript:
Expecting that claims of unfair attacks against Mrs. Weiss are inevitable, we wish to pre-emptively add some context to that discussion.
In November of 2005, former soc.culture.jewish Usenet newsgroup regular Ted Dichtler (shown here to be Gary Weiss) escalated his ongoing flame war with a particularly repulsive neo-Nazi by posting the man’s home and business addresses, in addition to his wife's full name.
Weiss then went on to add these personal details to Ted Dichtler's Usenet posting signature, meaning it was reproduced scores of times across the web.
Gary, for future reference, that’s what it means to unfairly attack your target's spouse.
Gary Weiss: The Root of the Problem, Part Three
Preface and editor’s note: AntiSocialMedia.net has issues with Gary Weiss, not his wife.
As is happens, one of the more startling examples of abuse of social media we’ve discovered anywhere – and the central theme of this, the third part of this series on Gary Weiss – cannot be told without making reference to that relationship.
However, because her identity is ultimately not material to this situation, we shall only refer to her as “Mrs. Weiss” (though Weiss is not her real last name) and have set this site’s comment filter to immediately reject any comments that contain either her first or last name. Comments containing any other personally identifying information belonging to Mrs. Weiss will be immediately deleted and the commenter barred from further use of this site.
Background: In parts one and two of this four part series, we established that Gary Weiss is the would-be anonymous writer of the blog dubbed Mediacrity, which considers itself “A media insider's occasional rants on goofs, bias and hypocrisy in the media.”Also, a prior post on this blog demonstrated Gary Weiss’s proclivity for creating fake Amazon.com book reviews for the purpose of boosting of his own books’ ratings while deflating the ratings of those authors with whom Gary has tangled in the past.You’ll need to keep both of those facts in mind as you read the following.
While researching links between Gary Weiss and the targets of his abusive Amazon.com book reviews, we hit a dead end when it came to understanding exactly what Gary had against author Ian Williams, whose two books were trashed by reviewers Ted Dichtler (reviews since deleted) and Raymond Stella in the spring of 2005. What made this instance so curious was the fact that soon after we announced the forthcoming investigation on the topic of Weiss's fabricated Amazon.com reviews, Gary Weiss (as Ted Dichtler) quietly deleted his one-star thrashing of Williams’ book, United Nations for Beginners, replacing it with a tepid review of another author’s book about the UN.
The Williams book review, which we captured prior to Gary’s replacement of it, read as follows:
Trash. A superficial book that offers a la-la land version of the UN, failing to mention entire areas in which the UN has failed miserably.
Also, since it was recently disclosed that Ian Williams has actually worked for the UN as a media trainer and pamphlet writer, it seems to me that the validity of this book is entirely questionable. He boasts about his UN work on his website. That only adds to the tastelessness of this rubbish. (Ted Dichtler)
Most would probably consider those sentiments a little harsh for an illustrated book aimed at school-aged kids.
While we did finally discover the reason for Gary’s acrimony toward Ian Williams, that knowledge arrived too late to be included in the Amazon.com review fabrication story.
Which is why we’re telling you about it now.
Two independent sources confirm that Gary Weiss’s wife was at one time credentialed as a reporter for the Pioneer of India newspaper, covering the United Nations. As a credentialed UN correspondent, Mrs. Weiss was eligible to join the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA), which she did. Subsequently she sought a paid position with UNCA, held at the time by Ian Williams's wife. Mrs. Weiss had apparently sought other paid positions within the UN proper as well. Williams, UN correspondent for The Nation, was former UNCA president.
For reasons that don’t matter now (but will explored in part four), in March of 2005, Mrs. Weiss lost her media credentials and was ordered never to set foot on UN property again. Obviously, she was also taken out of consideration for any position within the UN and UNCA that she had sought.
Those familiar with the situation feel Mrs. Weiss blamed Williams for the circumstances surrounding this unfortunate turn of fate.
A few days after this incident, Gary Weiss – through Amazon.com reviewer Ted Dichtler, called Ian Williams’ book “trash.”
Exactly 30 days after that, Weiss launched the Mediacrity blog, and with it, an attempt at a recurring series called, “Hypocrites on Parade,” focusing on Ian Williams.
Weiss's first examination of Williams in Mediacrity reads in part as follows:
…Williams is a fourth-rate hack. But fourth-rate hackdom has not prevented other ethics-deprived journos from being publicly pilloried. What is keeping Williams from the gallows?
... If you go on his website, http://www.ianwilliams.info/, you see what I'm talking about--if you can read it. This guy is such a dummy that he's got black print on a dark blue background.
We feel secure in classifying the above as "mean-spirited."
“Hypocrites on Parade” would go on to be replaced by “Creeps on Parade” and dozens of drive-by attacks on Williams, in which he is named, among other things: “The Payola Pundit,” “Fourth-rate Hack” (later promoted to “Fifth-rate Hack”), and “Bloated UN Minister of Propaganda.”
The final part of this series, coming very soon, examines the strange circumstances surrounding Mrs. Weiss’s gaining and losing her media credentials, the role Gary Weiss played in that process, and a new wrinkle that even we find difficult to believe.
Gary Weiss: The Root of the Problem, Part Two
Let’s start by re-stating three key facts as established in Part One.
- In June of 1995, Gary Weiss told the world that his personal email address was garywbw@aol.com.
- Gary would go on to use that account to identify himself when posting on Usenet newsgroups for the next 10 years.
- Primary among those newsgroups were soc.culture.jewish (scj) and its moderated (scjm) subgroup.
During garywbw’s decade long tenure on that newsgroup, several regular and semi-regular posters emerged, including:
- Yitz pascalamb@aol.com / pascalamb@verizon.net
- Daveumansky daveumansky@aol.com / daveumansky@verizon.net
- Ted tdichtler@hotmail.com
- Teddydichtler teddydichtler@hotmail.com
- Tdicktler tdicktler@hotmail.com
- Annieschwartz annieschwartz@hotmail.com
- Brenda catallergest@aol.com
These eight accounts often posted in close temporal proximity to one another, usually in support of each other’s increasingly venomous flame-wars with an uncommonly obnoxious contingent of anti-Semitic trolls.
Then, exactly two years ago on December 20, 2004, Gary found himself in a fix, which you can read unfold in its entirety here, or summarized below.
Basically, fellow scjm newsgroup user cindys confronted garywbw as follows:
cindys: Hey, Gary! I'm really curious to know why you didn't share with us that you and Dave Umansky are the same person?
garywbw: If this is a joke...you'll have to tell me the punch line.
cindys: It's not a joke. A poster on another group, someone who never posted to that particular group before yesterday, told me that I seemed like a "pretty bright person" and gave me weblink to a certain yahoo group and suggested that I might like to read that particular yahoo group for a while. When I clicked over there, I found that "Daveumansky" was a sometime poster to that group and guess what his email address was? garywbw@yahoo.com How do you explain that?
Garywbw: Well, I can't explain it and I have no idea how that can be, since I don't have a yahoo address and have never heard of a "daveumansky" or even heard of the existence of same until you mentioned it. So I think someone is pulling your leg. I don't see the humor, frankly.
Despite his protestations and ten year posting history, within a few days of this exchange garywbw would disappear from Usenet forever.
In December of 2004, cindys referred to an undisclosed Yahoo group whose membership included a user named daveumansky with email garywbw@yahoo.com.
A year earlier, the Yahoo Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) group counted among its active members a user named garywbw, whose email address was daveumansky@aol.com.
By June of 2005, garywbw was replaced by username stopthewarrrrr, though the email address remained daveumansky@aol.com.
By exploiting Yahoo’s dissembler sorting algorithm bug, we learn that indeed, garywbw@yahoo.com = stopthewarrrrr@yahoo.com = daveumanskyfromny@yahoo.com.
On another Yahoo group, this one dedicated to Gary Weiss’s high school alma mater Bronx High School of Science, we observe garywbw using the email address pascalamb@aol.com, and this time, conveniently, Gary signs off using his real name and high school graduation year: 1971.
Usenet posts carry with them header data that’s hidden by default, but which includes important information identifying the origin of a post.
Look at this post by Yitz with its header data included (limited to the most relevant data below):
From: "Yitz" Date: 18 Nov 2005 17:51:21 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.23.102.179
Compare that with this post by Ted (truncated below):
From: "Ted" Date: 27 Nov 2005 09:25:49 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.23.102.179
Note that between the two posts, one element is identical: Posting-Host. This means both of these posts, while nine days apart, were made from the same computer.
In fact, identical Posting-Host data are also shared by daveumansky, teddydichtler, tdicktler, Ted, annieschwartz and Brenda, suggesting they’re all the same person.
The IP address used in the above example (70.23.102.179) is owned by Verizon and assigned to dsl customers in the pool designated as NY325. Most subscribers in that pool see their IP address (and thus Posting-Host) address change randomly, on roughly a monthly basis.
Some time in the first half of December, 2005, the Posting-Host of garywbw, daveumansky, teddydichtler, tdicktler, Ted, annieschwartz and Brenda all changed to 70.23.42.100 in unison: consistent with a single user scenario posited here.
The point of this exercise is conclusively demonstrate that Gary Weiss = garywbw = daveumansky = pascalamb = Yitz = Ted Dichtler
And here’s why that’s really important…
In April of 2005, a blog called Mediacrity appeared, calling itself a “media insider’s occasional rant on goofs, bias and hypocrisy in the media.”
Mediacrity’s inaugural post is dated April 24, 2005. The first reference to Mediacrity on Usenet occurs the next day, thanks to Ted Dichtler, who read that first post and comments “this guy nailed it on the head.”
Within two hours of Mediacrity’s second post, Dichtler is back on Usenet spreading the word.
This time two interesting things happen.
First, a real person, Susan Cohen, asks Ted to clarify the identity of Alison Weir, the post’s subject. Soon thereafter, Mediacrity appends the post with:
A reader informs me that the Jew-baiting pinhead who met with Okrent is not to be confused with a distinguished historian also named Alison Weir.
Second, a couple of days later a new poster arrives on the thread started by Dichtler. His name is Rick Ruby, and his email address is: mediacrity@hotmail.com (the original email used by the writer of Mediacrity, recently replaced by a gmail account).
To be certain, let’s compare the header data of Ted Dichtler and Rick Ruby’s respective posts.
Ted Dichtler (full version here):
From: "Ted"
Date: 26 Apr 2005 12:10:24 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.66
Rick Ruby (full version here)
From: "Rick Ruby"
Date: 29 Apr 2005 07:03:57 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.66
The IP data (corresponding to AOL at that point) are identical, confirming Ted Dichtler and Rick Ruby posted from the same location, and are most likely the same person.
At this point, it seems we can confidently add two elements to the growing list of identities that begins with Gary Weiss:
Gary Weiss = garywbw = daveumansky = pascalamb = Yitz = Ted Dichtler = Rick Ruby = Mediacrity blogger.
If each of those relationships is accurate, this chain of equalities may also be correctly expressed as Gary Weiss = Mediacrity blogger.
Knowing Gary is the blogger behind Mediacrity opens up a whole universe of conflicts and complications to examine, as we shall do in Part Three of this series, set for publication on Saturday, December 23, 2006.
------------------------------------------------
Bonus material: a little running up of the score
“Ted Dichtler” as the name of one of the five fake amazon.com book reviewers we demonstrated were created and abused by Gary Weiss to artificially boost his own books’ ratings while artificially depressing the ratings of those authors who’ve tangled with him in the past.
“Catallergest” (see the email address of Brenda above) is the nickname used by Marty Ross, another of Weiss’s false Amazon.com book reviewer sockpuppets whose reviews have since been deleted.
“Chuck T” is among the remaining five amazon.com reviewers we claim Gary Weiss created and used abusively, but whose reviews have yet to be deleted. According to Technorati.com, Mediacrity belongs to chucktatum, presumably named for the character of the same name starring in the 50s flick “Ace in the Hole” and seen in this image, which is also used on the Mediacrity About Me page.
A reader tells me that originally, Technorati.com listed “Ted Dichtler” as the owner of Mediacrity. We’ve yet to find independent verification of this claim, but are inclined to believe it.
Except for a brief note on Nov. 1, 2006, Mediacrity went dark from Sept.10 – Nov.21: a period encompassing the unprecedented break in Gary Weiss’s blogging and Wikipedia editing seen while Gary was in India.
