Talk:Gary Weiss/Archive 3

Archived

This is a complete mess. Seems to me the original call for the link to Overstock came from Piperdown, a blatant meatpuppet of Bagley, and it's virtually impossible to purge the dead hand of Bagley from the ill-tempered and serially WP:BLP violating debate on this page. So it's time to start again. And the rules are:

• WP:BLP
• WP:NPA
• WP:HARASS
• WP:NPOV
• WP:V
• WP:RS.

If anyone wants to bring a reliable source that discusses, in properly analytical terms, some additional content we can use for this article, they are most welcome. Blogs, opinion pieces and tittle-tattle on the web are not reliable or significant enough to overcome concerns, since we know Mr Weiss has been actively harassed in real life. Individuals active on websites where Bagley is active are recommended in the strongest possible terms to leave well alone, since an extremely dim view will be taken of any suspicion of editing by proxy on his behalf.

And one final thing: this is absolutely not the place to rehash arguments taking place elsewhere. If you can document them by reference to properly analytical debate by independent authorities in reliable sources, then we can talk, but what has gone on here in the past is not good enough. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I wonder if your archiving was a good call here. Aside from a few snide remarks ("stop blowing smoke out your ass") and fanciful insinuations (i.e. that Cla68 was a Bagley representative) the debate was fairly productive, policy-focused (NPF, BLP, UNDUE), and forward-looking, and there seemed to be no (Bagley) meatpuppets in sight.--G-Dett 18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the "apart from" that was the problem. Feel free to resume the debate without the bits that require "apart from". Guy (Help!) 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It was absolutely the right call. And my sysop tools are ready and waiting to enforce the list he provided. Proceed with legitimate references and encyclopedic discussion, or not at all. Durova^Charge! 20:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, Durova. I will briefly point out that (a) Cla68's initial RfC two days ago was serious and manifestly in good faith; (b) the personal attacks (implying that Cla68 was a Bagley representative, etc.) began with the first poster but had petered out by yesterday morning; (c) the discussion section at the time of archiving ("Replies to RfC") was productive, policy-oriented, and free of personal attacks. With respect, the time for the RESET button (or other sysop intervention) was after the first posted response to Cla68's RfC two days ago, not during the constructive discussion two hours ago.--G-Dett 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Full support

Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough.--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of us usually try to give some reasoning for any action, proposed action, or threatened action that we discuss on an article's talk page. Would you mind doing the same? Cla68 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All right, you are subject to a 24 hour block for violation of WP:POINT. The reason is that this page exists for encyclopedic collaboration, not drama. Durova^Charge! 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

While I think the block may have been a tad excessive, I did say zero tolerance and shoot on sight. Cla68, I fear that you have been manipulated by lying stalkers and trolls, and I am happy to talk to you about it privately, but I am sick of the drama around this issue on this page, and it absolutely has to come to an end. I recommend that Durova (no one else! no wheel wars please!) reduce the block as a gesture of good faith, but if Durova wants you to sit out the 24 hours, I will respect that as well. I support all reasonable efforts to clarify that the support for trolls and stalkers needs to stop.--Jimbo Wales 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and remedy and I'll respond more on your talk page. Cla68 09:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, Jimbo. A conversation ends when all the evidence is presented and people are convinced. It does not end because a godhead says it does. When you yell "stalker" while obscuring the discussion you appear no different from Bush yelling "terrorist" while asserting executive privilege (eep, shades of Godwin's law!). I am just a casual contributor to wikipedia but I have noticed increasingly that every time I make a slightly controvertial edit, I am subjected to threats. You step on someone's pet project and suddenly they're telling you how many administrators they personally know and how quickly you'll be banned if you don't drop the issue immediately. That is not a conversation about the facts, it is an Appeal to authority. It didn't used to be this way. When the recent drama unfolded with Durova, I speculated that the formation of a "cabal" was responsible for this increase. Now that I have seen the words "shoot on sight," all doubt is removed. Those of us coming out of the woodwork because we are offended at this threatening tendency are not sockpuppets. By responding in a reactionary manner, you are causing even uninvolved parties to exhibit the behavior that you attribute to sock puppets. Bagley's probably a nutcase, but "shoot on sight" just proves his point. You simply cannot build an open encyclopedia based on the appeal to authority. It is vital that we retain the ability to accept content from anonymous users based on the quality of the content rather than the perceived separation between the contributor and the administration, and that is at risk when this is the example that you set for the other administrators. Galexander (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Register story

I have protected this article for a short time due to a train of questionable edits over the last 24 hours. Aside from the Register story being straight from the Judd Bagley press pack, it is of no evident reliability, and the accompanying weasel words certainly don't improve it. The Register is reaosnably reliable for matters technical but is quite clearly pursuing a tabloid agenda here. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello JzG, I had recently read a few articles on the Weiss controversy and, as you can see, was making an attempt to remove any bias from the article and explain the situation objectively. I don't see how that could cause the lockdown of the article. Considering this controversy is written about far beyond The Register, it meets notability and verification guidelines. Joshdboz (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Weiss controversy." There is a widely publicized Overstock.com smear campaign against critics, which is dealt with in the Overstock.com article itself where it belongs. It had been previously discussed and determined (see earlier discussion and archives) that this kind of rubbish has no place in this article under BLP, specifically WP:NPF. That is separate and apart, and cumulative, with the RS issue on The Register as a source for BLPs.--Samiharris (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything mutually exclusive between including similar information on two Wikipedia articles, especially if we have NYT articles writing about this. To ignore it would be almost as much POV pushing as some of the earlier edits that were reverted. Proposed section:

Naked Short Selling Dispute

Weiss has been a sharp critic of Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne and his opposition to short selling, which led to the creation of an originally anonymous and critical website of Weiss, later reported to be run by Overstock.com's director for social media, Judd Bagely. Weiss has been accused by Bagely of making biased edits to the Wikipedia entries on Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, and himself, but Weiss has denied ever doing so. Joshdboz (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you said that already. Repetition is not the mother of invention. --Samiharris (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The sources for this are a PDF of Bagley's hate site and a Register story which parrots Bagley's nonsense. Both are clearly polemical and motivated by spite. Neither is a reliable source for a biography article. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a decision that should be made through a consensus on this talk page, but regardless, the NYT deserves citing. Smiharris, I am sorry if my repetition bothered you, I am just trying to find a solution to this. Frankly, I have never heard of any of these people before today. Please do not belittle a good faith attempt. Joshdboz (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What I was trying to convey, and will repeat, is that the issues you raise have been discussed lengthily and disposed of on at least three prior occasions, and that your addition was against talk page consensus (even if you include previous Bagley socks) and BLP.--Samiharris (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done a quick read through the major arguments in the archived pages. But after citing the NYT in hundreds of articles myself, I fail to see how this one should be any different. Weiss has notability in part because of his criticism of such and such persons - witness all the discussion that this has provoked here. And it so happens that the NYT reports this. I fail to comprehened that after all that archived talk, no compromise sentence or two were found. Joshdboz (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. We are not here to help Bagley spread his meme. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Bagely, I'm talking about Weiss's criticism of Byrne and others. Joshdboz (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which brings you back to Bagley. Enough already. Asked and answered a thousand times.--Samiharris (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article should be tagged with ADV tag, since it does read like auto biography. Register does make a fair point. There is no reason for the senior editors to protect Gary. TwakTwik (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the Register does not make a fair point, it parrots Bagley's idiocy uncritically. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah? show me a sentence in the article that references any criticism of Gary?. Please don't tell me he is perfect. It currently reads like Wikipedia is bowing and bending over for Gary. Even Rudy Giulliani has a controversies section. TwakTwik (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, this situation is just a joke. I have never encountered another article where pieces of relevant and factual information (Weiss's criticism of Byrne and the reaction) are excluded without a search for a compromise. And personal attacks from Wikipedians against the persons in question, regardless of who they are or what they've done, are really uncalled for - sorry I bothered trying to help. Joshdboz (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you haven't edited too many BLPs. WP:BLP deals explicitly with these kinds of situations, and the rule is that you must be careful to include material that is relevant to a subject's notability when he or she is not generally known. The presence of a sustained corporate smear campaign, such as inspired and repeated in the Register article, underlines the need to enforce BLP strictly, and it is the reason administrators and even Jimbo have had to intervene multiple times. We have this discussion every time Judd Bagley belches, and it is becoming a bit tiresome.--Samiharris (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my user page you can see that have started dozens of article's on living people, including some that could be quite controversial (see Michael Harari for one). However, it is clear that Weiss's dispute with Byrne is notable and verifiable, not just from the NYT's article, but from others, including this WSJ blog that described Weiss as "persistent critic of Overstock and its CEO Patrick Byrne." Google "gary weiss" "patrick byrne" and you get 8,540 results. That's much more than the subject of many Wikipedia articles even get. I have no desire or intention to "smear" Weiss, just objectively explain a very public and apparently very notable dispute that involves him intimately. Joshdboz (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm here for the first time, but Guy, reading all this you seem to have a very personal involvement. I don't know/care who Bagley is, but I certainly know the New York Times and The Register, and they should certainly be mentioned. Far be it for any of us to judge their editorial content or sources; that is better left to the reader. Maybe its time to recuse yourself? To my eyes, I'm sorry, but you don't seem impartial. Kwandar (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Final comment on this topic from me. I fully understand that most of us here are guests at Wikipedia. It is controlled by Jimmy Wales and only those people he trusts. Sorry that I tried to make Wikipedia better by asking for balance. I realize its your home and you guys make the rules, and as guests we just need to obey the house rules. Thats it for me on this controversy. Happy holidays. TwakTwik (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the Register article linked from Slashdot. I came here to see what they were talking about, and I was extremely disappointed to see that this article has been full administrator-only locked. Whatever happened to the ideals of the wisdom of crowds? It makes me think that there is indeed "something wrong with the way the project... is administered" or why would the administrators be trying to clamp down on edits from people trying to mention this newsworthy controversy? I've lost some faith in Wikipedia today. SamLL (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the point. You came to this article because of an article inspired by Judd Bagley, Director of Communications of Overstock.com, who has waged an on- and off-wiki campaign to influence this and other articles. That campaign has some marginal notability and is dealt with in a subbsection of Overstock.com.[1] He is paid for the purpose of getting people like you to come to this and other articles and become disappointed, or upset, or whatever. One aspect of his jihad is to undermine and vandalize Wikipedia. That is why this subject periodically rears its ugly head, and it is why administrators have had to clamp down on this article a number of times.--Samiharris (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had similar run-ins with accusatory editors, and have similarly lost faith. I think the only way to ensure that Fair and Balanced is a reality is to keep your purse strings tied together during the current fundraising endeavor; I know I will. Mangler (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would hope that Wikipedia is never "Fair and Balanced™", at least not in the Faux News sense. And that, of course, is the problem here: Bagley is a vicious hatemonger whose approach to anything other than uncritical adoration is reliably to harass and attack. He's finally found someone as mad as he is in Cade; the two of them make a perfect couple. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you completely forget about Bagley for one moment. Weiss is a well reported critic of Patrick Byrne, and it has been reported in many places as such. That should at the very least be included. Then, one can determine whether the reaction to Weiss's criticsims, which has also been reported, is a notable and verifiable enough event to be included. Joshdboz (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. There's a faction that is determined to keep changing the subject to "Bagley is Evil!" every time the subject of this article's bias comes up. That's beside the point. If Osama bin Laden were to announce that 2+2=4, would everybody have to suppress this fact so as to not give even the appearance of agreeing with an evildoer? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see that your quoted remark was anywhere in the Overstock.com article. If you feel that that article is POV, then I suggest you work on it to try and make it less POV.--MONGO (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, would you care to quote your sources for stating that "Bagley is a vicious hatemonger"? ;) Seriously, the language is so strong that even if I were inclined to believe you (if I even cared) I wouldn't. One of the key ideas behind Wikipedia was to present a neutral viewpoint, and yet you don't want "fair and balanced"? You don't even want to quote other reputable news sources (if not The Register, certainly the New York Times)? Joshdboz is right on all counts. I'm not sure I want to stop contributing, but this is certainly making me question Wikipedia.Kwandar (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Support}} - Guy, Samiharris, Your views on this discussion seem biased. I dont care who Bagley is, but it is critical to ensure that this article maintains neutrality, and include criticisms as well. Please dont quote Bagley for the reply. Simynazareth (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And it makes no sense that Guy has removed portions with reference to NyTimes (see the last edits by Joshboz) with a vague reference to {{WP:BLP}}. Guy seems to have got this thing completely wrong. Request some one (administrators) to unblock the article, and to revert last edits. This is really hurting credibility of wikipedia. 19:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Simynazareth (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I listed such a request at WP:RFP. will381796 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The "vague reference to BLP" alludes to the extensive and long ago resolved discussions that took place on these identical issues in October, drawing such heat and troublemaking that Jimbo intervened. Why? Because this article is under attack from the official spokesman of Overstock.com, who will stop at nothing in his vicious campaign of villification against the subject of this article and others. Guy is under no obligation to recite for you the long history of vandalism and stalking that has plagued this article for months. It is evident in the talk page history and the archives. --Samiharris (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Samiharris, I've gone through the archives, and the feeling I get it is your views on this, and to keep NYT artcle away from this article is biased. You are quoting Bagley, Overstock.com etc for keeping any criticism about Gary Weiss - which is counter productive. Valid criticism from reputed sources is not vilification, and if BLP of someone does not have an iota of criticism in the article, there is something seriously wrong in the article. Any sorry to say that, from the archives, you seem to be one of those who are responsible for not including any criticism in this article. (this is not a personal attack) Simynazareth (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand where you're coming from Samiharris, and I'm sorry I wasn't aware of this issue a while ago, but the actions of one rogue editor in the past have absolutely nothing to do with the information that should or should not be included in this article today. And if someone adds information in a biased way, it should be amended (as I was attempting to do this morning). Joshdboz (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, I will admit that it is disappointing to see the results of The Register's article here. I understand the need to be careful with biographies of living people, but I completely fail to see how this means there shouldn't be any mention of the issue at all. I find it very difficult to believe that this controversy can't be mentioned in a neutral manner. Regardless of what merit individual people may feel with it, it is noteworthy. You point out the number of people that have come to this article specifically because of The Register article. Correct. Now think about the number of people that will believe everything in that article because they see a pretty-much universally positive article about Gary Weiss without any option to make an edit. The refusal of a few people to make any edits to this article will undermine the credibility of Wikipedia a lot more than some brief mention of the controversy IMO. -Kraw Night (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is no, a tabloid website article regurgitating ancient smears is insufficient to override BLP. Since the BLP issues have been fully discussed in the past, you may want to review the archives.--Samiharris (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability..." seems to fit well here, but this isn't my point. I don't really care about Weiss or Bryne. However, it is worth examining how this standpoint is affecting Wikipedia's credibility. People read the article, come here, and see that they can't make edits. Then they also see that two people on opposite sides of debate have two very different pages, one being mostly positive, one offering a lot of negatives. If there can be negative comments on one page, by the same logic, they can apply to the other I would feel. Otherwise this just seems to breed controversy... -Kraw Night (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Register is not a "tabloid website". It is a respected and widely-read IT newssite. You calling it a "tabloid website" tells more about yourself than about the site. Indeed, the attitude exhibited on this talk page by some people, including yourself, only supports the accusations made in the article, which I urge everyone to read for the rather interesting light it casts on Wikipedia's editing processes. Teemu Leisti (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree, this is ridiculous. Having been a longtime user of Wikipedia, I did not think the Register article had any merit to it until I actually came here. Samiharris, Guy, you guys and the statements you've made here are quite frankly the best evidence supporting the truth of the Register article and Bagley'y position. Konekoniku (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear! -Mangler (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As much as the Register article posted on Slashdot (and the other one about Durova) do seem tabloid-like, it is kind of sad to see Wikipedia admins working so hard to prove the points in the articles in both cases. More to the point, why is everyone here so concerned about protecting this article against any criticism, which reads like it might be a bio-blurb from his own site? It can't just be because he's a living person. After all, look at Patrick M. Byrne, another living person, whose article seems to be as much the product of smearing as any I've seen on the Wikipedia, far worse than the anti-Wikipedia tabloid reporting in the Register.

Looking over this talk page, I see a number of fairly reasonable points from concerned people, and User:Samiharris ineffectively deflecting it with claims that this has been "fully" (fully!? what the hell is that supposed to mean) discussed in the past. Even worse is User:JzG's suggestion that we shouldn't add NYT-sourced information to the article because it would be helping Bagley spread his meme. "The terrorists have already won. . ."

I second the notion that User:JzG should step aside from defending the block on this article and let an admin with a leveller head be the gatekeeper for it. Jun-Dai (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm extremely disturbed this entire episode, and I'll be doing some deeper digging when I get the chance. It's safe to say that given what I've seen so far, any admins involved in the past controversy should not be deciding whether it is a controversy or not. We need someone from outside the circle. OptimistBen (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Gary Weiss is a noteable journalist who has AFAIK wroten a lot of articles on a lot of different subjects. None of these stand out as a core area of his. Therefore, excessive coverage of controversy regarding one area that Weiss is worked in violated UNDUE. Furthermore few if any reliable sources have covered the alleged controversy surrounding Weiss. On the other hand, Patrick Bryne is primarily noted for 2 things. 1 being the founder of overstock.com. 2 being a strong critic of naked short selling. Some of his comments in particular are somewhat bizarre. In any case, for a large variety of reasons, he has attracted a significant amount of controversy particularly surrounding his anti naked short selling campaign which is covered by reliable sources. Therefore, there is a big difference between these two people and in what we should cover in the articles surrounding them. But both of them are protected by BLP Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"None of these stand out as a core area of his" -- Nil Einne, if you read the NYT piece as well as other comments from places like the WSJ, you will find that Weiss has indeed developed a reputation as a critic of Byrne, with the NYT saying that Weiss has "made a second career out of ridiculing Mr. Byrne on his blog." How can adding one sentence about this in this article be undue weight? Joshdboz (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a "core area" - to Judd Bagley, which is why we are having this discussion. But it is not a core area in the context of the distinguished and long career which makes him notable in the first place. The oft-quoted hyperbole in the Times article has already been debated to death long before Bagley's latest propaganda lured you to the article, so please stop the constant rehash and repetition.--Samiharris (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(removed personal attack. Crum375 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

• Just a note to all the concerned parties here, be sure to check the discussions contained in Archive 2 as they are relevant to this discussion. They were archived even though the much of the discussions at the time were ongoing. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No real point to counting the angel's on the pin. The "fully discussed" comment was merely Sami's way of indicating that there is a lot of illuminating material in the archived file he specified, and that instead of having the same old same old roundabout again (and again) some editors might want to look at it. Which seems fair enough to yours truly. --Christofurio (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I looked over the discussion on /Archive 2. I have to say, that discussion seems to have been archived a bit prematurely, but in any case it doesn't change my picture of the situation, except that I discovered that the attempt to include the NYT reference isn't new. With or without the material buried in the archive, the situation still doesn't seem like it would look good for anyone coming over from Slashdot and/or The Register. Even though I don't intend to invest any time in fixing it, I feel it's relevant to add my two cents as others have done here. Jun-Dai (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and Edit Blocking

Interesting Story on Slashdot about this article... http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/12/07/1434221.shtml Maria-mesh (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that this article is being Slashdotted, the block on general editing is perhaps understandable. But poor grammar and punctuation are still unacceptable. As just the first example, commas and other punctuation marks go INSIDE quotation marks: Weiss wrote a cover story called "The Mob on Wall Street", published in December 1996). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadamhiram (talk • contribs) 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, that's a strictly American convention. I've seen punctuation outside quotation marks elsewhere on WP. Frankly, I've always thought it made more sense; the article is not called The Mob on Wall Street-comma, it's called The Mob on Wall Street. The comma is part of the sentence structure, not the title. Now, I'm saying this having been away from WP long enough that I don't recall what the MoS has to say on the topic of international punctuation conventions. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See here. Crum375 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism to be included

Any other admins here - this is the portion of criticism that Guy has removed, siting BLP. Please include the same in the article. If there are valid reasons not to include this in the article (apart from Bagleyfobia), please site the same.

- ==Naked Short Selling Controversy== - Weiss's comments on anti-naked-shorting activists have provoked some negative responses. Weiss has been a sharp critic of Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne and his opposition to short selling, which led to the creation of a critical website of Weiss by Overstock.com's director for social media. Weiss has also been accused of making biased edites to the Wikipedia entries on Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne, and himself, though he has denied ever doing so.

Simynazareth (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been rehashed to death. This article is a WP:BLP. It must be extremely well sourced for any derogatory statements. In addition, any item must not violate WP:UNDUE. For a journalist with a long career who has written numerous pieces in mainstream publications, and who has been involved in many notable investigations, including some relating to organized crime, there are numerous well sourced issues that could be written about in his biography. At any given stage, the items that do appear in the article must be the most relevant to his overall notability. As of now, the article is fairly short, which would require only the most notable items to appear. I would suggest that anyone interested in expanding this article read Mr. Weiss's numerous articles and learn about his investigations and other activities in his career, and then prioritize them by notability. When that's done, we can decide which ones merit inclusion and which ones do not. As of now, the Overstock episode appears to be insignificant compared to the many others that seem much more important, and include virtually no details. Crum375 (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Here is some more information to expand the article. Someone (ofcourse an admin - the article being protected) should expand the article, and maintain a neutral point of view, including his life history, achievements, and criticism. Simynazareth (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I can do that, technically speaking. But you would have to reach a clear consensus here, that does not violate WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, etc. The source you provide seems OK, but I suspect there are numerous others. What you should do, if you really want to expand the article properly, is pick an item, say some investigation from his career, find the relevant sources, and propose a change to the article. The best would be to start from the most notable items. If you reach consensus here, I would be happy to vet the result against BLP and UNDUE, and if all seems OK, I can insert it into the article for you. Crum375 (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, I'm aware of BLP practice on wikipedia. Unfortunately, most BLPs do not get this kind of scrutiny for UNDUE weight and POV pushing. Most biographies are not reverted prior to protection for it either. For example, current dispute on Mit Romney where verifiable claims are assumed to pass BLP whether they're undue weight or not. I agree with your interpretation, but not enough articles are given this treatment. Cool Hand Luke 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the WEIGHT point, but he does seem to blog about it a lot. The New York Times described criticizing Overstock as his second career. Cool Hand Luke 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Why was this article reverted and then protected? Cool Hand Luke 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do it here, but as a rule in WP:BLP articles, admins may revert to a less controversial version (or even a stub) and protect it, if in their view there is excessive tendency to insert controversial items that violate BLP into the article. Crum375 (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose that's good. I tend to be a BLP hawk myself, and not enough pages get this kind of treatment. Cool Hand Luke 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

George Soros was protected for a long time because of BLP concerns. He was accused by Bill O'Reilly of backing the Media Matters liberal website. That was denied by Media Matters. That situation involved a public figure, and the BLP concerns were far less significant than here. Here you have petty personal attacks, a determined corporate smear campaign and an article in the press clearly designed to influence Wikipedia, and even linking to this article.--Samiharris (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

While the admins are correct in making the decision to lock this article. The current state of the article is not neutral and there is definitely lots of questions about the neutrality of the article,as seen from the comments in these very pages.Therefore a neutrality tag at the very least could be added to the page readers can decide what to take which ever viewpoint they want to.Refusing to even make that change will completely validate the claims of the article in the register.While accepting the view that wikipedia is not democratic it should be at least neutral in its standpoint.The so called inner circle have a enormous responsibility for guarding the information contained in these portals i hope they won't fail in that task so dismally in this first test.There should be mechanisms to deal with controversies that question the very principles of wikipedia like this.More and more people consider wikipedia to be a responsible source of information,so in the future there will be incidences like this which put the entire administrative process in question.The current mechanisms have not dealt with this problem satisfactorily as i am sure all of you will agree.SO the question is whats been done to prevent or at least deal with such events in the future.Wikipedia need not be a democracy jimbo but it should not be a dictatorship all administrative processes must be transparent after all this is a social project.Manquer (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If consensus can be reached on this talk page that the current article is not neutral, in theory such a template could be added, although a much better solution would be to fix the specific problem. So if you have a specific problem you can point to, that you think violates WP:NPOV, please present it so it can be addressed. To save you time, if it has to do with the Overstock issues, then you'd have to show how adding it would not violate WP:UNDUE, per the above discussion. Crum375 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the point of adding an NPOV tag was that the "neutrality was disputed," (from the NPOV banner itself) not that everyone agrees that it is non-neutral, and it's quite clear in this case that the neutrality of the article is disputed. As for it being non-neutral, the article seems about as neutral as it would if he had written it as his resume. I love the use of the quote "Gary is among an elite group of journalists whose zest for investigative journalism has brought real change to the subjects he's covered." That pretty much covers the tone of the article. Jun-Dai (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this. "author of two books that critically examine the ethics and morality of Wall Street." - Statements like this could be rephrased. As of now, {{NPOV}} needs to be added till someone does further research and provides a neutral tone to the article. (or someone rephrases the current content to a neutral, encyclopedic tone). Simynazareth (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum375 the overstock issue is also a part of the overall problem with the article.Overstock issue has gained lot of press attention in part of the controversy here and because of Gary Weiss' own views as expressed in his own blog [2] ,Infact if you do spend the time to go through it u would find that a large amount of the bandwidth is used for this issue alone.A belief so central to him should have been mentioned in the article,which is sorely lacking.Infact WP:UNDUE is to be applied here as undue emphasis has been given to lesser known information.Also people who come to this article would expect to know about the current controversy involving him.Manquer (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtually every article or policy on Wikipedia has some people disputing it. If we were to tag all of them, that would only disfigure the encyclopedia and add nothing useful. The way we operate is by consensus. If there is a consensus for change X, we put in change X, assuming it does not violate our policies. I would be happy, as I noted above, to insert any change in the article once such consensus is reached here. Crum375 (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems a bit messed up. I'm guessing such a consensus is impossible, since the article is being held hostage by someone that seems to prefer the content in the state it's in now, but perhaps I'm wrong on this point. Does anyone disagree that the article as it stands does not present a neutral point of view? Jun-Dai (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the point this article violates on of the core three principles of wikipedia -neutrality evidence for this has been submitted by me and others in this section.We are not proposing a change to the article to be executed we are asking for the article to be changed in such a way that it is in conformation with wikipedia standards and principle,until such changes are made after due consensus has been reached on them a {NPOV} banner be placed .We dont need consensus for that , just evidence -which is given- i will gladly consider any debate regarding the validity of the evidence.u tell me why this evidence is insufficient.Manquer (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Add an NPOV tag until this issue is resolved?

• Support Jun-Dai (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Manquer (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support OptimistBen (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Simynazareth (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support, per my statement above. Konekoniku (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, I won't be adding an NPOV tag. We already know that Bagley uses disinformation and harassment against anyone who does not uncritically support his company, we can scarcely say that a failure to repeat that harassment here is a failure of neutrality. I see that a couple of you are newish, and the others do nto do much on biographies. Please read up on WP:BLP (which has changed quite considerably in the last year) and WP:RS. We do not include poorly sourced material in biographies, and polemical sources are not reliable. The Cade piece is clearly polemical, Bagley is as polemical as you can possibly get, and the material is stated in terms that are functionally indistinguishable from an outright attack. So, unless we can find better sources and better wording, we shrug it off as "vituperative piece by vituperative person" and ignore it. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Guy / JzG - No one is asking you to add NPOV tag. You've shown complete bias of views in zealously trying to remove any criticism from this article. I would prefer you not using your administrative rights in this article - you are not maintaining a cool head in this. Some of you have been quite Bagley fobic, which has resulted in even valid criticism getting omitted from this article. If you notice, the text you removed from article just before protecting it was the text from NyTimes article (not from Cade - register), with valid references. It's not right to quote Cade piece after such an action. I request some other admin look into this, and take into views expressed in this talk page. To my credentials - I am an admin in another wikipedia, with 6000+ edits and more than 1 year of wikipedia experience. Simynazareth (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. It's clear that the admins protecting this page are not taking their responsibilities seriously. This needs to be looked at by admins not so personally involved in this (I assume there is such involvement because there's no other possible explanation for what I'm seeing here).Xcvzxcvzxcvxcvzxcv (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy the fact that that new members are requesting the tag has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a tag should be added or not.Just because i don't edit articles in wikipedia doesn't mean i am a newbie here,buts thats beside the point.I have read the BLP quite throughly nowhere does say that a neutrality tag should not be used.Any point any of us raise u just say bagely is making propaganda,why don't u get it into your head that bagely has nothing to do whatsoever with this section.THIS Article is violating the fundamental principles of wikipedia- thats our contention and have submitted or evidence supporting the stand.IF you are rejecting the claim and the evidence then kindly explain it in proper ,valid, just terms just don't say the same stuff about what Bagely is doing.Please stop this mindless babble repeating the same drivel.it makes u look dumber than you are .Manquer (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Removing comment per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, which specifically applies to talk page comments)

The point is whether or not Bagley or Weiss is evil or good. The point is to maintain neutrality. For me - it looks like any criticism to Weiss is getting branded as Pro-Bagley or Amateur. Trying to make an angel out of Weiss is as bad as trying to smear Weiss. Simynazareth (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion is not just absurd, but it is ugly, with some editors repeating the smears in antisocialmedia. This is a BLP and that is just not acceptable. I agree that it is time for an administrator, Jzg or someone else, to intervene, but for the purpose of putting an end to what is becoming a really disturbing discussion. Enough is enough. This is a BLP, certain strict rules apply particularly for nonpublic figures, and those rules are being enforced. Yes, the article for this person and many other minor nonpublic figures often reads like promotional literature, because most people who qualify for Wikipedia have accomplished good work. Weiss, for example, has engaged in much very fine investigative reporting and was in fact commended by the FBI.

One of the many things that made the Register article absurd was that it drew an analogy between Weiss' bio and Patrick M. Byrne's. Patrick Byrne is a controversial figure and is notable for precisely that reason. All the reliable sourcing on that person reflects his controversies and penchant for saying things that land him into trouble. Just recently became embroiled in publicity over his backing of school vouchers in Utah, and received still more negative press. He got into a spat with the NAACP by saying high school dropouts should be "burned." That is his reliably sourced coverage and that is why his bio reads differently than Weiss and other people not so controversial. Another difference is that he is the head of a public company, and is a public figure while Weiss is not, and is subject to still additional BLP protections.

In reply to one editor, if he is not aware of the history of this tawdry mess, the onus is upon him to do so. The archive pages and earlier page history speak for themselves, as does the Overstock.com article itself in its section entitled "Antisocialmedia.net," which contains the reliable sourcing on this smear campaign. Elsewhere in that article you can find details on Overstock's history of campaigning against critics.--Samiharris (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Gary isn't controversial ?? the article in its current state mentions the negative criticisms he is getting for his views.So that claim dosen't hold water either.He to is controversial for your info not on just this issue but others as well his comments on Wal-Mart coming to India drew lot of flak in India which you are probably not aware of.He is controversial in more than one issue please do your research before making such statements. I don't want to get down into mudslinging but the attitude of the some of the admins on the entire issue is disgusting and tarnishing the image of the entire portal Manquer (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Weiss has upset the naked shorting crowd, and that is reflected in the article and given the sentence that it deserves. If you can cite some controversy in India that is reported in reliable sources, by all means provide cites here and we can see if it belongs in the article. All I see now are the same repetitive arguments that have been made many times in the past, only with more people making them because of a Bagley-planted article. --Samiharris (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that you wouldnt let any negative statement to come in this article. Looks like a holy cow :-) Since when did NyTimes became a non-reliable source? GuY is yet to explain why he deleted that portion. Simynazareth (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the Judd Bagley campaign to insert negative material in this article, BLP requires that it be reliably sourced and that it relate directly to the notability of a nonpublic person. Yes, that is going to definitely put obstacles in the path of smear campaigns, as well it should. It is designed specifically for that purpose.--Samiharris (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank God then! Judd Bagley is not here and the statement "Weiss has become a sharp critic of CEO Patrick Byrne and his campaign against naked short selling, which led to one of Byrne's employee's to create a critical site on Weiss himself" can be sourced to NYT and WSJ among others. And what's more, this isnt' even really negative against Weiss, just explaining where he has focused his criticism on in a very public manner. BLP does not prevent the adding of verifiable and relevant information that is important to a person's notability (both NYT and WSJ describe Weiss specifically as a known critic). Joshdboz (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How much do you know about Bagley? His first reaction to anything short of uncritical adoration is to start attacking people; this is relevant to Bagley but not to the people he attacks. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bagles is only relevant in the creation of a critical website which directly concerns the subject of this article and which was in part a reaction to the criticisms Weiss was making. I would appreciate if you helped find a compromise solution instead of making irrelevant comments on Bagley's character. Joshdboz (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't "compromise" between WP:BLP and perpetuating a harassment meme. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're sure doing a lot to perpetuate the meme that any criticism of how we are handling this article is part of a "harassment meme". *Dan T.* (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're sure doing a lot to give the impression that you prefer your friend Mr. Bagley to my friend Mr. Wales. Guy (Help!) 17:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sorts of personal remarks don't contribute productively to this discussion and are highly un-called-for. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The only evidence i can give is circumstancial.that is from reliable sources.All I can give u on that controversy is his own comments in the forbes article already linked here.And the details of Wal-mart deal in India reported in many reputed news organizations,although since you don't consider NYtimes reputable I somehow doubt that.The factual inaccuracies of his comments are numerous .Wal-mart is only providing back-end support to Bharti which is going to control and own the major part of the business his comments that Indians are going to go out of jobs and starve isn't appreciated here in india.Since he is after all a minor celebrity the print media doesn't mention all this ,and any online news site i link to u ( and i can provide numerous )you would not consider reliable as it is regional and you havn't even heard of it before.MY expert opinion, as a citizen of India, and because of my following of the entire Wal-Mart deal quite throughly means nothing to you.I perfectly understand that none of this is insert able in the article i merely pointed it out as supporting evidence for the fact that he is a controversial figure for more than one reason.Manquer (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless and until some reliable source possibles a specific criticism of Weiss's article, we can't mention it as a controversy. Indian news sources will be fine if they are reliable sources. Online only sources may be fine provided they have good editorial direction, fact checking and are sufficient noteable. (A good hint will be if there is an article about them on wikipedia). We can't add criticism just because you feel something is controversy, not even if you have pointed out flaws in his article (that's OR) we need a source that actually criticises Weiss's article Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit that i can't quote any news article actually mentioning gary's comments as controversial,there are more popular people who have made newsworthy controversial comments on the subject No news organization will choose to report about his comments given their alternatives .However i can show u many comments to that article which has been sourced on the regional websites which proves atleast i m not the only person objecting to his views on the matter. I repeat I m not requesting this issue to be posted as a part of the article.

I mentioned the entire story for two reasons ONE as a "investigative person" Gary's credibility is in question as much of his comments on this particular subject are false and made in ignorance of the actual facts for which i can give reliable evidence.TWO gary weiss is controversial person in more than issue this claim is to clear the false preconception that only the overstock issue is the reason for his controversial image.Manquer (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Having admins step in to shut down all further discussion will really do a lot to quash the pernicious meme that Wikipedia is censored in this area, won't it? *Dan T.* (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if one is daft or naive enough to swallow the propaganda of Judd Bagley. BLPs are frozen every day, and George Soros was quite recently for a long time on a far less troublesome BLP issue, involving RS statements against this major public figure by another major public figure (Bill O'Reilly). Wikipedia is under no obligation to cater to the whims of its critics, particularly the paid corporate shills.--Samiharris (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You and your friends playing the "Bagley card" all the time got old a long time ago. It is a logical fallacy to claim that Bagley's bad actions, or who he is paid by, or what campaigns he's engaging in, prove in any way that the substance of criticisms of Weiss are false. Reportedly, Galileo was an obnoxious cuss, and was engaged in a smear campaign against the Catholic Church; nevertheless, he was right that the Earth went around the Sun instead of the other way around. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Another spectacularly bad analogy, Dan. we have hundreds of years of historical context and a whole world of physics to rely on there, whereas what we have to rely on for Bagley's assertions are: Bagley, Bagley, and some people who believed Bagley. I do not think it does your credibility much good to come here, as a well-known Wikipedia Review member, supporting Bagley, another Wikipedia Review member. What Bagley says about anybody is relevant to Bagley but not provably relevant to the targets of his harassment. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That is pretty bad ad hominem move there, JzG. Care to take it back? Jun-Dai (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan, it is not our place to "prove Bagley true or false." It is our place to prevent Wikipedia from being a forum for his smears. The fact that he is engaged in a smear campaign against critics of Wikipedia is a matter of public record and is dutifully recorded in the Overstock.com article. As Wikipedia editors, we have an obligation to follow BLP strictly, and to exercise vigilance against introduction of negative and controversial material from dubious sources, i.e. Bagley. We also have an obligation to view with particular concern negative material pushed in BLPs by editors with an axe to grind or agenda. In this article both kinds of trouble have been in abundance. Most recently we have a spate of new editors pushing the Bagley agenda, whipped into a frenzy by a sensational article inspired by Bagley.--Samiharris (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It would do you and this discussion good, I would think, if you'd try to refrain from ad hominem smears while denouncing "smear campaigns". *Dan T.* (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible to talk about Judd Bagley in this context without describing his smear campaign. If you can figure out a more polite way of referring to his smear campaign while still being accurate, please let me know. This particular article is, after all, the No. 1 target of his smear campaign. What euphemism would you suggest that I use?--Samiharris (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I was actually responding to JzG, who never seems to miss a chance to point out my affiliation with a site he dislikes, which is not only a violation of WP:NPA (where it says not to use people's associations, mainstream or extreme, to discredit their views), but is completely irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what I say. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan, you are living in a glass house, put the stones down. Weiss has been the subject of a vicious campaign of harassment by Judd Bagley, who makes a habit of viciously attacking his opponents, and Bagley has finally managed to find, in The Register, a place that will promote the meme for him. That makes this article a hotspot right now. What it needs most is probably not people who, rightly or wrongly, are perceived as associates of Bagley through shared participation in a site that Bagley uses to promote his agenda and his harassment meme. You ocould make yourself lok good here by walking away. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly walk away from any involvement in this article (which I don't believe I've ever actually edited) if you do too. It would benefit greatly from the recusal of all people with too heavy a personal or emotional involvement on one side or the other of it. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a small flaw in your reasoning there: I've been active and monitoring here since September 18, and am a long-term WP:BLP patroller and WP:OTRS volunteer. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent)Bagley has targeted Wikipedia for harassment, and he snd his chums at Wikipedia Review attack a number of editors quite viciously. What you're suggesting would give Bagley the power to force recusal of whomever he chooses to attack. That would increase his already substantial effort to manipulate Wikipedia on behalf of his employer. --Samiharris (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can show me how to make this article "more" neutral without violating BLP, then I will support adding the "neutrality contested" tag. I am willing to be open-minded about this and see if anyone can provide a concrete suggestion that won't violate BLP. I am sure we all agree that we have to comply with BLP. Surely, no one would be so disingenuous as to use NPOV to make a back-door attack against BLP? In any event such discussion would belong on the BLP talk page. For this page: what edits are proposed that do not violate BLP? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Recent Career section (please edit)

"Weiss has become a sharp critic on his blog of Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne and his opposition to short selling; subsequently an anonymous and critical website of Weiss and other opponents was created, later found to be authored by Overstock.com's director for social media." [3][4]

Joshdboz (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Reject. The blog does not support the text as stated, and the NYT piece is more about overstock than Bagley (also it contains some errors, indicating less than careful fact-checking). Guy (Help!) 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy could you please provide with the evidence that the new york times article is factually inaccurate ? your grounds for rejecting the request yet again as has no basis.Please give evidence if you are claiming that a reputed newspaper is making factual inaccurate statementsManquer (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I said it includes factual inaccuracy - check, for example, the link to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

His blog is not notable, and cannot be referenced except as a source for himself. The suggested addition is not accurate, because the website attacks critics of Weiss and not just him and lastly it is still falls afoul of BLP and, in particular, UNDUE. Again, this identical aspect has been discussed before, and disposed of for that reason. Please go back to the archives and stop raising issues that have been previously discussed and disposed of.--Samiharris (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Good, if Weiss's blog can only be sourced for himself perhaps we should include the comments: "More on the continuing adventures of Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, whose paranoid fantasies and lengthy, self-incriminating message board rants are a fascinating spectacle. His increasingly surreal statements brought back fond memories of Baghdad Bob, the famously delusional Iraqi information minister." [5] Thank you for your correction to the nature of Bagley's site, I have adjusted the proposed addition. Joshdboz (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, blog comments on third parties cannot be used. You really need to read the relevant policies. --Samiharris (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I am not actually suggesting these comments be added to describe Byrne, but this is evidence of Weiss's reputation as a critic. Also I was trying to deal with your concerns about undue weight by trimming this down an placing it in the career section. Joshdboz (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Samiharris is right, the blog shouldn't be used as a reference. But, JzG is wrong, the NYTimes article can be used as a source. Do you think that that NYTimes reporter would be interested in knowing that a Wikipedia admin called him a liar and/or incompetent? Cla68 (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times article can and is used as a source where it belongs, here. As you know, its usage in this article was twice (or is it three times?) raised by you in the past and each time was shot down, the last time with your being blocked as an exclamation point.--Samiharris (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That does not mean that the discussion is to be halted indefinitely. I must admit I have never seen an editor so tenaciously fight the addition of verifiable information from a reputable news source, whether now or in the archives. Joshdboz (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but repetitive discussion of identical, multiply resolved points wastes the time of all concerned and is disruptive. The New York Times article has been discussed over and over and over again. Twice its introduction was pushed by a now-banned sock-meatpuppet of Bagley. This concerted attempt to manipulate Wikipedia is indeed wearisome, is indeed something that needs to be tenaciously fought, and continuing this struggle on this identical point is in my view not constructive.--Samiharris (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that these concerted attempts to manipulate Wikipedia are indeed wearisome. The disagreement is entirely to do with who is manipulating Wikipedia.

I am now quite disturbed by the fact that we are apparently so concerned about Gary Weiss' reputation on this talk page that censoring comments (via BLP) is considered the appropriate behavior, whereas near-identical allegations about Bagley are added by the same parties and left alone (do you have reliable sources for Bagley's sock-puppeting and attempts to "manipulate" the Wikipedia?). It's not that I have any concern about Bagley or feel that the remarks should be removed (even if I am getting tired of how often they are brought up, regardless of their relevance to the matter), it's just that it's hard to understand the double-standard. Jun-Dai (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the recond, I never intended to use his blog as a reference, I was merely responding to Guy's comments that "the blog does not support the text as stated" and was trying to be clever after Samiharris said that it could be used "as a source for himself." Joshdboz (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case I'd suggest, in as friendly a way possible, that you not "try to be clever." It's just a tad disruptive, as it has me and others responding to a point that you intended to be sarcastic or in jest.--Samiharris (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the blog only being proposed as a reference for the fact that Weiss is engaging in such criticism, not for the specific criticisms themselves, anyway? *Dan T.* (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but at this point it wouldn't be necessary getting into that debate since the NYT describes what he is doing on his blog. Joshdboz (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no independent source for the significance of this, the only sources are in respect of overstock, not Weiss. WP:UNDUE applies, attempts by Bagley to persuade people otherwise notwithstanding. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that if "criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article." Bagley is a tiny minority of the universe, last I checked.--Samiharris (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed a comment from earlier today that repeated some material in antisocialmedia.net. BLP specifically states that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)" and goes on to state in italics for emphasis: "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages." [6] Editors, particularly those lured to this talk page from the Register piece, are urged to familiarize themselves with WP:BLP, which is enforced strictly.--Samiharris (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. I want to remind editors here that by asking them to suggest changes to the article on the talk page, this does not mean that anything at all can be written here. Even on talk pages, or anywhere on Wikipedia, the same strict BLP sourcing rules apply. If you have a fact about a living person you want to introduce and/or discuss, it must be well sourced. Crum375 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That Weiss' defenders feel a need to censor any mention of those issues only adds to the suspicion that they can't actually refute Bagley's allegations. My question for a specific link to such refutation has only been met by vague referral to the archives, where I can't find any such thing. All I see is baseless talk of a "smear campaign" and claims that the accusations have been "disposed of before." According to the same BLP rules you invoke, calling Bagley's allegations a "smear campaign" is itself an unsourced negative claim about a living person that should be removed. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself Samiharris, but this has nothing to do with Bagley. The statement that Weiss is a critic of Byrne is verified by the NYT and WSJ, and evidenced (if you would like to look) by Weiss's blog. That has nothing to do with Bagley. Can you at least grasp that? Please answer this question.

Now, if we add the statment that an attack site was set up, in part to attack Weiss, then that concerns Bagley in the third person, no one is suggesting posting his attacks as if they were established facts. However, it is verifiable that this occurred, and was notable enough to garner coverage (highlighting Weiss) in NYT and The Register. Joshdboz (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The references to "WSJ" are mystifying, as I know of nothing in that newspaper on this. I'm not sure exactly which comment of mine you are referring to, but I am getting tired of the repetitive effort to re-insert material that is identical to that which was attempted and rejected a month and a half ago. The material that you wish to add, and I am saying this now for about the fifth time in this go-round, is unacceptable under WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. It remains so no matter how many times you propose, and continually re-proposing and sticking lipstick on th e pig does not make it any less violative of policy.--Samiharris (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference to WSJ is an official Wall Street Journal Blog which wrote "Gary Weiss, a persistent critic of Overstock and its CEO Patrick Byrne, writes..." The reason I keep going over this is that the only response I get is a violation of BLP, and throwing up a policy is not an argument unless explained. Please answer this question:

1. The statement that Weiss is a critic of Byrne is verified by the NYT and WSJ, and evidenced (if you would like to look) by Weiss's blog. Is that not NPOV (coming from NYT and Weiss himself), Verifiable (I and others have showrn the sources), Not-OR (I am not simply making this up)? Neither is this contentious material, because it literally comes from Weiss's mouth. Neither Undue weight because both the NYT and the blog at WSJ described Weiss as a critic as if it is well known (ex: a second job). Please describe why this statement is unacceptable in this article with an actual argument, not simply referring to "BPL" or "Bagley". Joshdboz (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether the thought "Weiss is an Overstock critic" is properly sourced is of no consequence. We don't have to go through your proposed change word for word. The change in its entirety is at issue. To repeat for now the sixth time, the proposed change that you are making (the one at the top of this section) was discussed two or three times before and rejected because of BLP and UNDUE. No, I am not going to repeat the arguments made last month and a few months before that and a few months before that. This is has long since become tiresome, and my assumption of good faith is being tested here.--Samiharris (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sami here. I think you need to distinguish basic BLP sourcing issues from UNDUE. If you have NYT saying Weiss is a critic of X, then you can mention that, with a link to the source, on the talk page. But to include it in the article, you'd have to show it doesn't violate UNDUE. It is possible that Weiss criticized in his career some major mob figures, or Wall Street personalities, in a much more notable way. To get into his article, any item has to be shown to be significant to his overall notability, over his entire career. I don't see this prioritized notability analysis here, and until then, less is better, as is always true in BLP. Crum375 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we have editors here who are fixated on one very tiny, very petty, very narrow issue that is the agenda of Judd Bagley. They don't give two bits about improving this article. They just want to make it more negative. That is becoming increasingly clear. I am sorry, but that is my opinion based upon the relentless campaign in this talk page, not just today but in the past as well. --Samiharris (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For me, the real problem has not so much to do with the issue at hand, but the appearance of a fairly clear case of censorship, and that's certainly a very key issue on the Wikipedia. I suspect that more than a couple of people adding their two cents here don't really care about Gary Weiss, Bagley, or Naked Short Selling. This is entirely to do with the principles of the Wikipedia and its governance. Now, in the spirit of good faith, which has been in extremely short supply on both sides here, I'm going to guess that Sami/JzG don't particularly care about Gary Weiss or Naked Short Selling either, but simply see themselves as staunch defenders of biography subjects and having come out of a battle with Bagley are now in siege-mode protecting the article from these newcomers from a violation of what they see as a clear interpretation of BLP, and that this is the reason for implementing what I see as censorship and what you see as the mandate of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I don't mean to put words into your mouth, but I do want to see if I understand your position correctly. How far from the mark am I?

If I'm right about the motivations on both sides, that would explain why, despite all effort going into the arguing, the article in question is such poor quality. One thing that is absolutely clear here, is that there are a lot of axes to grind on both sides, and Talk:Gary Weiss is the grindstone. This is why both sides are arguing so vehemently about a point that, in the scheme of the Wikipedia, is a pretty insignificant detail considering the quality and content of all the other BLPs out there. It's because for both sides, this is about the principle of the matter, not the detail itself. One side has what I see as pretty good but not slam-dunk case for putting in the content, and the other side has a view of BLPs and their need to be clean that sets their threshold for citeability and UNDUE higher than most. That explains why this detail is pretty much the perfect battleground for an argument about the principles of protecting BLPs versus the principles of censorship and whitewashing. If the NYT had written a feature article about the matter, for example, you would I assume back down. Similarly, if the NYT blog entry didn't exist and were not so clear about the matter, the other side would probably back down, since at that point the censorship would seem much more reasonable. Jun-Dai (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Jun-Dai. I think you summed this up perfectly, and is why I would be very happy to work out a compromise on this issue. That is why I have tried to break down the statements to be added, and am suggesting merely a 1-2 sentence addition within a pre-existing section. I would love it if Samiharris or Guy would like to take part in working this out. Joshdboz (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sami, many here have opinions about the agendas of other editors, including yours, but it's best to keep a lid on these opinions per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Crum, notability is established by the New York Times, not simply because they published an article on the issue but because they stated explicitly that Weiss had made a "second career" out of his obsession with Overstock and Patrick Byrne.--G-Dett (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Samiharris, I have edited Wikipedia for over 2 years, have 4000+ edits, started over a hundred articles including one FA and numerous DYK and GA, and I only even heard of this issue (and everyone involved) yesterday. How can you possibly go back and say that I and others here are following "the agenda of Judd Bagley." I saw a controversial issue and decided to be bold and try to improve the situation.

Now Crum, I agree that the undue is a point that should be debated. Now what is the evidence. The New York Times said that Weiss has made a second career out of criticizing Bynre. That carries some weight, especially if we're only talking about adding 1 sentence, pehaps even 1 phrase to this article, not a whole paragraph. I agree that what was on the page yesterday and what I was trying to improve may have been too much for this small article. But that doesn't mean that the information isn't signficant enough to get at least one small mention. If the criteria for every statement was that it had to cover the subjects whole career, then only the lead in this article could remain. There needs to be detail. Joshdboz (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, and G-Dett as a participant in October's discussion can attest to this, the precise issue of the Times article and its "second career" hyperbole was discussed to death in October and a few months before that and a few months before that. What I find disturbing, G-Dett, and the reason my assumption of good faith is being tested here, is that the same issue is raised, always in reaction to a Judd Bagley hate campaign, again and again and again and again. How long is this going to go on? It is incredibly frustrating for the same UNDUE and BLP-violating content to be trotted out over and over and over again, sometimes by the same people, always trying to make the article more negative in very specific ways, never trying to improve the article but to damage Weiss' reputation.--Samiharris (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether the New York Times is a reliable source for this article was not "discussed to death" in October, but rather abruptly archived while underway, amid an atmosphere of extraordinary tension and mistrust and very little substantive discussion. I understand your frustration, but you need to assume good faith and realize that many editors have no wish to damage Weiss's reputation in any way, aren't interested in or sympathetic to Bagley's agenda, but are genuinely concerned about serious NPOV issues that have arisen as a result of Wikipedia's handling of the Weiss–Byrne&Bagley wars.--G-Dett (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed at length prior to being archived. It was archived because the discussion had become a center of BLP violations and trolling - very much the same kind of thing we have seen over the past two day. This identical issue, the Times article, had been discussed at even greater length prior to that, on at least one or two other occasions. This talk page is not a forum for unburdening yours or any person's concerns with how "wars" are being "handled." This is a forum solely for improvement of the Weiss article and I see precious little interest in that, only in making the article more negative by adding references to petty personal attacks by Judd Bagley.--Samiharris (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me, and on the basis of your misunderstanding have adopted an inappropriately condescending tone. Bringing this article and related articles in line with core policy (WP:NPOV) would obviously constitute an improvement of content, not some sort of "unburdening" emotional catharsis; and talk pages are the right place to discuss how to bring content in line with policy.--G-Dett (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If I see a serious effort here to go through Weiss's entire career, identify the most notable issues, and prioritize them, then I would agree to add more information, based on that priority, into the article. As of now, all I see are many editors trying to get one single bit of information, with its priority relative to other notable aspects of Weiss's career unknown. Unless we get that prioritized list, and agree to it with a consensus on the talk page, nothing new of significance will get into the article, per BLP and UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree Crum, that would be ideal. But I have neither the time nor the interest in spending innumerable hours combing through this man's life. But an imperfect article does not mean in any way that suitable information, even if of less a priority, cannot be added. Joshdboz (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Our rule of thumb at Wikipedia re BLP articles is simple: do no harm. If we are not sure whether a piece of data, that may be controversial, meets the UNDUE requirements, it stays out by default. Same goes for any source that is of uncertain reliability. If need be, we stub a BLP article. But we certainly don't add something controversial because some editors think it's 'good enough'. Crum375 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I would argue that

1. This is not controversial, for Weiss himself would describe himself as a Byrne critic

2. It meets Undue requirements per the NYT article, WSJ blog, and the plethora of examples on Mr. Weiss's own site

3. None of these sources are of uncertain reliability. Joshdboz (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not myself studied Weiss's career, so I can't go into details, but it seems to me that a NYT article focusing on one topic in Weiss's career cannot do our UNDUE work for us. The only reasonable outside reference for UNDUE would be a serious and objective article or book describing Weiss's overall career in detail, which could do some of the grunt work for us. If an item appears prominently there, alongside his entire career's work, then yes, that would help establish the UNDUE requirement for that item. But a blog, or a news article focused on an issue, not his career, would naturally tend to emphasize their specific subject matter, hence would not be useful for UNDUE purposes. Again, the issue is not the reliability of "Weiss was critical of X", but where does it stand in relation to his entire career. Crum375 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt a scholarly book "describing Weiss's overall career in detail" is in the offing. We're not talking about James Joyce here. We're not even talking about, say, Stanley Fish. We're talking about Gary Weiss, a journalist and blogger who, according to the New York Times, has made a "second career" out his feud with Byrne and Overstock.--G-Dett (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right, although we don't need a book — a neutral biographical article (not focused on any single issue) would suffice, and I have seen one posted above.[7] In any case, such sources would only serve as input; we still need to establish the relative notabilities ourselves as editors and reach a talk page consensus. Crum375 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You may well be right too, Crum, but the "neutral biographical article" you've linked to is a promo blurb from Weiss's publishing company. The fact that it resembles the Wikipedia entry is a symptom of the larger NPOV problem at work here.--G-Dett (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this particular bio sounds like a promo, and even if we had a book biography it could still be POV. That's why I said we should only use such sources as input. We still need to make the final decisions as to relative notability and inclusion criteria ourselves as editors, via talk page consensus. Crum375 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the blurb resembles the Wikipedia entry does not represent a "larger NPOV problem." It represents the fact that Weiss, like most non-notable people who are in this encyclopedia, are here because of their accomplishments. The difference, and the reason we are having this conversation, is that very few of them have Bagleys stalking them and planting personal attacks and smears on anonymous websites and in tabloids. The "larger NPOV problem" is the concerted, repetitive attack on this article by editors swarming in from external websites, hot to trot to push the Bagley agenda, to the point of misrepresenting what is stated in sources and ignoring policy entirely.--Samiharris (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the NPOV problem is that Weiss's Wikipedia article reads like a promo blurb, in part because of your efforts.--G-Dett (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an odd statement indeed, considering that I have never added any content to this article as best I recall, but have been solely been preventing Bagley-inspired personal attacks and smears from being added, in large measure pushed in this article by a user who was banned as a Bagley sock/meatpuppet. Evidently you believe that Bagley is the cure for the imaginary "POV issue" in this article.--Samiharris (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As Mr. Weiss is a successful journalist, of course his article looks good. He's notable for more than bitter scaremongering about nonexistent conspiracies, and it shows. John Nevard (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue we're discussing here, John Nevard, is not whether the article "looks good," which is a subjective matter and in this instance an irrelevant one. What we're discussing is how much weight to give to a New York Times article, on the one hand, versus a promotional blurb by Weiss's publishing company, on the other, as sources for the nature of Weiss's notability. Crum argues that we should give far greater weight to the promotional blurb, which she describes as a "neutral biographical article." I don't understand her description of a promo blurb in these terms, and disagree with her argument about the weight we should give it.--G-Dett (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. We are discussing for the umpteenth time including a reference to a Times article that has been discussed and disposed of many times previously, including the discussion in October in which you participated. However, it is not correct that anyone is suggesting giving weight to a promotional blurb, but merely using it as a guide in judging the UNDUE issues that keep on being repetitively brought up and rejected.--Samiharris (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So we should use a promo blurb "as a guide" but without "giving weight" to it; that is, we are to be guided by the weightless presence of the subject's promotional blurb in determining what is notable about him? I disagree.--G-Dett (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

← Neutrality is not the average between Weiss's view of himself and Bagley's view of him. Bagley's attacks on people are pretty base; we should rely in every case on how reliable secondary sources describe Weiss and the dispute. This is complicated by the fact that The Register recently reprinted Bagley's view of the Wikipedia dispute as if it were true, which it is not. The reason Bagley was banned was because of his attempts to blackmail an administrator into allowing him to bias content to suit his agenda - the ban was and remains to my knowledge completely uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Minor change request

WAS:

editor in chief

NOW:

editor-in-chief

Djg2006 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done

Apply POV tag to this article or fix the following

The statement "Weiss's comments on anti-naked-shorting activists has provoked some negative responses, including threats." is not justifiable by the link provided. There is no documentation of any threats against him, unless you can produce an evidence of it, please remove this statement.

The details about Gary Weiss's degrees come from his own web page - not an independent and verifiable source. So, these details must be removed or the section needs to be marked POV.

Links 16 and 18 of the article are op-ed pieces. Per Wikipedia standards, op-ed pieces are not reliable sources. We should remove the op-ed pieces. The intent of Wikipedia is not to serve as a mouth organ of Gary Weiss.

Finally, I have a request to make to Wikipedia admins, can we restrict the current admins Guy and others who are waging a Jihad against OverStock and give control to other admins with a neutral point of view?. TwakTwik (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

TwakTwik (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Having read through this, and related, talk pages the likelihood of this article ever attaining true NPOV status while the current overseeing admins continue their immature crusade is marginal, at best.Xcvzxcvzxcvxcvzxcv (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Xcv..., I really don't think that kind of language is going to help advance the issue in any way. There's plenty that could be called immature in terms of the behavior on all sides of the issue. Jun-Dai (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that any admin who expresses the view that WP:BLP trumps attempts by Bagley to spread his meme should be banned from this talk page on the assumption that it indicates bias against overstock? It's a completely absurd suggestion. We absolutely must not succumb to the paranoid fantasies of banned abusers of the project. I have no agenda whatsoever in respect of overstock, as a company it holds little interest for me. What is not acceptable is for people who have been banned from Wikipedia due to abuse and harassment, to be allowed to dictate who may and may not engage in respect of content. It looks to me very much as if the measure of NPOV being applied above is that the article will be NPOV when it reflects Bagley's POV. Sorry, no. His cynical manipulation of The Register (with which, admittedly, they seemed to co-operate gleefully) does not change the facts: Bagley's allegations against Weiss have no substance any more than his Holy Jihad against naked short selling is an excuse for the poor performance of overstock's stock - that was, as has been pointed out by many impartial observers, easily explained by reference to their consistent failure to show a profit. No retail company gets good stock performance by turning in loss after loss, it's not necessary to invent bizarre conspiracy theories to explain it. In the matter of naked shorting, I think that this is one of the many dubious practices which should be stopped, I also think derivatives and many of the other more overt gambling practices of the markets are abusive and should end, but that has no relevance here. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to discuss this page without bringing up totally unrelated points about other people? Every suggestion about this page has met with your screeching about how the page can't be changed "because Bagley!!!!!!". A little maturity is needed, especially from those who clearly have vested interests in this whole debacle, no? Xcvzxcvzxcvxcvzxcv (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Guy, I tried to discuss this issue with you immediately after you locked the page and in this now very long talk page. Your continued references to Bagley and Bagley's point of view are both highly irrelevant and counterproductive to what we are trying to accomplish here. Please refrain from continuing this behavior. Joshdboz (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Xcvzxcvzxcvxcvzxcv could clarify what vested interest I'm supposed to have in this article. I can excuse a certain unfamiliarity with Wikipedia from an editor who has fewer than two dozen edits. Joshdboz, the timing of this dispute says it all. The article has been in pretty much its present state for a while, then Bagley gets The Register to reprint his side of the story as if it's fact and suddenly we are inundated with complaints of bias from well-meaning people who apparently don't realise that what Bagley says has to be taken with three truckloads of industrial grade salt. The applicable policies here are WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There are several people who are quite prepared to support changes to the article if they can be satisfied that the changes meet these policies. Thus far, I'm not satisfied, and the others don't seem to be either. One thing we do know is that the edits which were reverted, including a citation to a copyright-violating PDF of the antisocialmedia attack on Weiss, were not acceptable. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So in response to my concern about why every criticism of this article is met with an invocation from you of "Bagley is evil!", you decide to go off on one about Bagley. I think that says it all about what "vested interests" you might have. Good observation about the number of edits I've made though. Xcvzxcvzxcvxcvzxcv (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Per above discussion, every article on WP has some editors who may dispute at least parts of it. If we were to add dispute templates to all of them, all we'd have is a mess. If anyone here feels that something needs correction per NPOV, please provide the proper sources, show relevance per UNDUE, and reach talk page consensus. Any admin will be happy to make that change at that point. If such consensus is not reached, it indicates the article is OK as it stands, like all others. Crum375 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Crum, from the above discussions, and NPOV vote, it should be obvious that there is a dispute (which is not like other bio articles). NPOV need not have proper sources, removal of NPOV tag needs proper sources. Once you reach consensus that the article is fair and balanced, you can remove the NPOV tag. Simynazareth (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that the "dispute" results from The Register reprinting as fact Bagley's own assertions, which have been reviewed and put in proper context long since. We do not need to go round the same loop every time he dupes some new person into believing his story. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

After an external publication writes about a specific WP page, it is not unusual to get traffic on that page. That a number of people then decide the article is improper, does not make it so, nor does it indicate a dispute in the broader sense of the WP community. What is needed is for everyone to understand the WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE rules, and then produce the right kind of prioritized sources to allow the article to include the appropriate information at any point. This has not been done here so far, therefore there is really no information to vote on. Crum375 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum, here is the problem with your argument. If someone makes a statement 'Xyz farts too much' in the article without providing a source, per your argument, unless some one proves that Xyz does not fart too much, that statement will have to stay. TwakTwik (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you see the edit history of this article, you can see that Guy / JsZ has been religiously removing any criticism to Gary Weiss, citing Bagely. This is a case of someone trying to tarnish the article, and overzealous admins getting overly biased the other way, resulting in the article being lopsided. 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And, the claim that Gary Weiss is threatened is not supported by the indicated source. I am saying that this statement can not be justified with the current source. So, this statement should be removed till a proper source is found. TwakTwik (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum, I appreciate your efforts to resolve this, but I do find your argument somewhat lacking. Your first statement is certainly true, new editors coming to an article does not suddenly make it improper; however, that assumes that the article was "proper" beforehand, which is in dispute. Secondly, references to WP:UNDUE are important, and they will certainly be taken into account; however, the sources that have been produced, notably the NYT, demonstrate that the fact that Weiss is a critic of Byrne is worthy of at least some mention in this article. Thirdly, references to WP:BPL are of course vital, but as I have already argued, the statements proposed for addition do not conflict with this policy. Finally, I Support the addition of an NPOV tag. Joshdboz (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be missing the elephant in the room. The issue is not whether source X is reliable or not, but given a fairly short bio article for someone who's spent a lifetime in the public eye with numerous articles and investigations in major publications, what items should be included. To do it properly per UNDUE, his entire career has to be laid out, and the various items prioritized by their relative notability. To just pick one item because it happens to be the news du jour, and some blog or even the NYT mentioned it, does not meet UNDUE. So if you are really concerned about doing a good job here, start with that bio link above, find others if you can, and get working on this not to try to prove a point, but to get this article into the best possible state. Crum375 (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum, I am saying link 1 does not support the point being made - can't you just see it? TwakTwik (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant link 11. "Antilla, Susan (2006). Wall Street, Don't Let Customers Read This Book: Susan Antilla. Bloomberg.com. " does not support the statement that Gary Weiss was threatened. TwakTwik (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true, but being the news du jour does not negate it is a verifiable and notable piece of information worthy of mention. You seem to be saying that weight should be judged on a relative basis, and that is fine, but this article, whatever its caliber, is of suitable length to absorb an additional sentence. And at least for me, this is about proving a point, because I have never in two years of editing witnessed an admin simply lock down an article (without substantial explanation) because another editor was trying to add verified, notable, and worthy information in a good faith manner in line with Wiki-policies. Joshdboz (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You are still missing the point, sorry. Imagine there are 100 notable items in his career, and they are sorted from 1 to 100. Imagine the current article has 15 items in it, assume properly sorted for now. Now imagine someone finds item 97, and wants to insert it. Clearly the issue is not whether 97 is properly sourced, but where it belongs in the notability sequence. So what you need to do is lay out the items, compare their notabilities, and then add them into the article in the correct sequence, most to least notable. Not all articles are done that way, just like not all meet other rules, but that's no reason not to do it correctly here. And note that I am not saying that this item is in fact #97, for all I know it could be decided by consensus it's #1 — but that comparison process has to be carried out properly before acting. Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum, you've just made a very good illustration about how the article could be made more NPOV (and those steps clearly haven't been taken on the existing material), and TwakTwik drew out a number of points illustrating that the article is currently quite biased and you don't have to agree with all of them to agree that the article is biased. Two of your three criteria have been met (1. a way to make the article NPOV, 2. specific points that make it POV). What's more, there is pretty much consensus that the article is POV except: you, who have avoided putting forth an opinion one way or the other; Sami, who also has not voiced an opinion; and JzG, who has voiced an opinion, but not to state that the article is NPOV, only to state that he/she won't put the POV tag on the article for unrelated reasons. That's as close to a consensus as seems possible under the circumstances. What more does it take to get the tag on there? Jun-Dai (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum, where to layout the items and compare notabilities? in this talk page? Typically this happens in the article itself, and the information goes in has certain randomness till we have enough information for a filtering / cleanup. Anyway, your efforts in resolving this with a cool head is well appreciated. Simynazareth (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jun-Dai, consensus also requires quorum. But as I noted elsewhere, every single article on WP is POV, and every single one has someone disagreeing with something. The way to deal with problems is to fix them, not to hang signs, because otherwise all articles would have disputed templates.

Simynazareth, you can collect items and lay them out right here in a new section in this talk page, if you wish. For example, list the most notable events in his career, and use that bio link as a starting point. For each item, supply at least one good ref. Then, once the items are there, people can review them and sort by notability. Others may add items to the list. As bottom line, there has to be consensus on the list itself, the sources, and the relative notability of the items. Crum375 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but (1) solutions for fixing (or at least improving) have been laid out already at the top of this section and (2) how many more do we need before we have quorum? Jun-Dai (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, it seems the main issue here is UNDUE. In this case, UNDUE would be part of BLP, and as such, you cannot decide by local talk page consensus to override it (nor any other policy). I suggested above how to go about addressing the UNDUE issue. As far as quorum, if it becomes an issue, once could file an article RfC, but I don't think we are quite there yet. First we need to address the UNDUE issue, which requires a prioritized list of Weiss's notable life and/or career highlights, and that requires work, not consensus or votes. Crum375 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds an awful lot like you are basically arguing that the POV tag should not exist, as the requirements are essentially that we persuade the opposing editors that they are wrong, in which case the POV tag is not necessary. Incidentally, I can't think of an instance of the POV tag that meets the requirements you've set forth. Jun-Dai (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment at the top of the section is not true. The Antilla article most definitely does substantiate the "threats" assertion. A copy can be found on Weiss's website [8], as the external link doesn't seem to work. Weiss's blog also expounds on the threats he has received, and his blog is a perfectly acceptable source for information on Weiss himself, e.g., the threats he received. So that can be added as a corroborating source under BLP.

The Antilla claim and the remainder of the "NPOV tag" arguments are just a lot of utter nonsense and unwarranted. Op-ed pieces are perfectly acceptable as RS sources under policy., I really wish editors would do some due diligence and read policy before making unsupported claims and wasting everybody's time. --Samiharris (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is rather silly Samiharris. You are allowing Gary Weiss to write his own article, by producing his blog as the independent source. He is not exactly known to speak the truth. He makes money by generating controversy, and you want to accept his blog as an independent source? Produce a NPOV source or remove the threats statement. TwakTwik (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I am ok with keeping the reference to the threats he received, but change the statement to say 'Gary has claimed that he has received threats for his work' - just don't become a replica of Gary's blog. TwakTwik (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Antilla article is an RS source and there is no need for the POV phrasing you suggest. Stop wasting people's time with frivolous suggestions, factual misstatements and misrepresentations of policy.--Samiharris (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Samiharris on this. Also, we've made the proper distinction between a primary and secondary source here as well, per WP:PSTS. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and have provided my arguments on why this article if POV. In any case, I seem to have hit the Great Wall of Wikipedia, so giving up. TwakTwik (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia Wall unless you mean our dictum, "Verifiability not truth." Wikipedia articles never provide the truth. They only and always provide different views. All claims in any article are someone's view. Citations tell us whose view. It is unnecessary to wrote that "Source x claims y" when we provide the source along with the claim - what do you think a citation is? It is telling us who makes the claim! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And you've failed to gain consensus so it's time for you to drop this and move along. If you're really interested in contributing productively to Wikipedia there are 2,120,455 other aticles not related to the Bagley affair that need editing. Demonstrate that you're not here exclusively to promote a particular POV on the Overstock affair by focusing on some of them for awhile. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh?. I don't need to demonstrate anything to you or anyone else. If you guys assume you own Wikipedia, you are totally wrong. Now, regarding consensus, what I raised has gained more support than all the support you guys could gain by using your secret mailing list. Regarding OverStock, I am no way related to them. I wanted to see if indeed a secret society of admins exists on Wikipedia and yes, you guys just proved it. Good luck hiding it. TwakTwik (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the onus is on the editor seeking to include content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. That's evidently not the case here, and given the long history of abuse by Bagley we're going to need some pretty solid sources before we even think about letting his POV creep in here. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, let me point out that I am not seeking to include new content. I disputed the citing Gary Weiss's blog as NPOV source - This has nothing to do with Bagley. This is about making this article NPOV, not about including new content. Are we so afraid of Bagley that every comment on Wikipedia starts to look like its from Bagley?. TwakTwik (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He's the bogeyman, the monster under your bed that you worried about as a kid. Everything that's wrong with Wikipedia is his fault. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent career

Weiss is a founding member of Project Klebnikov, a global media alliance investigating the July 2004 murder of Paul Klebnikov, editor-in-chief of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine, and other subjects. Project Klebnikov was organized by investigative journalist Richard Behar, and among others includes journalists Michael Isikoff and Scott Armstrong.

In November 2006, Weiss was named "Muckraker" columnist for Forbes.com. In announcing inauguration of the column, Forbes.com editor Paul Maidment said, “Gary is among an elite group of journalists whose zest for investigative journalism has brought real change to the subjects he's covered.”

Weiss has also been a contributor to The New York Times op-ed page and to Salon, writing on such topics as executive pay and public ownership of newspapers. He also has been critical of the treatment of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, opposed astroturfing, argued against Wal-Mart's new venture in India, and criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne and his campaign against naked short selling.

I have taken the current recent career section, edited slightly for NPOV, and added the Byrne information. I hope, Crum, you can see that this information is certainly not being given undue weight when listed among Weiss's other recent positions. Joshdboz (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is duplicative of what it says in the previous section about naked shorting (relating to the threats that he received from naked shorting activists). So we have an UNDUE issue again. Also you can cite articles he has written re astroturfing, Wolfowitz and such, but all we have on Byrne are blog items, which can't be cited, and articles that reference Bagley's smears. No, we are not going to link to Bagley's smears in any way, shape or form. WP:NPF expressly forbids citation of such claims, so no, they cannot be linked as a backdoor way of introducing Bagley into this article.--Samiharris (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sami, is your position that any source – the New York Times, for example, or The Register – that references Bagley's claims (or claims Bagley has made) cannot be used for this article, regardless of its status as a reliable source?--G-Dett (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the NYT piece, but The Register is absolutely inappropriate. It is not even tabloid journalism, it's not journalism at all, just polemic, strongly inspired by Bagley's manipulation. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

G-Dett, my "position" is that the issue (the NY Times article) has been raised more than enough, and is dead and is decomposing. Let it go. You and others raising the identical issue repetitively does not give it any more merit, and is disruptive. Please stop.--Samiharris (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please engage directly and candidly, Sami – again, is your position that any source – the New York Times, for example, or The Register – that references Bagley's claims (or claims Bagley has made) cannot be used for this article, regardless of its status as a reliable source?--G-Dett (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already "engaged directly and candidly" on the Times "What's Online" article, Register article, etc. more than I could have possibly dreamed. If you have any new Times or other articles or sources to discuss, please do so, but if you keep on bringing this same subject up over and over again, in a persistent and harassing manner as you are beginning to do, I am going to be forced to conclude that you are acting in bad faith and are being deliberately disruptive.--Samiharris (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sami, you wrote: "all we have on Byrne are blog items, which can't be cited, and articles that reference Bagley's smears. No, we are not going to link to Bagley's smears in any way, shape or form." I know you don't want the NYT article included – you've said so many times. But I'm not asking about that; I'm asking, is your argument for exclusion as general and categorical as you've framed it here? Does it apply, for example, to any possible future article that either (a) cites Bagley, or (b) favorably presents views known to be held by Bagley? Let's say a piece is published in the New Yorker tomorrow, and the Bagley/Byrne–Weiss dispute is referenced. Would your position be that it can't be cited, because "we are not going to link to Bagley's smears in any way, shape or form"? That is a self-evidently relevant and good-faith question. I'd still like an answer to it, and in the meantime I don't appreciate your hyperventilations about bad faith and harassment and deliberate disruption.--G-Dett (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said previously, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss improving the article, not to satisfy your curiosity about my or other editors' future position or how I feel about sourcing issues. The only articles of any relevancy to this talk page are the ones that have actually appeared, not the ones that may appear in the future. If you are curious about my position on sourcing issues, your curiosity is going to go unsated. That is a terrible thing I know, but one that you are going to have to live with.--Samiharris (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. You stated explicitly and categorically that any source touching on the Bagley-Weiss dispute would be unacceptable for this article. That struck me as an extraordinary position for you to take, in that it quite clearly flies in the face of core policy, so I invited you to clarify and/or refine it, which you declined to do, thereby fully sating my curiosity; thanks.--G-Dett (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, and take no "position," "extraordinary" or otherwise, about articles that may or may not appear in the future. You are welcome to distort my position as much as you wish. However, here, in a the talk page of an article, it is disruptive. But you knew that, of course.--Samiharris (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sami, what you wrote was this: "No, we are not going to link to Bagley's smears in any way, shape or form." Any reasonable literate person could understand that to be a categorical and normative statement, including but not limited to the Register and New York Times articles. All you needed to say was something like, G-Dett, I was referring only to the Register and NYT pieces. Any future articles touching on the Bagley-Weiss dispute in reliable sources will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. With so many variables in play, we shouldn't categorically rule things out, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Instead, you've wasted my time with ill-advised condescension, semantic games, and gratuitous insults. Please see the relevant behavioral guidelines, and avoid this in future.--G-Dett (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I said several times that I was referring to past and not hypothetical articles, so no further "clarification" was necessary. Your intent was clearly to hound and harass. You've been trying to stir up trouble and play "gotcha" on this page, and I've told you to stop several times. This has gone on long enough.--Samiharris (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you honestly expect anything that wasn't absolutely positive to ever be allowed on this page? I think the reasons are perfectly clear to any and all who view these pages. Xcvzxcvzxcvxcvzxcv (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be other references that are better, but this "What's Online" reference from the NYT has the tone of a gossip column, and seems like a blog, or a blog report. I would want to have a better reference for controversial BLP issues, per WP:NPF, which states, in part:

Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if ...

This is above and beyond UNDUE requirements that must also be met. AFAICT, the sources I have seen so far do not meet the requirement of "multiple, highly reliable sources," which to me would be serious mainstream articles outside of the blogosphere, gossip, or gossip-like columns. Crum375 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We're on the same page Samiharris in that Weiss's opposition is written about twice in, but the first is mentioned within the context of a book he wrote. Now, we have a second instance in which reliable third parties highlight Weiss's specific and prolific opposition to a certain member of that anti-short selling campaign. Two different instances, the second important enough to garner media attention (NYT, WSJ blog, etc), I think that speaks to significance enough to be worthy of mention, better yet if we can combine the two in the same paragraph. I think we can agree on that. Let's forget about Bagley completely. Crum, this is not a controverisal BLP issue because it is not "damaging" Weiss in any way, shape, or form. This is reporting a position he has taken. Joshdboz (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you've made essentially this same argument concerning these identical sources before, and it was made before you arrived on the scene and before I arrived on the scene, at least twice. Do you have any new sourcing to bring to the discussion? If not, I would ask that you stop repetitively raising issues that have been discussed previously and have been rejected with increasing vehemence and exasperation each time. Now, on the other hand, if by "forget Bagley completely" you are saying that you simply want to link to the WSJ blog item, which makes no reference to Bagley, then that is indeed a new suggestion and one that can be considered as not a rehash of the past. ----Samiharris (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the NYT "What's Online" piece is clearly derogatory. BLP articles can only include such material if it is published by multiple reliable sources. A blog or blog report does not constitute a "highly reliable source." Such sources would be serious articles in mainstream publications, outside of the gossip columns or blogosphere. Crum375 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Crum is right. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I re-read the supposed sources; they are bloggish, ephemeral and not analytical. If we can find a decently analytical piece that covers it that will be fine, I think. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

---

More digging

libel claims against article by Gary Weiss, leads to first case in which the publication rule has been applied to a magazine that was initially published electronically: Business Week filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that New York's one-year statute of limitations for libel claims had run out when a noted stock picker, Julian H. Robertson Jr., brought a case against the magazine regarding a 1996 cover story about him entitled, The Fall of the Wizard of Wall Street.

Mr. Robertson, chairman and chief executive of the Tiger Management Corporation hedge fund, began his legal action on Monday, March 24, 1997, naming as defendants the McGraw-Hill Companies, which publishes Business Week; Gary Weiss, the author of the article, and Stephen B. Shepard, Business Week's editor in chief.

Not sure if this fits into notability :-) Simynazareth (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Now we are back in the Golden Age of POV Pushing in this article, long before I arrived on the scene, when Cla68 was seeking to add a section on this long-dismissed, ancient lawsuit to the article. Again, same drill: POV push, no consensus (or in this case, agreement by all that UNDUE applied), material removed, rehashed a year later. Will this ever end, I wonder?--Samiharris (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not until overstock goes bust or Bagley leaves Wikipedia Review, is my guess. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Guy said it best: "What is not acceptable is for people who have been banned from Wikipedia due to abuse and harassment, to be allowed to dictate who may and may not engage in" [discussions with respect to enry content. Why does a democratic community allow thugs and misfits to intrude? I think this is the basic issue here. Wikipedia needs some better community standards against the trolls, stalkers, and whiners. --Cberlet (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's your and Guy's camp that's letting the banned person dictate the terms of debate here, by repeatedly playing the "guilt by association" card to quash any points of view that in any way resemble his, as if it's the subject matter that's banned, not the person. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think this sort of comment is helpful? Please stick to the article's content, and do not speculate on the motives of established, responsible editors, and at the same time lets not enable disruptive editors. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflation of Bagley's abusive sockpuppeting, and Bagley-related RS-material

I have a serious question I'm hoping Guy or Crum will be good enough to answer. Strictly speaking, a proper application of NPOV to Weiss-, Bagley-, or Byrne-related material should not take into consideration – indeed, should be utterly indifferent to – Bagley's abuses of Wikipedia protocols, correct? In other words, isn't the question of how to deal with Bagley puppets editing Wikipedia separate from the question of how to deal with RS-material that presents Bagley's views? It seems to me these are being conflated under a shoot-on-sight sort of policy. It's almost as if the Register itself has been declared a sort of Bagley puppet: it was "manipulated" by Bagley and "cooperated gleefully." The Register was a good enough source (for Mantanmoreland [9] [10] and for Samiharris [11], though not, obviously and hilariously, for WordBomb [12]) when it was writing about the "bizarre world of Patrick Byrne," and referring to Byrne personally as a "freak show," but now it suddenly fails the test of a reliable source?--G-Dett (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What sources are reliable or not seems to depend on whose ox is being gored by them. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dan, bullshit. Let's be absolutely clear here, The Register is not a source in respect of Weiss or anything else related. The Register repeated Bagley's assertions and Cla68's assertions above - you don't get to weasel things into an article just by planting them in an online tabloid. Reliable sources can be discussed, The Register is unreliable in this instance, not only because it repeats the harassment meme that Bagley invented, but that is a factor. This is a WP:BLP article, and evenm if it weren't, openly polemical sources like the Register piece would have to be treated with extreme caution. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dan's point and mine (and with respect, neither of us is talking bullshit, given that what we're saying is a one-click-away verifiable fact) is that you apparently can weasel things into an article just by planting them in The Register, so long as the subject of abuse is Byrne and not Weiss.--G-Dett (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• You're more than welcome to remove Register-sourced crap form other articles as well. It's not a source for stock market activity or related stories. I checked Patrick Byrne, there's no Register sourced stuff there as far as I can see; I removed it from overstock.com per your comments her,e as you are right: it's not reliable there either. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I see it's already been removed from the Overstock/Byrne/Bagley articles. That leaves however thousands of other articles across Wikipedia; the demotion of The Register to non-RS status is, shall we say, a rather recent and sudden development.--G-Dett (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• A blog is a reliable source in respect of the blogger, and if the blogger has a provable authority it may be a reliable source in respect of certain other articles, if used with care. The Register is not a bad source for geek news, though of course if any particular story is challenged then it should be the responsibility of those seeking to link it, to achieve consensus for linking. If the Reg said there was a bug in Vista I'd be inclined to believe them, even if I would look for a corroborating source before informing my user base. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The link next to my name at the top of this section is from an en bloc reversion of blanking by a sock (User:Onomato), and was obviously not an endorsement of any of the several dozen links that were blanked by Onomato and reverted by me. So that is a distortion of my "position," pardon the expression, and not the first time from this user. What is being done here is an attempt to personalize the discussion as yet again the Register article is dredged up, when it has been made quite abundantly clear that its use is obviated by WP:UNDUE and WP:NPF. So we do not even have to reach the point of determining the usability of the Register in this article under RS. Similarly, the commentary about whether Bagley being bad or good and whether that should influence our decision making is totally superfluous. Bagley's heinous conduct is simply icing on the cake. He could be an absolute doll and would not make any difference. The fact that various editors point out that he is not a doll is neither here nor there.--Samiharris (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe we are wasting so much time on tabloid gossip planted by anti-Wikipedia wankers. What is really going on here?--Cberlet (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That is because it is not for us to pre-suppose unethical journalism in a publication just because a subject of their article has caused trouble here in the past. And please do not throw around such unproductive name calling. Joshdboz (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the question here should really be, "Why do some admins and editors, at this juncture, still hold the belief that they have total control over what goes into this article?" Cla68 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the question is at what point is this a gigantic waste of time. The issue is not intent. The issue is outcome. The outcome here is that a tremendous amount of time and energy has been wasted because of a tiny circle of jerks planted malicious misrepresentations in a tablid gossip rag, and then manipulated the situation so that some admins and others here on Wikipedia have facilitated their efforts. How stupid are we? How willing are we to allow our community to be screwed over? --Cberlet (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pot! Kettle! Black! --Leon Pringle (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The NYTimes is a tabloid gossip rag? They might have an issue with that statement. As for the other sources mentioned for the text under discussion, NYPost, Bloomberg, and the Register, they are all used throughout Wikipedia as sources. Are you going to the talk pages of all those other articles in which they're used and making the same "tablid (sic) gossip rag" assertion? If not, you better get started, it might take you awhile. I hope you have the patience for it, in spite of the statement below implying that you don't. Cla68 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that is a helpful or constructive comment, Cla68? I don't. In fact, I'm certain it's not; it's an oblique personal attack on trusted members of the community trying to improve this mess in good faith. I suggest you take on that view yourself and apply more than a little of latter. There's been too much disruption of the project coming from some on these pages already I'm not going to watch it devolve into biting and incivility. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all sources are created equal. Discretion is always called for when determining which sources to rely upon. And Chip is right about some here wasting the community's time and patience here; there are limits to both. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Register's piece on "The bizarre world of Patrick Byrne's Overstock" was added to Patrick M. Byrne in 2006, and retained through Mantanmoreland's edit-warring. Sami has been vigilantly editing the article since March of this year and has never had an issue with it on any grounds, WP:BLP or otherwise, and indeed he restored it in the mass revert noted above. If he is now claiming that it isn't his position that the source is adequate and policy-compliant, then the distortion is his. The allusion to my previous "distortion" of his positions is equally spurious; he's referring to my polite requests for a clarification of his statement that "articles that reference Bagley's smears" can't be cited, regardless of the source; polite requests which met with insulting non sequiturs and breathless tirades about harassment. Notwithstanding the persistent accusations, the problem here has little to do with strife between editors; it turns rather on the problem of how to maintain NPOV in a situation where a siege mentality has set in.

There is no question that Bagley (and by extension, his boss Byrne) have abused various Wikipedia protocols to pursue an agenda, thereby enraging a number of longtime editors. While the rage is understandable, the jettisoning of NPOV is not a proper response. The fact is that both Weiss and Bagley/Bryne have websites largely devoted to destroying the other's reputation. The media has occasionally covered the feud, and the New York Times even went so far as to say Weiss had made a "second career" out of attacking Byrne.--G-Dett (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, that constitutes a clear personal attack on Sami. This campaign has become disruptive. Knock it off. I've removed the personal attack. FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Describing my contributions as a "campaign" is unwarranted and insulting, Felonious. Sami has attacked me incessantly on this page, and I've kept my cool in the face of it. What you just deleted, moreover, was not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. Admin privileges or no, I suggest you back off.--G-Dett (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And my point is that the outcome is once again we are fighting amongst ourselves while the miscreants cull more text for cybersnickering.--Cberlet (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is definitely some merit in that view. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"I suggest you back off" You sure that's the tone you want to take here? You're not making yourself look reasonable. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you restore what you deleted, as it was germane to the discussion and didn't constitute a personal attack. If you refuse, I suggest good-faith editors participating in this discussion read the diffs and take the deleted remarks into consideration for the purposes of ongoing discussion.--G-Dett (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks and you'll have nothing to complain about. Spreading the disruption by fanning the flames is not the right response for anyone interested in serving the community's best interest. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Felonious, what you deleted was germane to the discussion; indeed it was the very heart of the NPOV problem as I see it. There was a very mild ribbing of editors who are "dazzled" by Weiss and "enraged" by Bagley, but even that remark was substantively on-point, and its small sarcasm was set plainly within the context of an acknowledgment of what a pain in the ass Bagley has been. Sami has been baring his canines at me throughout this discussion, and my reciprocating nips and barks have been delivered with the feathery-light mouth of a suburban golden retriever. You showed bad judgment in deleting relevant remarks and issuing one-sided warnings; and you rather compounded the error by claiming on AN/I that I had made a "threat" when clearly I have done no such thing.--G-Dett (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm certianly not "dazzled" by Weiss, I've never met the man, never exchanged emails with him and wouldn't know him form a hole in the ground. On the other hand, I will freely admit to being if not enraged then certainly disgusted by Bagley. His vile smear campaigns against people he dislikes are simply not the kind of thing that earns my respect. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Bagley party. Now, can we please talk about NPOV? Can we agree to make Wikipedia articles touching on the law offices of Weiss, Bagley, and Byrne at least as neutral and professional in tone as, as...I don't know, say, the Wikipedia articles on Satan and Jesus Christ? How 'bout it, can we do that?--G-Dett (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If I can ask, why is the Register labeled all over as a bad source, or not a valid source as a tech rag, but is an acceptable source or external link on that Byrne article? Lawrence Cohen 04:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Some IP had removed it earlier. I've gone ahead and removed the Register story from there that was linked as well, about the mail lists. Will post an update there. If one article isn't a reliable source on one article, theres no reason it would be acceptable on another. Lawrence Cohen 07:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough

The actions of a few from these page have risen to the level of attracting the attention of many admins who were not involved in the initial content dispute. We've seen too much disruption of the project coming from supposed newbies, SPAs and some established editors that should know better at these articles which appear to be conducting campaigns to promote a particular viewpoint and creating drama when stymied. Continuing to disrupt the project by spreading and escalating drama is not going to fly. There are other admins who will be watching for any more drama coming from these editors and willing to enforce WP:DE moving forward.

I suggest all parties step back from this article for 48 hours to let things cool down. Seriously. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Would like to respectfully draw your attention to the fact that no editing has happened on the page itself for last few days. What is happening so far is a discussion on the talk page. Please don't use the threat of WP:DE when no editing has been done by anyone. As someone who would like to see this page become NPOV, I recommend the following:

1. Everyone who ever had a say on this page so far step back.

2. Start an RFC from all other editors and let only folks who never spoke on this issue study and comment on how to improve the article.

3. All of us should accept the recommendations from these non involved parties.

Currently I see the problem as that we all have become too involved and our egos are coming in the way of moving forward.

TwakTwik (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a problems with outside admins? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Cool Hand Luke 07:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

All I am suggesting is for admins who are not involved in the discussions so far to resolve it. The problem I see is there are few admins and editors who have become too attached to Gary Weiss ( positively and negatively) and are unable to think clearly. The discussion just below does seem lot more balanced and promising. TwakTwik (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed section - can we collaborate on something?

I think there is an NPOV way to deal with Weiss being a critic of overstock.com and Byrne (which is true and, I think, as noteworthy as the other examples from his career). And we can do this using only reliable sources (i.e. NOT The Register, which I think should not be used as a source for anything at all relating to either side of this argument).

The NYT blog post is a good source, though written in a breezy tone. Quoting it alone in reference to Bagley's claims could easily be a problem of "undue weight", i.e. if our article makes it sound like this is a simple internet flame war with a "he said / she said" war of questionable claims on both sides. But what we have in reliable sources about Judd Bagley can be repeated to some extent here, so that readers here will understand the nature of the claims coming from Bagley: "Bagley had previously created similar websites which had been condemned as "crazy and profane attacks" and "conspiracy propaganda" at The Motley Fool, an online investing website.[25]"

Could we work on a compromise version here? The idea is to write the paragraph so that the reader can understand (a) that Weiss is a critic of Overstock.com and that (b) as a result of this, Overstock launched an "attack site" against Weiss and that (c) Weiss of course denied the things claimed there and (d) this whole thing fits into a bigger story about Bagley's career (the Motley Fool example, but there are others I suppose).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone on my talk page claiming to be the CEO of Overstock.com (and I have no idea if this is true or not) complained there claiming that "Overstock launched an 'attack site' against Weiss" is not true. I went back to check the source, and I am unclear just what part of that is supposed to be untrue, but in any event, I offer the following clarification: Point (b) can be fleshed out as "According to the New York Times, Overstock's director of Social Media created a website devoted to attacks on Weiss." If Mr. Byrne has a problem with that rendition, he is welcome to post it on my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On what basis exactly is "The Motley Fool" a reliable source where "The Register" isn't? And for that matter, what is your basis for assuming that it is not a "he said / she said" flame war with questionable claims on both sides? Bagley may have had similar disputes with other people, but the same can be said for Weiss. And what's with this different wording: Weiss is a critic of Overstock, but Overstock launched an "attack site" against Weiss. You might as well turn this around and say Overstock is a critic of Weiss and Weiss launched an attack site against Overstock. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it transparently obvious that The Motley Fool is a reliable source and The Register is not. We could discuss that further if you like, but it seems a waste of time to waste a whole lot of energy on it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to you it is also transparently obvious that you are the sole founder of Wikipedia. To me, the Motley Fool is transparently full of pure subjective opinion - written in the first person. It doesn't even make a pretense of being objective journalism. It's like a blog. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"I think it transparently obvious that The Motley Fool is a reliable source and The Register is not. We could discuss that further if you like, but it seems a waste of time to waste a whole lot of energy on it." That is a rather remarkable statement. You approve of the reliability of one source and dismiss the reliability of another on no further basis than that it it "transparently obvious". The Register happens to be one of the world's most popular IT newssites. While popularity, of course, is not necessarily a guarantee of accuracy, to me it is a reach to dismiss it as "transparently obviously" unreliable. You might be able to say that of a rant-filled flyer distributed on the street by someone. I have been reading the site for many years, and find it consistently informative, with an irreverent tone. Some writers here seem be confuser by that tone, and draw from it the conclusion that the site is "tabloid" in character, which is a mistake.

One of the things The Register is irreverent about is the Wikipedia, and has been a consistent and aggressive critic of this site. To me, it is "transparently obvious" that this is what drives you to dismiss its credibility out of hand. Personally, I have been trying to keep an open mind about Wikipedia, and as my edit history will show, have contributed a fair amount in the couple of years I have been editing it. However, stories like this, and the reaction to them by the Wikipedia, have caused me to lose a big chunk of my confidence in the bona fides of the inner circle, and in the integrity of the dispute resolution mechanism.

The main question here is no longer the proper way to edit a biography article. The main question is starting to be: what are the innermost mechanisms of Wikipedia dispute resolution, how transparent are they, and who really controls them? The questions raised by the article in the Register cannot be dismissed with a facile handwave such as your "transparently obvious" snub.

Indeed, the believability of Wikipedia depends on the ability of the bulk of its contributors to remain as objective, neutral and calm as possible in the face of people and ideas they do not like. That, of course, is a superhuman requirement, and I have started to doubt that given human nature, the sort of semi-anarchy that is the Wikipedia editing process is the best way to produce a collaborative encyclopedia. (What would be a better way is the subject for another discussion, though.) Teemu Leisti (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Motley Fool is certainly a reliable source about investing/analysis. The Register, not so much. However, I agree that the reliable sources do indeed make it sound like "he said / she said." Cool Hand Luke 18:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Certainly"? Not to me. Do you have a reliable source for it being a reliable source (or The Register not being one)? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In the area of investing, the Motley Fool is one of the best-known names, having thousands of paid subscribers to their newsletters, hundreds of staff, and years of experience. I think the Register could have some credibility for technology, but they won't have comparable chops judging whether naked shorts are a serious problem or a reckless conspiracy theory. Most investment analysis has been quite negative toward Byrne and Bagley's claims of conspiracy, although the question about the propriety naked short selling is unresolved (see Hedge World article below). Cool Hand Luke 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Being one of the best-known names, etc. does not establish reliability. Wikipedia is also very well known, but not a reliable source. The whole field of investment advice is largely alchemy anyway. Monkeys typically fare better than those "analysts". If most comment has in fact been negative toward Overstock, then this can be mentioned if there are multiple independent examples of such, and so long as no one finds a counter-example of positive comment. But in any case, the issue here is not just about the naked short-selling per se. Bagley's allegations against Weiss should be mentioned in this article, seeing that they have been reported on by The Register and, if true, put the neutrality of the whole article in question as being written by Weiss himself. Of course those allegations should be directly and openly investigated, but apparently Weiss has been given a free pass because Bagley has been identified as the "bad guy" and now Jimbo & Co. can't admit that he may actually be right about Weiss. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No one is "Jimbo & Co," and certainly not me. In fact, I get the distinct impression that I'm one of the regular users who should "know better" referred to above. I don't have an agenda here—I just want to get the article right as we must per BLP.

The Motley Fool is absolutely a reliable source when it comes to investment analysis. We're not to judge whether analysts are even experts—it might be alchemy, but that's not our debate to resolve or even have. Reliable sources indicate that they're respected authorities in the field, and that's what we must use as an encyclopedia. We would certainly be willing to attribute them for something like "Motley Fool picked Overstock.com as the worst stock for 2007[13]" However, it looks like this article is very editorial in nature, and I don't think it cuts mustard for BLP claims. In parts it looks like a message board moderator's post. I didn't previously look at it, but you're probably right. Cool Hand Luke 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but note that it's not a blog post (if it was, I would be more hesitant to include it). It was published January 20, 2007, section C page 5. Cool Hand Luke 07:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then I think that you need to add similar language to Patrick M. Byrne, which makes no reference to ASM. It is surely at least as relevant to Byrne as to Weiss. Also I think that this bio is going to have to be expanded, as I am still troubled by the WEIGHT issue, unless this is to be a brief mention. There doesn't seem to be much appetite for expanding this article, except of course to add the Bagley material.--Samiharris (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-Register sources

Incidentally, a publication called Hedgeword.com wrote a story on this very NYT piece. It looks independent to me, but I don't know about the publisher. Still cached by google here Have we already discussed this? I think it helps establish WEIGHT for his views on naked shorts and Byrne, at the least.

Have we also discussed the Fort Worth Star-Telegram piece? Mark Cuban "stepped right up to the edge of accusing" him of editing wikipedia. August 28, 2006:

Cuban, critics escalate feud

Mark Cuban escalated his blogging feud over Sharesleuth.com with two critics last week. Sharesleuth, which Star-Telegram reporter Heather Landy wrote about on Aug. 13, was created to publish investigative reports with a twist: Cuban is aiming to make money by trading in the stocks the site investigates. Cuban took a short position in a company called Xethanol, the target of Sharesleuth's first report, which appeared Aug. 7, before he announced his plans for Sharesleuth.

The critics, Gary Weiss and Jeff Jarvis, had already gotten Cuban's attention by calling Sharesleuth's business plan unethical. So Aug. 21, the Dallas Mavericks owner devoted 600-plus words to questioning Jarvis' ethics even as he declared, "I usually try to stay away from Blogwars" and "I couldn't care less what he has to say." Then on Tuesday, he stepped right up to the edge of accusing Weiss of editing Cuban's Wikipedia entry. Cuban said he made his own fixes on his entry, then someone with the username "Mantanmoreland" came right along and unfixed the fixes. Of course, Cuban also wrote that "little 'Wikiwars' are inconsequential in the big scheme of things."

Cuban's site is www.blogmaverick.com. Weiss is at garyweiss.blogspot.com, Jarvis at buzzmachine.com. The witty repartee will transport you back to the elementary-school playground, except there are no teachers around to end recess.

I think that this is the kind of idle speculation that BLP must exclude, but if there is other coverage (that doesn't merely "up to the edge of" accusations), it might not be undue weight in my view. I'm just tired of seeing the same lame sources and arguments. Cool Hand Luke 07:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the chronology, Cuban probably got his suspicion from ASN; I severely doubt it was his independent conclusion. The timeline on an earlier version of ASN says that Cuban was "alerted" to the edits, presumably by Bagley. Cool Hand Luke 07:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly a closed loop from ASM.--Samiharris (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of accusations of Wikipedia editing, between the NYT, the followup from Hedgeworld, and a motely of other sources (WSJ blog, all of Weiss's own posts), I think we can add the "critic of Byrne" line. Now Samiharris, I think you have to understand that references to ASM are in no way meant to give credibility to Bagley's attacks or undue weight. However, when you have the NYT and Hedge World writing about the dispute, and a multi-page expose in The Register (yes, it may be a tabloid, but much closer to NYT than the The National Enquirer), the site becomes news in itself, which is intimately connected to Weiss. Such information would be added to this article not as "criticism", for which there are very stringent and appropriate guidelines, but as an event of enough significance that it has showed up in major publications. Joshdboz (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's in the realm of a distinction without a difference. At bottom the ASM attacks are criticism and quite a bit more than that, and by definition by a tiny minority: the management of Overstock.com. That puts it out of the article under BLP [14]:

"The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics; rather, it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article."

What's troubled me about this from the beginning is that this is not ordinary criticism, actually a step lower, in being a personal attack of a peculiarly petty and nasty kind. In other words, a "smear." The term is indeed used in the Antilla piece, the most comprehensive source we cite, to characterize ASM. It is also characterized in that article as a "creepy" campaign. I think that makes this "criticism" section of BLP stand out as applicable in this situation, along with the usual caveats of "do no harm" etc. etc. In addition to this, I am also troubled by the tactics that Bagley has used to try to get his way in this article. The very fact that we are having this conversation is a reflection of that. It concerns me that Wikipedia is giving extra attention to this bio and is being pressured to ignore BLP by outside sources, and it gives me the, pardon the expression, "the creeps." --Samiharris (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we're not talking about the Wikipedia sockpuppet accusations (at lease I assume we're not). As Jimbo outlines, we would just be reporting his criticism of Overstock and their anti-naked short campaign. Plenty of commentators have called his views critical. It's not a minority POV at all. Hedge World even adds analysis drawn from his book and believes Weiss criticism is very important among hedge funds (that makes sense, because hedge funds managers are practically the ones who can engage in naked short selling). We don't have to rely upon ASN or the Register to conclude that Weiss is critical of these things. Cool Hand Luke 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to the criticism of/attacks on Weiss by Overstock. Weiss's criticism of Overstock etc. is, as you point out, definitely not a minority POV.--Samiharris (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Samiharris, I am now fully convinced (and was always except for the Wikipedia editing report in the beginning) that any accusations originating from ASM (and/or relayed through the press) have no place in this article without further mainstream sources of verifiable information. However, there is a distinction in reporting the actions of a critic when it garners such attention without giving any credence or undue weight to the accusations. If we can't agree on that for the time being, that's fine, but we can surely all agree on what Luke just noted, that Weiss is a well reported critic of Byrne - then I think we can call it a day. Joshdboz (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I totally follow you, but yes on your final point, he most definitely is reliably reported as a critic of Byrne. That certainly is a neutral fact and not in dispute. I'm glad you understand why this business is troubling to myself and other editors.--Samiharris (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So can we agreee on this proposal with the additional Hedge World ref? Joshdboz (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the text is agreeable but not the three cites you propose. The Times column item subsection is just a snippet, negative and gossipy in tone and not analytical. All you need is the WSJ piece as a cite. We can add the Antilla one[15], which is more analytical and is the most detailed assessment of the Bagley situation, but that is not necessary either to establish that point. --Samiharris (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think Antilla's a good citation for the Bagley situation, why not cite it in connection to that? I disagree with excluding the Times. The Times column was actually published as a news story in a reliable publication. The Hedge World snippet shows that his opinion on naked shorts actually matters, and it actually articulates his (pro-short) position. The Antilla op-ed, in contrast, documents the mudslinging and quotes emails, but it doesn't show that this is Weiss' reasoned position, which transcends the Overstock spat. I wouldn't be opposed to any four of these cites (Times, WSJ, Antilla, Wedge World), I just think the Times cite goes much farther in establishing WEIGHT. It moreover strives for a neutral position, which the op-ed does not (by definition). Cool Hand Luke 18:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that one is an "op-ed" and the other is a "news story." They're both columns. The difference is that Dan Mitchell's "What's Online" column. is a kind of gossipy, breezy, quick-hit compilation of what is available online, published every Saturday, while by contrast Antilla is a respected and notable author and commentator on financial matters. Her columns appear sporadically, are more nuanced and I think meet the analytical requirements in this sensitive BLP situation, whereas the Times piece does not. But since what is being proposed here just adds the simple thought that Weiss is an Overstock critic, I don't see why we need a cite linking to the Bagley situation at all. The WSJ blog is sufficient for that limited purpose.--Samiharris (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is an opinion piece. She expresses a clear opinion on Byrne, while the Times piece carefully avoids editorializing. Hedge World even credits its neutrality. At any rate, because it was Jimbo's suggestion to use the source, so I'll include the passage with all four citations unless someone objects. Cool Hand Luke 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Times piece contains pejorative language concerning all concerned. See my post below for a fuller explanation of my concerns.--Samiharris (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. The Times article does not look like a Bagley regurgitation to me. Cool Hand Luke 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

All the pieces, not just the Times, are conduits for Bagley's meme. That is what concerns me about linking to any of them, when we have a non-Bagley article that can be linked. --Samiharris (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorial decisions should not be made on the basis of a desire to either promote or suppress any particular meme. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What would be the problem with including all 4? The WSJ blog, while includig the relevant fact, is only a brief mention, and I think in the name of proving weight the additional sources would be necessary. Joshdboz (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the weight issue on this rather innocuous sentence, and the WSJ blog is sufficient for that. My preference, in the interests of "do no harm," is to exclude links to Bagley meme regurgitations wherever possible. There are worse BLP situations believe me (details on request), but I think this one is sensitive enough, and has been a subject of such intense outside pressure, that we should bend over backwards in favor of caution.--Samiharris (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly is the Wikipedia "No Links to Bagley Meme Regurgitations" policy, and does it outrank NPOV? *Dan T.* (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that Jimbo has set some ground rules for this content dispute. Although I don't agree with all of his rules, I'm accepting them in the spirit of compromise. I've also decided not to take further part in the discussion here, because I think enough concerned outside editors are here to finish the job. I would also encourage Samiharris to take a step back and let these other editor's "new eyes", who don't seem to be as emotionally involved as me or him, finish the work here. Cla68 (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

However, while I'd not object to that sentence being added, since trolling remains a problem in this article and talk page, I would not favor removing protection for the time being.--Samiharris (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I don't see too much of any trolling on the main page. All I see is this reasonable effort: [16] which was unilaterally reverted by JzG who then locked down the page. I also don't see much trolling on this talk page either, and notice that I, for one, am not calling comments that are opposed to my past positions trolling, as you appear to be doing. This shows why you need to join me in removing yourself from this discussion, because you're obviously too emotionally involved in this content dispute. I'll ask you again, please step off and let these other editors take care of this, which I'm confident they can do. And a note to the other editors, once you have text that you agree on, I would suggest asking Jimbo on his talk page to remove the page block so that you can add the text, that way you shouldn't have to worry about your request being ignored. Cla68 (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The editor who linked us to the HedgeWorld piece, at the start of this section, said he's not familiar with the publisher thereof. Just as a matter of interest, HW is part of Lipper, which in turn is part of Reuters. --Christofurio (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bagley memes

Samiharris, I'm really sorry, but I disagree. Verifiability is a foundational tenet of this project. The Times is considered a reliable source, and at least one other source confirms the story's weight. In contrast, killing "Bagley memes" is not a foundational tenet of this project. I agree that we should exclude sources that seem like pulpits (like the Register), but the the Times article is not such a source, and is pointedly more impartial than the Bloomberg op-ed. I think we should act like an encyclopedia and follow reliable source without fear that they've been intangibly poisoned by the psychic presence of Judd Bagley. Cool Hand Luke 03:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why we have to link to Bagley's smears in sourcing this sentence. It just doesn't seem necessary, with the WSJ article being available. We can bend over backwards to do no harm without violating any basic tenet of this encyclopedia. However, as I said, I'm not against adding that sentence, which is the main thing. So why not add it? The cites are not major things, and you do have my view on that, so we do not have a "failure to communicate" (my apologies to the origins of your user name).--Samiharris (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What smears are you talking about? The NYT article is no attack piece. Why would a blog post summarizing a blog post be a better source than the New York Times business section, page C5? If the cites are not major things, why do you oppose something that establishes WEIGHT? How about this compromise: we cite, but do not link, the story. That would avoid giving recognition, but still be verifiable (if against our guidelines). Cool Hand Luke 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is a good compromise. --Samiharris (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should breaking our guidelines ever be considered a "good compromise"? *Dan T.* (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a low level WEIGHT concern, and Samiharris has a low level BLP concern. I think that this is article has had enough drama, and that omitting one convenience link helps put it to rest. Besides, technically speaking I got the article and its page cites from lexisnexis, so should name that as my source. Cool Hand Luke 05:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this on the principal of compromise, but that is simply going one step too far. That would be a deliberate degradation of the quality of Wikipedia in terms of transparently showing where we found and verified our information. If someone follows the link, just like any other link on this site, they understand that they are leaving Wikipedia and may encounter views and the like that do not conform to Wikipedia policy. Joshdboz (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

All the articles linked can be found in Overstock.com, so it is not as if they are being suppressed. I think that is a sensible way of dealing with BLP concerns. Besides, we are talking about, I believe, all of one link. --Samiharris (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A link to the New York Times, not an "attack site" (however you define it). Any attempt to treat this differently from any other relevant source is a violation of NPOV, and seems to be a revival of the discredited BADSITES principle, only carried to a more ridiculous extreme (since I don't think earlier rounds of BADSITES ever attempted to apply it to the Times). *Dan T.* (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your BADSITES jihad. My concern is BLP. The Times article is linked in Overstock.com. Please don't disrupt the conversation by raising irrelevant issues. --Samiharris (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sami, if you can't be reasonable in spite of the polite but pointed rebuttals of your argument by the majority of other editors here, then please take a break from the article. This is the third time that I'm asking. Cla68 (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless of who is guilty or innocent of what, since that is the job of reliable sources and not Wikipedia editors to decide, if this "meme" is covered by reliable sources, why wouldn't standard Wikipedia policies apply to it for coverage? If a man goes on record for years saying that Dan Quayle is a secret agent from Saudi Arabia, and eventually the news media begin to cover on and document allegations that Quayle is "working" for the House of Saud, why wouldn't we cover it if the allegations received multiple coverage from reliable sources...? Ditto for Bagley, Weiss, or anyone else. Why would this article get some special dispensation that violates RS and NPOV? Lawrence Cohen 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My concerns relate to NPF and WEIGHT, as I indicated previously so I don't want to repeat myself. I think that Bagley's attacks (his "meme" or whatever you want to call it) also fall under the aegis of the "Criticism" section of BLP, as they represent a tiny minority point of view that should be excluded from the article entirely. Probably "personal attacks" is a clearer expression to use that the technobabble "meme." There is a concerted outside effort to link to Bagley's personal attacks on this non-notable journalist, one that I feel should be resisted. BLP should not be waived because some CEO wants it to be, and has an obsession with this journalist and this project.--Samiharris (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that BLP needs to be iron-fisted with possible attacks, I've been fighting with a few people in spurts on Megan Meier suicide controversy in this regard. I'm just concerned that even ludicrous things, if they become notable enough on their own, shouldn't be excluded from any mention. If this stupid meme or attack ends up getting Register, New York Times, New York Post, USA Today, and CNBC coverage, for example, it would soon appear that if we excluded references to it that we were protecting Weiss or other BLP subjects in favor of non-negotiable policies like NPOV. That's my only worry. If something gets too notable, it needs to be reported, even if it's just stupid. Lawrence Cohen 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, it is important to point out that this whole meme or whatever is already described in full, with all the cites we discuss here, in Overstock.com. It has an entire section to itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overstock.com#AntiSocialMedia.net. It has been there for some months now, a stable version. The issue now is whether to insert references to it in a non-notable BLP under extreme outside pressure. That pressure is evident on this very talk page and on Talk:Jimbo Wales, where the CEO of Overstock has weighed in.--Samiharris (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Final proposition

This is the last paragraph in the Gary_Weiss#Recent_career section:

Weiss has also been a contributor to The New York Times op-ed page and to Salon, writing on such topics as executive pay and public ownership of newspapers. He also has been critical of the treatment of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, opposed astroturfing, argued against Wal-Mart's new venture in India, and criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne and his campaign against naked short selling.

Can we please finally agree on this? The NYT is essential because while the Hedge World piece summarizes it, it doesn't come out and say directly that Weiss is focusing his criticism on Byrne; rather, it gets caught up in the Bagley dispute. WSJ is appropriate for verification but not for weight. The Antilla piece [17] implies Weiss is a critic, but does not state so directly. Out of all of them, the NYT is actually the most Weiss specific. Joshdboz (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a compromise. It is a reiteration or hardening of your original position and is actually worse from my perspective as it excludes two cites. CoolHandLuke offered a genuine compromise and I think that he should implement it. In fact, I may be mistaken but I believe you favored using all four cites. Also I object to your language "final proposition." You're not buying a house, and this is not the place for "final offers." This is a BLP, and the practice is to discuss proposed changes thoroughly, and to not act in haste. There is no rush here.--Samiharris (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I misunderstood you because you had at first said that the WSJ blog would suffice alone, but since several of us agreed on the necessity of the NYT to establish weight, I put both. The reason I said "Final" was not in any way to stifle discussion, but because I think we all agree on this general wording, it's just the citations in play. I don't mean to put words in other editors mouths, but it appears that I, Luke, Dan T, and Cla68 would prefer a link. And yes, this is compromise, because nothing related to Bagley or ASM is being mentioned, despite the fact that even Wales does not oppose that addition. Joshdboz (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but remember that numerical majorities don't really matter too much in BLPs. I'm still voting for removing the link for the Times story, and I'd like to get CoolHandLuke's take on this. I do favor his solution. I view that as a true compromise. My suggestion, given the high degree of outside pressure being exerted, is that protection continue for the time being so as to prevent edit warring and POV edits in this very sensitive NPF article.--Samiharris (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I still would not be opposed to omitting the convenience link as a compromise, but including it is my first choice, and it's our guideline's first choice. *Dan T.* has a strong argument about not intentionally degrading the quality of a footnote. I don't think this compromise will achieve a practical (stable) consensus, so we should probably stick to the WP:CITE guideline. The text looks good. I think the passage satisfies BLP. Cool Hand Luke 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Samiharris, the "true compromise" is that nothing is being mentioned about Bagley or ASM at all. I hope you can recognize that this solution has to be a give and take - you can't dictate all the terms for this article, and I mean that respectfully. Joshdboz (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A thousand editor-hours later, and the article (maybe) gets changed by 13 words that state that as an op-ed contributer to the NYT, Gary Weiss once criticized someone. And that needs 4 citations. I feel proud today... -Mangler (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the article according to what has generally been decided. I the convenience link is not viewable to the reader; instead I placed it in html comments for future editing reference. At least from my perspective, this issue in its entirety (including Bagley, ASM, and the link) should not be considered resolved, but this is a stable page that we can agree on. Joshdboz (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly on a stable consensus. WP:PRACTICAL. Cool Hand Luke 09:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

New York Times article

In hindsight, and re-reading all of this, I have re-activated the link to the article here that was already a source. Bagley, Weiss, whomever, can go stew in their own juices. Their conflict has no bearing on what we link to. As the New York Times is historically a wonderful RS, we have no valid reason to not link to them if we use them as a source for an article; it's a needed convenience for readers to review the article we source from on this "conflict". Our mission is not to "Stop Bagley", nor will it be to "Protect Weiss". Neither is acceptable. Our mission is to report on this, from reliable sources, in NPOV. Full stop. Anyone advocating our job is to stop the spread of Bagley memes or to be the Wikiknight protecting Weiss is on the wrong website. Go buy a blog. This applies to anonymous editors, and goes all the way up to Foundation-level people. NPOV is non-negotiable, as it is one of our foundational principles. Lawrence § t/e 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this talk page semi-protected?

This is especially weird becuase the article itself is not semi-protected. I propose we unprotect the talk page and semi-protect the article. Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there was no opposition, so I unprotected this talk page. Cool Hand Luke 06:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've unsemi'd the talk page again, after the last semi was already a month old. There is no reason, imho, to semi a talk page when there's such *little* traffic on it. I welcome having my mind changed on that.Wjhonson (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing concerns/request for verification

The reference on the sentence fragment "because Weiss believes it threatens the ability of short sellers to deflate pump-and-dump schemes, thus providing cover to the scam artists behind such schemes." seems to have little to do with the sentence it supports. The material shown on the web link only discusses pump-and-dump schemes insofar as it mentions microcap fraudsters twice.

Likewise, I find the claim that Weiss is criticial of any so called 'campaign' against naked short selling dubious. See this summary from the date of the pre-publication review, and Weiss's reprinting of the review in full (an internet archive copy is not available). The review makes it quite clear that Weiss is instead critical of Overstock's Patrick Byrne and his devotees, and all those who try to excuse falls in value as manipulation. John Nevard (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A previous version of the sentence ended "which Weiss believes to be a harmful diversion of regulatory resources" had the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/business/64172.htm) cited as a reference (not the same as the one on the blog, which was http://www.nypost.com/business/61964.htm). The sentence was changed, without the citation being changed, then later the fragment was removed (as "promotional" according to the edit summary) and added again after the citation. The citation that is now in the article was added a few months later. I agree, the sourcing of that part of the sentence needs to be checked as it is unclear whether it is original research or a clarification of what was in the New York Post (the most likely archive result is 9 April 2006, p.35: [18]). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like wording closer to "critical of claims of naked short selling" would be more appropriate. Weiss was critical of the naked short selling excuse before the current PR firm/ambo chaser campaign, and he will doubtless continue to criticize those who rely on it long after "for the grandmothers eating pet food" arguments disappear. John Nevard (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected request

{{editprotected}} Please wikify the first instance of Project Klebnikov. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Not done:. First instance is already wikified. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I had not realized that. Thanks for the response! Cirt (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Byrne and Weiss

Here is some new information in a reliable source that should be considered for the article in relation to Patrick M. Byrne's and Weiss' battle over Naked Short Selling:

• Metz, Cade, "Wikimadness XVII: The Return of Byrne", The Register, August 11, 2008. Covers Weiss' and Byrne's battle over Naked Short Selling and Byrne's allegations that Weiss was employing the User:Mantanmoreland account and its socks to try to control the subject in Wikipedia.

• Naked short selling is about to have serious restrictions imposed on it by the SEC [19], a victory for Byrne and a defeat for his nemesis, Weiss.

Please someone propose some text on the topic to be added below. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As was explained to you in Talk:Naked short selling, where you sought to add the same source, the Register is not suitable for inclusion as a source. I think that would be particularly so for a BLP such as this.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to a discussion at WP:RS/N that determines this, please, if you want your statement to be given credence. --Relata refero (disp.)

That's not necessary, as there is a centralized discussion of the use of this article in Talk:Naked short selling, concerning precisely the same source in precisely the same context. Here is a link for your convenience.[20]. There is general agreement with Jimbo that The Register is not suitable as a source for this and similar articles.[21]--Janeyryan (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For the second time: please review the definition of "centralized discussion" before misusing the term yet again. My request continues to hold. Please note that User:Jimbo Wales is not, as far as I know, the ultimate authority on reliability of sources. (Thankfully.) Nor do I see consensus in the thread you link. Nor is it a centralized discussion. Please link to a discussion at WP:RS/N that backs up your claim if you wish it to be given any credence. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And I would ask you to please not wikilawyer over the expression 'centralized discussion' or whether or not there is consensus that Jimbo should be considered a persuasive voice. If you are not persuaded, that is your privilege. The fact remains that there was a previous discussion concerning the Reg which ended in Jimbo's intervention and recommendation that the Register not be used for any of these articles. The fact also remains that there is a current discussion concerning this issue in Talk:Naked short selling, and that not a single editor apart from the person proposing the source, including yourself, spoke in favor of using it. --Janeyryan (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you do not wish to be corrected about misusing a commonly-understood phrase, please do not misuse it in a misleading fashion. (This applies equally to your misuse of the word "wikilawyering".) I note that your statement that the Register was "not suitable" is yet to be backed up with any discussion demonstrating consensus on the subject. Jimbo's suggestion, of course, is not consensus; I believe this does not need to be pointed out again? Perhaps you will now cease speaking as if a consensus exists. I note also that the discussion at Talk:NSS discusses whether the article is too non-academic, rather than on whether the Register itself is reliable, so perhaps you would like to alter your statements on this and other pages to match that. The strikeout tags are tenth from left in the row of blue buttons above the edit pane. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's suggestion, of course, is not consensus. No, but I think that it needs to be given more weight than you seem willing to give it. Again, I'd suggest that it makes good practical sense to argue out the usability of the Reg source where the most editors have gathered to discuss it, which is at Talk:Naked short selling. I don't see the point of further wiki-lawyering or semantic discussions as to whether this or that is a 'centralized discussion.' I doubt that the vast majority of casual Wikipedia editors would find their undergarments snared in a twist over that. The debate in NSS, apart from reliability, also concerned whether the Reg article was, as one put it, 'navel gazing,' which it is. The subject of the article is, in the main, a description of how Byrne wants an apology, and had made that demand via a post on the talk page here. This is 'navel gazing' in the extreme, and does not belong in the biographical article of a Byrne critic.--Janeyryan (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is a reason why centralized discussions are useful: they aid in the process of gathering uninvolved editors to comment. Your misuse of the term thus overstated the reasons against using the source, and thus pointing it out unfortunately cpntinues to be relevant. About your claim that a single user's suggestion should be given "more weight", I'd like to see a reason for that. I've given one above, but its clear that that's not applicable here. Of the remainder, I think your summary of the article is flawed. --Relata refero (disp.) 03:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice Janeyryan, that you're a new editor so you may not be aware of this tool [22], which shows that the Register is currently used as a source over 2,000 times throughout Wikipedia, indicating an institutionalized acceptance of the site as a reliable source. If you disagree, however, and you get support in that in the forum that Relata points you to above, then you better get busy removing all of those links. I think, unfortunately, that it's probably going to take you awhile. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You've got to believe that I'm sympathetic to this suggestion, but given the nature of Byrne's charge, navel gazing, and all the rest, I would prefer if we wait for a better source before we add it to this BLP. Perhaps another Reg article would be that better source. Right now, it's an unvarnished comment on Weiss, with some notes about how Byrne claims he was Mantanmoreland. Hell, I claimed he was, but this is not the sort of news story we would want on a BLP.

However, I think that the non-Weiss material is appropriate at Naked short selling; that article looks like a POV train wreck. Cool Hand Luke 00:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi or full unprotect for article

Following some discussion at my talkpage, I think there should be consensus here on the article talkpage on whether protection should be lifted - and if it is to be semi protected afterward. Perhaps further opinion may be sought, as well as the regular editors. I would be happy to enact consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should certainly be semi. I frankly think every BLP should be semi, but it adds an extra few day margin for articles, like this one, that have been haunted by socks. I think it's fine if we wait a while so that recent press coverage will not unduly distort the article with a presentest bias, but I think it should be lifted to semi within the next month or so. Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be semi. Just to make clear, also, that I won't be editing the article itself. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'll likewise quit editing the mainpage of this article (last edit was before the ArbCom). I think it's inappropriate for me to do so, for obvious reasons. I remember now that I promised myself that I wouldn't edit here after posting this chart. I have a single strong and unverified POV about this subject, and although I think I could edit in accord with our policies, even top-notch editing might give the wrong impression. I'm sticking to the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 01:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange this eagerness to lift protection after it just served its purpose, and prevented addition of questionable material to this non public figure BLP. I would think protection would be lifted in the absence of conflict, not during conflict. The underlying logic appears to be 'protection just did its job so let's lift it,' which to my mind is no logic at all. Given the outside, intense and professionally coordinated web attention, and the desire to lift protection by an editor desiring to add material of the kind just proposed, I think full protection is essential until the off-wiki campaign against this BLP subsides. Otherwise there will be periodic spasms of drama as occurs in other articles where outside attention directed at Wikipedia is present.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What off-wiki campaign? The only conflict I see on this page is.... --Relata refero (disp.) 21:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this user reminds me of Samiharris. SH was outspoken about this biography after everyone else kinda accepted the sources. I also note that this account was formed after Mantanmoreland's last sock was banned—which only happened after he miraculously slipped up in editing from a remote ISP, and only once.

Perhaps, given my views, we should actually full protect all of these pages. If we do that, we should have an understanding that admins should be free to make substantive edits (including good suggestions from the talk page). The point of such protection would be to simply enforce the ArbCom decision by keeping returning sockpuppets out. Thoughts? Cool Hand Luke 01:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see fully protecting the two BLPs in the 'NSS syndrome', but there is much clamoring for changes and updates to naked short selling.--Janeyryan (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that the current count is four to one that the protection level should be changed to semi. Cla68 (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi or ??? I thought all NSS related articles had already been unprotected. Sorry, didn't read subject header. Make that five to one.--Stetsonharry (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)