Talk:Gary Weiss/Archive 2

New York Times article about Weiss

Appearing as the subj of a NYT article is pretty notable, perhaps some of the admins/editors protecting the article page would like to incorporate this material. It would be an excellent supplement to the section on Weiss's book and commentary about Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne, and naked shorting. Here's the article with some details censored out as they are unmentionable:

"Flames Flare Over Naked Shorts"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/business/20online.html [removed copyvio] Piperdown 00:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't read the article because I didn't feel like paying the fee to do so, so I can understand why you posted the entire article here. Anyway, the NYTimes, is, of course, a major publication and if it's reporting on a severe and now public dispute between Overstock.com and Gary Weiss, then that merits at least a sentence about it in the article. Please be bold and add this article to the list of references, write a sentence or two about it in the text, and provide an inline citation to the source. Cla68 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

not sure how to incorporate this material, other than an "external link". Here's some of the text that applies to the subject of this article, and so as to not violate copyrights, here's a sample - I'll leave it up to other more skilled editors on how to incorporate it into the article -- that could help others determine what is relevant to include without having to pay the NYT to peek at it. Since this is pretty controversial, I felt it is better to post it in talk first and let editors decide what if any should go into the article.

---

By DAN MITCHELL Published: January 20, 2007, The New York Times (excerpts)...The site...is devoted to combing through message boards and other Web sites to present “proof” that Mr. Weiss misrepresented himself on Amazon, Wikipedia and other sites to promote his own books and settle personal scores....Beyond calling the accusations “lies,” Mr. Weiss hasn’t addressed most of the details of the site’s “findings,” though he denied having edited Wikipedia entries under a pseudonym. Instead, he pointed out that Mr. Byrne has himself posted under pseudonyms on various message boards...Weiss became especially exercised after The New York Post reported last week that the anonymous operator of {my ed: unmentionable} was Judd Bagley, Overstock’s director for social media. Calling Mr. Bagley “hideous” and a “nauseating spectacle,” Mr. Weiss lit into Mr. Byrne and his online lieutenant in post after post...

---

Piperdown 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that if someone wants to read the full article, they can just go back in the history for this page and click on the version that contained the full text (13 May 2007). The article is fairly critical of Overstock and Byrne, and neutral in it's reporting of Weiss' involvement. Thus, I don't think it should be a problem to use this article as a reference for a small section on the issue. I'll try to add a neutral, short section on the issue to the article in a short while. It might should also be mentioned in the articles for Overstock and Byrne. Cla68 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The website, not Byrne, had made the accusations against Weiss. I have fixed and added Weiss's denial from the Bloomberg article. Also have added details of far greater significance than this spat. As written, this section had put a pissing match with a CEO on a par with Project Klebnikov and Weiss's column in Forbes.com, which was not even mentioned. Also have added a link to Weiss' blog, as per WP:EL, but am not using it as a source.--Samiharris 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Sami. IIRC, the attack website in question also criticized reporter Susan Antilla, alleging that she should have revealed that she is married to a hedge fund manager. The problem? She isn't. When this was pointed out to the blogger in question, his initial response was to deny it, to claim that he had spent "thousands of moments on the internet" trying to find proof of her divorce.

When proof was shown him explicitly enough so that stonewalling like that seemed silly, he dropped the demand that she disclose her non-conflict from the non-marriage. Nice of him, eh?

Or are we talking about different attack websites? Anyway, Susan Antilla should probably get an article of her own. --Christofurio 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the same attack site, and I agree that it has been well handled by Samiharris. --Mantanmoreland 23:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that reads, "Weiss has been attacked by an anonymous website whose operator has admitted to being an employee of Overstock.com." doesn't appear to be true. The front page of that website identifies its owner and operator as Judd Bagley. Also, the NYT article did potray the conflict between Weiss and Byrne as a "pissing match," even comparing the both of them to 14-year-old adolescents. As rewritten, the section no longer reflects the mood of the article. Cla68 23:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times article accurately referred to the website as "anonymous" and as "anonymously written." That is correct. It is an anonymous website whose author was revealed by the New York Post to have been an employee of Overstock.com. I'm afraid that your version skipped over that rather significant point. As for the "mood" that you mention, I think that was a problem and that it has been corrected. It is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article to reflect the "mood" of one article, even a New York Times article. Certainly the "mood" of the Bloomberg piece made Overstock appear to be thuggish in that particular instance and Weiss as something of a hero. The current version provides appropriate weight to this issue and takes neither approach. Also, as Christofurio pointed out, what this essentially is about is the allegations of a non-notable website that is of the "attack" variety and appears not to be very accurate. --Samiharris 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As to your point about the current apperance of the website, that was evidently changed after the identity of the author was revealed by the New York Post. At the time the article was written, presumably, this was an anonymous website as stated in the Times article. I think that might be a point of confusion.--Samiharris 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, the section as written now points out that the site was anonymous until "outed" by the press. Anyway, the NYT piece characterized the conflict as a "vicious online conflict" between Byrne and Weiss, giving equal balance to their accusations and counter-accusations, although apparently giving somewhat more credibility to Weiss' position. That's what I've tried to reflect in the way I wrote the section. Cla68 00:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times article was apparently a quick-and-dirty, oversimplified "what's online" column. I think it needs to be read in conjunction with the Antilla piece, which quoted both parties and made it more apparent that what we have here is a corporate disinformation campaign. The Times article was somewhat labored in that it conjured up a dispute between Weiss and Byrne, when in fact Byrne was not the one on the attack here, but rather a website run by a surrogate. I think your initial misimpression was understandable and I am sure it was a good-faith error.--Samiharris 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting accurately what a source depicts isn't an "error" but the very way that we're supposed to conduct research from secondary sources. We're supposed to write what the sources are actually saying as much as we can, not what we think they should say. I read the Antilla piece and it much more takes Weiss' side in the conflict. I'll add a sentence or two reflecting her reporting to the section. Cla68 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You said in your original edit that Byrne had made the accusations against Weiss. That was an error, which I am assuming was made in good faith as the Times article said explicitly that the accusations were made anonymously by a website. I have reverted your insertion of those anonymous accusations. It is simply not fair of you to insert them here, as they are libelous in the extreme, and were made anonymnously. That simply is not fair to Mr. Weiss and appears to run counter to WP:BLP, which states that poorly sourced material should be removed. The source of this was an anonymous website whose author was revealed to be the employee of a company having a major axe to grind against this person. Additionally you say that the identity of the operator of this website was revealed by the New York Times. Not correct. It was identified by the Post. Lastly, you made a correct link incorrect.--Samiharris 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence from Antilla, although she is identified as a "columnist," not a reporter, which is an important distinction. I think it's ok to repeat the accusations becuase they're in a major source and are labled as accusations along with Weiss' response. Cla68 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you were correct to remove the allegations. While it is true that they were republished in a major source, they were originally published anonymously and that is, at bottom, poor sourcing under WP:BLP. I think that this is a good example of the principle "when in doubt, don't." --Samiharris 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be argued that Antilla's comments could be removed also, since it leans the text towards Weiss' side. I don't, however, have that much of a problem with it, since it is sourced correctly and doesn't misrepresent what she was saying in her column. Cla68 01:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is all right. What she is saying is in the realm of opinion, and it is not especially inflammatory. The anonymous allegations were clearly libelous, however. That is an important distinction.--Samiharris 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two tweaks. "Attack" is correct, not "criticize" and also I fixed the link. It kept getting changed back to an incorrect link.--Samiharris 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Byrne and Bagely aren't anonymous, and the article from the New York Times clearly cited who they were. And the reporter clearly stated that they are accusing Gary Weiss of some pretty unethical behavior for a Journalist/Author, and in return Weiss is accusing them of lying about him. It this all notable? It's certainly context for Weiss's comments on Byrne being used in wikipedia, and it's also the only major news media coverage of Gary Weiss in a year. This isn't from a blog, it's from the New York Times. If they are violating Gary's BLP rights, then imagine what Byrne must think about the New York Post, Joe Nocera, The Register, and Gary Weiss claiming they are qualified to issue psychological evaluations of a CEO who is pursuing some of their friends in court. Context is everything in accurate reporting and presenting a balanced article.Piperdown 02:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Byrne is not accusing anyone in the Times article. The accusations are entirely by an anonymous website whose author was identified by the media. Those accusations were anonymous personal attacks and were about as poorly sourced as you can imagine. They were indeed accusations of unethical conduct. That is my point. They were libelous personal attacks. I'm a bit perplexed by your comment that this was the "only major news media coverage of Gary Weiss in a year." As you can see by perusing the article, there were several other articles quoting Weiss, including one specifically relating to this issue by Susan Antilla, and I presume there were also book reviews. If you have an issue about BLP issues concerning Byrne, you should broach them on the talk pages of that article. I agree that there is a need for a balanced article, one free of libelous and poorly sourced material.--Samiharris 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly take the position, and it is a reasonable one, that Bagley is a surrogate or "cat's paw" of Byrne and that it is really Byrne engaging in these attacks. However, Byrne denies that and the article does not say so. So we are left with anonymous personal attacks that, lo and behold, turn out to be by an employee of Overstock.com, a company criticized by Weiss. In light of all the circumstances, I think this controversy is dealt with in a remarkably even-handed fashion in this article as currently written. It is dealt with in an appropriate amount of space and without violating Wikipedia policies.--Samiharris 03:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The source isn't the website. The source is Dan Mitchell of the New York Times. So what should be cited if anything is Mitchell. He is the reliable source in in this instance. No one is trying to use the unmentionable site as a source for wikipedia. Should we go down a layer and do orig research on every WP:RS that is used in BLP's? That would be interesting - where did The Register's reporter get a PhD in Pysch. to determine Byrne's mental health? Does Weiss have a qualifications to determine that Byrne is having a "meltdown"? Nocera is using him as a source - Nocera is a WP:RS, but are his sources? Every biography on here uses WP:RS's that themselves use anonymous sources, biased named sources, and a myriad of other COI's. All we can do is use those WP:RS's. If Mitchell is libeling Weiss, that is between him and the NYT. I'm sure Byrne feels that every negative source used on his wikipedia entry is "borderline libeling" him, but they are from WP:RS's, aren't they? Interesting game going on here with wikipedia rules and how to selectively apply them.Piperdown 03:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're so anxious to replicate a rather petty personal attack of the "smear" variety in Wikipedia. This is an attack on the character of a respected journalist, and it was made anonymously. I am surprised we are debating the inclusion of such an attack. It seems to me that any fair-minded editor would not sanction such material. It also troubles me as being a fly speck compared to the other material contained in this biography, of the same caliber as maintaining that Weiss cheats on his income taxes or takes bread from the store, and yet would be given the same amount of space as substantive material. Appearance of this material in the New York Times does not alleviate us, as Wikipedia editors, of our responsibility to not include libelous material in the project. Mr. Weiss may well have a lawsuit against the New York Times as well as Bagley, and perhaps Wikipedia as well if we include this material. None of the criticism of Byrne's actions and of his company have been of the same caliber as the petty character assassination that you seem to desire to include in this article.

The same issue came up in the Soros article pertaining to unfounded and unfair allegations that he somehow "collaborated" with the Nazis at the age of 14. Yes, these too were published in reputable publications but were not ultimately included in the Wikipedia article on George Soros. We should be proud of our attentiveness to excluding such material from Wikipedia and not zealously try to include it.Samiharris 04:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed we are having this discussion as well. See WP:LIBEL: "All contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." --Mantanmoreland 04:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed that editors that claim that all "defamatory" material to living persons should be removed yet add quotes about Patrick Byrne having a "meltdown" (ironically in this article) and use a piece from the Register about Byrne being "Bizarre", among other instances. Perhaps samiharris can apply these noble concepts of BLP editing to Patrick Byrne on the Patrick M. Byrne, Joseph Nocera, Overstock.com, and Naked short selling articles as well?Piperdown 05:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The three articles that we're discussing here (Antilla, Mitchell, and Boyd) used several terms to describe the purpose of Bagley's website. Boyd used: "levelling sharp charges," "launched bitter attacks," "accused," and "allegations." Antilla used: "attack." Mitchell used: "flame war," "bashing critics," and "accusations." Mitchell also said that Weiss "lit into" Byrne. You can use any of these phrases in the article, as long as they're sourced and they should be in quotations to show that they're someone's words.

One other thing, Samiharris, you're trying to have it both ways. You have an extremely weak argument for keeping negative opinions of Weiss' actions out of the article because they are from one of the biggest and most credible newspapers in the world and the opinions/accusations are clearly explained from who they come from and why. Yet, you want to keep Weiss' negative opinions of others in the article, using the very same sources and Weiss' blog. This and all the other associated articles (Byrne, Overstock, Naked Short Selling, etc) should clearly be able to repeat anything and everything from those three articles (Antilla, Boyd, Mitchell) as long as everything is sourced. That's how it works. Look at a few other BLPs here in the project and you'll see that that's the standard for inclusion, that it has to be from a major news source and be quoted in context, which is the case here. The online conflict between Weiss and Byrne is now "notable." Articles in the New York Times and New York Post, two of the largest newspapers in the United States, have made it notable. Now, our duty as project editors is to present the story, without spin. Cla68 06:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You made several misstatements here. I am not "trying to keep out Weiss's actions." On the contrary, my first edit in this article added material on Weiss's actions - his articles, his appointment as a Forbes columnist, all things necessary to build up this article as a biography. None of that interested you and the other editor in the slightest. You did not add relevant actions such as that. Both of you were singlemindedly fixated not on things that Weiss does but on things that he does not do -- on accusations made against him anonymously on a website whose author was revealed by the media to have been an employee of Byrne.

A source such as that is inherently untrustworthy and has only the slightest credibility. The continued efforts to insert this libelous detail is entirely unnecessary and also is prohibited by WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, as another editor pointed out. The fact that the New York Times repeated clearly libelous accusations against a private person that were made anonymously does not create an "aha!" moment for editors here. We cannot twirl our mustaches and say, "now we can insert the character assassination against this guy we don't like." We are still bound by WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP, and are duty-bound to realize that the sourcing of those accusations is not the Times but an anonymous blog authored by someone identified as having an axe to grind.

You also seize upon the "Weiss vs. Byrne" article and ignore that this article contains no statements from Byrne concerning Weiss. It implies, without saying so, that the anonymous website is a cat's paw of Byrne. As I have said several times, not only the Times article but none of the articles -- not a single one -- include statements from Byrne concerning Weiss. They are all between an anonymous website and what appears to be a large number of critics of Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne. Today I went to that website and lo and behold, the reporter from the New York Post who who we are citing in this section is a subject of attacks.

You and the other editor seem upset by off-Wiki attacks on Byrne, but that is not a reason to sanction allowing libelous material in this article. The "meltdown" comment is certainly not libelous. It is a comment on the actions of the CEO in attacking his critics, which was the subject of several articles in the New Yorkk Times. However, I don't have any objection to taking out that and the Antilla quotes as a compromise and to achieve consensus in this article. --Samiharris 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your full response and efforts to compromise. I don't have any problem with the way the paragraph reads now. But for the record, since this issue will probably arise again in the future as the press continues to follow this story, I'll give a full response to what you say above. In order to make sure I don't misunderstand or misrepresent you, I'll outline what I believe your argument is along with my response.

• 1. The accusations and allegations against Weiss are anonymous and thus inherently untrustworthy, only slightly credible, unnecessary, and prohibited by WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL irregardless of whether they've been mentioned in the New York Times or not.
  • Response: When accusations or allegations are made in non-credible sources, such as blogs or anonymous websites, then they do fall under WP:BLP and WP:Libel. That, however, is no longer the case here. The operator of that website has been "outed," by a major media organization (NY Post), confirmed by another (NY Times), and his name, Judd Bagley, is now prominently displayed on the home page of that website. The accusations are, therefore, no longer anonymous. Also, once allegations are discussed in credible news sources, such as the Times and the Post, it is considered permissible for them to be discussed in Wikipedia BLP articles. An example is the article on Clay Aiken. Editors of that article rightfully resisted any mention regarding rumors in blogs and message boards as to whether Aiken was gay or not. Once the rumor, however, was discussed by major news media, the rumor was rightfully allowed to be mentioned in the Aiken article, because it now met the "reliable sources" criteria of WP:BLP. By being discussed in the Times and Post articles, the allegations are now covered by a reliable source and can be mentioned along with clearly stating that they are allegations along with Weiss' response to them. As to whether it is "unnecessary" to mention them, I disagree. A key element in the story as reported by the Post and Times is the accusations and allegations exchanged between Weiss and Overstock's supporters.

• 2. Byrne never actually made any accusations or allegations of unethical behavior on Weiss' part, only Bagley did via his website.
  • Response: The Times article states that Byrne is "behind" the website. The Post article states that Byrne "supported and aided" the website. The two articles are thus strongly suggesting that Byrne is "behind" or "supports" the accusations detailed in Bagley's website. As long as this is explained in the article, then what the sources are saying is represented correctly.

• 3. Weiss' "meltdown" comment isn't libelous.
  • Response: Okay, but was that comment repeated in any major news source, or only in Weiss' blog? The use of quotes and information from blogs is covered under the BLP reliable sources policy, and has to be done very carefully. Other articles from major news organizations have mentioned Weiss' involvement in the naked short selling controversy with Overstock.com, and those sources can therefore be used to establish Weiss' opinion on Byrne's actions and motivation.

• 4. I'm singlemindedly fixed on the accusations and am upset by off-wiki attacks on Byrne.
  • Response: Remember, I was the one that added Antilla's comment to the article that were highly critical of Byrne's and his team's actions. My motivation is just to report the story as it is being reported in the mass media. The Times, Post and Antilla discuss both sides while being somewhat more critical of Byrne than of his critics. That's also how the story should be presented here and in the Byrne, Overstock, and any other related articles. Both sides need to be presented. If you look at my overall edit history in the project, you'll see that I try to do that in the numerous military history or Japan-related articles I edit. Same thing here. You are clearly advocating for Weiss' side in the matter. I'm advocating for both sides. The "off-wiki" attacks by Byrne (or his supporters) and Weiss on each other are a big part of the story here. I'd like it to be depicted neutrally, fairly, and completely. I hope that is your goal also and I look forward to working with you on this article as and if the story develops further in the future. Cla68 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks yr reply. I read the Clay Aiken article and could find no reference to his sexuality. In fact actually I think that this article supports my position fully. I went to the discussion page and found that apparently consensus was reached AGAINST using blog allegations of his sexuality in the article, despite having been repeated by the media. I refer to the archived discussion that can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clay_Aiken/Archive_13#gay_Clay. I'd like to draw your attention to the following point made by one editor:

"The point is not hiding the story, it is minimizing damage that false tabloid stories can do to a celebrity, and minimizing the libel exposure that Wikipedia has. Right or wrong, this sort of a story CAN damage a mans reputation. Which was the intent. Right now the world has passed by this story. Wikipedia is pretty much the only vehicle that there is any push to spread the gossip in- which is against Wikipedia guidelines. The article does refer to the stories exising. How much more damage should Wikipedia endorse? Note the caution above: " " This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Concerns relative to this policy can be addressed on the living persons biographies noticeboard." Tabloids are NOT a good source. You are trying to subvert the intent of Wikipedia using technicalities."[1]

I could not have expressed it better myself. Here you don't have tabloids of questionable veracity but something much worse, an anonymous blog run by a person with whom Weiss is in a dispute. It is hard to imagine a less credible source of information. Wikipedia should not be used to spread vicious rumors, for indeed that appears to have been the purpose of creation of the website by the CEO in question. Yes, I do not doubt it is run by him. The issue is now mentioned with appropriate citations and sourcing, but without spreading vicious rumors, as was obviously the intent of creation of the website.

I am glad that you agree that the wording is correct and am pleased that this is a resolution. The reason why I felt you and the other editor were singlmindedly focused on adding this libelous material was the content of the section that was added.[2] I was surprised when I saw this added section as it struck me as an odd addition considering what else could be added. I was aware of the Forbes column and was surprised that it was not mentioned. I imagine that my thinking at the time was, "Why are these people focused on this and not on adding biographical material of greater significance?" The talk page focus on this and some other comments made had influenced my view on this, but I am glad you clarified.

The "meltdown" quote was not from the blog. It was from the New York TImes article. There are no quotes from the blog in the article added by me. However, as was pointed out to me in editing another article and confirmed by an administrator in a note to me, the blog can be added as a link and can be used for personal information.

As for the off-wiki attacks of each side on the other, that can be reflected in the article without spreading vicious rumors planted by one or the other side.

Thank you again for your comment and I do hope to visit your articles on military history as that is an interest of mine as well. My personal interests are in finance and I am not a "Weiss advocate" as I read his book and disagreed with much of it. However, he is a respected financial commentator and people of good will can disagree.--Samiharris 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The sexuality information was in the Aiken article before but apparently has been removed. I should have checked it first. I can find other examples though, if needed. There are plenty. Anyway, I think we've come to an agreement and have explained our positions completely. Cla68 01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPF

I believe the following paragraph, which was removed from the article by User:Samiharris, doesn't violate WP:NPF:

“ Weiss has been critical of Overstock.com and its chief executive Patrick M. Byrne and has made critical comments about him in articles and in media interviews. Weiss and other Overstock.com critics, including other journalists critical of Byrne and Overstock, were attacked by a website whose anonymous operator was later revealed by the New York Post to be an executive of Overstock.com. ”

My reasoning is that the New York Times and New York Post are major, credible secondary sources and their reporting on the naked short selling disagreement between Weiss and Overstock.com definitely makes the issue part of Weiss' notability, especially since earlier in the article it mentions Weiss' outspoken opinions on the naked short selling issue. I invite comments from other interested parties below. Cla68 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "naked short selling disagreement between Weiss and Overstock.com." This is a smear campaign directed against persons perceived as antagonistic to Patrick Byrne. The New York Post article did not mention Weiss. We're talking about personal attacks, not a "disagreement."

WP:NPF says:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.

NPF clearly covers Weiss. That point was clarified by an administrator uninvolved in the editing of this article. Weiss is notable because of his books and articles on stock fraud, not because of the Overstock smear campaign. That commenced long after creation of this article in April 2006.

The Overstock smear campaign is relevant to the notability of Overstock.com,and it is certainly relevant to the article on Patrick M. Byrne, because he is behind this campaign and employs its webmaster, according to the articles cited. Yet his article does not even mention the smear campaign.

Even if NPF did not cover this person, this paragraph still could not be included. In dealing with content of this kind, referencing libelous personal attacks, there must be a strong consensus of the editors of a page, not just a consensus. That point was made clear in the George Soros article, which pertains to far less vicious attacks made over the national airwaves and covered by the media concerning a person of fame and notability not covered by NPF. In this instance, that is the Weiss article, there clearly is no consensus much less a strong consensus. --Samiharris 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The major portion of this paragraph is in Overstock.com, where it belongs. So what else is there to discuss? Naked short selling is not "part of Weiss' notability" any more than where he went to high school. It is mentioned in all of one sentence, a recent addition to the article I believe. There is no reason to hack through a hornet's nest of BLP issues.--Mantanmoreland 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ask the Experts

• Could someone please put a link to an Ask the Experts 2006 FSN interview http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/2006/Weiss.html Thank you. I am not a regular editor so I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newtonianscholarship (talk • contribs) 19:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not a notable website.--Samiharris 14:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AntiSocialMedia.net

The following section has been added to the Overstock.com article:

===AntiSocialMedia.net===

In January 2007, it was revealed that Judd Bagley, an executive of Overstock.com, was responsible for AntiSocialMedia.net, an (initially) anonymous website which attacked critics of Overstock.com. These included journalists, individuals who had criticised Byrne, and a mortgage broker who had aided reporters and federal investigators by finding old documents on the web. Its biggest target was journalist Gary Weiss, and at one point two Google ads had been purchased directing people who searched on Weiss's name to the site. It eventually was revealed that the site was run by Bagley; Bagley had previously created similar websites which had been condemned as "crazy and profane attacks" and "conspiracy propaganda" in mainstream investment media.

Patrick Byrne initially expressed public support of the site. Following identification of Bagley as the site's owner, Byrne stated that the site "receives support from neither myself nor Overstock", but reiterated his support for the site on First Amendment grounds. Bagley also stated that the site is run independently of Overstock.com.

Although this issue has been discussed somewhat above, the discussion at the Overstock.com talk page gives a fresh perspective that the issue with this website that attacks Weiss, among others, is notable. The above paragraph is well referenced by notable and credible sources including the New York Times and Bloomberg. I believe that a small section on the dispute between Weiss and Overstock.com executives and this website and its allegations, which have been reported on in the NY Times article, be added to this article. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on the wording here on the talk page. Cla68 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How long are you going to keep pushing this point, CLA68? It was discussed previously and disposed of, without any serious objection from yourself, on the grounds that this has no relevancy to Weiss's notability under WP:NPF. To be perfectly frank, I would be feeling less concerned if I had not become recently aware of your history of POV pushing in this article, on behalf of Judd Bagley, which was discussed in great detail in the RfC on your editing behavior that you recently concluded. I find it striking that you make no similar effort to insert this material in Patrick M. Byrne, which concerns a public figure and where this material is arguably of far greater relevancy to the notability of the person.--Samiharris 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with inserting the material in Byrne's article, because his name is also mentioned in the sources listed above. Checking the history of Byrne's article, I see that you've been very active in adding material to it, almost as active as you've been involved in removing material from this (Weiss's) article. So, please feel free to add the material to Byrne's article, you don't need permission from me to do so and I won't object. Anyway and unfortunately, we appear to be at odds on including the material in this article. Fortunately, there is a mechanism to help resolve this, and that's an RfC [3]. I'll wait for a week or so before opening an RfC to see if a consensus can be reached with other interested editors here first. Cla68 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you are so intent on adding these materials that you don't even bother to address the WP:NPFconcerns that are at issue here, but are already talking about starting an RfC.

What I have been "removing" in this article is efforts to insert material on the Overstock.com smear campaign that has been inserted persistently by interested parties: yourself, a supporter of Judd Bagley, and Judd Bagley, operating through a sockpuppet of User:WordBomb (banned edtor User: Piperdown). According to a member of the Arbitration Committee posting in your RfC, in the past you "aggressively supported" WordBomb (Bagley) in this article and elsewhere[4]. I was not aware of your practice of advancing Bagley's cause when I edited the article in the past. I was not aware of the RfC itself until after it took place. I think that therefore tends to erode the assumption of good faith concerning your actions in this article. It also explains your not adding the same material to Patrick M. Byrne.

The burden is on yourself to address how the ASM material is relevant to Weiss' notability. It is unquestionably relevant to the Overstock article and I have supported its inclusion there. However, here it runs into WP:NPF.

WP:NPF says:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.

Weiss is obviously "not generally well known," and his notability relates to his books and articles on stock fraud. It was also pointed out to you and to Bagley ("Piperdown") that even if Weiss was a well-known public figure, insertion of references to these kinds of accusations would require a strong consensus, as per an administrator who was consulted. I note that you do not and have not made any address these issues. Please do so.

As for Patrick Byrne, I am not sure this is relevant even to him, so I am not and have not added this material to him. Again, it is strange to me that you only are anxious to add this material in the article on the victim of ASM but not its perpetrator.--Samiharris 13:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• ASM is not a reliable source for anything in respect of Gary Weiss. As a blog, it would fail as an attributable source for detrimental content in an article on a living individual even if it wasn't a sewer. Since it is a sewer, it fails twice over. We don't need to include the ravings of grudge-bearers on a mission in articles on real people. Guy (Help!) 19:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom decision pending

I also wanted to point out that the Arbitration Committee is hammering out a decision on references and links to this particular website. It seems to be moving along pretty quickly. Even though the issues here are BLP and not so-called "attack sites," we should wait to see what ArbCom decides. It is possible this site is so objectionable it can't even be referenced in Overstock.com.--Samiharris 13:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the AC decision will be finalized soon and appears to state that ASM can't be directly linked to anywhere within Wikipedia, but can be referenced (mentioned) in main article space if other polices are met (verifiable, notable, relevancy, neutrality, etc). Thus, I expect that the section on ASM to remain in the Overstock.com article and since Gary Weiss is also prominently mentioned in the same sources that discuss ASM and Overstock, mention of it is appropriate in this article also. Cla68 02:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom decision is a non-issue, for the WP:NPF reasons that have been pointed out to you several times before, and which you have never addressed. I still find it curious to say the least that you do not exhibit this zeal to include material concerning ASM in Patrick M. Byrne, even though he is mentioned in every single article that has mentioned this website.

Will there be any end to your increasingly tiresome effort to advance the agenda of banned editor WordBomb? --Samiharris 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What does some banned editor named WordBomb have to do with this? I checked this, the Byrne, and the Overstock articles and don't see the word "WordBomb" mentioned anywhere in the article texts. I also don't see the words "Samiharris" or "Cla68" mentioned anywhere in the article texts either. We're not the issue under discussion here, it's the inclusion of cited, relevant material into this article. Several credible sources have reported on Weiss' involvement with the Overstock.com and associated naked short selling controversies and the response by Byrne and one of his employees. I'll post some proposed main article space verbiage on the issue here shortly and we can discuss it. Cla68 06:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

What "WordBomb has to do with it" is that he operates ASM [5], and you have a documented history of supporting WordBomb and his agenda. Under BLP, your relationship with the operator of this website is entirely relevant. I only learned about this recently in your RfC, which you requested because of concerns over your behavior in this article. An administrator and an Arbitration committee member, both not involved in the editing of this article, documented how you were "associated with WordBomb" (Judd Bagley, the operator of ASM), that you "aggressively" supported WordBomb/Bagley, and that you repeatedly advanced his agenda in this very article [6][7], You and another editor who was in fact a WordBomb sock/meatpuppet and was banned for it, Piperdown, have repetitiously sought to insert ASM smears in this article. This is now the third or the fourth time, I've lost count, that you have done this. You have, in my view, a serious COI issue and should not edit this article.

It was explained to you several times that under WP:NPF this material is not usable because it is not relevant to Weiss's notability, which was established long before the Overstock smear campaign, and has to do with his books and articles on Wall Street and specifically organized crime and fraud. As an administrator, uninvolved in this article, pointed out when you raised this issue some months ago, even if Weiss was a well known figure it would require a "strong consensus" to allow this material.

You have never even attempted to address the NPF issues, which have been raised several times before, but just repetitiously return to this article every now and then to advance the WordBomb agenda by seeking to place references to WordBomb's accusations (in his website) in this article. You really should stop this kind of behavior.--Samiharris 12:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text

Here's the text I propose to add to the article. I believe that it's well-cited with reputable sources, including one of Weiss' books and gives both sides of the issue:

Overstock.com controversy

Weiss, in his book, Wall Street Versus America, criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne for his stance against naked short selling. Apparently in response, an Overstock.com employee, Judd Bagley, at first anonymously, attacked Weiss's and other Byrne critics' credibility in a website titled AntiSocialMedia.net. The website accused Weiss and other Byrne critics of unethical behavior. Weiss called Bagley's accusations "lies" and further added that Bagley was "hideous" and a "nauseating spectacle."

"Unethical conduct" is your OR, as those words do not appear in any of the sources. In any event, there is no point in proposing text, as a smaller reference to this derogatory material -- smear campaign, in fact -- was removed some months ago under WP:NPF. Taking one line out of Weiss's book and then building an entire sub-section, in your zeal to add negative material to this article, is nothing less than POV-pushing. You still haven't explained how this material is consisted with WP:NPF and you still haven't explained why this material should be added to this article and not to Patrick M. Byrne.

Nothing has changed since you last raised the issue in July [8]. Given your background and in particular your relationship with this website, through your documented pattern of advancing the interests of its webmaster Judd Bagley (WordBomb [9][10][11]), I again ask that you stop pushing insertions of mentions of this website, and references to its contents in Wikipedia.--Samiharris 14:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the NYTimes article doesn't use the words "unethical conduct", I don't know of any other way to characterize ASM's allegations other than naming them specifically, as the article does with this quote, "The site (ASM)...is devoted to combing through message boards and other Web sites to present “proof” that Mr. Weiss misrepresented himself on Amazon, Wikipedia and other sites to promote his own books and settle personal scores." I guess we could include that line in the section if you don't like the phrase "unethical conduct" to describe the allegations in more general terms.

Anyway, we seem to be in disagreement as to whether this section should be included or not so I'm going to proceed with an RfC request. Most of the RfC contributors, if they choose to participate, are very experienced with content disputes of this type and their opinions on this issue should hopefully help resolve the situation. I'll, of course, comply with whatever decision they suggest. Cla68 21:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with an RfC and have added it to the list myself. I do think it is odd that you would go to an RfC without even attempting to address the BLP issues that are the objections to adding this material to the article. --Samiharris 23:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the process started. Based on what I've observed on other articles, this process will probably take awhile. Cla68 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit the RfC statement by adding your spin on the situation. It is simple and neutral before your edit. Also, with regard to this RfC, as I said I don't object. But I find it strange to say the least that you would push immediately for an RfC without making an attempt to bridge your differences with other editors and without even attempting to address the BLP concerns that have been raised. --Samiharris 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Note - the following rfc template was broken and causing errors in the bot. It was fixed by removing wikilinks from the inside the template, however it has also been nowikied as RFCs shouldn't exist on archived discussion.

{{RFCbio | section=RFC !! reason=Editor desires to add section on website that makes personal attacks on subject of article, and question is whether that is relevant to notability of subject and thus permissable under WP:NPF !! time=23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC) }}

I would like to add the following text to the article but another editor feels that it violates WP:NPF. None of the information below is from Bagley's website. It's all from NYTimes, NYPost, Bloomberg, or one of Weiss' books. Because it has been in the news recently in three major news sources, I don't believe it violates NPF. Cla68 23:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC):

"Overstock.com controversy

"Weiss, in his book, Wall Street Versus America, criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne for his stance against naked short selling. Apparently in response, an Overstock.com employee, Judd Bagley, at first anonymously, attacked Weiss's and other Byrne critics' credibility in a website titled AntiSocialMedia.net. The website accused Weiss and other Byrne critics of unethical or bad faith behavior. Weiss called Bagley's accusations "lies" and further added that Bagley was "hideous" and a "nauseating spectacle.""

Your statement above, I would like to add the following text to the article but another editor feels that it violates WP:NPF is not correct.

In the past, three editors -- myself, Mantanmoreland, JzG and Jayjg -- have opposed adding the material. Jayjg is an adminstrator not involved in the editing of this article, who I contacted because of his work on a similar situation in George Soros.

In that article, regarding inflammatory material widely reported in the media concerning a well known public figure, the determination was that the material could not be added without a strong consensus. Here there is far pettier, far more inflammatory material involved, and the article concerns a little known journalist clearly covered by WP:NPF. Not only is there not a strong consensus, as would be required even if Weiss was a household word, but there has been one editor hammering away repetitively on behalf of the agenda of the website in question.

As the person seeking to add this contentious material, the burden is on you to demonstrate that it belongs in the article, is neutral, relevant and not violative of BLP. Objections have been raised under BLP and you have not even attempted to address them, either now or for the several other times you have attempted to introduce negative material in the Weiss article, dating back far before I became involved in this article. Your basic reasoning is WP:ILIKEIT. The fact that this material is reported in the media is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, and one of the principals of BLP is "do no harm."

The campaign to add this material has been advanced by two editors: Piperdown, recently banned as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Judd Bagley, the operator of antisocialmedia.net, and Cla68, who was found in an RfC to have aggressively advanced the agenda of Bagley (who is banned editor WordBomb). See [12][13][14]).

Lastly I think the fact that there is an RfC at all is highly irregular. I requested this RfC as a gesture of good faith, after Cla68 made it abundantly clear that he was about to do so anyway, just a few hours after he first raised the issue.

I understand that it is highly irregular to demand an RfC without first having a full discussion of all the issues and seeking to reach a compromise with other editors on an article. This attitude of "take it or leave it" is unfortunately consistent with the aggressive tactics that have been used for many months by Judd Bagley and his representatives in this project. --Samiharris 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the full RfC referred to selectively above if anyone would like to read it and/or comment on it. Anyway, that's not the issue here. Bagley's attack website has it's own section in the Overstock.com article. One of that websites main targets, as reported on by the NYTimes, NYPost, and Bloomberg, is Gary Weiss. The associated dispute between Byrne/Overstock.com and Gary Weiss has been reported on in the same three media sources and is therefore notable and newsworthy enough to be mentioned in this article. There was a paragraph on it in this article previously, but it was removed [15] without discussion by the same editor who heavily edits the Byrne article and who apparently doesn't have any NPF issues with material that was added to that article [16]. Cla68 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your last diff cited was the reversion of a sockpuppet. What do you have against reverting sockpuppets?

While you're chwing that over, perhaps you can also explain how this section you want to add could possibly be consistent with WP:UNDUE, particularly this:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." I think Judd Bagley's hobby blog falls into that description. --Samiharris 05:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The editors opposing the addition can hardly be considered independent and impartial on this issue, as they are well known to be a tight-knit clique who regularly back one another up on issues they feel strongly about, which includes anything to do with Weiss or Bagley. *Dan T.* 03:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And are you independent and impartial, Danny? I fail to see the purpose of your comment, except perhaps an intention to intimidate. NPOV is a non-negotiable principle because Wikipedia is founded on the assumption that no one is impartial - I suggest you read the policy. Now, as for a tight-nit clique, please stop blowing smoke out your ass. You know full-weel that in any conflict there are going to be sides. It is inevitable that several people will share a position, and quite possible that several people will share another position. It is also no surprise that people with similar values will often share views. There is nothing wrong with this, but you make this inevitable facet of live at Wikipedia a pretext to try to attack people's character? Learn to assume good faith. If you think an editor has violated policy, file a formal complaint against them. Otherwise, do not violate NPA. These editors have a right to take the position they do and you are violating Wikipedia policies to question their good faith and make an ad hominem attack. If you think you are wring you are free to disagree with them but provide reasons for disagreeing with them, and respond to their reasons. All you are doing is dismissing their views entirely. that is a wast of time, talk pages are for substantive talk. If you have nothing constructive (and I include reasoned arguments to support your view) to say, well, don't say anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And saying that I'm "blowing smoke out my ass" isn't a personal attack? And intimating that opposing viewpoints are those of banned users isn't ad-hominem? The irony of your invoking NPA while doing all of that is delicious. *Dan T.* 05:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Policing the acts of banned users is not a personal attack, no. I was hoping you could tell the difference. Policing a banned user is, well, just enforcing the ban. Are you saying someone is being falsely accused of being a banned user? No, no, I read what you wrote, no, you aren't saying that. Of course, if someone accused is not actually a banned user or sock-puppet you would be right to point out that fact, but one can do that without personal attacks. As for blowing smoke, well, suggesting that enforcing a ban violates WPA would I think constitute blowing more smoke. Be that as it may, I am glad you have a sense of irony. I was merely trying to communicate in the only language you seem to understand. Am I wrong? Are you capable of acting in good faith, and not making personal attacks? By all means, please take the moral high ground here. I would love to see that. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Being able to dismiss entire categories of opinions through guilt-by-association because a banned user has espoused similar viewpoints may be useful if you favor a different viewpoint, but it is in no way compatible with NPOV. *Dan T.* 16:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a sec ... a moment ago you were lumping together a whole group of people because they form a "clique" - isn't that guilt by association? Now you claim that you are a victim of the same tactic? Okay, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you think it is wrong to be lumped together and dismissed, then just say so - rather than do the same to others. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK... let's everybody back off a little and try to make a reasonable case for the two (or more) opposing positions without any smearing by association on either side. *Dan T.* 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Replies to RfC

NPF states as follows:

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution."

Your proposed addition is not worded in a neutral fashion, and in my opinion definitely violates WP:NPF. This material is clearly not relevant to Weiss' notability. I also think that your proposed addition is excessive in length for the subject matter, and provides far too much detail on what appears to be a kerfuffle. This is not to say that ASM can't be mentioned simply because it is ASM, but simply that your proposed text is clearly a nonstarter.--Mantanmoreland 23:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what purpose it serves to have this in the article. I'll have more to add but I think that probably sums up my stand unless some better reasons for why this is compatible with BLP can be presented.--MONGO 10:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an irrelevancy to me. ASM isn't notable. If we take its creator's word on the lack of a connection to his Overstock position, it's just another hobby blog. So this stuff amounts to "Weiss has been the object of critical commentary in somebody else's hobby blog." How about including that sentence? Because, put that way, the pointlessness is more obvious? --Christofurio 12:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the proposed addition violates WP:NPF. I have yet to hear an explanation as to why it does not. Crum375 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the New York Times disagrees, clearly finding this germane to Weiss's notability: "UNSUSPECTING readers of certain stock message boards may be forgiven for believing they have stumbled into a flame war among 14-year-old boys. But the increasingly vicious online dispute actually involves, among others, the chief executive of a publicly traded corporation and a longtime business journalist...The journalist is Gary Weiss, the author and former BusinessWeek reporter who has made a second career out of ridiculing Mr. Byrne on his blog." [17] Emphasis mine.--G-Dett 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of NPF is that a reported item has to be important to the subject's overall notability. Coupling that with WP:UNDUE, I would expect that any such item, for someone with a long career in the public eye, would have to be properly balanced with respect to all other notable items. As the current article is very short, and the incident described sounds childish and trivial, we would have to show that that specific incident figures prominently in the subject's lifelong career to deserve any space. Also, if there is an element of derogatory information about a living person, one would need several high quality sources to corroborate it (i.e. the appropriate weighting relative to other aspects of his career). Crum375 00:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I would find this reasoning more compelling if the article on Patrick M. Byrne didn't have a 1000-word section on this very topic, under the wonderfully NPOV heading "Jihad against naked shorting," which has been heavily edited by the same Wikipedians (Samiharris, Mantanmoreland, et al) who are exercised over the inclusion of similar material in the Weiss article.--G-Dett 14:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's bull. ASM's smear campaign is not even mentioned in Patrick M. Byrne. If you or Cla68 ave problems with the way Patrick Byrne is being treated, why don't you raise that point in Patrick M. Byrne? No one has raised BLP issues there, because there are none, despite massive outside interest in the article. The "jihad" (his word) is the subject of numerous significant news articles dating back to 2005, cited in the article. As the CEO of a significant company I am not certain the NPF applies to him in any case.

The Times piece you cite, not to mention the other sources, much makes clear that the Bagley smear campaign is a fringe position ("Sleazy McSleaze") and that WP:UNDUE applies as well as WP:NPF. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."--Mantanmoreland 17:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)