Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::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. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:26, 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. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 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.--] 21:03, 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.--] 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.--] 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
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:
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-Dett18:05, 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. Durova20:26, 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-Dett21:03, 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 Wales21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
