Guy wrote:
The Evidence page does not, at a quick re-scan, mention removal of any *mention* of the name form the Bagley article
Oh if only it were so. Sadly, the deletions were all too real. We really did come face to face with people saying "You can't even MENTION enemies of the project or their websites, even in articles".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overstock.com&diff=prev&ol... adding back in removed section, removing NPA references -- stop using NPOV to justify your blatant policy violations
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overstock.com&diff=prev&ol... Anti naked short-selling campaign - removing website reference pending resolution of policy dispute re WP:NPA
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overstock.com&diff=prev&ol... that's how the policy reads; if you don't like it, change the policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overstock.com&diff=prev&ol... links or *references* are not permitted by NPA; this is a site with an attack on a Wiki admin splashed on its front page; NPOV has nothing to do with it
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overstock.com&diff=156282353&a... 1: ArbCom has not ruled on this 2: please explain how NPOV applies on talk page
As you say, damnatio memoriae was swiftly rejected-- but the next time somebody makes an orwell references, remember there was a time when some people really said "absolutely no *reference* to unpersons allowed in Wikipedia", and we went to arbcom over it.
Alec