Overstock vs. Wikipedia, She kidnapped herself Options

[Emperor]

Starting new thread where we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right.

Come on, we've got accusers putting together cute little charts and graphs and submitting them as "evidence", self-appointed do-gooders poring over edit histories, investigating trips to India, stuff that would make Durova herself embarrassed to admit to.

On the other hand we have Overstock.com, a company that, as ED might say, is full of fail.

Some "evidence": http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=OSTK&t=2y

If we must play amateur sleuth, or follow the money, or do whatever it is that investigative web forum participants are supposed to be doing, shouldn't we consider the possibility that Overstock.com, a multimillion dollar company with a financial interest in discrediting Wikipedia, is behind some of this drama?

Look again at the timing of this story and Wordbomb's latest crusade vs. the stock price of OSTK. It's no wonder they feel like Wall Street doesn't like them. The company clearly has nothing to offer its investors except excuses.

[One]

How can ArbCom be right when they haven't really said anything at all?

What exactly are they right about?

This post has been edited by One:

[jorge]

It's OK, Emperor's just an idiot.

[WordBomb]

It's OK, Emperor's just an idiot.

Emperor may or may not be an idiot, but he's entitled to his opinion. I'd like to engage him a bit here, but I tend to not talk about Overstock.com in settings like this -- particularly on topics relating to share price.

However, if I were going to engage in this conversation, I'd likely do so by first repeating my earlier request that he do something as simple as back up his comments with something.

[jorge]

Personally I think Emperor is just here for the purpose of stirring shit up for the sake of it, but anyway. He asks whether "we can investigate the possibility that perhaps the ArbCom is right". Right about what? The only thing they are right about is that Wordbomb and Piperdown are in some way connected to Overstock, and this is something they freely admit to. The Arbcom is still stating they are not sure that Mantanmoreland and Samiharris are Gary Weiss. Are they right about that? Obviously not.

[Piperdown]

they are right about is that Wordbomb and Piperdown are in some way connected to Overstock, and this is something they freely admit to.

whoa whoa whoa. I am in no way connected to overstock and have never claimed so either. none what-so-ever. I have never even owned their stock. I could give a crap about overstock as a company and its stock. I do wish the best in life for good people like byrne and bagley though. And their efforts on NSS aren't about their own stock price, so you guys here playing the "bait the evil corporate smear campaigners into a sarb-ox offence" game aren't going to get very far with byrne/bagley. got it emperor? you've stunk like rotten fish since your first post here. you have an agenda and it isn't good.

The first is that Gary Weiss is basically correct about the naked short seller conspiracy theorists being loons.

The Commissioner of the SEC is an "naked short seller conspiracy theorist loon" then. Enjoy all the loons taken your loon-callers to the cleaners in the courts soon. I'm sure you'll disregard all the WP:OR facts on the matter because a bunch of imbedded "journalists" have their careers on the line in feeding people like you that big lie.

And I do reserve my somey-given right to defend myself when my editing activity has been questioned, and intentional disinformation about WP article related issues I edited from the likes of UV. The latest on JW just further confirms my resolve to stay away from it and I can't see how anyone else would want to contribute there either.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[WordBomb]

I think you have to seperate two things here. The first is that Gary Weiss is basically correct about the naked short seller conspiracy theorists being loons.

yeah, at the risk of appearing to be inflexible and always "on message" here, I have to back up Piperdown and call UV on his imperialism (imperialism being the act of emulating an emperor).

There are loons in every bunch, without exception, pro-market reformers included. I believe you said what you did because Gary Weiss told you it was true.

I would urge you to consider your source.

See, it's no longer a conspiracy theory. It's very much a conspiracy fact. You might consider reading this:

WASHINGTON, March 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday proposed tougher rules to curb so-called "naked" short-selling abuses and prevent market price manipulation.
SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said regulation SHO, an existing rule partly aimed at short selling abuses, "needs teeth."
... Sellers sometimes deliberately fail to deliver securities as part of a scheme to manipulate the stock price.

Got anything else, UV?

[Unrepentant Vandal]

Got anything else, UV?

Nope, on the internet whoever feels strongest about the issue always "wins". And I don't really care at all. I also have absolutely no opinion on OSTK's price because a) I have no expertise in this area (p.s. almost no one has any expertise in this area... have you seen the record of most stock analysts... might as well toss a coin) and (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) if I did I couldn't really give it without compliance issues.

In any case it simply isn't relevant as this website is about Wikipedia and all that needs to be said about this controversy is that it exists and Weisz and his sock/meatpuppets are on one side, Wordbomb/Piperdown/Patrick Byrne on the other and that it impacts negatively on the project. I think we can all agree about that.

P.S. I do think there's something unusual about Weisz's obsession with Naked Short Selling but wouldn't speculate as to what

This post has been edited by Unrepentant Vandal:

[Emperor]

Got anything else, UV?

Nope, on the internet whoever feels strongest about the issue always "wins". And I don't really care at all. I also have absolutely no opinion on OSTK's price because a) I have no expertise in this area (p.s. almost no one has any expertise in this area... have you seen the record of most stock analysts... might as well toss a coin) and (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) if I did I couldn't really give it without compliance issues.

In any case it simply isn't relevant as this website is about Wikipedia and all that needs to be said about this controversy is that it exists and Weisz and his sock/meatpuppets are on one side, Wordbomb/Piperdown/Patrick Byrne on the other and that it impacts negatively on the project. I think we can all agree about that.

P.S. I do think there's something unusual about Weisz's obsession with Naked Short Selling but wouldn't speculate as to what

Wikipedia Review as a group has gone way past the point of speculating about his motivations, and his protectors' motivations. What still remains relatively unexplored are the motivations of his accusers. I think that this is fair game given that they've put this person under a microscope for months now.