Gary Weiss started this fight, I'm just here to finish it Options

[WordBomb]

The discourse on Mantanmoreland's RfAr has veered into the realm of importing real world fights into WP. I thought it would be useful to review how things actually began.

Gary Weiss started his blog on January 19, 2006.

His first few posts were about general business topics, but on January 22, he changed course.

Beginning that day, Weiss's blog transformed into a vehicle for attacking critics of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation's (DTCC) role as an enabler of illegal naked short selling -- Patrick Byrne in particular.

I can tell you with certainty that prior to that time, Byrne had never even heard of Gary Weiss.

On January 26, 2006 Weiss, editing as IP 70.23.85.112 made sweeping changes to the article on Naked short selling.

• His first edit removed several external links to media sources that cast Byrne in a positive light (including podcast interviews created by me).
• His sixth edit added a link to a two-year-old BusinessWeek column, espousing the virtues of naked short selling, written by...guess who...Gary Weiss.
• His seventh edit added a link to a press release issued by the DTCC three days before...the same release that, three days before, Weiss dedicated a blog post to praising.
• His 11th edit claimed that Patrick Byrne is the subject of "widespread derision" for his stance against naked short selling.
• His 15th edit added a link to a press release issued by the DTCC the day before...which Weiss also blogged about.
• His 17th edit added a link to the DTCC page dedicated to obfuscating that organizations' responsibility for empowering criminal naked short sellers.

After edit waring with a handful of IPs and encountering 3RR trouble, Weiss discards 70.23.85.112 and creates Mantanmoreland. That account's first act was not to delete vandalism, as he claims, but to revert the article to how 70.23.85.112 left it.

From that day forward, roughly 90% of Weiss's blogging has focused on attacking Patrick Byrne and Overstock.com, while defending illegal naked short selling and promoting Weiss himself. Similarly, 90% of edits by Mantanmoreland, Samiharris, Tomstoner and Lastexit have attacked Patrick Byrne and Overstock.com, while defending naked short selling and promoting Weiss himself.

And to think...there are people out there who claim that I am responsible for bringing a real-world conflict to Wikipedia.

At this point, the obvious question is how to explain Weiss's motive.

I believe the answer can be found in this edit history. Keeping in mind the substance of Weiss's first several edits on Wikipedia, I challenge you to look for yourselves and tell me what you can deduce from it.

[Moulton]

Color me confused. I thought GW was firmly against naked short-selling, since it creates long-term disturbances in the financial markets.

[No one of consequence]

Color me confused. I thought GW was firmly against naked short-selling, since it creates long-term disturbances in the financial markets.

No, Bagley and Overstock are anti-naked short selling (and have filed suit, along with other companies). Weiss is either for it or thinks it is no big deal. (I think)

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Color me confused. I thought GW was firmly against naked short-selling, since it creates long-term disturbances in the financial markets.

No, Bagley and Overstock are anti-naked short selling (and have filed suit, along with other companies). Weiss is either for it or thinks it is no big deal. (I think)

"Shortselling" is as important to free markets as is buying. My ability to hedge or adjust risk for my own benefit or the benefit of my company is as important as is the transaction of a grain elevator shorting wheat that was just taken in at the mill.

The main difference in stocks is the "old guard rule" that short selling must be done with "borrowed" stock. If there is not stock to borrow...not a soul can, legitimately, sell short that particular stock.

Here's the rub...whoever controls, the vast majority of shares deposited (of any one particular company,) can, in fact, and indeed does, control the ability, or lack thereof, of somebody being able to sell short any particular stock (shares thereof.)

Now here comes the DTC of New York. They are THE primary depository of all stock shares in the U.S.A. (Once all paper; now both paper and electronic.)

It is a long story, but most of this whole topic stems from someone getting burned very badly by someone selling stock short. That is the name of this tune. Bagholders or burned investors have a gripe with short sellers. Many times, however, short sellers are right about the ultimate direction of a particular company, albeit, further, many times they are wiped out because of an inability to get stock to cover their short position because of games being played at the DTC.

The invest business is founded on people buying shares of companies from ready sellers...the owners of those companies.

This post has been edited by WhispersOfWisdom: Thu 28th February 2008, 7:46pm

[WordBomb]

"Shortselling" is as important to free markets as is buying. My ability to hedge or adjust risk for my own benefit or the benefit of my company is as important as is the transaction of a grain elevator shorting wheat that was just taken in at the mill.

The main difference in stocks is the "old guard rule" that short selling must be done with "borrowed" stock. If there is not stock to borrow...not a soul can, legitimately, sell short that particular stock.

There are two natural checks on the (good and legitimate) act of legal short selling:
1- a limit on the number of "shortable" shares (which is, in theory, the number of shares issued)
2- the risk that short selling entails (which is, in theory, infinite, compared to the risk of long buying, which is only as much as the original share cost).

Naked shorting subverts both of these checks, in that it:
1- results in more shares being shorted than actually exist, and
2- creates, by its very nature, artificial downward pressure on share price, often eliminating the risk of the "short squeeze" that long buyers love and short sellers fear.