Talk:Naked short selling/Archive 2

message: Would anyone like me to fax them my Endovasc 'cert' that I was defrauded into purchasing by 'famed attorney John O'Quinn and those such as James Dale Davidson who ran the scam in part from a Charles Schwab account in 2002 ? I believe that account that helped defraud me of 100% of my investment may have been the Schwab LOM of Bermuda account.I am greatly disappointed that the SEC has allowed this fraud to get so out of control it has even grown since 2002.Now it is being used to promote scammy Nasdaq companies and management as well as OTCBB penny stocks.It is apparently so lucrative and I believe Beltway connected that those running the fraud can enlist politicians such as Senator Bennett of Utah to make the fraud 
appear a legitmate concern.
If you read my statement on Reg 'Sho' of 2003 you will see I told te SEC I am not in favor of 'naked shorting'per se but even less so people hiding behind false identities and making
false claims about it harming what are erssentially illegaL PUMP AND OPS THE sec DOES NOTHING ABOUT.I still believe James Dale Davidson who created 'NAANSS' or National Association Against Naked Short Selling'  is behind NCANS.A google search 'schwab lom' or 'attorney o'quinn' or 'naanss ncans' or 'attorney brent baker' or 'james angel georgetown ' plus my nake will give you much to read about this fraud.I will add a link here to my indymedia article 'Charles Schwab Share Money Laundering'that has a link to a pdf file showing that Endovasc placed 'up to 30 million shares'! into one Schwab acount in mid 2002 all the while 
claiming in pr that a real 'reverse split' was occuring.I had over half a million shares reduced to little more than 10 thousand shares but in theory that would have reduced all shares to under 3 million.In fact Davidson's Agora Inc.promoted Endovasc and over one million shares were 'traded' per day in late 2002.This was not the only massive pump and dump fraudulently disguised as 'naked shorting'.
If you read attorney O'Quinn's statement in a late 2002 pr he claims Schwab,Refco,and Ameritrade naked shorted Endovasc.Why did Schwab not say something and defend and protect me their defrauded account holder ? Because while Endovasc was not 'naked shorted' Schwab did provide an account as I explained  above for Endovasc and insiders to the fraud to dump shares from.So I speak from direct experience as a DEFRAUDED INVESTOR WHO WANTS THE TRUTH.EVEN THE SEC'S ATTORNEY BRENT BAKER HAS AIDED THE FRAUD PROTECTED DAVIDSON AND IS NOW EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE PRACTICE AS AN ATTORNEY FOR OVERSTOCK.COM AND PATRICK BYRNE WHO NOW USES THE SCAM TO PROBABLY MASK HIS OWN MANIPULATION OF OSTK SHARES. 
Also why not mention the CMKX  pump dump fraud being investigated by SEC for false claim of being 'naked shorted' ? Or USXP.In fact the SEC is either incompetent or corrupt to have allowed so many penny stocks scams to dump millions or billions of shares on a defrauded public and then falsely blame it on 'naked shorting'.I noted the author of the scammy naked shorting site has erroneously claimed Pet Quarters as an example of victim of naked shorting.
If this is so then why has 'famed attorney O'Quinn' who has been promoting the fraudulent lie while never winning one at least won that one ? Because Pet Quarters management signed a deal with the very person they accused and he got super discount shares to dump on public and Pet Quarters management  got cash for all those shares that were dumped.Also why does your your wikipedia site not mention any examples of penny scam companies that are at least being investigated for fraudulent naked shorting claim ? 
Sincerely 
Tony Ryals 
*We have a saying for people who sit and whine endlessly without contributing anything productive - . Seriously, get over to Naked short selling/Workshop and make it better. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The above is essentially an argument for what is occurring constantly on this page, which is the removal of material, such as recent comments by officials of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and NASD, that are adverse to the "anti-naked-shorting" point of view. This constant vandalism needs to be addressed.--Mantanmoreland 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral POV violations 

message: I believe that the current version of the page is preferable to the version which has been re-dumped in by anonymous editors several times over the past few days. Their version appears to suffer from a great deal of WP:NPOV violations and does not present the information in a fair way at all - the thesis appears to be "Naked short selling is bad" which is never something we want to see in a Wikipedia article. As with Hitler, it is better to present the facts and allow the reader to discover that this adds up to a bad thing if that is indeed the case. I invite any of our anonymous doppelgangers to engage in the discussion here to try to come up with a consensus regarding this page. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection - discussion of dispute 

message: I am copying the conversation we have had on our user talk pages to this central location so that more people may participate in the discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[User talk:ESkog]] and [[User talk:Riverrunrun]] 

message: Your "Naked Short Selling" page is definitely biased in favor of the naked short seller. It is not neutral!
I have tried to replace it with factual information to no avail. A poster named ESKOG (you?) has entered a message to me that I am in violation of the "neutral" policy of Wikopedia.  Either the author is not adequately knowledgeable regarding naked short selling or he is intentionally placing untruthful and biased information on this page.
I sincerely hope that this person is not an official moderator who controls this page. If this is an example of neutrality, it is blatantly hypocritical.
Please let me know how to correct erroneous and biased information on this "Naked Short Selling" page.Riverrunrun 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun) 

message: First, please keep in mind that we can't have a conversation if your username/IP changes every time you edit. If you could stick to this username for the duration, that would be helpful.
I am not an "official moderator" of Wikipedia; in truth, no one really is. We are all editors trying to work together to create the best encyclopedia possible. Among our guiding principles are a neutral point of view policy and a committment to citing sources whenever possible. I, along with other editors, felt that the version you continued to reinsert was extremely biased with a thesis that "naked short selling is bad." The article is not supposed to be making such an argument; it should only be outlining what it is and a discussion of major literature surrounding the subject. The page has been protected as a result of our edit war, and you are welcome to engage in the discussion on the page's talk page. Our goal is to create a neutral version of the page that stands up to consensus.
Here are some problems I had with your version of the page:
#"it is generally accepted... [as] simple fraud" in the opening paragraph is clearly not true, and also uses weasel words in lieu of citing a source.
#The word "apologists" applied to those who argue it is not illegal is a very judgmental word.
#General phrasing - "It is difficult to argue with a straight face" - "Another canard that is floated by apologists" - "There is no controversy" - fly in the face of maintaining a neutral point of view.
#The Argument/Fact structure used in the Controversy section is not encyclopedic in the slightest, and is more correctly structured for an argumentative essay. That is not what Wikipedia is about.
I hope these comments help, and feel free to engage in the discussion on the Talk:Naked short selling page. If you have any other questions about the process, my Talk page is always open. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply (ESkog) 

message: Thanks for the reply. Hopefully we can have a constructive dialog with truth as the goal.
I have been investing in the stock market for over 30 years and have seen all sorts of schemes to bilk the unsuspecting small investor out of his money. I don't know how much experience you have had with such actions, but, by the tone of you comments, I would guess very little.
You have mentioned several "problems" with removed version of this page. My version attempts to rectify the inaccuracies in the protected version.
You state that this version was "extremely biased with a thesis that 'naked short selling is bad'". I suggest that you look at the SEC ACT of 1933 and 1934. Illegal Sale of an Unregistered Securty has always been forbidden, by Sections 5 and 6 of the Securities Act of 1933, and by provisions of the Securities Act of 1934. It is illegal. In light of this, how do you construe  that "naked short selling is bad" is biased? It is nothing more than taking someone's money and not delivering anything in return. That's why they call it FTD (Fails To Deliver), i.e., no shares are ever delivered to the buyer. This is a crime. Crime is bad.
Using this illegal ploy, a hedge fund can, with broker complicity, sell unlimited shares on the open market and drive a target stock issue down dramatically, even to zero. I am not talking about penny stocks either. Believe me, this really is happening to the tune of billions of dollars per day of lost retail investments. Last year I lost over $500,00.00 due to this type of criminal action. The stock involved had over 200% of company issued shares being traded. Now, obiously, not all of these shares were legitimate.
This IS fraud! You say that there is no evidence of this happening. The SEC, DTC and NASD will not allow the true numbers of FTD shares to be given out. Even using the FOIA will not bring forth the numbers. Do you honestly think this is OK?
If you want to remain "neutral", then allow the current version of this page to give facts and not erroneous propaganda in favor of naked short selling. Facts are not argueable. Distortion of same is.
Since the mid 1990's, the SEC has been aware of naked short selling and failed to adequately respond to investor and company complaints alike. In recent years the FBI, SEC, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have conducted investigations into naked short selling and followed these sales through money laundering schemes used by criminal elements. Those elements jeopardize our Homeland Security. Unbelievably, the practice of naked short selling still continues to this day regardless of where the profits are going. 
Brokerage firms make their money not by representing their clients, the average investor. They make their money by trading stock. It's that simple. And no one trades more stock that the hedge funds. Between the two of them, they have created some of the wealthiest individuals in America, lining their own pockets with outrageous salaries, unbelievable commissions, and massive bonuses that most Americans can only dream about. And they do it in a stock market where the average investor is still struggling to recoup even a fraction of the losses sustained in the market meltdown of 2000.
They do it by selling stock. It doesn't even matter whether that stock is real or imagined, just as long as the shares keep flowing. It doesn't matter whether the shares are delivered or not, just as long as the "customer" keeps paying the commissions for the shares that flow in a neverending stream from one hand to another. Counterfeit or real, as long as the brokerage firms collect their fees, they'll continue to buy and sell, sell and buy.
 
As I said previously, you are being hypocritical if you think that the wording of the protected version of this page is "neutral". It is showing the true bias or lack of knowledge of the author. This biased diatribe hurts the small investor, our economy and, by money laundering, our national security. Be informed before taking a stand on neutrality. Learn and advocate the facts. Otherwise you are definitely become part of the problem. Riverrunrun 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter Reply to Naked Short Selling (Riverrunrun) 

message: Alright, I'll gladly admit that you are much more knowledgeable about this specific subject than I am. But "taking a stand for neutrality" is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, and it's not going away anytime soon. With good sources (which it appears you have), we can build an article that is structured in a neutral tone which still presents all the facts. See Murder for a good example of a page about a clearly defined crime - there isn't really a section where we come out and argue that murder is bad, even though we all can agree that it is. We do state why/how/where it is illegal, as well as some famous examples of it. This might be a good model for us to start building the new page. While the page is protected you could create a page such as Naked short selling/temp where we could collaborate on the wording and presentation of the information. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply #2 (ESkog) 

message: I think it is a mistake to concede to any user an advantage because of purported experience in the subject matter and assertion of purported "facts." Whether an article is neutral or not is immediately evident regardless of the subject matter. I am disturbed by some of the conclusory comments that I see in this discussion as well as a general effort to overdramatize. 
However, before we get into the substance of discussion I want to raise an issue that I find troubling. During the editing there was an insistent text dumping replacing what was, to myself and others, a balanced version which one that struck several of us as entirely one-sided. It should be noted that my own interest in this matter is entirely academic, as I am not employed by the securities industry and am not a "short seller" or a "naked short seller." 
Going back in the History I see the presence of a user "bobobrien," which is the name of the principal spokesperson for the anti-naked short-selling cause, Bob O'Brien. In an entry yesterday in Mr. Obrien's website Sanity Check, which appears to be the principal venue for anti-naked shorting sentiment, Mr. O'Brien severely criticized the current page and went on to say as follows: 
"Bob O'Brien wrote a different assessment, which explains what the practice is, and describes the various arguments (false) which are associated with the apologists for the practice. You can see it in the new Wikipedia section. It was deleted very quickly, which raises the question, 'Who has such an interest in a one-sided, biased and patently false entry being the prevailing wisdom on Wikipedia?' Anyone that feels that this needs to be corrected should contact Wikipedia and find out how they got taken on this one."
Aside from an understandable lack of appreciation of Wikipedia procedures, the above troubles me as I do not think that Wikipedia entries should be written and then injected forcibly by leaders of pressure groups and their friends. 
Therefore I think special care should be taken, given the fact that a pressure group has taken a special interest, in seeing to it that this entry remain neutral. Mr. O'Brien's viewpoint is just that -- a viewpoint -- and I find disturbing this attempt by Mr. O'Brien and others to present their position as a kind of "undeniable truth" on the basis of their "expertise." I also find disturbing the tactics employed.--Mantanmoreland 05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns Regarding Pressure Group Tactics 

message: I have created a first draft of an attempt at an unbiased article at Naked short selling/Workshop. Feel free to contribute in whatever way you can - make sure to carefully cite unbiased sources as this is apparently a contentious topic. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise page attempted 

message: I don´t understand this issue fully, but I understand it enough to know that there is a lot of misinformation here.  Expecially the comments about how naked shorts are a market-based counterweight against pump and dumps.  Unless there is something big that I am missing, this is completely false.
You may not agree, but that is the opposing argument, required for a neutral POV. Also (editing my comment to add this) FYI, your best compendium of info on the opposing arguments is the comments from the SEC rulemaking cited in the text. 
One problem facing researchers on this subject, particularly impoverished students, is that although there is a substantial body of opinion favoring naked shorting or at least opposing the naked shorting campaign, there is no organized pressure group as there is from the anti-shorters. Thus a researcher must do a little digging but it is there, and quite vehement. --Mantanmoreland 14:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  naked short page needs work 

message: Once we feel like we've gotten past the "dispute" stage (I would say we have), someone should post a Request for page unprotection so that we can move the new version in. You might also mention that the admin should merge Naked short selling/Workshop in so that we can keep the page history. Or I'll do it later tonight - it doesn't really matter. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As indicated above, ESkog has requested unprotection and merging in of the /Workshop page (it is possible to merge the histories seamlessly). I just wanted to make certain that other parties are happy with that request being approved? Note that /Workshop need not be in complete and final in all its eventual glory, you all just need to be satisfied that the dispute that lead to protection is amicably resolved so that there is no re-eruption. -Splashtalk 06:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Done, with a history merge. The page is no longer protected. Please note that I copied a comment from the talk page to this one. -Splashtalk 22:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What comes next 

message: Should this article have some sort of reference to "buying stocks on margin," which is essentially the exact opposite of naked shorting?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrerRabbit (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 February 2006   (UTC)
You know, personally I would suggest not doing so. Also it is not exactly the opposite of buying stocks on margin. --Mantanmoreland 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from [[Talk:Naked short selling/Workshop]] 

message: I have been following this discussion for the last several days and have found it very interesting.  The editing process of the article has really impressed me.  The article, as revised, turned out to be very well done.  Now, it seems that someone has again hijacked the article and replaced it with their own version of "the truth".
I agree. I will revert back to the agreed-on compromise version. To avoid a further editing war I suggest that the compromise version be frozen. I would make that request myself but I am not sure of the mechanics. --Mantanmoreland 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but we don't 'freeze' articles, unless there is an outright edit war about it. If someone is reverting without discussion to a version that doesn't have consensual support, then it is ok, to  a point, to revert them, with talk messages explaining why. Watch out for the 3RR - part of the reason it works is that editors supporting the consensual version don't need 4 reverts each. -Splashtalk 17:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not vandalism to prefer a different version of the page. Re not needing 4 reverts — if it's just two editors warring, both will hit the 3RR and then get stuck with whatever is the last version. If one version has the support of many editors, then a lone opposing editor will run out of reverts long before any of the consensually supported editors will. They'll either stop, or get blocked. -Splashtalk 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So far there's just one anonymous editor, and Splash is right that the consensus would be enough to "beat" his/her reverts. If it becomes overwhelming again, we certainly have the option of re-protecting for a day or two to let people find some other way to occupy themselves. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article Has Been Hijacked