Wikipedia. It's the world's largest online encyclopedia, lauded and lambasted for its tenant that anyone can edit it, making it both the most susceptible and most critiqued source of information on the planet. The English version alone has 2 million articles and the site is among the 20 most visited. So exactly what kind of artifice did Traverse Mountain engage in to get on Wikipedia's naughty list? The Lehi development -- about 800 homes -- was recently banned en masse from editing Wikipedia in an attempt to stop one person: Judd Bagley. When attempting to edit a Wikipedia article, a Traverse Mountain resident would instead get a warning that they were banned because their IP address (an Internet identification of sorts) was tied to Bagley. Bagley, an employee of Patrick Byrne's Overstock.com, is accused by Wikipedia of using the site for inappropriate promotion. "We're a project to write an encyclopedia, not to advance third-party interests; and obviously, we reserve the right to block inappropriate editing as proves necessary," wrote David Gerard, spokesman for Wikipedia, in an e-mail exchange. " 'Anyone can edit' doesn't mean 'free-for-all promotion.' " Gerard unblocked Traverse Mountain on Friday after receiving an e-mail from the Daily Herald requesting information about the issue. It was originally blocked in September. The neighborhood's Internet access is handled by Broadweave Networks, and the Wikipedia block claiming they were an "open proxy," which would allow anyone (Bagley in this case) to use them for identification. Bagley actually lives in Traverse Mountain. Broadweave spokesman Jay Cobb disputes the open proxy claim, saying "We don't just allow anyone off the Web to bounce off of us." From here, the story either wanders its way back to residents happily editing their favorite Wikipedia articles (there isn't one specifically for Traverse Mountain yet) or it's just the tip of the iceberg in a cover-up that involves national financial markets. Go ahead, take a moment to recover from the whiplash. Bagley and Byrne dismiss the promotion accusation as a few unimportant mentions of their company. After all, other companies are mentioned numerous times throughout Wikipedia without facing such sanctions. Instead the men say the block is part of an attempt to silence their opposition to short selling and naked short selling. Short selling is a way to make money off of stocks when the price goes down. It's done by borrowing stock and selling high, then waiting for the stock to drop, buying it up at a lower price to return to the lender, and keeping the difference. Byrne, the same man who led the school voucher charge, claims such methods destroy companies by improperly influencing their stock value. The method has long been criticized and has come and gone and come again via regulation. The Wikipedia blocking isn't about Overstock, the men contend, but instead about their efforts to get their message out about short selling. Bagley's problems really started, he says, when he tried to add a link to the Wikipedia short selling article. The link was to a presentation by Byrne critical of the practice. But the link was quickly removed several times in a back and forth effort by Bagley and another party. It spirals from there, with accusations from both sides about "sockpuppeting" (one person having an online discussion with themselves but acting as two or more people) and "persistent inappropriate editing." "We prefer to keep things unblocked as much as possible. In this case almost all the edits going back several months were from Mr. Bagley under a variety of names," Gerard wrote Friday, adding "I'd never heard of naked short selling ... before this, and really don't care." Byrne begs to differ. He claims Wikipedia founder Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales has a deep interest in short selling. Byrne unabashedly throws around words like "conspiracy" when discussing the issue. "The people who run Wikipedia are using Wikipedia to perpetuate a cover-up," he said. "(Wales is) at the top of Wikipedia, and he's either hijacking these articles or has his stooges hijacking these articles." The tussle was interesting enough in the tech world to be reported on by The Register, a popular online publication based in the United Kingdom that focuses on information technology.
That is not correct. Shorting by any variation is when you think the stock is going down. Naked short selling is when you short without the borrow/locate. The shorting is not the problem - it's totally legal. The word "naked" in naked short selling is what makes it illegal.
Right, and when they "naked Short", that is the ultimate derivitave, and they know it's going down. They either have some inside information, or they've prodded (bribed) a reporter, or something of the sort, to be sure it's going down.
SALT LAKE CITY, Dec. 18 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK) announced that today, after 669 consecutive trading days (and 709 total trading days), it has dropped off of Nasdaq's Regulation SHO threshold list. http://investors.overstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=131091&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1088551&highlight= Thought this would be the right forum for this. Guess that last jam to 40 cleared them out.
nobody cleared anybody out. ever see shorts cover thirty million into a dive like that? They just hid the fails. Understand, x clearing is five to ten times the sho. They are "between brokers" and don't show at the DTCC. Patrick ws some kinda pissed when the SEC said they were'n't responsible (that part is true) for the "x". We know, and some SEC types have told us, they know the stuff is just shuffled around. Why do you think Grassley is on their ass. I'll post a better one next.
http://www.stopphantomshortselling.org/CaseStudies/Sedona.html The above is a "case study" of Sedona Corp. There are also two SEC Actions on their behalf you can find if you're interested. Three years ago, the Badians were indicted by DOJ one week before Christmas. Tonight, this broke. http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenew...nt-face-markets-cx_lm_1218autofacescan02.html The brokers servicing Badians were at Refco. They moved to Pond. The SEC is after them. Right now, there is another case pending in NY we are waiting to hear. On Garcia's staff is one Marcia Isaacson. She is lead attorney on Sedona. It is the only company to get infront of the SEC. there are probably a bunch in front of Justice, maybe even the SEC. The rest of the companies were buried. Thousands were buried. In these cases, DTCC sheets dont change. Once they cripple a company , the shares are passed from broker to broker, making them invisible to the system. So, that is what Patrick is talking about when he talks about "entitlements". deepcapturethemovie.com someone asked me tonight, if there were tens of millions of shares of Sedona naked shorted at Refco, and refco is broke, who buys them in? The short answer is the customers' firms who never demanded the buy ins in the first place. And the beat goes on. Joke. Just a joke. Subprime, Grassley and the GAO saying the SEC is corrupt/inept. The major brokers stepping on their dicks. It's just a joke.
Citron Research, nee Stock Lemon, just bashed ARTC. Remember, they did in Bidz. I see it made SHO yesterday. They company doesn't stand a chance. Have at it. I guess no one cares.
Check out the newsflow and stock action. Notice, the options never came in. This is how they bury ostk. Options mm exemption. artc You're welcome
PAL is being naked shorted. They broght it to a multi-year rock solid bottom, for no good reason at all but just because they can, at a time when platinum and palladium are making multi-year highs. PAL is one of the only two North American PGM metal producers. It should track the bullish movements of the metals: It's rather ridiculous PAL is at the bottom while platinum is at the top: Time to load up some dirt cheap PAL shares, a hidden gem in the precious metal players. http://www.seekingalpha.com/article/55173-palladium-an-investable-metal-that-defies-physics