This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mantanmoreland (talk | contribs) at 03:21, 30 January 2006 (→Page Protection - discussion of dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:21, 30 January 2006 by Mantanmoreland (talk | contribs) (→Page Protection - discussion of dispute)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Neutral POV violations
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)
- I have put in a request for semi-protection of the page, which will prevent anonymous editors from reverting to their POV-laden version. There appear to be several IP addresses reverting to this version over the past 2 days, either recruited from outside or a single user with a dynamic address. (ESkog) 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Page Protection - discussion of dispute
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 Misplaced Pages 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) 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree and see no problem whatseover with the current version, which presents a balanced POV and is not a one-sided rant such as has been repeatedly dumped by the anonymous editors.--Mantanmoreland 22:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'll leave a note on all of the anon talk pages who have contributed their version in the last 24 hours or so that they should come participate in this discussion. (ESkog) 22:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree very emphatically. There does need to be a title 'Naked Short Selling' (only because that's the accepted name for the practice) and it needs to be completely rewritten. There is NO balance whatsoever with the current version. It's a one-sided piece that presents naked short selling from the viewpoint of those engaged in the 'illegal' practice. User:Mantanmoreland et al are doing all they can to suppress the fact the the problem exists, calling it a figment of imagination or a valid counter to a pump and dump. Sorry; but train robbery did occur, and it was not a valid counter to the way the railroads were run. If you think naked shorting doesn't happen, and that shares are never sold and not delivered, try out for size http://www.rgm.com/shortselling.html. If you want a more recognizable link, try http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1126706,00.html titled "HOW HEDGE FUNDS TIED TO EMBATTLED BROKER REFCO USED "NAKED SHORT SELLING" TO PLUNDER SMALL COMPANIES". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.96.70.230 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please comment on specific places in the current article where we can improve. I don't see it as a one-sided piece at all and am curious as to your point of view. (ESkog) 01:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a significant (and so far very productive!) discussion of the page protection taking place at my talk page and User talk:Riverrunrun. Other interested parties may chime in here or there. (ESkog) 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a back and forth over personalities, except to say that I'm not trying to "suppress any facts" and I don't think the other editors were trying to do so either. I don't think this kind of comment personally attacking and questioning motives contributes to the discussion. --Mantanmoreland 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think you'll find we've moved past/around that. (ESkog) 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh (sound of head smacking forward) yes I see. I thought that was a discussion of a different dispute.--Mantanmoreland 03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)