User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The/Overstock/Analysis/Naked short selling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit comments are for my own use. Use at your risk. I do not spend long on each edit and may quite easily miss something major.


I don't agree with every block anybody else ever makes. If I give a reason for a block it's the reason given by the blocking admin. In particular, I find the blocking of Piperdown inexplicable. He is an excellent editor, though perhaps a little quick to anger.

June 2005[edit]

July 2005[edit]

September 2005[edit]

October 2005[edit]

November 2005[edit]

December 2005[edit]

January 2006[edit]

At this point the article had thus become a vehicle for pro- and con- campaigners, but there were clearly few eyes on it and obviously biased statements and attacks had not been removed.

There follows a brief edit war over a "warning" text placed into the article


There then follows a brief period of vandalism


At this point the talk page had gathered some discussion of the dispute. Mantanmoreland expressed concern about what he described as "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."

ESkog also said "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 then created a workshop article which was worked on for a day or two and then history merged into the article.

  • 20:03, 30 January 2006, ESkog's initial version
    • This is a much shorter article than the pre-workshop version and appears to be fairly neutrally worded (possibly the first neutral version we had)
  • 20:34, 30 January 2006 by ESkog, minor formatting change
  • 23:00, 30 January 2006, edit summary "adding better cite for opening graph", switch from bullandbear.com ref to one on investopedia
  • 00:24, 31 January 2006, Mantanoreland, considerable expansion, edit summary "balancing out the arguments". Adds references to time.com, sec.gov, businessweek.com. Mentions overstock.com's lawsuit against an alleged naked-short seller. Cameron Funkhouser (NASD) quoted. On the face of it, well referenced and quite good work.
  • 05:43, 31 January 2006 by 68.9.150.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), mainly elaborating on overstock.com lawsuit. A little original-researchy
  • 05:46, 31 January 2006, 68.9.150.245, link for ref to overstock.com
  • 06:36, 31 January 2006 by ESkog, edit summary "cleanup prose and a bit of formatting", removes original research language
  • 4:52, 31 January 2006, by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "removing Rocker (not naked shorting", removed reference to lawsuit and adds back "However, critics of the anti-naked shorting campaign maintain that proof real damage is lacking" which was removed by ESkog
  • 14:53, 31 January 2006 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "language to restore neutral POV", change "However, critics of the anti-naked shorting campaign maintain that proof real damage is lacking" -> "However, critics of the anti-naked shorting campaign maintain that there is no proof to substantiate these and other allegations of the anti-shorting forces"
  • 15:29, 31 January 2006, Mantanmoreland, add link to sec.gov as source for statement
  • 17:35, 31 January 2006 by Mantanmoreland. Remove investopedia ref, replace by refs to sec.gov and nytimes.com
  • 17:43, 31 January 2006, Mantanmoreland, edit summary "adding reaction to Reg. SHO", add ref to comment by financial columnist Floyd Norris of the New York Times.
  • 17:48, 31 January 2006, Mantanmoreland, edit summary "fixed formatting in link, first paragraph", minor cosmetic tweak
  • 17:50, 31 January 2006, Mantanoreland, "finally fixed the link"
  • 20:03, 31 January 2006, Mantanmoreland, "Byrne" -> "Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne"
  • 22:51, 31 January 2006, Mantanmoreland, edit summary "adding lawsuits", add "Some have filed suit against alleged naked shorts and other parties, but their suits have been almost invariably dismissed" with external link
  • 22:55, 31 January 2006 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "adding link to SEC summary of comments on naked shorting", adds link to sec.gov

February 2006[edit]

  • 22:35, 1 February 2006 by Splash, performs the history merge back to naked short selling
  • 09:53, 2 February 2006, 71.106.226.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), restores POV version
  • 09:56, 2 February 2006 71.106.226.6, cosmetic changes
  • 09:58, 2 February 2006, 71.106.226.6, adds external links to businessjive.com and ncans.net
  • 10:01, 2 February 2006, 71.106.226.6, small reformatting job
  • 17:38, 2 February 2006 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "removing vandalism, restoring to agreed-on version". Restores to version merged in by Splash
  • 22:04, 2 February 2006 three edits by 71.107.25.113, substantially restoring the POV version
  • 23:05, 2 February 2006 by ESkog, edit summary "rv to version agreed-to by consensus - please discuss wholesale changes on Talk page first", reverted the previous three edits
  • 02:02, 3 February 2006 10 edits by 71.107.25.113, more substantial changes
  • 03:36, 3 February 2006 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "reverting to agreed-to neutral POV version"
  • 11:27, 3 February 2006 18 edits by 71.106.232.158 making substantial changes
  • 17:05, 3 February 2006 by 70.23.106.219, edit summary "restoring compromise version", again reverting to the version Splash had merged in
  • 20:35, 3 February 2006 7 edits by 71.107.16.193, again making substantial changes
  • 21:02, 3 February 2006 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "emoving one-sided changes, restoring compromise version"
  • 21:14, 3 February 2006 by ESkog, edit summary "adding explanatory comment to try to discourage our anon from returning"
  • 21:14, 3 February 2006 by ESkog, cosmetic change. These two edits added a not asking editors to "Please discuss any major changes" and explaining how to do so
  • 21:28, 3 February 2006 4 edits by 71.107.16.193, making substantial changes
  • 21:28, 3 February 2006 by ESkog, edit summary "rv wholesale changes to ESkog version - see Talk page"
  • 23:20, 3 February 2006 by Splash, edit summary "semiprotected; see log and talk for reasoning"
    • Associated log entry: "23:20, 3 February 2006 Splash (Talk | contribs) protected Naked short selling ‎"anon refusing to discuss before reverting, no edit summaries, dynamic ip, disrupting normal editing of article, and only interaction is an "I WANT THE TRUTH" rant. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]"
    • Associated talk entry here
  • 15:46, 9 February 2006 9 edits by Mantanmoreland. Removes a large number of external links from opinion sites, etc, adds one to "Short Selling FAQ" by the "Depository Trust and Clearing Corp" (dtcc.com). Rewrites lead para.
    • Adds this: "Critics including the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, whose stock loan program is at the center of the naked short-selling controversy, contend that naked short-selling has been advanced by owners of small public companies to divert attention of price declines caused by corporate shortcomings and regulatory problems."
    • Adds this: "Critics say that one indication of large naked short positions are large numbers of "fails to deliver." Such "fails" have been advanced by critics as evidence of "massive fraud" in the markets. Recent statistics showed a large number of "fails" for one stock caught up in the naked shorting controversy, Overstock, Inc. However, the DTCC, the self-regulatory organization responsible for handling the trades, states that "fails" can occur for many reasons other than naked short-selling. The SEC concurs, observing in a recent legal brief that fails to deliver do not result in any disadvantage to customers and do not necessarily result from naked short-selling." These are all referenced.
  • 04:39, 10 February 2006 by Bobobrien, adds "Critics of this position point out that fails to deliver do not have voting rights as they are not genuine "shares" - a significant piece of the value of an equity." (unsourced POV), elaborates "foreign exchange" to "Berlin Exchange", other small changes.
  • 04:49, 10 February 2006 by ESkog, edit summary "minor cleanup - "Berlin Exchange" 3 times in one short paragraph feels like too much"
  • 05:26, 10 February 2006 by Bobobrien. Adds the following para to "Controversy" section:
    • "Critics of the practice point out that taking a buyer's money and not delivering the product paid for is fraud, regardless of the ostensibly meritorious reasons for defrauding investors. Arguments that without one sort of fraud, another "might" have been worse, are not met warmly by those critics."
  • 21:13, 10 February 2006 7 edits by Mantanmoreland.
    • Basically separates out the statements by the regulators (SEC, DTCC, etc) by creating a new section "Regulators Respond".
  • 06:49, 11 February 2006, 3 edits by Merecat. Rewrite of "The Practice" section.
  • 17:43, 11 February 2006 2 edits by TomStoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), basically a grammar or usage fix (pervasity -> pervasiveness). TomStoner was later blocked as a sock of Mantanmoreland.
  • 22:57, 11 February 2006 by Splash, edit summary "rm sprotection; seek full protection if edit war resumes, but the vandalism side of things is long gone"
  • 01:45, 17 February 2006 by TommyToyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), rewrite of "Its Effects" section. removes regulator's FAQ and references to dismissed lawsuits, adds a lot of references to "thesanitycheck.com".
  • 01:48, 17 February 2006 by 71.107.33.174, cosmetic ("SEC" -> "the SEC")
  • 19:02, 17 February 2006, 6 edits by Mantanmoreland, quite large changes to "Its Effects" and "Regulators Respond". Changes links to "thesanitycheck" (an advocacy website that has since been blacklisted for spam) to the regulator's website. Adds "Byrne has also contended that a criminal mastermind or "Sith Lord" controls naked short-selling of his stock."
  • 20:08, 18 February 2006 by 71.106.226.32, rewrite of "Its Effects", rather confused, gets the different sides mixed up (for instance, "Some opponents of the naked shorting campaign say that naked short selling functions as a mechanism for correcting abuses in the marketplace, particularly in the market for micro cap stocks. Others say that while naked shorting is wrong, the pervasiveness of the practice has been grossly exaggerated." -> "Others say that naked short selling functions as a mechanism for correcting abuses in the marketplace, particularly in the market for micro cap stocks. However, the critics of naked short selling say that while naked shorting is wrong, the pervasiveness of the practice has been grossly exaggerated." The latter sentence in particular should refer to defenders, not critics, of a relatively relaxed regime on naked short selling.
  • 20:18, 18 February 2006 3 edits by TommyToyz, mainly changing terms like "critics say" to "many say"
  • 20:55, 18 February 2006 5 edits by 71.106.226.32, adds back some references to thesanitycheck.com, and adds the statement at end of Funkhauser quote: "At the same Forum held by the NASAA, the head of the Connecticut Securities Agency and current head of the NASAA, Ralph Lambiase, delcared his disapointmen in how the industry was handling this issue as a whole."
  • 21:11, 18 February 2006 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "restoring neutral POV", pretty extensive rewrite
  • 17:49, 20 February 2006 by 67.87.15.81, adds back the spam link from the previous July
  • 05:12, 21 February 2006 by Tomstoner, remove spam, elaborate on "Sith Lord" claim with link to article on money.cnn.com written by two senior Fortune writers ("Overstock's phantom menace"), several attacks on Byrne citing Gary Weiss's blog.
  • 08:29, 21 February 2006 4 edits by Tommytoyz, quite extensive rewrite (or revert?) of "Its Effects", removes quite a lot, adds back "thesanitycheck.com" references, removes reference to Shapiro's Time article, BusinessWeek, and Weiss's blog.
  • 11:55, 21 February 2006 by ESkog, minor grammar fix
  • 19:21, 21 February 2006 5 edits by Tommytoyz, move "Controversy" section above "Regulators Respond", extensive changes to external links, removing links to Time, BusinessWeek and New York Times and adding references to thesanitycheck.com
  • 04:39, 22 February 2006 by TomStoner, edit summary "removing unsourced alleged SEC quote pending citation", removes 'The SEC says : "Naked short selling, however, can have negative effects on the market. Fraudsters may use naked short selling as a tool to manipulate the market. Market manipulation is illegal. The SEC has toughened its rules and is vigilant about taking actions against wrongdoers. Fails to deliver that persist for an extended period of time may result in a significantly large unfulfilled delivery obligation at the clearing agency where trades are settled"'. See comments on talk page
  • 13:15, 22 February 2006 3 edits by 71.106.230.124, restores SEC quote with link , remove references to blogs by Gary Weiss and Jeff Matthews
  • 16:20, 22 February 2006 by Tomstoner, remove SEC quote that had just been sourced by 71.106.230.124, rewrite paragraph to remove claim by sanitycheck.com that the "securities entitlement" documents "are not legal, and rather represent counterfeit shares"
  • 17:07, 22 February 2006 edits by Tommytoyz, restores disputed SEC quote, remove BusinessWeek and New York Times references to criticisms of the anti-naked shorts campaign. See the associated talk page discussions
  • 17:34, 22 February 2006 2 edits by Tomstoner, adds back criticisms, removes SEC quote.
  • 17:41, 22 February 2006 by Tommytoyz, restore SEC quote
  • 17:51, 22 February 2006 3 edits by Tomstoner, replace SEC quote with much more extensive quote, "adding FULL SEC quote", remove two sanitycheck.com external links
  • 19:06, 22 February 2006 6 edits by Tommytoyz, effectively duplicated the "Its Effects" section, keeping the quote in both long and short forms, and restores a link to sanitycheck.com
  • 22:35, 22 February 2006 revert by Tomstoner, edit summary "removing one-sided dross and repetition", reverts Tommytoyz 6 edits
  • 23:59, 22 February 2006 4 edits by Tommytoyz, moves large SEC quote, removes references to BusinessWeek, New York Times stories.
  • 16:13, 23 February 2006 revert by Tomstoner, edit summary "reverting harmful edits", reverts Tommytoyz' 4 edits

This was the end of User:Tommytoyz' involvement in the article. See related discussions at User_talk:Tommytoyz. Tommytoyz had also apparently created a POV fork which was deleted (tagged for speedy?)

March 2006[edit]

At this point there had been quite a bit of dialog on the talk page [1]

April 2006[edit]

  • 05:18, 11 April 2006 4 edits by 71.107.23.35, adds section "The 1934 Securities Exchange Act, Section 9", saying "Many investors who are complaining about naked short selling are claiming that naked short selling is illegal, as per the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. These investors claim that naked short selling is effecting a trade without a change in beneficial ownership of the security sold, as there is no delivery within the contracted time period", and quoting the relevant section of the Act.
  • 18:46, 11 April 2006 revert by Tomstoner, edit summary "Removing POV edit consisting of lenngthy legal citation that is not allowed by WP:NOR. Please discuss substantive edits in talk page before making".
  • 18:06, 26 April 2006 by Tomstoner, adds section "Recent developments", saying "Naked shorting continued in the news as a result of campaigning by naked shorting activists. The practice was criticized by Sen. Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, at a meeting of the Senate Banking Committee in April 2006. SEC Commission Chairman Christopher Cox responded that he intended to follow up on Bennett's concerns. The campaign against naked shorting was criticized in Wall Street Versus America, a book by journalist Gary Weiss, as an effort to divert regulators from more pressing concerns."
  • 14:00, 27 April 2006 by Tomstoner, rewrite new section as: "Naked shorting continued in the news through 2006, with opponents of the practice contending it contributes to the demise of companies. Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne continued to push the anti-naked shorting cause in interviews and Internet postings, including a lively exchange on a New York Times blog. [2] Newspaper accounts focusing on the demise of Sedona Corp., which allegedly was targeted by naked shorts, fueled the controversy.[3]. Critics of the naked shorting campaign also continued to be vocal, contending the practice was not harmful and exaggerated. Opponents include Wall Street Journal, which criticized the naked shorting allegations in an editorial, columnist Joseph Nocera of the New York Times. Author and journalist Gary Weiss criticizesd the campaign in his book Wall Street Versus America, which appeared in April 2006, as a diversion of regulatory resources."
  • 18:36, 29 April 2006 by Sir Vicious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edit summary "spelling", minor spelling fix
  • 14:56, 30 April 2006 5 edits by Lastexit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), later blocked as a sock of Mantanmoreland. Expands "Recent developments" section, minor spelling fix in external links

May 2006[edit]

June 2006[edit]

July 2006[edit]

  • 00:39, 12 July 2006 by Lastexit, edit summary "adding source", adds reference to a December, 2003 NewsWeek column by Gary Weiss called "Don't Force The Shorts To Get Dressed" [4]
  • 15:58, 12 July 2006 by Mantanmoreland, "mafia" -> "Mafia"
  • 01:18, 14 July 2006 by 59.93.242.103, adds to "Controversy": "Interestingly enough, the SEC has moved from from naked shorting being a figment of investor imaginations prior to 2004, to a small problem in 2004, and finally a “serious problem” in 2006. [5]"
  • 01:51, 14 July 2006 by 24.82.94.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), "naked shorting" -> "naked selling" in lead sentence
  • 15:03, 14 July 2006 revert by Lastexit, edit summary "removing nonexistent terminology", reverts previous edit by 24.82.94.235
  • 17:34, 18 July 2006 by Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), minor tweak to name of an institution
  • 17:39, 18 July 2006 by Epeefleche, adds to "Recent developments" section "The plaintiff in a lawsuit against DTCC for its involvement in naked short selling is seeking $400 million in damages. In the case of Pet Quarters, Inc. v. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, et al., filed October 29, 2004, the DTCC Defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court are pending."
  • 13:14, 20 July 2006 by Lastexit, edit summary "DTC has been sued many times. Why single this one out?", reverts Epeefleche's addition
  • 07:47, 22 July 2006 2 edits by 66.102.186.22, edit summary "links to pop culture refs, pro and con", adds two links to businessjive.com. One a presentation by Patrick Byrne, the other a "very funny parody" of the presentation
  • 12:01, 22 July 2006 by Mantanmoreland, removes both external links added by 66.102.186.22
  • 13:12, 22 July 2006 by 66.102.186.22, edit summary "please be respectful of a fellow editor's edits", puts them back
  • 13:53, 22 July 2006 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "rv POV links from non-notable, unverified websites posted by new user ID suddenly engaged in edit warring", removes them again
  • 14:13, 22 July 2006 by 66.102.186.22, edit summary "with respect, please allow the edits to stand while you list your specific concerns on Talk:Naked_short_selling", adds them again
  • 14:17, 22 July 2006 by Mantanmoreland, removes them again.
  • 14:37, 22 July 2006 by 66.102.186.22, edit summary "restore impetulent near-vandalism"
  • 17:11, 22 July 2006 by Tomstoner, edit summary 'removing POV links -- don't describe edits you disagree with as "vandalism"'
  • 17:52, 22 July 2006 by 67.87.15.81, puts the July 2005 spam back
  • 18:03, 22 July 2006 by 66.102.186.15, edit summary "rv consensus article. please discuss changes on talk page first. Sheeesh", removes spam link
  • 18:22, 22 July 2006 by 66.102.186.13, edit summary "adding excellent presentation by noted expert on topic", restores link to Byrne's presentation labelling it as "Definitive primer on naked short selling"
  • 02:08, 23 July 2006 by Tomstoner, edit summary "rv POV link", removes the added link
  • 02:25, 23 July 2006 by 65.116.113.10, adds to lead: "In July, 2006 an SEC whistleblower named Gary Aguirre came forward and confirmed in detail the allegations of the anti-naked shorting community: as a result, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox hurriedly proposed a set of regulatory changes that the anti-rule of law faction argues is draconian and the pro-rule of law faction views as insufficient."
  • 02:31, 23 July 2006 by Tomstoner, edit summary "rv POV", removes the recently added comment about Gary Aguirre, and the addition by 59.93.242.103 of 14 July that started "Interestingly enough..."
  • 07:21, 26 July 2006 by Tesseran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edit summary "punctuation", some minor grammar fixes and wikification
  • 15:49, 26 July 2006 by Yuiop135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edit summary "Remove gratuitous plugs of journalists' work. There is a large body of writing on naked short selling. Why must these journalists have their work referenced?", removes references to works by Gary Weiss, and Joseph Nocera of the New York Times
  • 15:57, 26 July 2006 by Mantanmoreland, restores them
  • 19:33, 26 July 2006 by 66.102.186.10, tags the references with "uncited" and describes Weiss as a "former journalist".
  • 20:36, 26 July 2006 revert by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "rv edits of banned editor"


There is no discussion of these incidents on the talk page by either party (in fact nothing on the talk page between 12 July and 6 August). Perhaps some content has been oversighted from the discussion page.

August 2006[edit]

September 2006[edit]

  • 23:45, 1 September 2006 by Smcn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), edit summary "Removed biased rationale for SEC initiation of Reg SHO and the supporting quote from NYT opinion piece.". Removes reference to BusinessWeek and New York Times pieces
  • 00:16, 2 September 2006 by Smcn, edit summary "Removed book plug." Removes reference to Gary Weiss book "Wall Street Versus America"
  • 00:26, 2 September 2006 revert by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "rv POV edits"
  • 01:46, 24 September 2006 6 edits by Cave Bovum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (later blocked as a sock puppet of WordBomb) updates "Regulators Respond" and "Recent events" sections.
    • New opening para for "Regulators Respond" replaces old one: "Allegations of naked shorting, while once denied by the SEC and other self-regulatory organizations that oversee the U.S. markets, are now understood to be valid sources of concern. At a speech given in July of 2006, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox made reference to abusive naked short selling as a "serious problem...[which] can be used as a tool to drive down a company's stock price to the detriment of all of its investors."[6]"
    • New final para for "Recent events" replaces old one: "The SEC bowed to mounting pressure to amend the two year old Regulation SHO. An open comment period, ending mid-September, 2006, may have been the most lopsided in SEC history, registering a single serious objection to amending SHO, compared with some 250 commentors supporting change -- including several members of Congress, two state attorneys general, one governor, and several securities regulators.[7]"
  • 13:59, 24 September 2006 3 edits by Mantanmoreland
    • Adds the following to Controversy: "Critics of the naked shorting campaign contend the practice is not harmful and its prevalence exaggerated. Opponents include Wall Street Journal, which criticized the naked shorting allegations in an editorial, and columnist Joseph Nocera of the New York Times. Author and journalist Gary Weiss criticized the anti-shorting campaign in his book Wall Street Versus America, as a diversion of regulatory resources from more pressing issues."
    • Softens somewhat POV wording of Cave Bovum's addition to "Recent events", giving: "The SEC bowed to mounting pressure to amend the two year old Regulation SHO, which is designed to confront the issue. An open comment period, ending mid-September, 2006, included some 250 commentors supporting change -- including several members of Congress, two state attorneys general, one governor, and several securities regulators. There was little opposition.[8]"
  • 22:18, 24 September 2006 by Cave Bovum, restores wording of "Recent Events"
  • 03:01, 25 September 2006 2 edits by Mantanmoreland
    • Change meaning of "Regulators Respond" ("Allegations of naked shorting, while once denied by the SEC and other self-regulatory organizations that oversee the U.S. markets, are now understood to be valid sources of concern." -> "The allegations of the anti-naked shorting movements are denied by Securities and Exchange Commission and the self-regulatory organizations (SROs) that regulate the U.S. markets."), reorder paragraphs, separate comment by Christopher Cox into its own para.
    • Trimmed "Recent developments" somewhat and replaced link to comments to link to proposed new rules, and removed external link to ncans.net ("link to non-notable website; see WP:V")
  • 12:51, 27 September 2006 by 80.80.62.62, added Category: Stock market
  • 30 September 2006 4 edits by 84.16.224.109, adding unabashedly pro-reform advocacy and attacking the regulators
  • 23:16, 30 September 2006 by 70.134.119.250, adds link to comments to the SEC's proposal (removed by Mantanmoreland) as an external link

October 2006[edit]

  • 01:56, 1 October 2006 by 24.151.127.214
    • Adds several references to prominent critics of naked short selling, including Harvey Pitt, former SEC chair (writing in Forbes), Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticutt, and the President of Utah's Senate and the Speaker of the Utah State House of Representatives, cited from comments to the SEC.
  • 05:48, 1 October 2006 revert by Mantanmoreland, to previous version by 80.80.62.62, edit sumary "rv POV-pushing by anon editors"
  • 13:55, 1 October 2006 by 72.228.21.100
    • Add to section "The Practice": 'From the SEC website: "This activity would violate Regulation SHO, except for short sales by market makers engaged in bona fide market making. Market makers do not have to locate stock before selling short, because they need to be able to provide liquidity. However, market makers are not excepted from Regulation SHO's close-out and pre-borrow requirements." http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm'
  • 16:39, 1 October 2006 by MrFixIt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Adds more advocacy: "A letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Reg SHO and the damage naked short selling does. [9]"
  • 16:56, 1 October 2006 2 edits by 24.151.127.214
    • Removed substantial text from "Controversy"
    • Removed reference to Gary Weiss book
  • 17:05, 1 October 2006 2 edits by MrFixIt
    • Adds: "Here is a link to a comment letter to the SEC from Dr. Robert Shapiro, former Under-secretary of State. [10]. A comment letter to the SEC regarding naked short selling and subsequent settlement problems from the governor of Utah: [11]"
  • 19:07, 1 October 2006 by 71.70.155.234
    • Adds: "Other critics have contended that REG SHO is not curbing naked shorting as intended. "The SEC has a rule aimed at reducing such shorting, but the practice has risen, and a proposed tightening of the rule may not have much effect." [Floyd Norris, nytimes]. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/15615955.htm"
  • 06:53, 2 October 2006 revert by Mantanmoreland to previous version by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "rv blatant editorializing, blanking of content and OR by meatpuppets from www.thesanitycheck.com article attacking Wiki and maligning editors"
  • 12:41, 2 October 2006 2 edits by MrFixit, adds back two advocacy points.
  • 17:49, 2 October 2006 7 edits by 208.27.111.132
    • General copy edits
    • Adds advocacy: 'To defend the practice of naked short selling, however, is essentially to defend a different kind of theft or fraud in the market. The favored argument among naked short sellers is that they "protect" the market, and yet, at best, they merely step into the shoes of pump and dump fraudsters to take existing investors' money. Supporters of naked short selling have yet to offer any proof that "the market" or such investors ever benefit from the practice.'
  • 18:10, 2 October 2006 by 208.65.61.50
    • Adds more advocacy from comments to SEC
  • 18:33, 2 October 2006 by MrFixIt, removes "The allegations of the anti-naked shorting movements are denied by Securities and Exchange Commission and the self-regulatory organizations (SROs) that regulate the U.S. markets."
  • 18:36, 2 October 2006 2 edits by 208.27.111.132
    • Substantial changes to "Does Naked Shorting Drive Stock Prices Down?" section
    • Remove content from "Controversy" section
  • 18:38, 2 October 2006 by MrFixit, adds "(which is illegal)" after the phrase "Naked short-sellers"
  • 18:39, 2 October 2006 by 208.27.111.132, grammar tweak
  • 18:40, 2 October 2006 by MrFixIt, changes "which is illegal" to "which is illegal in most instances"
  • 18:48, 2 October 2006 4 edits by 208.27.111.132
    • Rewrites "Regulators Respond", adds editorializing, "Such backpeddling and denials notwithstanding..."
  • 18:55, 2 October 2006 by MrFixIt, change "which is illegal in most instances" -> "who are acting illegally in this context"
  • 20:07, 2 October 2006 11 edits by 208.27.111.132
    • Move substantial content from "Does Naked Shorting Drive Stock Prices Down?" to "Controversy"
    • Editorializing: 'The brief asserts, without irony, that "fails to deliver" (FTDs) do not "hurt" investors...', 'Critics of naked shorting point out that...'
  • 20:19, 2 October 2006 by MrFixIt, adds "Global Links sues the DTCC over naked shorting" with a link to thesanitycheck.com website
  • 20:27, 2 October 2006 4 edits by 208.27.111.132, minor copy edit
  • 23:44, 2 October 2006 by The dude man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Removes references to statements by journalists and columnists Floyd Norris (in the New York Times), Joseph Nocera (New York Times), and Gary Weiss
  • 23:51, 2 October 2006 by Voice of All, adds "cleanup" tag
  • 00:35, 3 October 2006 2 edits by The dude man
    • Add: "Regulation SHO requires the close-out of securities that linger on Regulation SHO but it is not enforced as there are stocks that have been listed for over 1 year. Everyday there are new stocks that exceed the 13 day closed settlement date. The fact that there are securities on Regulation SHO for more than 13 days has led many observes to comment on the toothlessness of the regulation."
    • Add: "Naked Short Sellers often employ Short and Distort tactics to slash share prices. A short and distort campaign is the exact opposite of the pump and dump. Both forms of market abuse exist and both are loathed by market participants."
  • 02:01, 3 October 2006 reverts by ESkog, edit summary '("many observers" ... "are loathed by" ... phrasing like this needs to be well sourced or it doesn't belong here'
  • 02:02, 3 October 2006 Nothing But The Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), adds "Weblogs journalling Naked Short Selling" and link to thesanitycheck.com
  • 02:19, 3 October 2006 rollback by Yanksox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 02:42, 3 October 2006 revert by Nothing But The Truth
  • 02:42, 3 October 2006 revert by Leuko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 03:55, 3 October 2006 revert by Nothing But The Truth
  • 08:27, 3 October 2006 by Pearle, dates cleanup tag
  • 12:40, 3 October 2006 by 71.70.155.234, adds 'Pegasus Wireless's stock allegedly naked shorted in an "independent secondary offering". [Liz Moyers, Forbes Magazine] [12]'
  • 12:59, 3 October 2006 3 edits by Mantanmoreland
    • Removes weblog links added by "Nothingbutthetruth
    • Removes extensive advocacy sourced from comments to the SEC
    • Removes editorialization "Such backpeddling and denials notwithstanding..." etc
    • Removes "Global Links sues the DTCC over naked shorting" (sourced from thesanitycheck.com)
    • Retains "Pegasus Wireless's stock allegedly was naked shorted" (sourced from Forbes)
    • Seems to be reverting to language from late September in "Controversy" section
  • 13:07, 3 October 2006 2 edits by 71.70.155.234, both with edit summary " Spam for Weiss book removed", removes reference to Born to Steal (cited for claim that "Pump and dump organizations sometimes are run by the Mafia") and Wall Street Versus America (cited as an example of journalistic criticism of the anti-naked-shorts campaign)
  • 13:27, 3 October 2006 by Nothing But The Truth, adds back thesanitycheck.com blog link
  • 15:23, 3 October 2006 6 edits by 84.16.224.109
    • Removes some content, adds editorializing sourced from thesanitycheck.com: "Market Reform advocates counter these unsupported opinions by citing the FOIA data received from the SEC, showing hundreds of millions to billions of shares naked shorted per day, and an increase of naked short selling since the SEC passed Reg SHO" (with link to thesanitycheck.com)
    • "Ironically, the NYSE is now on the Reg SHO Threshold List."
    • Add back advocacy sourced from comments to SEC
  • 15:38, 3 October 2006 3 edits by Thedudeman
    • Restore: "Naked Short Sellers often employ Short and Distort tactics to slash share prices. A short and distort campaign is the exact opposite of the pump and dump. Both forms of market abuse exist and both are loathed by market participants."
    • Remove everything after first two paras of "Controversy" and add "Regulation SHO requires the close-out of securities that linger on Regulation SHO but it is not enforced as there are stocks that have been listed for over 1 year. Everyday there are new stocks that exceed the 13 day closed settlement date. The fact that there are securities on Regulation SHO for more than 13 days has led many observes to comment on the toothlessness of the regulation."
  • 19:44, 3 October 2006 by Unbiased, small grammar fix, "enacting" -> "exerting"
  • 20:03, 3 October 2006 2 edits by 84.16.224.109
    • Add "Harvey Pitt, the former Chairman of the SEC from 2001 to 2003, formalized his understanding of the practices damaging impact in a recent Forbes Magazine editorial [13]."
    • Remove link to businessweek opinion piece
    • Add editorializing: " a conceit that simultaneously assumes that they know better than the market what a stock is worth, and that using an illegal trading technique is justified by their superior valuation skills."
  • 21:45, 3 October 2006 by The dude man, typo fix
  • 22:38, 3 October 2006 2 edits by Leuko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Remove dtcc.com's Naked Short Selling FAQ
    • Remove Nothingbutthetruth's links to thesanitycheck.com blogs
  • 23:41, 3 October 2006 by Nothing But The Truth, adds back the blog links
  • 01:05, 4 October 2006 by 71.70.155.234, add external link to TIME article on illegal naked short selling scams ("Watch Out, They Bite!" by Daniel Kadlec)
  • 01:39, 4 October 2006 by 205.188.117.66, remove link to blogs
  • 05:47, 4 October 2006 5 edits by Boboncans
    • Removes cleanup tag
    • Removes businessweek article
    • Clarify why market makers are permitted to use naked shorts
    • Introduce a good bit of editorializing
  • 06:48, 4 October 2006 by Nothing But The Truth, restores link to blogs
  • 11:42, 4 October 2006 revert by 64.12.116.6
  • 11:49, 4 October 2006 revert by Nothing But The Truth
  • 20:49, 4 October 2006 revert by 205.188.117.66
  • 03:49, 5 October 2006 by 84.16.224.109, edit summary "Added NSS descriptive mechanism at end of SEC Chewbacca ramble"
  • 5 October 2006 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "reverting the blatant POV pushing of meatpuppets imported here by the anti-NSS website "www.thesanitycheck.com"--let's go ahead and revert quickly, guys!", reverts back to Mantanmoreland's last revision of 3 October
  • 06:54, 5 October 2006 by HomeComputer (talk · contribs), later blocked as a sock of WordBomb, revert with edit summary "rv. Six editors have not spent three days on this only to be reverted without discussion. Please list concerns on talk page. Remember WP:AGF"
  • 13:41, 5 October 2006 by Unbiased, grammar fix
  • 12:21, 6 October 2006 revert by Amoruso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with edit summary "reverting to last version by 06:39, 5 October 2006 Mantanmoreland. these additions are not WP:RS I tend to agree."
  • 14:10, 6 October 2006 revert by Unbiased, with edit summary "The POV Mantanmoreland and his meatpuppies (whatever those are) are pushing is fallacious and factually inconsistent; therefore reverting to POV"
  • 13:27, 7 October 2006 revert by Mantanmoreland with edit summary "reverting edits by agenda-pushing meatpuppets summoned en masse to this and similar pages by www.thesanitycheck.com; see WP:SOCK"
  • 14:37, 7 October 2006 revert by Time Keeper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (later blocked as a sock of WordBomb) with edit summary "rvv"
  • 15:32, 7 October 2006 revert by Fred Bauder with edit summary "Restore wrong version and protect"
  • 15:33, 7 October 2006 protection by Fred Bauder with summary "Protected Naked short selling: Continued editwarring [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]"
  • 15:42, 7 October 2006 tagged as "sprotected" by Fred Bauder
  • 19:13, 7 October 2006 by Time Keeper, edit summary "add resource", adds businessjive link
  • 06:44, 8 October 2006 revert by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "removing link from non-notable website; see WP:RS, WP:V"
  • 02:56, 9 October 2006 revert by Time Keeper, edit summary "rv v"
  • 03:05, 9 October 2006 revert by Amoruso, edit summary "rv"
  • 03:34, 9 October 2006 revert by Time Keeper, edit summary "rv vandalism. Please outline concerns on talk page. Read WP:AGF"
  • 10:11, 9 October 2006 revert by Amoruso, edit summary "not vandalism. I agree with the reason mantanmoreland"
  • 14:15, 9 October 2006 by Perfectblue97, edit summary "wiki link + whiteapace", I don't understand this edit

November 2006[edit]

December 2006[edit]

January 2007[edit]

February 2007[edit]

March 2007[edit]

  • 12:43, 10 March 2007 by Kyle Cronan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), small wikification
  • 21:52, 10 March 2007 4 edits by Samiharris
    • Adds: "n 2006, legislation was passed in Utah aimed at curbing naked shortselling. The law was passed at the urging of Byrne, whose company is in Utah. The legislation was repealed in February 2007, leading to an angry confrontation between Byrne and Utah legislators." Linked to this item by Joe Nocera
  • 19:22, 14 March 2007 7 edits by 84.194.202.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), spam for investigatethesec.com
  • 03:51, 15 March 2007 3 edits by 59.93.199.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), vandalism, 'No, you moron!' etc
  • 03:54, 15 March 2007 by 172.144.166.92, edit summary "If we're gonna fight about the legality, remove the phrase until it can be decided upon". Removes both the vandalism and the contentious phrase "Some forms of naked short-selling are legal and some are not."
  • 11:57, 15 March 2007 by ESkog, removes the spam
  • 13:30, 15 March 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary 'removing inaccurate reference to "countefeit shares"'
    • Removes: This makes it possible for anyone to buy more than 100% of the shares that exist. Naturally, these are counterfeit shares that have no intention to be delivered.
  • 05:12, 16 March 2007 by Errudite (sic), adds quite large quote from speech by SEC Chair Christopher Cox, 14 March, 2007
  • 15:25, 16 March 2007 by Samiharris, removes as unsubstantiated by reference and not in the SEC transcript
  • 21:25, 17 March 2007 revert by Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), later blocked as sock/meatpuppet for overstock.com, edit summary "restore edit by Erudite. Cox quote is properly sourced in Q&A section of webcast. Xscript cited by Samiharris was prepped speech only"
  • 21:47, 17 March 2007 2 more edits by Piperdown, adds reference to Bloomberg Television special
  • 15:41, 18 March 2007 revert by Mantmoreland, edit summary "rv unverifiable alleged quotes; WP:OR, WP:V"
  • 16:46, 18 March 2007 revert by 70.192.195.55
  • 17:09, 18 March 2007 revert by Mantanmoreland
  • 18:05, 18 March 2007 edit by Piperdown edit summary "added SEC"
    • Add: 'Later in March 2007, Chairman Cox commented after Goldman Sachs was fined $2 million by the SEC for naked short selling, "That is an important case and it reflects our interest in this area."', sourced to article in The Times
  • 19:01, 18 March 2007 3 edits by Mantanmoreland recharacterizes case
    • 'Later in March 2007, Chairman Cox commented after Goldman Sachs was fined $2 million by the SEC for naked short selling, "That is an important case and it reflects our interest in this area."' -> 'In March 2007, Goldman Sachs was fined $2 million by the SEC for allowing customers to profit illegally by selling shares short just before public offerings. Naked short-selling was allegedly utilized by the Goldman clients. Cox said, "That is an important case and it reflects our interest in this area."'
  • 23:38, 18 March 2007 5 edits by Piperdown, rewording a little, add reference to change in policy on short selling in the Indian stock market
  • 00:23, 19 March 2007 by Samiharris
    • Adds 'Columnist Joseph Nocera opined that Byrne's anti naked shortselling campaign was in "meltdown."'
    • Trims reference to Indian stock market
    • Removes quote from SEC's SHO Q&A
  • 02:32, 19 March 2007 partial revert by Piperdown, edit summary "Restored properly sourced text from a recent update to SEC website on broker-dealer locate requirements that is central to the naked shorting issue"
  • 03:51, 19 March 2007 revert by Samiharris, edit summary "removing lengthy excerpt from regulation sho; please use summary language and do not quote verbatim from regulations"
  • 05:36, 20 March 2007 6 edits by Piperdown
    • rewrites "Does Naked Shorting Drive Stock Prices Down?" as "SEC Comments on Naked Shorting", replacing the quote with a summary
    • Small tweaks for wording in "Controversy"
    • Place fact tag on an unsourced claim (that the Wall Street Journal criticised anti-naked short campaign in an editorial)
    • Move paragraph about the various lawsuits against the DTCC from "Recent events" to "Controversy"
    • Summarise proposed changes to Regulation SHO in July 2006
    • Expand paragraph on fining of Goldman Sachs for a case in which the bank's clients allegedly used naked short selling just before IPOs
  • 13:45, 20 March 2007 by 216.255.101.56, date change for repeal of Utah anti naked-shorting law, citing the Utah governor's website
  • 14:52, 20 March 2007 by Samiharris, removes Piperdown's summary of October 2006 changes to SEC's Q&A document, edit summary 'sorry this is original research -- good job otherwise! let's "tawk"'
  • 17:28, 20 March 2007 revert by Piperdown, edit summary "restored properly souced material (see "(NEW! 10/10/06)" section in reference SEC page"
  • 18:53, 20 March 2007 revert by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "rv - erroneously implies SEC action in October 2006 when there was NOTHING except an addition to the website"
  • 19:11, 20 March 2007 2 edits by Mantanmoreland, wikilink "Pump and Dump"
  • 02:36, 23 March 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary "India's SEBI approves short selling but won't allow naked short selling"
  • 03:03, 23 March 2007 2 edits by 24.235.229.208, removes redlinks and adds odd sentence "It has also aroused controversy for being far less hot than it sounds." (presumably a comment on the term "naked shorts")
  • 03:18, 23 March 2007 2 edits by Mantanmoreland, removes the vandalism and cites the Wall Street Journal editorial
  • 03:52, 23 March 2007 2 edits by QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I don't see any actual changes here, but I may be missing highlighting colors because of my colorblindness
  • 16:52, 26 March 2007 by Mantanmoreland, cosmetic tweaks to para on Indian exchange

April 2007[edit]

  • 13:45, 13 April 2007 by SmackBot, edit summary "Date/fix the maintenance tags"
  • 15:31, 15 April 2007 by Dorftrottel, minor tweak and wikilink
  • 16:49, 16 April 2007 167.128.162.181, childish vandalism
  • 16:49, 16 April 2007 vandalism revert by MartinBot
  • 19:41, 22 April 2007 4 edits by Samiharris, intensify language referring to Nocera's New York Times piece. "some spirited discourse" -> "a heated confrontation"
    • Adds to the cited report of Nocera's piece: 'Describing a meeting between Byrne and Utah legislators, Nocera said that "as his tone became more belligerent, and he began cursing, most of the others in the room, their jaws agape, simply listened to him rant. Several of them later told me they had never heard anything like it."'
    • Adds references to two studies: in-house study of IPOs by "two SEC staff economists", and "n April 2007 study conducted for Canadian market regulators by Market Regulation Services Inc", both apparently well cited
  • 17:32, 27 April 2007 by 4.253.97.154
    • "One example of continued naked shorting can be readily seen with the stock Microvision (symbol MVIS). This stock has been on the SEC's failure to deliver list (Regulation SHO Threshold Security List) month after month, and yet the SEC has not taken any steps yet."
  • 20:46, 27 April 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary "removing unsourced OR, adding cite".
    • Reverts previous edit
    • Adds 'Even though fails to deliver are viewed by some as a way of measuring the degree of naked short sales, the SEC economists said the delivery failures seen in the IPO market "cannot be explained by short selling in general or 'naked' short selling specifically."', and cites this to a news item in the WSJ
  • 22:58, 28 April 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary " added Bloomberg transcript link to accompany video link"

May 2007[edit]

There are no edits in the history of this article for May, 2007

June 2007[edit]

  • 16:08, 2 June 2007 2 edits by Piperdown, corrects Al Jazeera to Al Jazeera English
  • 17:08, 2 June 2007 3 edits by Piperdown
    • Quite an extensive rewrite of "Controversy" section. A typical change is that the opening sentence "Some investors defend naked short-selling as necessary tool of the market, and caution against further federal regulation" is replaced by "Some major media outlets contend that naked short selling is not harmful and its prevalence exaggerated."
    • Great prominence is given in this version to the views of Floyd Norris, Joseph Nocera and Gary Weiss.
    • Removes quite a lot of stuff from this section.
  • 17:27, 2 June 2007 by Piperdown with edit summary "Combining redundant setences, improving summary of SEC's comments/regulation"
    • Renames "SEC Comments on Naked Shorting" as "The SEC and Naked Shorting"
    • New content of the section is as follows:
      • The SEC contends that naked short selling has been falsely blamed in stock scams, but can be used as a tool for illegal market manipulation. Failures to deliver shares, possibly resulting from naked short sales, that persist for an extended period of time may result in large delivery obligations where stock settlement occurs. Regulation SHO is intended to reduce the number of potential failures to deliver, and by limiting the time in which a broker can permit failures to deliver. Regulation SHO requires broker-dealers to close-out open fail-to-deliver positions in "threshold securities" (i.e., securities that have experienced a substantial number of extended delivery failures) that have persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days." (cites http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm )
      • On its Regulation SHO website ("Does Naked Shorting Drive Prices Down?" section), the SEC cites the prevalence of false claims of naked short selling in Pump and Dump fraud. The SEC downplays the blaming of naked shorting for declining stock prices, stating that stock values ideally should be determined by "the quality of the company itself," "supply and demand" of the company's shares, and the company's ability to generate positive income. They contend that naked short-selling has been frequently and falsely blamed for low stock prices in the wake of pump and dump scams involving companies that are in poor financial condition.
  • 17:34, 2 June 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary "Combine SEC Comments section and Regulators Respond Section as they are both about regulators responding to this issue"
  • 17:34, 2 June 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary "change title"
    • The title of the combined section is now "Regulators on Naked Shorting"
  • 17:38, 2 June 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary "Entire NASD paragraph was sourced from "ncans.net", a non-reliable source - reference removed, source needed or this part goes"
    • Tags the offending paragraph with "fact", removed dud reference (ref named "nasaa" had presumably been removed earlier)
  • 17:41, 2 June 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary " added reference for unsourced claim about other lawsuits begun against hedge funds/prime brokers", sources the story to Forbes
  • 17:46, 2 June 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary " added Forbes refs for lawsuits", another Forbes reference for different litigation
  • 18:20, 2 June 2007 by Piperdown, moves stuff around, introduces more informative section headings
  • 18:26, 2 June 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary "merged accidental duplicate sections on media coverage".
  • 19:29, 2 June 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary "rename". Renames "Regulator Policies" section to "Regulatory Policy and Legislation"

Here endeth a rather inspired editing session by Piperdown!

  • 14:53, 3 June 2007 by Christofurio, edit summary "a non-legislator can't "sponsor" a bill"
    • Wording change:
      • Old: In March 2007, Utah legislation aimed to curb naked short-selling that was sponsored by Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne, originally passed in 2006, was repealed. Legislators said they repealed the law with the understanding that the SEC would act on a federal level to alleviate naked shorting concerns. Byrne alleged that legislators had caved in to lobbying from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
      • New: In March 2007, Utah legislation aimed to curb naked short-selling that was passed largely due to the advocacy of Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne, originally passed in 2006, was repealed. This was in the face of litigation brought by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), which sought to have the federal courts declare the law invalid. Legislators said they repealed the law with the understanding that the SEC would act on a federal level to alleviate naked shorting concerns. Byrne described the repeal as a cave-in to self-interested industry pressure.
  • 16:41, 3 June 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary "adding link to Wall Street Journal editorial, small changes"
  • 16:42, 3 June 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary "moving media section to bottom"
  • 21:05, 4 June 2007 by SmackBot, edit summary "Date/fix the maintenance tags or gen fixes"
  • 19:33, 7 June 2007 by Samiharris, 'Max Keiser reported on naked short selling as part of his expose' on "Rigged Markets" on Al Jazeera's People and Power show' -> 'Max Keiser reported on naked short selling as part of a report on Al Jazeera's People and Power show'
  • 20:23, 7 June 2007 2 edits by Piotrus, tweaks a section heading (case) and makes the reference list display small
  • 12:54, 14 June 2007 5 edits by Piperdown
    • Merges first part of "The Practice" section into the lead
    • Merges second part of "The Practice" section into "Regulatory Policy" section
    • Adds: "In June 2007, the SEC voted to remove the grandfather provision that allowed naked short sales that pre-existed before Reg SHO to be exempt from Reg SHO. SEC Chairman Christopher Cox called naked short selling “a fraud that the commission is bound to prevent and to punish.” The SEC also said it was considering removing an exemption from the rule for options market makers that allows them to naked short sell to hedge an options position." Referenced to Floyd Norris story in New York Times, "S.E.C. Ends Decades-Old Price Limits on Short Selling"
  • 13:36, 14 June 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary "correcting inaccuracy, as ruling involved fails to deliver and exemption involves fails not naked shorting"
  • 13:38, 14 June 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary "combining two regulatory sections"
    • Merges "Regulatory Actions" into "Regulatory Policy"
    • Renames "Legal actions" as "Private lawsuits"
  • 13:40, 14 June 2007 by Samiharris, insert paragraph break after first sentence in lead
  • 13:42, 14 June 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary "adding subsection"
    • Introduces subsection "SEC enforcement actions" into "Regulatory Policy" section
  • 13:43, 14 June 2007 by Samiharris
    • move item about removal of the grandfather clause from Regulation SHO outside the newly created subsection
  • 13:45, 14 June 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary "adding state section"
    • Creates another subsection within "Regulatory Policy", "State legislation", and moves the Utah legislature item there
  • 13:46, 14 June 2007 2 edits by Samiharris, tweaks section heading capitalization
  • 14:20, 15 June 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary ' was not "contended" by Gryphon, was stated as such by SEC; please do not misquote legal documents; removing incorrect link and substituting SEC doc link'
    • Change wording: "Gryphon denied the charges and contended that the naked shorting took place in Canada, where it was legal at the time."
    • New wording: "The naked shorting took place in Canada, where it was legal at the time. Gryphon denied the charges."
  • 16:55, 15 June 2007 by Piperdown, 'Author and Business Week investigative reporter Gary Weiss' -> 'Author and former Business Week investigative reporter Gary Weiss'
  • 19:19, 15 June 2007 3 edits by Samiharris, paragraph break in "Studies", Gary Weiss now becomes "Author, columnist and former Business Week investigative reporter" (Weiss had moved to Forbes as a columnist in late 2006), changes Weiss book citation from Born to Steal: When the Mafia Hit Wall Street to Wall Street Versus America: The Rampant Greed and Dishonesty That Imperil Your Investments
  • 12:44, 20 June 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary "wikify Chris Cox"
  • 18:22, 28 June 2007 10 edits by Samiharris
    • "Regulatory policy" section becomes "Regulatory policy and litigation"
    • Adds: In a June 2007, executives of Universal Express, which had claimed naked shorting of its stock, were sanctioned by a federal court judge as “repeated and remorseless violators” of the securities laws. The SEC asserted that the company “appears to exist primarily as a vehicle for fraud.” (ref "S.E.C. Requests Receiver for Universal Express," The New York Times, June 23, 2007) Referring to a court ruling barring CEO Richard Altomare from serving as an officer of a public company, New York Times columnist Floyd Norris said: "In Altomare's view, the issues that bothered the judge are irrelevant. 'Long and short of it,' he said in a statement, 'this is a naked short hallmark case in the making.' Or it is proof that it can take a long time for the SEC to stop a fraud." (ref A Sad Tale of Fictional SEC Filings, The New York Times, June 22, 2007) Universal Express has claimed that 6,000 small companies have been put out of business by naked shorting, which the company says "the SEC has ignored and condoned." (ref Universal Express statement, June 28, 2007)
    • Tweaks section level of "Private litigation"

July 2007[edit]

  • 02:27, 12 July 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary "Piper Jaffrey fined for naked shorting by NYSE"
    • Rename "SEC enforcement actions" as "Regulatory enforcement actions"
    • Add story about Piper Jaffrey, sourced to Bloomberg
  • 02:39, 12 July 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary "moved Universal Express from naked short regulatory actions (which it isn't) to media coverage as example of Weiss/Norris contention of NSS as red herring"
  • 02:45, 12 July 2007 3 edits by Piperdown, renames sections, promotes subsections to sections
  • 02:54, 12 July 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary " rm wikilink to deleted article that has been redirected here", removes wikilink to Regulation SHO
  • 12:45, 12 July 2007 3 edits by Mantanmoreland
    • Mantamoreland claims in edit summary that "Bloomberg article was wrong as what it described was not NSS", and (without removing the Bloomberg source) he adds a link to the primary source (the court decision), and removes the description of offence from "naked short selling" to 'selling shares without borrowing them, and also failing to "cover short sales in a timely manner"'
  • 12:52, 12 July 2007 2 edits by Mantanmoreland, reverts move of Universal Express case (Piperdown's edit of 02:39 that day), saying in an edit summary "the central aspect of this is a regulatory action, not the Norris commentary on it"
  • 12:54, 12 July 2007 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "breaking blocks of text", inserts a few paragraph breaks into "Media coverage" section
  • 16:51, 13 July 2007 2 edits by Piperdown, edit summary " WSJ article on naked short selling", links to "Blame the 'Stock Vault'?" by John R. Emshwiller and Kara Scannell, July 5, 2007
  • 17:52, 13 July 2007 2 edits by Mantanmoreland, tweaks use of case in newly added external link
  • 17:52, 22 July 2007 5 edits by Piperdown
    • Adds item about Refco probe, sourced from CNN
    • Adds item on ruling by California Superior Court judge John Munter that Overstock.com had a "viable case" against 10 Wall Street firms. Sourced to forbes.com
  • 19:07, 22 July 2007 by Samiharris, edit summary "removing Overstock P.R. and trimming back 2005 Refco material since no charges ever filed"
    • Trims item on Overstock.com case to "In February 2007, Overstock.com sued ten Wall Street prime brokers, claiming a scheme to manipulate its stock by allowing naked short selling. A motion to dismiss the suit was denied in July 2007."
    • Adds reference to Bloomberg story "Overstock Shares Rise on Court Ruling in Broker Suit"
    • Trims RefCo item and adds "No charges had been filed by 2007."
  • 21:36, 24 July 2007 9 edits by Samiharris in section "Litigation"
    • Writes up the "Blame the Stock Vault" story which had originally been added by Piperdown as an external link. Adds it to the top of the section.
    • Adds information about new litigation involving Novastar, merging it with the other ongoing case, Overstock.com
  • 13:47, 26 July 2007 by 68.174.163.223, tweaks to wikilinks
  • 15:48, 26 July 2007 revert by Mantanmoreland (maybe the previous edit made some redlinks?)

August 2007[edit]

  • 03:24, 1 August 2007 3 edits by Piperdown
  • 13:14, 1 August 2007 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "editing to summary style"
    • Trims recent addition, summarising and retaining reason for suspension (abuse of the market-maker exemption to circumvent SHO delivery rules)
  • 13:15, 1 August 2007 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "rv non-RS source ("Mondo Visione")"
    • Removes the last of the four sources cited by Piperdown (www.exchange-handbook.co.uk which redirects to a site called mondovisione.com)
  • 13:22, 1 August 2007 3 edits by Mantanmoreland, elaborates on the market-maker exemption broken in the two July cases, and adds another source (Amex)
  • 22:08, 1 August 2007 by Piperdown, edit summary " for an article on naked shorting, it's pretty important to mention the phrase - Amex used the phrase twice in their PR"
    • Adds 'and "impermissibly engage in naked short selling"' to reasons for suspension of the two market-makers
  • 02:42, 6 August 2007 by Mantanmoreland, edit summary "rv redundancy"
    • Accepts Piperdown's change and removes the prior wording "to circumvent Regulation SHO delivery rules"
  • 01:28, 12 August 2007 by 146.115.58.152, edit summary "fix loop", removes wikilink to Reg SHO which redirected back to the article
  • 06:00, 21 August 2007 by 207.237.244.76, edit summary "fix link", aliases market making to market maker
  • 19:31, 27 August 2007 by Giordanobruno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), "The SEC observes that fails can occur" -> "The SEC observes that failures can occur"
  • 21:18, 29 August 2007 by 68.116.54.132, fixes broken link

September 2007[edit]

Onomato was blocked indefinitely by Durova at 01:27, 19 September 2007, with the log entry "WP:SOCK"

The userpage describes it as "a suspected sock puppet of SallyForth123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)", which I'm informed is believed to be a sock of the rather repellant stalker, Amorrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • 03:02, 19 September 2007 revert by Samiharris, edit summary "rv edits by sock of banned user"
    • Reverts edits by Onomato and Cliffb
  • 04:58, 19 September 2007 revert by 75.37.15.36
  • 13:34, 19 September 2007 revert by Mantanmoreland
  • 08:54, 23 September 2007 by Ryulong, edit summary "restoring good faith edits", redoes edit by Cliffb
  • 21:08, 23 September 2007 2 edits by 208.65.61.50, later blocked indefiniteluy as a proxy, edit summary "Corrected obtuse language which confuses naked short selling with legal short selling, highlight citatations of unsupported opinion as such."
    • Extensive change to article. Expands the lead, removes much quotation and summary of SEC statements
    • Adds "Not all delivery failures result from naked short selling, however all naked short selling results in delivery failures." I am not an expert, but I believe this is false; fails to deliver will only occur if the seller does not make good his contract with the buyer.
    • Adds unabashed advocacy: "Critics of the NY media writes who seem uniquely fixated..."
    • Adds attacks: "Nocera, who holds neither any specialized academic degrees that would indicate acumen, nor posesses any special knowledge of the extent of the problem, is clearly of the belief that the illegal practice is trivial."
  • 23:29, 23 September 2007 revert by Samiharris
  • 22:22, 24 September 2007 3 edits by Dozen13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Rewrites lead, incorporating "affirmative determination" language
    • one of two minor tweaks
  • 23:46, 24 September 2007 2 edits by 83.133.126.92, edit summary "Uhh, naked shorting is expressly allowed by Reg SHO, so you can't say it is illegal; adding TMF material to appropriate spot".
  • 01:38, 25 September 2007 revert by Dozen13
  • 01:48, 25 September 2007 by Dozen13, edit summary "removing the details for now - they were not introduced and not accurately described", removes list of permssible short sales under Rule 203(b)(2) of Regulation SHO
  • 01:51, 25 September 2007 by Dozen13, augments Fool article reference in lead with Investopedia link
  • 02:05, 25 September 2007 by Dozen13, tweaks lead and adds another reference to the lead
  • 04:06, 25 September 2007 revert by Samiharris, edit summary "rv SPA changes; legal conclusions of journalist don't drump the SEC, which says "manipulative" naked shorting is illegal; many fails are legal". Tweaks wording from "naked short sales of securities may be legally permitted under these circumstances" to "failure to deliver securities may be legally permitted under these circumstances"
  • 11:49, 25 September 2007 2 edits by Dozen13, edit summary "restore some changes to clean up intro and clarify Reg SHO"
    • Clarifies disputed language by quoting directly: 'On American exchanges, under Regulation SHO, "a broker or dealer may not accept a short sale order" without having first borrowed or identified the stock being sold. However, this rule is exempted under these circumstances:...'
    • Reduced his earlier overcitation in the lead.
    • See this diff between his first and second tranche of edits
  • 14:24, 25 September 2007 2 edits by Mantanmoreland
    • Add: 'The SEC states that "Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules. Indeed, in certain circumstances, naked short selling contributes to market liquidity." However, naked shorting to drive down share prices violates the law.' with ref to sec.gov website
    • "The SEC contends that naked short selling has been falsely blamed in stock scams, but can be used as a tool for illegal market manipulation." -> "The SEC contends that naked short selling has been falsely blamed on share price declines by stock promoters and corporate insiders, but can be used as a tool for illegal market manipulation."
    • Inexpertly factors out a duplicated reference

October 2007[edit]

November 2007[edit]

There are no edits in the history of this article for November, 2007

December 2007[edit]

January 2008[edit]

  • 02:10, 6 January 2008 John Nevard, "resonable" -> "reasonable"
  • 21:31, 15 January 2008 by Post Doctorate y-o-y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia -> Martha Stewart Omnimedia
  • 17:54, 18 January 2008 3 edits by Samiharris,
    • Add to "Naked Shorts" section: 'Statistics on failures to deliver securities are sometimes used as evidence of naked short selling in specific stocks. However, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission stated in January 2008 that "fails-to-deliver can occur for a number of reasons on both long and short sales. Therefore, fails-to-deliver are not necessarily the result of short selling, and are not evidence of abusive short selling or 'naked' short selling,"'
    • Sourced to http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm
  • 16:04, 19 January 2008 13 edits by Samiharris
    • Move two paragraphs from "Regulation SHO" section to "Naked Shorts" section
    • Considerable edits to "Regulation SHO" section, adding citation to the MOtley Fool article (on "red flag" reference) and "Do Nudists Run Wall Street" by Holman W. Jenkins in WSJ: 'Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins observed that fails were "more like an acceptable kludge, helping the market work better, than a cesspot of corruption liable to bring down the financial system."'
    • Adds distancing language: "Failures to deliver shares, possibly resulting from naked short sales, that persist for an extended period of time may result in large delivery obligations where stock settlement occurs" -> 'The SEC, in describing Regulation SHO, says that failures to deliver shares that persist for an extended period of time "may result in large delivery obligations where stock settlement occurs."'. And source it.
    • "Further work" section renamed to "Further Developments"
    • 'In July 2006, the SEC proposed to amend Regulation SHO, to close loopholes that could possibly be exploited via naked short selling.' -> 'In July 2006, the SEC proposed to amend Regulation SHO, to further reduce failures to deliver securities.'
    • Media coverage section: clarify WSJ cite to Holman Jenkins, add grammar fix
  • 03:30, 20 January 2008 2 edits by Post Doctorate y-o-y, adds more about India stock market regulations and source to a story at thehindubusinessline.com
  • 18:17, 20 January 2008, trim repetition and removes unsourced opinion introduced in last edit (original research)
  • 03:10, 24 January 2008 3 edits by 204.17.31.126, add "Of course, Wall Street knows how this happens!" to "Normal shorting" section
  • 03:12, 24 January 2008 revert by Prodego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

February 2008[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anticipation_of_a_New_Lover%27s_Arrival,_The/Overstock/Analysis/Naked_short_selling&oldid=196956165"