Talk:Overstock.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.

Contents

Article probation

Restrictions...Editors are directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;
(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;
(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and
(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Spam reversion

While some of what was just added by Overstockwiki improved the article, the vast majority of it read as an advertising spam for Overstock.com. At the same time, sections of the current article detailing inappropriate corporate behavior by the company were blanked. If anyone would like to sort through the new information and re-add it, I'd appreciate it, but the entire article went from "okay" to "yay overstock!" because of the totality of the edits. That is just not appropriate for a wikipedia article. ju66l3r 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing it back..

I'm changing this back to what we had posted a few weeks ago. Our intentions were to give factual and descriptive information about the company, and what is currently stated is a very vague overview - with half of the content referring to the company's lawsuit and Patrick's personal battle with Naked Short Sellers. (Although this may deserve a mention, it shouldn't account for half the content that describes Overstock.com - Patrick has his own article for this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.113.10 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I am changing this back to the page we created a few weeks ago. Our intentions were to give factual and descriptive information abdout the company - and what is currently stated is a very vague overview. Half of the content refers to the company lawsuit and Patrick's personal battle with Naked Short Sellers, and although this may deserve mention it shouldn't account for half of the content that describes Overstock.com. Patrick also has his own page where the lawsuit and his personal views can be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overstockwiki (talk • contribs) 21:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is inappropriate. Please see WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. --Yamla 22:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"inappropriate corporate behavior by the company" - in who's opinion? Yours, Yamla? What's "inappropriate? For a company to defend itself against illegal "behavior" against its stock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.155.234 (talk • contribs)

Updates - suggestions

We would like to update the information on this page - could someone please give us guidelines as to what we are allowed to do? We basically layed the page out as amazon did, but it seems that when we do it it's 'spam'. Do you think that instead of reverting the page back to it's original version - you could simply edit/make suggestions to the offensive parts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overstockwiki (talk • contribs)

Given your username, advertising-like editing, and fervid interest with this article, it would seem that you may be employed or maintaining a self-interest in Overstock.com and that is cause for alarm for many other wikipedians as it is a violation of the autobiographical guidelines, since you will hardly have a neutral point of view. Beyond that, if you are the one that is adding information from the unsigned IPs as well, then you're sockpuppetting which makes it harder for others to trust that you're interested in fair discussion of the article. I'll add this article to my list of things that I'd like to do and I will see what information can be brought in while maintaining the importance of other facts that other contributors clearly see as important to maintain as well. ju66l3r 13:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ju6613r: You are correct - only "neutral points of view" should be included in this article. Which eliminates Herb Greenberg's CBS Marketwatch commentary - which is his opinion, not verifiable facts, as a legitimate source to use for quotes on Overstock and Patrick Byrne. Greenberg is named in affidavits in a suit against his some of his sources at Rocker Partners and Gradient Analytics. Even if this were not the case, including his opinions, not based on any facts, is "spin", one-sided, and not approriate for Wikipedia, regardles if his opinion can be linked via a source to CBS marketwatch. Perhaps we should start adding Forbes articles to balance out Herb Greenberg's personal bias against Overstock and Patrick Byrne, or decide to not include any "commentary" from journalists that isn't fact based. --- regards, my soon to be blocked IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.155.234 (talk • contribs)

I can understand your consternation and will definitely be examining the relevance of Greenberg's comments for inclusion in the article, but for not I left them in because I haven't had the time to give everything a full review and it's best if the page remain fairly static to avoid "edit warring" so that everyone can look at the issues on the page while deciding the consensus for possible changes to be made. I'll add the appropriate tag to the article to note that this is being discussed on this talk page. In the meantime, as we discuss it here, please be sure to use the macro for adding your signature to the end of your comments on talk pages so that other readers can follow the flow of discussion better. Just type four tildes (~~~~) after your last thought and the information and timestamp will be inserted for you. Thanks. ju66l3r 17:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Paulfromatlanta 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)I know that for neutrality Wikipedia is trying to not over-emphasize the fight over short selling but should't there be a reference to the lawsuit filed February 2, 2007? The suit is for three and a half billion dollars and is against some very big names (Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and Citigroup). Here's an article we could use as a reference that seems pretty neutral. I didn't want to just jump in and do the edit without discussion, since I can see that there has been a lot of back and forth editing already. http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070202/overstock_com_lawsuit.html?.v=1

I added on the SEC dropping the Gradient investigation, which is all over the news this morning. There were a few sentences on Reg SHO that seemed out of place so I substituted with a briefer reference more suitable to an encyclopedia. There was a "POV" box at the top of the section apparently because of the lengthy sentences that I took out, so I removed the POV box. --Samiharris 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Online Chat

On their website today looking for DVRs, when a little note popped up that was imbedded in the page asked me if I wanted to talk with someone to get help. Click yes and it opens a small window where an Applet starts. Long story short, they seem to have some sort of program dedicated to talking with the site visitors and asking them what they're looking for. It's basically an intuitive advanced search (it couldn't be a person i was chatting with because it would talk in circles), probably for people who know very little about finding what they're looking for. 64.229.147.133 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Having worked with the company that did the support for that (before they shipped it offshore), it's called LiveAgent, and while it may have seen "robotic" it was probably some poor sod in Bangalore or somewhere like that. Bo-Lingua 06:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Overstock.com editing itself

FYI: According to http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame/, someone at overstock.com is editing this article. Kwertii 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Overstock IP address range banned by Wikipedia. I'm tempted to add that to the article, but it would run afoul of WP:COI for any Wikipedia editor to insert that into the article. Besides, it's more trivial than encyclopedic. Is there precedent for mentioning a company-wide "wiki-ban" within the article about a company? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think their is any need for this discussion. Wikipedia actively urges editors to step back from Conflict of Interest subjects. Wikipedia does not support the discrediting of companies on its talk pages by refering to blogs. The discussions on this issue are already on Wikipedia without editors banging on about them. They done bad and have been stopped. enough already. Mike33 - t@lk 07:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

I have protected this page for a while in order to force the dispute to be discussed here. This is not an endorsement of this particular version of the page. --Yamla 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute hinges on whether Chris Bagley merits having an article in Wikipedia (the article is up for deletion; th eonly reason for the article to exist is because of the link here - so the existence of the article depends on the merits of mentioning his name here), and whether the website in question needs to be named. I fail to see how adding this content is required by NPOV, and how deleting it violates NPOV. It is not a view, it is information and I cannot see how this information comes close to meeting our standard for notability. Removing it from the article in no way compromises the articles's accuracy or neutrality. We ought to include notable criticisms of Overstock.Com, and notable defenses - good sources will be mainstream newspapers like the NYT, and newspapers and magazines that focus on business such as WSJ, Fortune, Forbes, etc. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BADSITES_.2F_NPA_in_articles as well as the Arbitrators' votes to accept or decline the case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BADSITES. They are trending toward offering a clarification of the MONGO case rather than opening a new case. Please note that WP:NPA governs interactions between editors only, and that two Arbitrators have said that it is "absurd" and "beyond merely absurd" to apply NPA to article space. Policies like WP:RS govern article space. If it has been reported in reliable sources that antisocialmedia.net has taken certain actions and may be connected with the company, that may be described in the article, and to call it an "anonymous web site" is partly misleading and partly censorship of acceptable reliable information. It is not an attack on any Wikipedia editor by another editor to state the name of a web site which has made controversial comments even if some of those comments are directed at Wikipedia editors. NPA does not apply in article space. Thatcher131 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
yeah, uh huh, I did not mention NPA in what I wrote above. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, Bloomberg (a highly respectable business news service) mentions antisocialmedia.net by name in this article which is already linked as a reference. Why obscure the name of the site? Thatcher131 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Also the New York Times "Revisiting Overstock.com And Utah" The New York Times, March 10, 2007 page C1 Thatcher131 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you seriously think that we should have an article for every person and website mentioned in the NYT and Bloomberg? Mention in these newspapers may deomnstrate notability, but I do not think one or two mentions is sufficient to establish notability. Someone could propose a theory that relativity is wrong and it could be mentioned in Discovery magazine and the NYT but that would not make it a notable view. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the deletion discussion for Judd Bagley. Phil Sandifer 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you seriously think that we should have an article for every person and website mentioned in the NYT and Bloomberg Um, what? The March 10 Times article doesn't even mention Bagley by name. There are a series of editorial judgements to be made in relation to this issue:
  1. Should the article on Overstock.com mention its crusade against naked short selling?
  2. If yes, then should the article report reliable reports in the New York Times and other places that Overstock.com is associated with an attack web site?
  3. If yes, then should the article mention the name of the web master of the site, who is an Overstock.com employee?
  4. Should this employee have a separate article?
Please to explain why even if you think there should be no article on the employee (I voted recommended delete, by the way) that neither the employee nor the web site should be named in this article even though it in all other respects covers the naked short selling controversy. Thatcher131 15:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest that a reference to ASM in the article neither adds nor detracts from the article. We're talking about a three-sentence paragraph. Since NPA prohibits linking or references to off-wiki attacks against editors, I'd say that tips the scales in favor of not including. I previously would have said that it "mandates" not including, but that is no longer a settled question. --Mantanmoreland 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
NPA only says that because someone slipped it in when no one was paying attention. Please read the comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#BADSITES_.2F_NPA_in_articles and the arbitrators votes to accept the case further up the page. The idea that NPA applies to article space is described as "absurd," "beyond merely absurd" and "nonsense on stilts." NPA applies to editors' dealings with each other. Thatcher131 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher, members of the ArbCom have authority only in arbitration cases. Individually, they are no more an authority than you or I and if they are not active in this discussion on this page their opinions are not relevant. Convince me that the added content of naming Bagley and his site are important for this to be a good article. No one who has responded to my initial comment, I see, has even attempted to back up the claim that NPOV requires it. Good, we have gotten that bit of disingenuous argument out of the way. Now, explain why it is so important to name the name and provide the link. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The reliable news sites used as sources don't mind mentioning the name of the site; wanting to suppress that information is merely a silly intra-Wikipedia taboo, which should have no place in rational discussion of article content. *Dan T.* 16:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
They are newspapers, and most people throw them out after a day. This is an encyclopedia. We are not a newspaper and while we post current events, our mission is not the same as a newspaper's. I brought newspapers up only as one way to illustrate notability and again, one or two mentions in newspapers is not enough to make something notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't think it is important to note that a person implicated in a supposedly anonymous web site that campaigns against naked short selling is actually a company employee? I would say that concealing that fact without having a good reason to do so is definitely a failure a write a good comprehensive article, whether it violates the letter of some alphabet soup policy or not. Thatcher131 16:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully a newspaper will report on it. That is their job. Feel free to send one of them a tip. This is an encyclopedia, not the Drudge Report or the NYT online. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My goodness, do you actually read the sources you cite? New York Times, Jan 20, 2007:
“ Entries on message boards devoted to discussing Overstock.com asserted that Mr. Byrne was behind an anonymously written Web site, AntiSocialMedia.net, that focused on bashing critics of Overstock and of Mr. Byrne's crusade against so-called naked short selling (a complicated form of trading borrowed shares that is explained at Wikipedia.com). Mr. Byrne denied knowing who ran the site, though he publicly supported it (investorvillage.com)... The New York Post reported last week that the anonymous operator of AntiSocialMedia was Judd Bagley, Overstock's director for social media...Mr. Bagley owned up to running the site...and Mr. Byrne set about defending him. "Judd is a reporter," he wrote. "The First Amendment applies to us, too because we citizens are the journalists." ”
Emphasis added. Thatcher131 20:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sources I cite? i did not cite any sources. I was however making a rhetorical point. I thought you would understand that. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are disregarding the sources, you were making a point about nothing, just filling this page with noise. Of course it should be mentioned that although Byrne denied knowledge it was actually an employee of his. --MichaelLinnear 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not disregarding the sources. Therefore, I am making a pooint about something. Slrubenstein | Talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the versions

This dispute seems to have gotten to the point where the factual merits of the two versions are getting obscured. Looking at the NY Post article and the offending website, and using this diff, I see the following:

  • The Post names the website.
  • The website is no longer anonymous; it says "This website created and maintained by Judd Bagley" on the first page.
  • The uncensored version says that "Both Bagley and Byrne have asserted that Overstock.com has no direct connection with the site." I don't see that in the NYP article.
  • Once again it takes some digging to find the actual "outing". The article on SlimVirgin presently on the front page is certainly accusatory, but it tries to present a factual basis for its accusations; it's not just an ad hominem.

What we've got here is something else I predicted when BADSITES was first being argued: that eventually Wikipedia disputes would hit the news, and then we would find it hard to exclude references to sites without affecting content. I don't think we need to have articles on Bagley or ASM.net, as it all fits into the general controversy about overstock.com. Even if we don't name the website, I think we have to say that Bagley is its author. But not naming the website is little protection from finding it, since it is named in the NYP article.

There is a long discussion of the matter in Sam Antar's blog here; I found a number of other sources which are less complete but which plainly show that Bagley set up an attack site intended to discredit Gary Weiss as being an editor here. So here's the problem: the very fact that ASM.net was created as an attack site (by any standard out there) is notable. Even if we don't name the site in the article, we're going to leave a trail to it. It'll just take a little typing on top of the click of a link. Mangoe 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is more complete and better sourced (Using at least two more reliable sources) material at Judd Bagley that, I suspect, will end up being merged here soonish. Phil Sandifer 17:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
New York Times Jan 20, 2007.
“ Entries on message boards devoted to discussing Overstock.com asserted that Mr. Byrne was behind an anonymously written Web site, AntiSocialMedia.net, that focused on bashing critics of Overstock and of Mr. Byrne's crusade against so-called naked short selling (a complicated form of trading borrowed shares that is explained at Wikipedia.com). Mr. Byrne denied knowing who ran the site, though he publicly supported it (investorvillage.com)... The New York Post reported last week that the anonymous operator of AntiSocialMedia was Judd Bagley, Overstock's director for social media...Mr. Bagley owned up to running the site...and Mr. Byrne set about defending him. "Judd is a reporter," he wrote. "The First Amendment applies to us, too because we citizens are the journalists." ”
Thatcher131 17:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The longstanding, brief reference to ASM in the article is consistent with that.--Mantanmoreland 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Except that you have reverted to a version that obscures the name of the person and the web site. I can see no editorial reason for doing this, and as the arbitrators have made perfectly clear, the NPA policy does not apply. (7 votes to accept a case, followed by two people changing their vote and working on a clarification, may not be a definitive statement of policy--which ArbCom can't make anyway--but it sure as heck isn't an endorsement of the current application of NPA to articles. Thatcher131 17:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually this was SlRubenstein's revert,and it was to a version of the paragraph that has peaceably existed in this article for some months. There was no edit warring over the ASM name until you and Phil Sandifer pushed the point. Neither of you showed any interest in this article until the issue of the link naming arose. Evidently it was no issue before. As a matter of fact, a review of this talk page is almost amusing. There was zero controversy over pretty much anything until this recent jousting over this one paragraph! Look back over the past two years discussion and about 50% of it concerns this one paragraph and was added over the past 24 hours.--Mantanmoreland 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The name of the site or its owner are just too tangential to the real substance of this article, which already says about as much as is warrented in an encyclopedia. Look, if you want to be a journalist, find an appropriate venue. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the paragraph was added on 3 June and has stayed that way, unmolested, until recently.--Mantanmoreland 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See this policy - if you want to report on current events go to wikimedia. It just is not worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, the revelation that Bagley is behind ASM.net is at least five months old-- hardly "current events". Whatever the rationale for naming or not naming the site, what pre-Sandifer version says is just inaccurate. What the sources really say, especially when you look beyond these two cites, is that ASM.net was created anonymously to attack Gary Weiss and that suspicions that Bagley was behind it were soon confirmed. Even if you don't name the site, the article needs to say this. I'm failing to understand why the article ought not to say what is citably true. Mangoe 19:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be acurate, but old news makes Bagley even less worthy of inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Too tangential? I cannot fathom the logic behind this response. In your way of thinking, the fact that the person who told reporters that Joe Wilson was a hack and his trip to Nigeria was a set-up was actually the Vice-President's chief of staff is tangential; you would be satisified with "a senior administration official" or some other obfuscation. If Mr. Bagley ran a blog on fantasy football or politics it would not only be tangential, it would be completely irrelevant no matter how big of an jerk he is. But when the company's director of social media runs an anonymous blog that attacks people that the company perceives as enemies, that is news. It might even be an SEC violation. (Some other exec who made anon posts to Yahoo groups about his company may go to jail; when executives of public corporations make public statements about their company or their competitors they are bound by certain rules.) It is unfathomable that this would be considered "tangential." Thatcher131 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Your points are well taken. The article already describes the smear campaign, and observes that the SEC and Patrick Byrne are under SEC investigation. The question is how much more detail you want to put in the article. I think SlRubenstein seems to feel that it should not be given excess weight. I tend to agree. The current mention of the smear campaign is commensurate with its significance, I think. I assume SlRubenstein isnt arguing for exclusion in toto.--Mantanmoreland 20:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm I just read this page fresh and it occurs to me that the section "Anti naked short-selling campaign" doesn't actually describe the "Anti naked short-selling campaign" but more just the criticism of it. I know it's currently contentious but it appears that you don't actually give a link to any of Overstock's arguments or "proof" on why they think this is happening. Sure I'm probably a tool cause i'm here via the Reg article, but i'd like to have links to both sides of the story. - Quarrelsome 18:16, 18 December 2007 (GMT)

Merging Judd Bagley

Can we talk about this a bit?

I tend to support the merger. This guy doesn't really seem to have any importance outside his association with this company. But the thing is, this article would then need to be more forthcoming about his actions. Mangoe 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is determining that at the moment. Yes, it looks like a merger or a delete. However, that needs to be determined in the AfD process, now that that is underway.--Mantanmoreland 19:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think addition of substantial amounts of data on Bagley would tend to skew this article dramatically. One short paragraph is really all that you need, and one short paragraph is what you have here currently. To go on about the Bagley smear campaign at any length may be titillating but it strikes me as sheer undue weight. Overstock.com is the subject of two SEC investigations, one directed at Overstock and the other at Patrick Byrne himself. These investigations are far more important than the smear campaign being conducted by Bagley, and they receive just one paragraph for each probe.--Samiharris 00:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Yuh. Mr Bagley's hard work has received attention from the proper media, and this should be noted, but I'm sure it can be kept in proportion. Anyone really interested can go through the references as further reading. There's a blogger claiming they've found a link, but I certainly wouldn't put that in here unless and until confirmed by a high-quality media source - David Gerard 20:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A couple of sentences on Bagley's website and its actions probably need to be added to the Gary Weiss article also since it has been mentioned in a couple of major news sources. In fact, the NY Times article likened the dispute between Bagley and Weiss to two 14-year old adolescents. Cla68 00:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Only if that was a major notable thing about Gary Weiss, which is outside the scope of this talk page - David Gerard 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
A newspaper likening something on the web to a spat between two 14-year olds sould to me like a put-down of the whole thing as silly and trivial ... in other words, precisely a reason why it is not worth adding this stuff to an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, come off it. A newspaper saying that an executive of a corporation and a notable financial writer are acting like children is not a dismissal of the incident. If it were a dismissal, they wouldn't cover it. Phil Sandifer 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd disagree, I don't think the two should be merged as they are separate entities, sure enough they help one another but it's not like you'd merge the George Bush page with the Republican Party page because they're "roughly the same thing". I actually searched on Judd Bagley and got re-routed here and was disappointed. I'd rather see a page on Judd Bagley (critical or not, I don't care) than it merged with his employer. Quarrelsome 08/12/2007 —Preceding comment was added at 18:06, 8 December 2007 (GMT)

Antisocialmedia site name

The article is currently protected on a version with the wrong sitename of that criticism/attack site... it's antisocialmedia.net, not .com. *Dan T.* 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-attributed nearly direct quote from hedgeworld

In July 2006, John J. Byrne, Patrick Byrne's father, resigned from the board of directors, reportedly due to his "new role at White Mountains Insurance Group," though that departure came soon after a public airing of the elder Mr. Byrne's unhappiness with his son's crusade against naked short selling. [1] Uncle uncle uncle 22:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by JulesH [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS check needed

This article has some serious WP:RS issues. It's full of references to bloggers and opinion writers.

Policy states that reliable sources are those with fact checking and editorial oversight.

Based on that standard, references to opinion columns by Antilla, Nocera (2), Norris, should be removed and replaced. Similarly, Greenberg and Jayson are columnists, not reporters and should be replaced. Finally, bsalert.com fails as a reliable source. If you want help finding replacement sources, please let me know. --Wally Ball 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)— Wally Ball (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"BSalert.com" is gone. The rest are indisputably RS sources. There are no blogs cited.--Samiharris 02:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that references to opinion writers in notable, credible journals or publications are allowed if it is made clear that the sourced information comes from an opinion column or editorial. Cla68 02:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just checked the policies and can't find anywhere where it says that citations from opinion columns or editorials have to be identified as such. If so, then they can be used as sources just the same as any other reliable source. Cla68 02:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Register Article

hmmm, interesting article over at The Register —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Kitson (talk • contribs) 10:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that The Register is, by our description, a "tech tabloid" I have trouble with the idea that they are a reliable source. Widely used and read, clearly, but I really don't think they're reliable, and I think that this matter is, in general, sensitive enough that we need to be absolutely bulletproof in our sourcing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The Register is a quite highly regarded tech tabloid, and by common wikipedia democracy is currently regarded as a reliable source. Are you disputing that? Also, yes, this issue is sensitive, but it is explosive enough to require a notation on this article, even if it is just a very small quick dispute note and link to the Register article, especially now it has hit slashdot. Kirrus (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Explosiveness does not point towards the use of less reliable sources. If anything, it demands higher reliability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
So yes, you're disputing the communities reliability consideration of The Register. If anything makes wikipedia look bad, its ignoring the democracy that attempts to keep it neutral. Better to link to an article, saying "This may be a problem here" and also possibly NPOV'ing this article as a whole, than leave this issue to get referenced by people like Encyclopedia Britanica as to why wikipedia is useless. Kirrus (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be some serious bias to the selected sources in this article. Opinion writers and columnists are considered reliable, especially when they are bad mouthing the subject, but the Register article is considered unreliable? C'mon. WP is starting to lose a lot of credibility with these high profile edit wars. Perhaps I was wrong to have so much faith in an Encyclopedia anyone can edit, especially when the administrators start manipulating the definition of anyone, and claiming that they are more equal than others. From the mailing list debacle to the allegations in the Register, this cabal is starting to remind me of the evils of Russian communism.Cfpresley (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried adding a quick note about the controversy to the article a few minutes back. I am an anonymous user with no axe to grind against any side of this issue - we just read the register articles on Slashdot and wanted to test what would happen if light was brought to a controversy within wikipedia. Now we know. In a few short minutes the edits were removed by someone and the article was "protected". The current Overstock article reads like trash. Really, folks. You should be embarrassed. You don't like the guys running the company? Who cares? Write a good article with an NPOV (there is an obvious negative bias when read by this outside observer). I have donated in the past but will not do so again until there is more transparency in the wiki process. I don't care about overstock or any of the other articles but am concerned when honest information is kept out of the light by those with an agenda (any agenda).
Ditto, I've donated in the past, but because of this issue and the overzealousness of WP admins I have decided to stop donating. Isn't WP about transparency? I guess not. I'm sure there are many people with similar viewpoints as mine and the above poster who feel that WP is showing signs of collapsing on itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.107.196 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What is transparency?

It's fine to have a group of uber-admins that ride over the herd. Essential, I would argue. But the protections and control sggested by the Register and quickly confirmed by my own research suggests foul work at play. You folks need to face the ugly and bring it into the open. Admit mistakes were made and strive to prevent them in the future. This requires introspection and honesty.

For example, who is at IP 209.200.52.180 making tons of edits on the very same articles the Register is talking about? The IP traces back to somewhere in NYC (just checked myself a minute ago). Can anyone say for sure this is not this Weiss guy? Or someone close to him? Where is that ban hammer? He/She just removed the reference I made with no cause. Also removed somewhat exculpatory info from other articles that did not meet his/her own bias.

This type of junk will continue in an open system. The job of the editors/admins is to mitigate the damage. But from what I can see (and the Register spent more time at this than I did) the admins are taking sides.

What happens to an encyclopedia or reference work that loses credibility? 68.34.73.97 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article reflects the reliable sourcing of this article, which is predominantly critical, because the reality of Overstock.com is not favorable. The Register, which I assume you adore, itself wrote a scathing article entitled "The bizarre world of Patrick Byrne's Overstock". The press coverage is not at all surprising, because the company is controversial for a number of reasons, not the least of which being its troubles with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, its failure to make money for a number of quarters, and its CEO "bizarre" (to quote the Register) behavior. He, inter alia, has blamed his company's woes on a "Sith Lord," and he has retained a professional character assassin named Judd Bagley to run a website to scorch his enemies. His own father quit the board of directors in protest at Byrne's shenanigans, and there have been other departures. Since the reality of this is displeasing to Byrne, he has dispatched Bagley to engage in a campaign of harassment against Wikipedia, of which you and others on this page are loyally playing a role. If you can come up with some rational analysis of the flaws in this article feel free to do so. No one else ever has, because this article is entirely fair and reflects the reality of Overstock.com's situation, much as Byrne and Bagley would like to suppress it. --Samiharris (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I see Jimmy Wales today complaining that students aren't allowed to use this place as a citable source. Is there any wonder wikipedia isn't trusted given these recent shenanigans? Why is this page protected? Why is it nothing more than an attack page? When will this page, and related pages, be editable by us proles who aren't part of the ruling class of this so-called community-driven website? Xcvzxcvzxcvxcvzxcv (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! Well said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.107.196 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A number of people state (below) that TheRegister is "biased" against Wikipedia. So what? Much of the information they present has turned out to be reliable and accurate, and if Wikipedia acted professionally enough to take it in its stride, little damage would be done. It is the sight of the higher-ups of Wikipedia censoring, banning, whispering among themselves and denying which does the real damage (and provides the chief entertainment). Grow up! cojoco (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The edit warring is continuing on this article. As such, I have protected the page. If consensus for changes can be reached here, it may be unblocked immediately. --Yamla (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If the page is closed to general editing, shouldn't there be an appropriate template at the head of the article? Gunstar hero (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. --Yamla (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

AntiSocialMedia.net

I don't really believe this section is relevant to OverStock.com. I say it needs to be removed or moved to the article on Judd Bagley. 70.230.18.214 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's being used to provide a negative shadow over the whole Overstock article. Maybe we should add a note to the Weiss article pointing to the Register articles instead? That is basically the same as what is going on here. 68.34.73.97 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on AfD was to move the material to this article - it previously resided at Judd Bagley. I personally don't care one way or the other, but I do think an executive of the company attacking critics of the company is worth noting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A section about AntiSocialMedia.Net seems far more appropriate in an article concerning Wikipedia itself, rather than in one about Overstock.Com. A couple of quick Google searches reveal that ASM has far more to say about WP itself, and what it does have to say about Overstock seems largely incidental to the site's content. 216.170.165.235 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What the site has to say about Overstock's critics, however, is far more substantial. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
So you're admitting that Wikipedia is a critic of Overstock? What happened to NPOV? --Grimboy (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm admitting that Judd Bagley thinks Wikipedia is critical of Overstock. Personally, I think the article is well-sourced and careful. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A major portion of ASM may be on people who have been critical of Overstock, however the content on the ASM site focuses specifically on the behavior of those people as significant members of Wikipedia, in the context of Wikipedia's environment and operation. Without knowing about the Wikipedia/Overstock controversy, the section on ASM in the Overstock article seems out of place. Knowing about the controversy, it seems more like a defensive measure on the part of some Wikipedia members than a useful addition to the article. Personally, when I saw the ASM section here it seemed to me to lend more credence to some of Bagley's claims. 216.170.165.235 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The section is sourced, when last I checked, entirely to sources that don't even mention Wikipedia. Any Wikipedia-centric content you're reading into it is coming from you, not the article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry -- when I said "ASM content" I meant the content on the ASM site, not the ASM-related content in the Overstock article. Fixed. 216.170.165.235 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That's original research. The majority of sources that talk about ASM don't seem to focus on the Wikipedia aspect at all. (I'd be willing to change my opinion on this if sources were presented showing otherwise). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of sources that talk about ASM seem to be people with an axe to grind, rather than anything resembling objective journalism. I'm not trying to defend ASM -- it just seems like the section on it in the Overstock article doesn't belong and reflects badly on WP. 216.170.165.235 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Typo

When this article is next fixed (or when it's unprotected) could someone fix the following typo in the "Anti naked short-selling campaign" section, 3rd paragraph: "tortuous interference" should be "Tortious interference" -- Bdoserror (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}
I added the edit protected tag. As a non controversial edit I don't think an admin will mind doing it Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Register claims

The Register isn't exactly the most reliable of sources, and we should make that clear but I don't see a good reason why not to mention their claims. MPOV isthat they're a bunch of muckraking idiots who don't bother to do real reporting but we should probably still mention their claim here. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No it is not the most reliable of sources. I think that it is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, against which it has shown a demonstrable bias. It may be reliable on other subjects but not this. --Samiharris (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The general rule in situations when we have a source of questionable reliability so to give it a mention but make it clear that it is just their opinion, so something like "According to the Register..." JoshuaZ (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a tabloid which tends to be partisan and sensationalistic, agree that it's not a reliable source. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Joshua, given the sensational nature of this article and its claims concerning BLPs, I would not favor citing or referencing this article in any way. --Samiharris (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose there are really two separate issues here, right? First is the question of whether or not the Register should be regarded as a reliable source in this matter. Second is the separate question of whether or not their claims are notable or important enough to be noticed in the article. It is entirely possible that even if the first question is answered in the negative, the second question could be answered in the positive. For example, recently Jim Watson made some inflammatory comments about Africans, comments which he quickly apologized for and retreated from. Those comments would not be useful as a "source" for scientific thought about Africans, but nevertheless are probably notable enough to be mentioned and discussed in the article about him.
Now, in this case, I think it goes without saying that The Register is not a reliable source. It is at best inflammatory and highly biased. I haven't seen much serious debate to the contrary.
But then there is the separate question: where it not for our inherent tendency to naval gaze (because the article is in part about Wikipedia) would we consider the article relevant for this article? I think the answer is clearly no. The Register is a tabloid blog with a tiny audience and of virtually no importance outside a certain subculture. The story is mostly about Wikipedia, and does not tell the reader much of value about this enterprise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
TheRegister has 30,000,000 page impressions a month and 5,000,000 users [3]; NYTimes has daily circulation of 1,000,000 [4]. While not directly comparable, "The Register is a tabloid blog with a tiny audience and of virtually no importance outside a certain subculture" is clearly incorrect. cojoco (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please use the section above titled "Register Article" to discuss the register article, rather than starting a new section on the talk page. Kirrus (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin, please add the below sentence at top

OverStock and some of the Wikipedia administrators are involved in a public dispute. This Wikipedia article represents the views of the Wikipedia editors, and may be negative towards OverStock

And also, please apply POV tag.

TwakTwik (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, how about no? You may notice that the article is protected until disputes are resolved and it says so at the top. That means that the article will stay protected in an imperfect state until we get a consensus here. Indeed, the template says "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version". Furthermore, Wikipedia has many articles about topics which are critical of Wikipedia such as Criticisms of Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors are not a monolith anyhow. We will come to a consensus about how to approach this and will do so in a neutral manner as we do for all issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Good, how about people who have vested interests step aside and for a change let the neutral editors with no involvement in this issue make a decision on this topic?. May be that will help bring some transparency? TwakTwik (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The people with vested interests appear to be Cla68 and Dtobias, sources of the recent Register piece. Or are you ont aware what "vested interest" means? Guy (Help!) 07:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be some indication that the article doesn't represent standard objective writing for Wikipedia. It reads much more like an attack on Overstock than a reference work. Bits like "Overstock.com says its main rivals are eBay, Amazon.com Marketplace and Yahoo! Auctions; however, Overstock's revenues, site traffic and marketshare currently lag far behind eBay and Amazon." don't sound very objective. (What does the fact that their revenues and market share are smaller have to do with who their competitors are? And why make an unsourced statement about who someone at Overstock believes their competitors to be?) It's just gratuitous. 216.170.165.235 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Overstock is an unprofitable business run by a lunatic who rants about sith lords, with a sociopathic executive who infects his critics with spyware. All of which is well-documented. The alternate position suggested - that Overstock is full of flowers and puppy dogs - is supported by very little in the way of reliable sources. Perhaps if the company were to start turning a profit and were to stop being run by the criminally insane this would change, but until that turn of events there's relatively little to be done on our end. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

got it, so its about Wikipedia waging a Jihad against all unprofitable businesses run by lunatics...What a grand goal. Oh, don't forget, Wikipedia fits the criteria too :). TwakTwik (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is hardly waging a jihad. It's reporting, neutrally, the existing source material. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia also notes that Wikipedia fails to turn a profit. Of course, as a nonprofit, that's not that surprising. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is hardly neutral as it stands (as explicitly noted above). Of course, the belief that the only two available takes on the subject are "run by a lunatic" or "full of flowers and puppy dogs" doesn't leave much room for neutrality. 216.170.165.235 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
"run by a lunatic" "run by the criminally insane" "sociopathic executive" Those are WP:BLP violations. 75.175.0.240 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Something we are generally more forgiving of in talk pages as we try to discuss what needs to go into articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Phil, nonetheless, those comments were inappropriate for Wikipedia, even on a talk page. It strikes me as unlikely to be helpful in terms of creating a calm and loving environment for good editors seeking to create a high quality and neutral article, to engage in that kind of rhetoric. We are not here to condemn Overstock, nor to praise them. The right attitude for a Wikipedian is to leave the emotion at the door, or perhaps to disengage from editing on a topic which causes excessive emotion. We do not hate Overstock. We do not love Overstock. We are indifferent to all but the simple basic facts, delivered in a dispassionate neutral manner.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
While I will cop to a measure of dramatic emphasis in those comments, I do not think them inappropriate - it is important to note that Overstock is a money-losing company with a staggering record of despicable actions on the part of its management. These are basic and well-cited facts of the sort that you describe. My wording was strong, but we're making the same point - we are not to be held accountable for Overstock's generation of a long legacy of incriminating facts. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Further violations: "despicable actions," "incriminating facts." When WP:BLP violations are pointed out ("criminally insane," "sociopathic," "lunatic"), it is poor form to respond with further violations and inflammatory remarks. It makes no difference who started the "nonsense", nor does it make a difference whether this is an article or a talk page: BLP violations are unacceptable on any page. The effect of this kind of violation is to make it seem to others that you should not be involved in the editing of this page. BCST2001 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
And this is the exact problem I was describing: you cannot rules lawyer away the facts that make this article into a less positive portrayal than you'd like. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) I am not "rules lawyering": I am pointing out that you do not seem to perceive that you are violating a fundamental Wikipedia policy; (2) I have no agenda in relation to the content of this article, and nothing I have written indicates that I do; (3) the fact you seem to think I have an agenda in relation to the article suggests you are seeing this article as a battleground; (4) you still do not seem to see anything wrong with writing what you have written; and (5) all this just continues to suggest that you should refrain from involvement with this article. BCST2001 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The point about ""Overstock.com says its main rivals are eBay, Amazon.com Marketplace and Yahoo! Auctions; however, Overstock's revenues, site traffic and marketshare currently lag far behind eBay and Amazon." may have some merit. In particular, the comparisons of revenue, site traffic and marketshare appears to be original research. Do we have a citation for this comparison? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we should cite this article. However, we can not be judgmental about Overstock, we should provide as much neutral information as possible about the company in question, not call them lunatics or losers. Thats for the investors and customers to do. The problem with the current article is that its more about couple of Overstock officers than about the company itself. Honestly, we might be doing a disservice to the employees of Overstock by concentrating only on Byrne and Bagley. How about we make this more about the company itself, for ex: like Google page TwakTwik (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What you have in this article is a reflection of the reliable sourcing. This is a source of frustration to the company and its flacks but the problem lies with the company as reflected in the sourcing and not with the article. Just yesterday the stock went down something like 21% and the media went beserk again. [5] The solution for this public relations problem is for bad news not to happen, and that is Overstock's problem not Wikipedia's.--Samiharris (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Reliable yet selecting sourcing. Why should an article about a company be dominated by activities of its officers?. For example, if article about Google is all about Sergei and Larry's expensive weddings that contributed heavily to global warming, that wouldn't be considered fair. TwakTwik (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsolicited review

As it stands now this article has a one sentence lede and is structured rather poorly IMO. I would give it a "start" class rating if it were part of my wikiproject. I understand that this is a rather contentious topic, so I don't plan on trying to edit it (plus I am not all that interested in its subject matter). However, this certainly doesn't mean that some brave soul can't give it a go. I looked at the Amazon.com article and it seems to be fairly well put together, so perhaps this article could steal its structure and style (though if anyone knows of an FA article that has a similar topic as this article that would be the way to go). Also, the infobox could do with some spiffing (see ebay or Amazon.com for comparison). Finally, perhaps someone from WikiProject Companies or WikiProject Websites could take this article under his wing. There is no reason that this article can't be GA status one day. Cheers —Cronholm144 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A possibly more reliable piece on Bagley and Wikipedia

See [6]. Fit for inclusion? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be supportive of that. StaticElectric (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as the Wikipedian interviewed there (and the one who placed and later removed the IP range block the article was about), I felt reasonably well-represented there. I notice in the comments that O-Smear felt the story was severely lacking. And I would guess from the comments with pics of Carolyn Doran that Overstock were less than pleased. But it does show some mainstream journalism on the topic. See also this one, from today, also about the collateral damage from a range block - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, based on this material later today I will propose on this talk page a sentence or two to add. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobody cares. Seriously. It's just self-referential trivia. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with Guy on this. While I personally find Bagley's extracurricular activities interesting, they are only tangentially related to the company. The section on ASM already is long and threatens to overwhelm the article. This bit about Bagley being a jerk on Wikipedia really falls into the category of inside baseball Wikipedia triva. It has little bearing on the company itself.--Samiharris (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
It's the best article it fits in, so long as ASM or Bagley don't have their own. It has been reported on in multiple reliable sources, so it's not self-reference. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Bagley is not notable enough to warrant an article of his own, as was determined in an AFD, and that is precisely the point. Everything he does does not warrant mention in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. See WP:NOT. His latest exploits are a bit off on the rim as far as Overstock is concerned, in my view.--Samiharris (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If that's your precise point, you might need to find a new one. The notability guideline "only pertain[s] to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do[es] not directly limit the content of articles." As it is, we have sources that talk about Bagley and Byrne's various dramas in the context of Overstock, which they are apparently designed to promote. That's what's relevant, that's what's necessary, that's what makes a good article. John Nevard (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Overstock President/COO's/Director's resignation.

The coverage makes this look like it is even more significant than the previous resignations. Might be useful to unprotect or drop to semi so we can build up a more complete picture. John Nevard (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) overstock pr overstock at 4 year low bizweek overview

Proposed para

On January 2, 2008,[1] Overstock announced that cofounder Jason Lindsey had resigned as President, COO, and as a Director of Overstock effective from December 31, 2007. Byrne said Lindsey had "played a decisive role getting [Overstock] back on track" after "I screwed it up a couple years ago". Overstock stock dropped to a four year low following the announcement,[2] which a analyst for investment bank Broadpoint Capital described as a "key loss".[3] Before the announcement, the Overstock stock price had flattened in recent weeks after a steep downturn.[2]

Block was lifted so I added, with additional cite. On the Traverse Mountain thing, I think we have to add that Overstock itself was blocked. For that, I think a citation from the block log would be sufficient sourcing, albeit from a first-hand and not a secondary source. I added a sentence to that effect, but then removed as I am not sure about use of a block log as a source.--Samiharris (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We'd probably need an independent news source on that. The attempts by Overstock employees to attack Wikipedia's integrity are pretty obvious, but we need to show that a major independent authority considers them important. John Nevard (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake/Cottonwood

This relatively recent article says Overstock headquarters is based in Cottonwood Heights. C.H. appears to be a relatively short distance from S.L.C., about 100 km or less. Overstock may well employ consultants in S.L.C. for various services, and especially with C.H. having been incorporated relatively recently, it's not unlikely that things could get confused. John Nevard (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cottonwood Heights lies about 10 km south of Salt Lake City. The "confusion" results directly from U.S. Postal Service practices, which often pay little heed to city boundaries. In this case, Overstock.com's address lies in the ZIP code 84121. Many years ago, the USPS assigned the place name "Salt Lake City" to the ZIP code 84121, even though it lies ~10 km south of Salt Lake City and well outside the city limits. After the incorporation of Cottonwood Heights, the USPS also assigned the new city's name to 84121, but still allows the use of "Salt Lake City" in 84121 addresses. Thus, a sort of postal loophole was created, which allows Overstock.com and other businesses to masquerade as Salt Lake City businesses, when in fact they are not and never were located in the city. Apparently the name recognition offered by "Salt Lake City" trumps any sense of accuracy or respect for the community that Overstock.com is actually a part of. Schiptuin (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The company's filings give its location as Salt Lake City. I have no problem with giving its location as Cottonwood Heights since it was mentioned in the Deseret News article, but that is a strange contradiction with the company's own SEC filings and I don't entirely understand the postal dynamics outlined above.--Samiharris (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There is often a difference between the place name given in a mailing address and the place in which the address is actually located. The most prominent example is the Pentagon. The Postal Service has assigned the place name "Washington, DC" to the ZIP codes that cover the Pentagon, even though the Pentagon is located across the river in Virginia. So anyone looking at, say, the mailing address of the Department of the Army, would logically assume that it is in Washington. After all, that's what the address says! However, it's simply not true. The Army's offices are in Arlington, Virginia. Yes, this is a contradiction. The Postal Service could change the place name assigned to the Pentagon's ZIP codes from "Washington" to "Arlington", but for whatever reason it does not, perpetuating this contradiction and confusion.
Now, in the case of Overstock.com, the address appearing in its SEC filing (6350 South 3000 East) is not, nor has never been, in Salt Lake City. It is however, in, and has been in, the ZIP code 84121. And since the Postal Service has assigned the place name "Salt Lake City" to 84121, businesses and households in that ZIP code are legitimized in formulating their addresses as "Salt Lake City, UT 84121" (even though they aren't actually located in that city). And so, wherever the address appears, an assumption is automatically made that the address is in Salt Lake City (but again, it is not).
Some time after the City of Cottonwood Heights was incorporated, the Postal Service added "Cottonwood Heights" as an accepted place name for addresses in ZIP code 84121 (though "Salt Lake City" is still the "default"). So now it is postally acceptable to write an address in ZIP code 84121 with either "SLC" or "CH". Businesses or households have a choice - they can either use CH, reflecting their actual location, or they can continue to use SLC out of habit. Overstock.com apparently chooses not to recognize the city that it is actually located in by changing the place name appearing in its SEC filing address, most likely because "Salt Lake City" offers better name recognition. Yes, this is a contradiction, but Overstock.com is enabled by the Postal Service's practice of maintaining "Salt Lake City" as the default place name for 84121 addresses.
Bottom line - the city appearing in an SEC filing (or in any other U.S. address) reflects the Postal Service's ZIP code boundaries and the place names it assigns to those ZIP codes. Unfortunately, ZIP code boundaries and ZIP code place names do not necessarily match actual political boundaries or city names, providing a practically limitless source of contradiction and confusion. Schiptuin (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. I think that as long as this is properly sourced, as it is now, there should be no problem.--Samiharris (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No marketing controversy?

Has there seriously been no Reliable Source investigation of Overstock's marketing tactics? The other day I got on a bus and these other guys started loudly discussing the endless advantages to Overstock dot com (fighting urge to retype that in representative caps). Now, it seems to me like this is the sort of thing a news outlet would have picked up on and looked into- have there really been no articles on this that were removed for some NPOV issue (raised by OverstockWiki, natch)? If there are, could somebody point me to the revision before they were removed?

(I'm going to put on the line right now that the thing that scares me so much about this article- indeed, about the little I've heard about this company altogether- is the rampant puppetism and acting, so you can view my contribs for proof that I am in fact a person who has actually existed for several years and has no hidden agenda. Seriously, I'm just a guy who wants some quiet on the bus. --Alph Tech STUART (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

This article is an interesting read

Interesting overview, looks at how Byrne succeeded in just missing the dot-com boom/bust.[7] Note that the article was written for a book ending 2005... prior to the sinister manipulations by Secret Bankers and International Financiers that tragically crushed Byrne's hopes, and you can tell. John Nevard (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a good source, thanks. John, I have some WP:WEIGHT concerns regarding the paragraph you reverted. Aren't we going into just a bit too much detail on that? My first inclination was to go with the paragraph, but I was persuaded by Jzg's view that this was inside baseball. Guy has had a personal issue so I don't believe he'll be contributing for a while, but I'd like to get his input on this.--Samiharris (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't think it's particularly important except as a good (and well-covered) example of that particular Overstock director's campaign against imperial storm troopers. I've edited it down to a one-sentence summary which I think covers it properly without detracting from the article's flow. John Nevard (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"It has never been profitable"

This absurd lead is emblematic for the bias of this article. Don't get me wrong. This is not an analysts' pick, and few think the company is managed well, but such an unsympathetic subject should still be covered in a neutral fashion. There's no need for us to cite a highly opinionated column for the proposition that the company has never made money. (The apparent support for this claim is divined from the snark "Could this be because the company has never come close to making money? ... Nah. Must be those rotten naked short sellers.") This dubious "fact" is not mentioned in ordinary news coverage, suggesting that it is not weighty, even if it were true. We should strive to follow the most reliable sources, not critical columnists.

In this case, the statement was false. Reliable sources say that Overstock was last profitable 4Q 2002. It was apparently slightly profitable for two quarters. Yeah, they're not exactly rolling in dough, but that doesn't excuse us for relaying a columnist's quip as flat fact. Cool Hand Luke 08:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy of [8] by Special:Contributions/Quasi78. Heh.
Anyone can be profitable over a week, especially if they're using their creative skills- and it doesn't take much to fool most journalists, given how well arbitarily excluding costs seems to have worked. John Nevard (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re. Wikpedia block

Language like "blocks of his IP addresses... blocked about 800 homes subscribed to Bagley's ISP." makes it sound like he was editing through a number of dynamically assigned IP's from his home ISP- rather than a variety of proxies and the one IP address his ISP uses to service hundreds of customers- which is naturally also going to look like a proxy. John Nevard (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is something we really have no excuse for not being precise upon. The address that was blocked was 204.15.84.2 (with advertising, personal attacks, outing attempts etc now oversighted). It's either a proxy server or a router used for network address translation. When administrators checked where Bagley's latest accounts (a few of which are listed at) were coming from, they found this particular address- which was an obvious proxy, given the various unconnected strains of editing- was among various addresses he had used. It'd be interesting to know for sure that Overstock IPs [9] were in the ranges used abusively for AntiSocialMedia purposes, but unfortunately checkuser policy prevents revelation of information like that. John Nevard (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:V insists that we use reliable sources, and Wikipedia's own self-published records are not. I'm not sure what imprecision you're getting at. I would just like it clear that Wikipedia blocked hundreds of homes as a reaction to this trolling—that was the headline, after all. The more passive construction "through which he directed his internet traffic, including one his ISP used to service 800 homes," doesn't make that clear. Cool Hand Luke 05:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It makes it very clear. Wikipedia didn't block hundreds of homes, it blocked the single IP address an ISP used to service hundreds of homes. Maybe it isn't entirely the ISP's fault, IP address space does cost a lot of money nowadays and to avoid purchasing it, without also aiding Bagley's vandalism, they might have to spend a few extra dollars a month and invest a few hours of time in forwarding internal IP address headers to Wikipedia- but that doesn't mean we should choose an imprecise sentence construction that excuses them. The parts of the Wikipedia statement quoted state that he was using [at least one] open proxy, even if the article writers didn't actually make any effort to look at Bagley's offensive tactics. John Nevard (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible imbalance

I think we're probably a bit too close to this affair. The "Antisocialmedia.net" section seems to be far too large and detailed, and concentrates rather heavily on Wikipedia-related matters.

Also, while Overstock has become associated with the naked shorts campaign, we have a section on the same campaign in Patrick M. Byrne. Perhaps the solution is to redact the one in Byrne's article and reference it to this article for more detail, or vice versa.

Apart from that and the Antisocialmedia.net campaign (which seems to have picked up minimal press coverage) the article seems somewhat sparse for one about a public listed business approaching its eleventh year of trading. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about how to cover the Anti-naked shorts campaign at Talk:Patrick M. Byrne#Anti-naked shorts campaign. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
After a bit of mucking around I've consolidated all the Bagley stuff in one place, under the Anti-naked shorts campaign. I've trimmed that detail to its bare essentials as it's peripheral to the company's activities. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Bagley's involvement in Wikipedia has been restored. Is this particularly significant? I wonder if we're too close to this to say for sure, but my impression is that but for the fuss over blocking a single IP number this hasn't raised a blip on the public radar. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations, Ant. I'm trying to trim down the NSS section here, per my comment on the other page, so it focuses on the material most relevant to Overstock. One part I was able to remove related to legislation that was passed in Utah, which I don't think is directly relevant to the company. Possibly this could be added to Byrne's article if it seems important. However, I'm thinking if we focus on the relevance to the article subject, we may end up with good sections that are distinct enough to justify each other. I may try to trim some of the Bagley material as well, which I've only glanced at, but which does seem a bit too specific and like inside baseball. I think you're right it's being overemphasized compared to its coverage in the media in relation to Overstock.com. Mackan79 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Great. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rivals

Regarding rivals, I think it's just a matter of who they are up against (I believe "competitors" would mean the same thing). I don't see how it is controversial, although I believe I have seen it in captions. I can try to find a source if needed. Mackan79 (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Links:[10][11][12][13] Mackan79 (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the BusinessWeek article actually says "Amazon prices basically matched those of rivals eBay, Overstock, and Buy.com." Doesn't necessarily need a change, just FYI. Mackan79 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It just reads funny to me -- major rivals may be right, as in 'a hundred times more major'. It should probably be changed to something sourced to Overstock as to who they consider their rivals to be, or possibly updated to something from after the whole debacle of recent years. John Nevard (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Investigation

An administrator needs to insert that the SEC investigation was concluded. See [14]. The sentence saying the SEC investigation is "ongoing" can be changed to "concluded with no action against the company."--Stetsonharry (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything out there on the investigation into Byrne's activities? This more comprehensive article, complete with the usual outlandish claims, seems to be a little ambiguous on the subject. John Nevard (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. This source is silent on that.--Stetsonharry (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)