Based on an edit you have made to Jimbo Wales' talk page, it would appear that you are claiming to be Patrick M. Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com. If you choose to edit under the username of a well-known living person (which you are), it is required that you either disclose that you are not the same person, or provide proof that you are. You may wish to read the relevant policy to avoid being blocked. Thank you! - Chardish (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick has kindly confirmed to OTRS that it is really him that is editing wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the professional way this was handled. Respect, PatrickByrne (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, PatrickByrne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Acalamari 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You took back your comment before I finished typing up my reply, Patrick, but since I typed it up, let me just give my two cents on the issue. Here's what I would have posted:

First of all, Patrick I did a bit of formatting to seperate our statements, hope you don't mind. Let me put my .02 in. I think the best outcome possible is that it's conclusively proven one way or the other. That these people are related, or they are not related. Jimbo understands there's a need for this investigation, the so-called "deep digging" because if we don't get the bottom to it, it'll just fester again and again.

As for the line that the best possible outcome being that the charges are not true.. well.. when you consider the amount of disruption that proving a match (especially if there's a link to a supposed RL identity).. if I was responsible for Wikipedia, I'd hope there's not a match too. Ever hear the phrase "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst?" SirFozzie (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok SirFozzie. No worries on the formatting. I am a newbie here and am cognizant that I am probably violating various Wiki-etiquettes, though I try not to do so.

Regarding the evidence or statement you are preparing for the mantanmoreland Rfar, I would recommend staying away from email communications being posted to the page. Rather explain your position and what the evidence shows and email the actual evidence (if it's emails or other normally "private" communications). One of the reasons this problem has festered (IMO) is that the problems have not been brought to light in a way that the community generally finds respectful of user privacy. Whether that is right or wrong is another issue. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocksanddirt, Well, many people feel violated in many ways, I'm sure. I can follow your advice, but if I do that some people are going to say they do not know whether to believe the emails say what I say they do. In any case, what do you mean by saying, "email the actual evidence"? To whom or what should I email it? SlimVirgin and Jimbo? No thanks.PatrickByrne (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To an arbitrator of your choice? User:Dorftrottel 06:47, February 18, 2008

No, I do not believe that is a good idea. Mr. Byrne has described these emails on his blog as purporting to come from Gary Weiss, purporting to describe his editing here. Mr. Weiss has described those emails as forgeries, and urged the Securities & Exchange Commission (which is investigating Byrne) to subpoena them.[1]. If these are the emails to which he is referring, they should be made public, with no details omitted. Or, in the alternative, some method should be ascertained to determine their authenticity, and of course they need to be provided to Weiss.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]