Talk:XPO, Inc./Archives/2016

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on XPO Logistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110621204503/http://www.bloomberg.com:80/video/70862538/ to http://www.bloomberg.com/video/70862538//

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Right time to remove advert template?
I'm still rather new here, but after doing minor edits to a couple other pages, this page and the related Bradley S. Jacobs article ended up being the ones I cut my teeth on. I was trying to improve both pages, but now I wonder: when is it appropriate to remove the advert template? I still have to finish some copy-editing, but getting this article clean has become a point of pride for me, and it would be nice to "check off" the article once I AM done by removing that big box up top.

Is there a rule to follow regarding this? Aussietommartin (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So, according to Help:Maintenance template removal, the advert template can be removed by anyone who believes the issue has been fixed and doesn't have a conflict of interest. Based on this, I went ahead and removed the template. (The whole be bold thing!) If I did this in error, please let me know and re-apply the template! Aussietommartin (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing the table with all the acquisitions
I originally created that table out of a desperate desire to pare down the insane bloat that dealt with all the acquisitions XPO has made over time. Reading it in paragraph form was exhausting. The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized that the table shouldn't be there, either. Wikipedia articles should be about broad strokes and major points (something I learned while considering additions to the Overwatch (game) article), and it's tough for me to imagine that anyone really cares about all those little acquisitions, except for employees of the subject company.

Given that I seem like the only one here who's trying to actively keep this page in good condition, I went ahead and made the change, but I also get it might be too drastic. TOO bold? I'm unsure. As always, feedback from more experienced Wikipedians is welcome. Aussietommartin (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of "Citation Needed" Edits
Looks like some anonymous user posting from an IP located in the UK (actually looks like it is VPN owned address) just came on here, did not read any of the articles posted that support all of the information provided and just put in "Citation needed" bullets that made things look messy.

I have been around Wikipedia for a while and am now coming back. I left before because you see a lot of this. People who either do not or cannot take time to actually read supporting sources. A quick pointer, you don't need to put a footnote cite next to every single assertion contained in a sentence or a paragraph, as long as the information is contained in the source information in articles that are cited (typically at the end of a sentence or paragraph). This is standard APA citation and that is widely used in the USA and all over Wikipedia. I will also add that I hope that this is not one of the "article wreckers" who are now becoming more common. Come in, mess up an article and then go and jack a company or a person for money to "repair" it. I am not saying that is the case here, but Wikipedia needs to get a handle on that and the folks who vandalize. It looks to me from a brief review that there were a couple of SPAs that originally did "work" (if you can call it that) on this article. They made a complete mess of it and it was a mess. Someone else seems to have dedicated a fair amount of time to cleaning up the mess and now (coincidentally) along comes an IP address only account to make it look messy.

Folks, please, before you request citations or make assertions read the articles. There is a world beyond Wikipedia and in that world real things happen, real rankings happen and real information is gleaned. If you cannot read then please don't request cites or correct or remove information that is clearly there. If you don't want to read articles then stay away too because you are causing problems when none exist. Leviathan2020 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize how much I needed to read something like this, Leviathan2020. I'm the guy who "dedicated a fair amount of time to cleaning up the mess," as you put it, and while I know the page is far from perfect, it's definitely a lot better than it used to be! I came online this weekend because I felt like some good ol-fashioned Wikipedia-ing, and got rather deflated when I saw what had been going on. Then I come to the talk page and see this message; I thought I was the only one that cared about this damned article! So, thanks for butting in. :) Aussietommartin (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Restructuring to match "Good Articles"
Hey, Talk page! I've been digging a bit into what makes a business or corporation page "good" on Wikipedia, particularly by going through various examples of good articles on the good articles/social sciences page. I've been particularly concerned about the Major acquisitions section.

If you care to dig into the history of this article, you may notice that acquisitions has gone through a lot of changes. Originally it was just part of a long-as-hell History section, and then I tried breaking it out into a table with all the different acquisitions. This made sense to me because, as I learned more about XPO, it seemed like the company was really defined by its acquisitions. But I think I went down the wrong path; the company may have been built around acquisitions, but that's not what it's for. It's a logistics company!

Consequently, I feel like it makes a lot more sense to focus on what the company is and what it does, rather than what other companies XPO has bought. I've got a decent amount of time this weekend, but this is also a pretty big leap for me; I haven't done a ton of research since my college years, and I feel like doing this right is definitely going to require some serious research.

Here's my plan:


 * 1) Do some more general cleanup of the article first. It's gotten some touches from IP addresses since I last dug into it, and I'm not incredibly happy with the grammar (facts seem fine, but readability is lacking in a few places). I'm also seeing even more examples of inside baseball I missed last time, and feel like those could be cleaned up, too.
 * 2) Pare down the Major acquisitions section a LOT, to just provide a light overview of each purchase. Possibly fold it back into the History section? Not sure yet.
 * 3) Start expanding out the Operations section significantly. It seems like the logical place to put information about what XPO does! This will probably take me awhile, because I really want to get good sources, but my thinking is we talk about what XPO does by using examples of specific activities. Then again, that might be too research-papery.

I'll keep bouncing ideas around my head, but if anyone out there has thoughts or feedback, I'd love to hear it! Otherwise, onward we go.

Aussietommartin (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay! I've gone ahead and started implementing the very changes I talked about here, starting with the Operations section, which you'll note is now WAY MORE MASSIVE than it was! In case you're wondering, no, I didn't do this all tonight; in fact, much of the work for this has been done in fits and starts over the past two months. I'm much happier with this section now than I was before, but I admit, there are still some issues:


 * The additions are a little... monotonous. I was trying really hard to be factual and readable, and I think I came off less engaging than I'd like. But at this same time, this IS an encyclopedia, so factual statements aren't all that rare. =)
 * All of the "largest X in the world" sentences DO come off as a bit aggrandizing, though from what I can figure out, they ARE factual, and those sorts of stats seem like the sorts of things that would be in an encyclopedia. I think they provide context, though I'm still not happy with how they read.
 * I was able to find some really solid sources for stuff (JOC's probably my favorite, although I'm tired of getting emails from them), but I'm still using an XPO source for some of the factual data. I think the facts are useful to have (again, context), but I haven't found better, non-original sources. If someone could help me out here?
 * This is my first time making such significant additions to any site, much less all in one go. Bear with me!


 * Despite these issues, I think the end result is significantly better than the two sentences that were there before. There was a graf that WKDash pulled about Smartway that I put back in; he (she?) said in his comments that he'd reposition it somewhere else, but he never did, and since it has to do with general operations, it DOES seem to fit the operations section. Although maybe, in retrospect, it's not as relevant as I thought? I'll have to think on that, but right now I'm not really trusting the most recent edits made before I came back from my two-month writing hiatus, so I'm erring on the side of reverting those edits.


 * Finally, this is just the beginning! I've also got changes for the Technology section and a much-shortened Acquisitions section, like I talked about back in September (see my first comment in this section, above). I'm just tired, and I want to give WKDash a bit more time to get back to me before I go messing with his stuff.


 * Aussietommartin (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey guys! Okay, between the History changes I made a couple months ago and the Operations changes I finally enacted a couple days ago, I was able to pull most of the relevant stuff from the Major acquisitions section up into other sections. (Relevant being, as I've already discussed, content that has a lot more to do with what XPO is doing NOW.) With that complete, I was then able to go in and really pare this section down to bullet points. It's interesting thinking about what this section has gone through; at one point I even had everything broken down into a table! But really, it was all too backward-facing.


 * This HAS meant the deletion of certain facts I'd originally left in, but I have a hard time justifying their continued inclusion. (For example, I don't really think anyone in the public cares that Tony Brooks is president of XPO's LTL trucking business. No offense if you're out there, Tony!) It's also meant getting rid of a number of recent edits that talked about various legal issues and complaints. Sorry to WKDash for pulling this stuff, too, but let's be honest: Does anyone really care about the bickering that happened during said acquisition? Aren't ALL acquisitions filled with that sort of bickering?


 * At any rate, these changes are FINALLY in! Woot! Speak up if you have questions or concerns and we can talk them over here. =)


 * Aussietommartin (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Appropriateness of new legal content
Hey there, Wikipedians! (And particularly User:WKDash, who made all the most recent changes.)

As I mentioned in the "Restructuring to Match Good Articles" section above, I've been planning some significant overhauls to this article for a while (though real-life concerns have kept me from getting around to it). I admit that I've begun feeling a bit paternal toward it, but I've also wanted other contributors to come in for a long time, so I was really excited when I saw someone else had come along to make improvements!

Initially, anyway. When I actually looked at what changes were made, I realized they're almost all legal cases related to XPO. (There's also some new information about CEO Bradley Jacobs, which seems out of place because that stuff really belongs on the Bradley Jacobs page, doesn't it?)

In my time on Wikipedia, I've noticed that while some pages do have accounts of legal cases, they tend to be restricted to matters of public significance. I need to do some investigation into the specific legal cases that were added to try and determine what's going on, but at first glance they seem to be... well... random. Doesn't basically every Fortune 500 company have a billion legal cases going against them at any given time?

I want to be clear, I'm all for fair and balanced coverage of topics on Wikipedia; I've worked hard enough on this article to want to make it as usable and comprehensive as possible! But these edits feel malicious to me. A new user account, which has done nothing on Wikipedia before, swooping in and adding nothing but legal cases? How is that not malicious?

If the user responsible would be willing to speak up, I'd love to hear your reasoning! Otherwise, I'm strongly inclined to revert many of these changes (not all of them, but many of them). I also want to make some of the changes that I'd already been planning to make for a while, which would override some of these changes anyway (the acquisitions section, for example, feels WAY too long, while the Operations section is pathetically short).

So yes, please speak up if you have reasons that aren't malicious for including all these legal matters! If not I'm going to start weeding through them. If there's stuff that seems to be in the legitimate public interest, we need to keep it in! If not, then: Come on, man.

Aussietommartin (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey WKDash? Any input? The more I look at your changes, the more malicious they seem, so I'd really love to hear your reasoning. If I don't hear back soon, I'm going to go ahead and start reverting them, for a couple reasons:


 * Like I discussed back in September here on the Talk page, I've actually been planning on reducing the size of the Acquisitions section for some time, because which companies XPO acquired just seems to be nowhere near as important for an encyclopedic entry as what the company is doing right now. (See my "Restructuring to Match Good Articles" entry and follow-up above.) However appropriate your additions are to those sections, they pull the focus of the article further away from what XPO is right now.
 * Pretty much all of your additions paint XPO in a negative light. I really want to portray the subject of the article accurately; this was one of the first articles I came across in my early days at Wikipedia and having spent so much time on it, I admit I've probably become a bit protective, a stance that could mean I'm being more lenient on the company than I should be. But at the same time, I've worked really hard to get RID of language in the article that's biased. Then you add content like this:


 * "In October, just prior to the acquisition a Con-way investor had sued to prevent its takeover by XPO. The lawsuit charged that Con-way had violated its duties to stockholders by agreeing to sell at a price that was unfair to them.[60]"


 * First, if this should be anywhere it should be on the Con-Way article, since the lawsuit wasn't against XPO. And second, it was a single shareholder; it shouldn't even be on the Con-way article, as it doesn't represent a "significant minority view" (see Identifying_reliable_sources).


 * I haven't had time to go through all of your additions, but the ones I've looked at are sketchy at best. So, please, PLEASE speak up and tell me where you're coming from. Because seriously, if you don't I'm probably going to end up reverting most, if not all of them.


 * Aussietommartin (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Thank you for reaching out. Upon review, I do think your suggestions are largely headed the right way. Let me trim down the section. WKDash (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I listened to your advice and left only the most notable of cases that have been widely reported on. I think you are right that the others weren't notable enough. WKDash (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess that just leaves the Conway portion in question. My rationale was that it appears to be a pretty notable case as well. I may be wrong in this assumption, but since there does appear to be some media attention to it, shouldn't it have at least a mention? Seems notable to me. WKDash (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, WKDash, I was wondering if you'd respond! Thanks for getting back to me, and for paring down the Legal cases section to major issues. Good stuff. =) I'd still like to go over them and see if they're relevant (no offense!), but as first glance, rock on!


 * On a related note, sorry for pulling your content from the Acquisitions section during the pare-down (see my other comments on this page from today, above); it was something that I'd had in the works for a while, steadily moving relevant content from that section to other sections so that I could really shrink things down. No offense to your efforts, good sir (ma'am?); it's merely a matter of trying to keep the article focused on what XPO is, rather than what random acquisitions it went through to get there. (For the record, that decision came after I looked at a lot of other company articles and realized that acquisitions are rarely given much billing, if any.)


 * Last related note: Your additions to the History section have me a tad concerned for reasons I've already mentioned, and I'm about to start going through them. More commentary on them soon, if I have any!


 * Thanks again for speaking up,


 * Aussietommartin (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Quick follow-up and then I'm going to bed: I pulled the extra details on what Bradley Jacobs did before he became CEO, because he has his own page and if he wants to feel special, he can look at himself over there. I also pulled the Moody's stuff. Like I explained in my edit comment, I looked at the Wikipedia articles for all of the Top 10 companies by revenue, including outfits like BP, Apple and Toyota, AND a random smattering of others on that list (List of largest companies by revenue), and not ONE had this sort of information listed. That makes me very concerned that it treads a little too far into inside-baseball territory. The nail in the coffin was when I looked for an update on the story, and couldn't find any evidence that Moody's had gone through with the downgrade. They merely considered one, and then apparently didn't even go through with it.


 * Yeah, that's definitely not Wikipedia-worthy info.


 * I don't have time to do it now (sleep time), but I'm going to set aside a few hours tomorrow or Saturday and research how other Wikipedia articles handle this sort of information. If paragraphs about these sorts of threats and disagreements between companies during acquisitions are commonplace, okay then, we'll leave them in. If not, I'd guess they're best removed.


 * Aussietommartin (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again! This is going to be a bit of an introspective post, so please forgive me ahead of time!


 * I've spent some time today looking into other company-focused articles on Wikipedia, and I have to say, I haven't found any evidence that either a) legal concerns surrounding XPO's acquisitions, or b) concerns surrounding the particular stock fluctuations, warrant inclusion within the context of, well, Wikipedia.


 * Let's start with the legal side of things. An obvious place to go to was Walmart's page, since we've all heard about the legal and ethical concerns that surround that particular company. Over there, there's substantive discussion about major corruption charges on the international stage (a worthwhile inclusion, I think anyone would agree, since it directly pertains to how the general public engages with the company), and about concerns surrounding labor relations within the company (which again seems worthwhile to talk about because it pertains to anyone who might think about being employed by Walmart). Yet even here, specific details related to particular legal cases aren't even mentioned; they're far too granular.


 * So I kept looking, and came across Criticism of Apple Inc. and Criticism of Microsoft. "Aha!" I thought! Here are entire articles devoted to the numerous concerns surrounding two major corporate influencers in their industry! But when you dig deeper, you realize that none of the discussion surrounds litigation that pertains to acquisitions, or really any kind of minor dispute between companies. If anything's included, it's included because it bears some measure of import to the public interest.


 * What about the stock stuff? The paragraph in the History section about XPO's Relative Strength Index on Forbes, or the one about David Trainer's opinion article on XPO's stock being overvalued? Again, I can't find evidence of these sorts of facts being discussed on other Wikipedia pages. Granted, there is PLENTY of discussion of litigation, especially among major companies -- you need only look to the articles on Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs for evidence of that. But things about relative strength index or small opinion pieces by Forbes contributors (which are different from employed staff, and I would know, since I work in journalism)? Nope.


 * All this adds up to something pretty fundamental: I can't actually find reason to keep the aforementioned paragraphs in the History section, and I feel like the Legal cases section has dubious material, at best. At the same time, I worry about deleting it all outright in one fell swoop, because removing content that could provide a balanced perspective on the company sets a troublesome precedent. It seems weird to say, but I don't think I'd have the same reservations if we had other sections that discuss XPO in some negative way. At least then we could showcase both positive and negative aspects of the company, and fulfill our responsibility as Wikipedia editors to be dispassionate about our subjects. Right?


 * The realization I finally came to: This is actually a classic logical fallacy that the "media" gets pummeled for all the time. It's called false balance, and it's pervasive. I believe it's important that we don't include minor legal concerns, or news and opinions that project a subject in a negative light, simply because we want to appear balanced. Instead we should restrict our coverage to matters of greater public interest. If and when XPO falls out of the Fortune 500: That belongs in the History section. Evidence of corruption within its leadership? Definite inclusion. Some opinion piece about XPO's stock value, or a squabble in state court over trademark infringement with YRC Worldwide Inc. or R+L Carriers? (Neither of which mention any matters of litigation on their own pages.) I just don't see it.


 * This is a really long-winded way of saying, "I'm going to pull the added content." But I wanted anyone who came across this article and saw the changes and reversions to understand the thought process behind it. Added value to the article is good; additions that source opinion articles or discuss corporate squabbles in the wake of a major acquisition don't really qualify.


 * Last note: I'm really sorry to WKDash for cutting so much (not all, but most) of their additions. While I'm still not 100% convinced they weren't malicious (from what I can see, XPO Logistics is the only page the account has ever touched), I'd like to think they were just trying to provide balance and context. That's good! But we can figure out a better way to go about it! :)


 * Aussietommartin (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Aussietommartin. If the cases are "reported cases" (those are appellate cases) then possibly if they set precedent they might be of interest. It seems from notes here and elsewhere that people have been setting up SPAs in order to post information that is solely negative in effect and impact. Millions of legal cases are filed every day in the US and in other nations. As XPO is a publicly traded company there is obvious cause for concern as people will post cases out of context, without verbatim transcripts or copies of judgments (all of which can be obtained easily by lawyers).

So, this could be:

1) Someone who is ignorant of law and legal process and has just selected one company (unlikely). 2) Someone with an axe to grind (sometimes we see this with paid editors who are fired and then vandalize so they can get their own back). However, a paid editor has to post that they are a paid editor or they risk serious charges as that can be stock manipulation if no such disclosure is given, and no one has divulged that. OR 3) Someone is attempting to adversely impact the stock price (akin to greenmailing but illegal stock manipulation).

As an enforcement arm the SEC can help in tracking folks down to see if there is manipulation or an attempt to vandalize for the purposes of blackmail or revenge of some kind. I would suggest (if they are reading this) that the company simply liaise with the enforcement agencies in the nations mentioned and also divulge if anyone was paid (paid editors in many states / nations also have to charge sales tax, GST, or VAT as well as pay income tax). It could also be benign and someone who thinks they can do this and wants to do it, but if so why so one-sided. Also look to connected sites and pages and see if anyone has been grinding an axe or hitting back there. That should tell you a lot.

I would also suggest sending a 1099 (or equivalent for overseas) if there were paid editors reflecting the amounts paid, to whom and when. Too many people evade taxes already and that needs to stop. I know people charge a lot for editing professionally and so the amounts are not small.

Wikipedia rules say that legal threats should not be made, but also say don't ignore legal threats. My advice here (I ran across it as the purchase and trading is so vigorous for this company that manipulation and attempts to harm are always likely) is not to threaten, just to do. I will ensure that XPO receive the advice through the proper channels. No threats, but a solid investigation should clear it up. SECLawFirm (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for giving your input, SECLawFirm! (Although, no offense, but your username makes it feel like you're being a little promotional yourself. :) ) I'm not remotely a legal mind, so it's nice to have someone who seems like they have some grasp of that speak up! Aussietommartin (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I wrote before about vandalism. Looks like someone got butt-hurt and started posting negative again. I have looked around pages related to this and people linked to this and there are people hiding (archiving) sockpuppet investigations after making almost 100 nasty edits between them to one page. So, I think that all concerns are justified. The folks doing this have trodden on a land mine this time as this is a publicly traded company and anything that is posted that is one-sided (it all is) will be looked at as attempts at stock manipulation. A word of advice (probably better coming from the lawyers for the company though though) you start playing with things that manipulate stocks then you get in trouble. There are a lot of cases that people can read (Harvard Business Review is a great start) about people who wound up on the rocks over this. I am waiting for the "don't make legal threats" post though as if that makes it OK. I am just stating fact and it's not illegal for the company to hire someone it's just (depending on where they are) illegal and seen as attempts at stock manipulation to not divulge (why journalists on NBC say when they are reporting about companies owned by same parent; they don't want to be looking at 30 years in the big house)

I hope XPO board members look at this as it is time for them to get to the bottom of it. Again, the legal changes were done via VPN so tracing back is easy as they fold and give names with a request letter while promising customers they don't (how do people think the child pornographers and inside traders get busted every day). Courts recognize that investors look at wikipedia for insight. Look to see how value went when the "legal issues" (I can't see any of those type of cases on any other pages) showed up. Looks like someone was either on a mission to hurt or to make money and either way that carries serious time (more so in Europe, as I see they posted Europe related cases). Anywhere this is read is a fair game jurisdiction. Leviathan2020 (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Leviathan2020! How in the world can you tell if WKDash was posting from a VPN? Aren't VPNs blocked by Wikipedia anyway? Aussietommartin (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Aussietimmartin:

Admins have the ability to do a check IP then you can check who owns the IP. Many computer science students can do that one for you. I am very close to someone who is an admin; she has been my admin for over 30 years :-)

Wikipedia does their best to block those kinds of accounts and also has a zero tolerance policy on people who manipulate stocks for personal or corporate gain. Another issue is that they did not check their sources (and copied direct from the sources) and so posted stuff about this company that anyone who spent time on it would see, was not actually about this company. Each day it stays up is republication as is each time it is read. You should probably contact the company in question, tell them that someone has done this and they can take it from there. As I say, you may just be dealing with a fool, or with someone who wants to vandalize so they can offer "services" to clean it up or stock manipulation. The fact this was all negative smacks of manipulation and something the SEC (and counterparts overseas) would have interest in. It was not balanced, it was all negative and there were a lot of views. 50.25.158.184 (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Just did mine from IP address to show that right now I am in Tyler, Texas. Each username has one of those behind it that can be checked and tallied to see who the owner is. Happy hunting! Leviathan2020 (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)