Talk:GunBroker.com

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

As a paid contributor, I am requesting the following information be added to the page, either under ==History== or ==Operations== (wherever it seems most appropriate):

Fred Wagenhals is the Chairman/CEO of GunBroker.com via the parent company, AMMO, Inc.^[1][2][3][4]

On 3 January 2023, parent company AMMO, Inc. appointed Jared Smith as the company's Chief Operating Officer & President.^[5][6] LoVeloDogs (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Hi @LoVeloDogs - I can add those edits for you. As a point of clarification, would @GBmkt also happen to be you (or an affiliate/co-worker)? If so, they would need to disclose any paid editing also (if applicable). I can put a conflict of interest notice on that talk page. Thank you for your candid disclosure and for contributing constructively to Wikipedia. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to research that account but I cannot seem to find GBmkt on Wikipedia, perhaps I'm searching it incorrectly? LoVeloDogs (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries at all - it looks like you weren't able to find the account since they didn't create a formal user page (hence the red link). However, you can still see their contributions to the GunBroker.com article here, in addition to their talk page where I left the COI notice here. Thanks again for the open communication. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

GBmkt is the work of a well-intentioned employee of ours who wasn't aware of the proper process & has been directed to follow the proper channels (me) to make any suggested changes to our page.

It's also been reported to me that an employee may have created/used GBMk, although I cannot find any account, GBMk contributions, or a talk page. That employee has also been directed to follow the proper internal company channels & not use that for anything related to our business.

As a side note, I also stumbled across Gbmk and verified that it is not, and never has been, affiliated with us in any way.

Thank you for your help! LoVeloDogs (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Added requested edits with appropriate modifications to fit WP:MOS and encyclopedic language/flow. Let me know if this suffices @LoVeloDogs. Thanks — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! LoVeloDogs (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

@Adolphus79 I appreciate your contributions very much, but should point out that AMMO, Inc. does not yet exist. There are plans to create it in the future, and you are certainly welcome to if you'd like, but the brackets would probably best be removed for the time being. LoVeloDogs (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@LoVeloDogs - Feel free to check out WP:REDLINK for more info on those types of links and why they are included in articles. I added a red link to AMMO, Inc. as an indication to other editors that it might serve as a good candidate for a future article. Let me know what you think. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@That Coptic Guy, I see, thank you! @Adolphus79 please disregard my suggestion. LoVeloDogs (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not add any redlinks? after seeing the edit history and reading the rest of what's above, nevermind... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

For consideration:

Statistics/rankings to add under ==Operations== section:

GunBroker.com is ranked by Similarweb to be the #1 Most Visited Auction Websites in United States^[1] and in the Top 500 Most Visited Websites in United States.^[2][3] LoVeloDogs (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Fails WP:NPOV Lightoil (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Lightoil!

Curious so that I don't repeat this &/or can correct it in the future:

I assumed these would be acceptable since List of most visited websites only cites similarweb as a reference.

For instance, https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/united-states/e-commerce-and-shopping/auctions/ shows GunBroker.com as #1 for Most Visited Auction Websites in United States.

Is it a matter of wording, for example "... is ranked ..." should be "... was ranked by Similarweb to be the #1 Most Visited Auction Websites in United States as of (Mo/Day/Yr or Mo/Yr)."?

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting WP:V vs WP:NPOV?

To add to my clarification inquiry, this article has a similar reference: "In 2008, Hitwise, a website measurement service, ranked GunBroker.com third in the United States' "Shopping and Classifieds—Auctions" category, exceeded only by eBay and eBay Motors."

Thank you. LoVeloDogs (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@LoVeloDogs Your first ping did not work as I was not notified. Similarweb may be used if it is considered a reliable source. Lightoil (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I have not received any response or clarification from Lightoil regarding my edit request being declined. I would like to request comments and review by other editors. As I am a forthright paid contributor, I don't feel that it is appropriate for me to remove the tag myself. I am using the information below for reference, if I have misinterpreted it I would welcome clarification and suggestions of how to avoid this in the future.

• Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.

LoVeloDogs (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@LoVeloDogs: Several things here. First, RfCs to change policy should not be held on article talk pages; they belong at the talk page of the policy itself, or at WP:VPP. Second, your RfC statement is not neutral, and begins with a list (the ::: markup is a third-level definition list). Third, You begin with I have not received any response or clarification whiout linking to the place where you requested it. Fourth, the {{rfc}} tag must not be indented. All in all, I would say that you beed to read WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I really appreciate it, Redrose64! LoVeloDogs (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@LoVeloDogs there is no WP:NPOV tag on Gunbroker.com so this question is unnecessary. Lightoil (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying these issues! LoVeloDogs (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Examples:

Add brackets/links to the following under ==History== section:

GunBroker.com is an auction website based in ...

Established in 1999, GunBroker.com is the world's largest online marketplace for firearms, ammo, and accessories.

GunBroker.com was founded by Steven F. Urvan shortly after eBay changed its policies, prohibiting the auction of firearms and firearm parts (such as barrels, magazines, and trigger assemblies, essentially any part involved in the firing of a gun).

In 2008, Hitwise, a website measurement service, ...

Add brackets/links to the following under ==Operations== section:

An Inc. Top 5000 company, GunBroker.com is also in the top 400 of all websites as rated by Quantcast. LoVeloDogs (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the concern is that you (or any paid contributor) would (might) add promotional content. As long as you are just making grammar/coding/markup edits (typos, links, punctuation, etc.), and not adding or changing the content (especially in any promotional or biased way), there shouldn't be any problems. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! LoVeloDogs (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I have updated citation access date and indicated that in this resubmission of the proposed edit/addition. This citation being used is assumed to be an acceptable reliable source since List of most visited websites only cites similarweb as a reference.

Statistics/web rankings to add under ==Operations== section:

GunBroker.com is ranked by Similarweb to be the #1 Most Visited Auction Websites in United States^[1] and #475 in the Top 500 Most Visited Websites in United States^[2][3], as of 5 May 2023. LoVeloDogs (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Where should this be inserted? Also, some copyediting is required :) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This would go under GunBroker.com#Operations section.

What copyediting issues are you seeing?

Thanks! LoVeloDogs (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

There is already a claim in that section regarding "top website" from Quantcast. It has not been stated whether the requested claim above is to replace this claim or go alongside it. I would be disposed towards the former, rather than the latter. Please advise.  Spintendo  00:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that the former would be better (replace with the requested claim), given that the Quantcast citation is 7 years old & was last retrieved 5 years ago. The requested change is in reference to much fresher information, and thus more relevant.

Thank you for your reply, Spintendo! LoVeloDogs (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented Also as a reminder, the COI disclosure need only be placed once on the talk page.  Spintendo  19:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you Spintendo! LoVeloDogs (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed edits to ==History== section:

Leadership changes were announced on 25 July 2023, propose change from:

Fred Wagenhals is Chairman/CEO of GunBroker.com via AMMO, Inc.^[1][2][3]

change to:

On July 25, 2023, it was announced that Mr. Smith would transition to Chief Executive Officer, replacing Fred Wagenhals as CEO. Mr. Wagenhals will remain Executive Chairman of AMMO, Inc. and GunBroker.com.^[4][5][6][7]

Adding to request: 8/7/23

Please also update Jared Smith to be the CEO in the Infobox website section. Please remove the line for "President", as this is no longer part of the leadership structure. Thanks!

LoVeloDogs (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed addition to ===Operations=== section, adding as 3rd paragraph below "[...] sometimes been used to study trends in firearm sales" & above "Mobile":

On 25 July 2023, GunBroker.com announced their one billionth auction item listing.^[1] LoVeloDogs (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I just trimmed out a ton of press release derived contents. Similarweb.com is not really a data source. "biggest..." "busiset..." one of the oldest... are all advertorial language. Non PR derived contents and secondary source are needed. Do we have secondary sources commenting on the data? Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Similarweb is a data source. From the Wikipedia page: "Similarweb Ltd. is an Israeli software development and data aggregation company specializing in web analytics, web traffic and performance." Please see Similarweb#Ranking to understand how they are used as a data source for these metrics. Similarweb is used as a data source for at least the following two pages: List of most-visited websites, and List of most popular Android apps. It is also used to determine/reference web traffic and ranking data in approximately 165 different Wikipedia articles.^[1] If you're disputing the validity of Similarweb being a data source, or the veracity of their data, it seems that Talk:Similarweb would be a more suitable place to have that discussion.

On the following edit, you cited a Bloomberg Law article as being an SEC source, which it is not. You copy/pasted the intro paragraph of your citation, instead of using an actual SEC source.^[2]

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GunBroker.com&diff=prev&oldid=1177273421

Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/ammo-inc-accused-by-major-investor-of-gunbroker-com-deal-fraud, which is a paywall site whose parent company Bloomberg L.P. is noted for bias from trusted neutral sources.^[3][4][5][6]

You also removed "GunBroker.com does not sell firearms, but facilitates transactions by bringing buyers and sellers together. Third-party sellers list items on the site, and every buyer or seller must be legally permitted to own firearms. Ownership policies and regulations are followed using licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) as transfer agents.^[7]" without explanation. Granted, a better citation for the business model would be https://www.gunbroker.com/c/about-us/, backed by further supporting sources outside of GunBroker.com (examples: ^[8][9]). The fact remains that GunBroker.com does not sell firearms, or anything else, aside from limited branded merchandise like clothing, bags, drinkware, and similar products that are not firearms.^[10] What was your reasoning in removing this information?

You then added "Gunbrokers.com [sic] partnered with USA Shooting for Olympics. Several lawmakers called out to [sic] Olympics to cut ties with Gunbroker.com because of Nazi memorabilia sold by [emphasis added] Gunbroker.com"^[11], which is incorrect information. As pointed out above, GunBroker.com does not sell anything (aside from limited branded merchandise), they are an intermediary between buyers and sellers, an auction site, much like eBay.^[12][13] Further, GunBroker.com prohibits the listing of such products, and reserves the right to remove such listings.^[14]

Finally, you added a citation that is not focused on the topic of the information, and is inflammatory: "GunBroker.com has been a sponsor for various NASCAR teams since 2004.^[15]" Why wouldn't you use a source relating directly to NASCAR, instead of a three year old source that hasn't done journalistic due diligence focused on conflating NASCAR with sellers listing prohibited products?

When adding the Paid Contributions and POV tags (which are up for discussion, and not disputed here), you noted "the rosey coverage doesn't represent prevailing view [emphasis added] in reliably published contents [sic] available". Which "prevailing view" are you referring to? Given the removals and additions above, and the comment you provided when summarizing the edits, this calls into question the neutrality of these edits and perhaps the subject of firearms overall.

Please discuss your edits in more detail to give a clearer picture of your determinations on what to remove and exclude, and what you feel should be included.

Please note that I did not make the edits due to my COI, I used this talk page to request the edits and discuss them with other editors who went forward with proposed changes. LoVeloDogs (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@LoVeloDogs:, Quoted from WP:PSTS

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

So there should be minimal coverage of what the company wants to say based on Gunbroker.com as a source. Stuff I added came from WP:RS searching gunbroker.com and founder's name together. Prevailing view would be views generally covered by reliable sources, like mainstream news. Editors have expressed MBFC is not a reliable indicator; although Bloomberg is a respected source on Wikipedia which you can confirm by finding the entry on WP:RSP. Graywalls (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your timely reply! The feedback you've provided is helpful, and I'll be sure to refer back to the Project Pages you've referenced. It's very helpful to see what Wikipedia editors have to say about reliable sources.

Top to bottom, I'd still like to understand the items I pointed out above:

1) Similarweb is a data source that is heavily relied upon by Wikipedia, along with various tech news outlets. The information you deleted here is verifiable fact, from a reliable secondary source, and the sort of information that is commonly used as source material. The language there is not "rosey", it is straightforward and reflects the same kind of verbiage used on the 165 other pages I mentioned & cited. Lacking a credible argument, I maintain that this edit should be undone.

2) The primary point on the Steven Urvan lawsuit isn't that the information should be excluded (that would be unethical & a clear indication of CoI), it is that you claimed it was an SEC source and it definitely is not, so I provided a correct SEC source for you. The article's intro paragraph you copy/pasted from Bloomberg Law's paywall site uses inflammatory language ("duped"), when more appropriate neutral language would come from the SEC source that states: "Mr. Urvan’s complaint alleges that he was fraudulently induced to sell GunBroker.com to the Company more than two years ago." It should also be noted that the suit was filed 28 April 2023, not just "In 2023 [...]". Other sources could well be cited for this information, of course, but cannot be billed as "SEC sources" when they are not. It is my opinion that this should be edited and use the actual SEC verbiage and citation.

3) Further explanation is requested pertaining to why you removed the easily verifiable fact that GunBroker.com does not sell guns and is an auction site. This is an important distinction from classified ad sites like Armslist, which follows a business model like Craigslist and facilitates sales that do not require a Federal Firearms License (FFL) transfer (which require a background check). It is also an important distinction from sites like Sportsmans.com (Sportsman's Warehouse) and Cabelas.com (Cabela's), to name but a few, that do sell firearms directly to consumers. To that end, I have provided two outside sources, and a refined primary source. Lacking a credible argument, I maintain that this edit should be undone, as it is a key piece of information regarding the business model and its omission leaves room for the false assumption that GunBroker.com sells guns.

4) You changed the language of your source regarding the U.S. Olympic Shooting sponsorship debate from October 2018 to state "because of Nazi memorabilia sold by [emphasis added] Gunbroker.com, when the source clearly states several times (erroneously) that the site "hosts sales/is hosting sales. Again, the credibility of this reference is questionable when it ignores GunBroker.com's policies prohibiting such product/material listings and falsely claims there is a "policy of allowing people to sell" such things. For an example of this, see George_Zimmerman#Gun_sale, a notable case of GunBroker.com immediately removing a listing that was deemed inappropriate. It is my opinion that this entry should be revised to present factual information.

5) Your citation for "GunBroker.com has been a sponsor for various NASCAR teams since 2004 is not an article about NASCAR sponsorships, it is another article from the same source in #4 above, regarding the NASCAR/Confederate flag controversy in 2020. This is largely irrelevant to the subject that the citation is provided for. There are numerous articles that can be used as sources instead, like the ones already used on the page and other sites like https://speedwaydigest.com, www.truckseries.com, https://www.nascar.com/, etc. There are several other sources available to cite this information.

6) Your comment where you noted "the rosey coverage doesn't represent prevailing view [emphasis added] in reliably published contents [sic] available" is based on two articles from the same source & this provides your assumption of a "prevailing view"? I'm skeptical of this claim when it's not backed up by more than one source, particularly when Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources states: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject [emphasis added]." Using just one source doesn't really represent any different viewpoints from which to draw the conclusion that there is a "prevailing viewpoint". The claim of a "prevailing viewpoint" should be backed by more than one source, and take into account any "different viewpoints held on a subject".

As a side-note, I'm just curious if you're using a browser like Google_Chrome#Incognito_mode for research? Features like this ensure that your history information, cookies, site data, etc. aren't used to guide your search results. If not, this can be a very helpful tool to ensure that your sources aren't biased by algorithms designed and specifically intended to "feed you" results that are similar to sites you have used in the past. The Social Dilemma is but one of several works (in various forms of media) explaining how these algorithms work. I only mention this because it may well be why your are getting the same sources in your search results if you weren't aware (I'm not assuming that you are unaware, just pointing it out in the event that you may not be). For example, when I searched "gunbroker sponsorships" in Incognito Mode, I came up with far more sources than https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/after-confederate-flag-ban-nascar-still-does-business-with-company-profiting-from-confederate-flag-sales/2457602/ (although that page was also listed).

If you were unaware of this and would like more information, see https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/9845881?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-incognito-mode-protects-your-privacy%2Chow-incognito-mode-works. LoVeloDogs (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed a whole lot of results, but a whole lot of xx Newswire links, and a lot of PRESS RELEASE based articles which are essentially junk sources for Wikipedia purposes. Graywalls (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The duped comes right from from the Bloomberg Law source: "Ammo Inc.'s largest investor sued it for fraud, claiming he was duped into selling GunBroker.com for $240 million in a deal that gave him a 17% stake in the combined munitions distributor." Graywalls (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The explanation about gunbroker.com being an intermediary comes from your website and/or press release. Like previously explained, articles should be based primarily on reliably published secondary sources. What the company says an wants to emphasize are not given importance. Wikipedia page entries are not the company's website or an extension to it. Some of the sources that existed also came from Special:Contributions/MacGirl1985 which appears to be a single purpose account which may have done public relations editing or fan POV editing. Also, Similarweb is just a data aggregation. It says they're #1 in the sporting/outdoor category website as well as #3,779 in global ranking in general. Company public relations staff absolutely should have no say in which stats gets cherry picked. @Lightoil: previously declined to incorporate those sources on similar reasoning WP:NPOV. What's preferred on Wikipedia is defer that to secondary sources. For example, a journalist to review various sources, then write their own analysis and opinion on the subject. We then, summarize what's written in secondary sources. Please see WP:RS and WP:PSTS and with this in mind, please suggest some sources since that would reduce the burden on volunteers in having to hunt down all the sources themselves. Graywalls (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The explanation about gunbroker.com being an intermediary comes from your website and/or press release. Like previously explained, articles should be based primarily on reliably published secondary sources.

Response:

Understood. Given that, would the other sources provided not be qualified as secondary?

1. Cite web |date=2021-01-01 |title=What To Know Before You Use GunBroker |url=https://blog.refactortactical.com/blog/gunbroker-com/ |website= RE Factor Tactical |language=en-US

2. Cite web |date=2019-06-20 |title=[Review] Gunbroker.com: Fees, Laws, Potential Problems |url=https://www.pewpewtactical.com/gunbroker-review/ |access-date=2023-10-02 |website=PEW PEW Tactical |language=en-US

Incidentally, thank you for correcting "sold by" to "listed for sale on", in keeping with transparency and accuracy on Wikipedia.

Some of the sources that existed also came from Special:Contributions/MacGirl1985 which appears to be a single purpose account which may have done public relations editing or fan POV editing.

Response:

I was not aware of this user, but since that page has been taken down I can't find a way to tag it as potential COI, which it most certainly should be (if possible) based on the edit history. As you can see in "Proposed edits/additions from paid contributor (21 April 2023)" above, I take this seriously and welcome any/all of these sorts of accounts being brought to my attention so that we can prevent this in the future and communicate the appropriate channels to any employee or agent who may be trying to circumvent or be unaware of the COI policy. Of course, if it's an outside fan there's very little I can do about it, other than directly inquiring on the user's page, but any edits of that nature would definitely require close scrutiny.

Also, Similarweb is just a data aggregation. It says they're #1 in the sporting/outdoor category website as well as #3,779 in global ranking in general. Company public relations staff absolutely should have no say in which stats gets cherry picked.

Response:

I still have contention with this.

Similarweb is used to report rankings all over Wikipedia, most notably the entire List of most-visited websites page, which relies solely on Similarweb as the source.

There are at least 163 other Wikipedia pages relating to website traffic for entities like Facebook, Weather Underground, WebMD, and numerous international entities. Other notable pages using these metrics include List of most popular Android apps, List of employment websites (which sorts the data based on Similarweb traffic rank), and List of online video platforms, to name a few.

There is no reason to cherry-pick that data out of this page, without removing it from all pages containing this reporting. If it is because there are high rankings reported by Similarweb, that would be considered notable fact-based information and entirely outside of the company's control, and should be included on this page and any others. Otherwise, removal of this information would appear to be suspect and not in keeping with good faith. It works both ways, too. If, for instance, there were to be low rankings reported, removing them for the sake of public relations would definitely be unacceptable cherry-picking.

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=similarweb&title=Special:Search&ns0=1.

If the argument is whether or not Similarweb rankings are a valid source, then that topic needs to be reviewed for an editorial consensus to make that determination, as it is common practice to use them as an exclusive source on Wikipedia pages (as evidenced by the above links and articles). Since data from sources like Alexa Internet has been discontinued, I'm at a loss to find other secondary sources for website traffic data that could be used on this and all of the other pages listed. I would welcome other reliable secondary sources if any could be provided.

Please suggest some sources since that would reduce the burden on volunteers in having to hunt down all the sources themselves.

Response:

I am more than happy to do so, although I would only be requesting their addition here on the talk page (as seen above), as opposed to adding them myself.

Note: I did make some minor proofreading changes today that do not affect the information contained within the article. LoVeloDogs (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: Similarweb's validity as a source, I've started Should Similarweb be cited to report web traffic rankings on Wikipedia? on that talk page today. LoVeloDogs (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cfodive.com/news/ammo-inc-suspends-executives-gunbrokercom-cfo-board/631350/ Graywalls (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC) https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/gun-website-kkk-nazi-investigation-sell-hate-gunbroker-ebay-retail-price-cost/2102123/ Graywalls (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Posting here as I have a COI as the paid contributor.

As of 28 May 2025, Steve Urvan has been named the company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. The company has divested from AMMO, Inc. and is now a publicly traded holding company as Outdoor Holding Company.

^[1]

^[2]

^[3] LoVeloDogs (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant the ownership change really is, but I've added it. Divestment from AMMO, Inc. seems like it would fit better on a page about OHC or AMMO, Inc. than here... It's also unclear from the press release if Urvan is also the CEO of GunBroker.com/Outdoor Online, or just OHC (which is a different thing.) pedanticLoser 🗯️ 01:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)