Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson

Ligand Pharmaceuticals

This case recently closed with a verdict. It was a mixed verdict. As expected, an IP showed up whitewashing the results in Lemelson's favor, overplaying some aspects and underplaying others. I've created balance, and removed a ton of stuff that is no longer relevant or significant. They are appealing it, and the penalty phase is still open. -- GreenC 07:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Great work, GreenC. I'm glad someone's still keeping this under control :)  —SMALLJIM  20:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC) (mostly retired)

So they returned. Again, pushing a biased narrative, and flooding the article with over weight detail about the case. To give one example, they changed the lead section from this neutral wording:

In September 2018, Lemelson was sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for various infractions involving his investments in Ligand Pharmaceuticals. On November 5, 2021, a federal jury gave a mixed verdict.

..to this biased framing:

In September 2018, Lemelson was sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an alleged "manipulative scheme" to defraud investors. On November 5, 2021, a federal jury rejected the allegations in a mixed verdict.

In fact Lemelson was found guilty on one count and innocent on another, but the above emphasis the innocent and ignores the guilt. It would like if we said this instead:

In September 2018, Lemelson was sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly lying to investors. On November 5, 2021, a federal jury found Lemelson guilty in a mixed verdict.

That would be biased, also, and it shows how easily one can manipulate the facts to emphasize innocence and bury the guilt. As such there is no way to untangle their massive edits, which is overweight anyway. I have restore it to a simple pared down just the basic facts. -- GreenC

In view of the continuing outbursts of COI editing from IPs - that has been a notable feature of the Lemelson-related articles since the blocking of Orthodox2014 and the disappearance of Cypresscross (what a coincidence!) - I would strongly support a long period of article protection: a year, say. The Lemelson fan club here (does anyone think it's more than one person?) could still request changes on this talk page.  —SMALLJIM  17:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC) (still mostly retired)

The reverted edits in some cases may have had a negative bias against the subject and in others a positive, but all were based on reliable sources, and comply with WP guidelines; The language "infractions" or "gave" do not appear in the sources. The third example above could not be linked to sources either, since civil cases do not involve a verdict of "guilty" or "innocent," (which is why those terms, along with "count" do not appear in the sources). The sources described the charges as a "manipulative scheme to defraud." That may be a negative bias against the subject, but it's what the sources report. Reuters, Barron's, Law360, etc. agree that those charges were "rejected" by the jury along with three other charges. GreenC's suggested wording for the lede is not bad, but the original that was reverted is more accurate according to the sources. The rest of the edits that were reverted were neutral/balanced and well-referenced in the cites, removed unnecessary detail from the lede (that was complimentary to the subject), consolidated other sections, removed positive bias, and added updates from notable sources (Law360, CFO Magazine, Barron's, etc.). The revision of all the edits should be reversed /undone. Editors can then make changes to each separately if they need to be improved. --2600:1000:B158:2F9E:C1C9:CDE7:38DC:16AC (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The current text is sufficient coverage WP:WEIGHT for a biography article, and it is NPOV. The existence of sources doesn't mean inclusion, see WP:NOTNEWS. -- GreenC 18:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is improved by keeping out the content that is biased in favor of the subject. The sources that supported the last edits do a good job of improving neutrality (and accuracy), especially by presenting different viewpoints (including prominent ones such as Barrons). The change was undone. Please make changes on an edit-by-edit basis if improvement is needed.--2600:1000:B109:84ED:5D38:DE93:DD19:DBF6 (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

IPv6: as you know, you - like all your predecessors - have a COI over Lemelson. Your edits to the article will not stick and in view of the pages of fruitless discussion and hours wasted trying to explain to you, we will not be replying in detail to your talk page comments. Feel free to raise the issue at an appropriate forum to gain some input from other uninvolved editors.  —SMALLJIM  10:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This page should be reverted back to the last version.--DownEastLaw (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This hardly known low-view-rate article has been subjected to numerous sock puppets and IPs over the years all apparently COIs. It has been tenacious. The above account is a WP:SPA that has never edited Wikipedia before. If it walks like a duck it probably is, and a reminder WP:We were not born yesterday. -- GreenC 02:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The trial testimony section could be shortened, but otherwise, the changes should be turned back, the edits include significant events important for WP:WEIGHT and that make the page notable.--2600:1000:B123:B417:F514:981D:DEBA:ED40 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Lemelson (not "the page") was already notable before the trial. The case is not the reason he is notable. It's just another event in his life. This is a biography article not a court case. It covers the basic facts in summary with due weight to the rest of the article. I don't think you understand what weight means, or what notability means. -- GreenC 03:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Further IP edits

Once again we have another IP making COI and biased edits. Every time there is something in the news about this case, they show up here trying to rewrite everything, despite it only requiring a basic update of a sentence or two. It's getting to the point the less said about this case the better. There is a pattern of flooding the article with details to the point the reader isn't sure what the core facts are. And those core facts are often reframed in such a way to make Lemelson appear a victim and/or victor. -- GreenC 04:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've combined the section to 3 paragraph it doesn't merit more: pre-trial, trial, post-trial. -- GreenC 04:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping this article compliant with our policies and guidance. The recentism ten year test might be helpful in deciding what should be in the section about the recent litigation.  —SMALLJIM  22:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good advice. -- GreenC 04:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea of three sections is good, and it should have been a simple one-sentence update for the judgment. The removed edits did not frame it one way or another, though.

The first paragraph contains the allegations, but the defendant's response to the allegations was removed. The second paragraph includes the plaintiffs closing arguments, but the defense's closing arguments were removed. The third paragraph removes what the plaintiff was seeking, that it was denied, and the Judge's words on why it was denied. The defendant's public response was removed (the Judge's and the defendant's words might be the most important); both are quoted in the sources. What's left of the third paragraph is a part of the title from law360 (which was excluded as a source because it's behind a paywall), but which is not part of the court's judgment (i.e., "repentance").

The WSJ reporting, which is mostly disputed, is included, except for the defendant's undisputed quote, which was removed. The Barron's coverage, which is in-depth and undisputed by any party (the SEC, Ligand, etc.) has been removed, as is follow-on reporting by Barrons. The (WSJ) quote from the professor critical of the defendant is left in (a good thing). The (Barrons) quote from the professor about the plaintiff is removed.

This section is about a growing controversy, which may be why almost all the coverage cites the government's press releases and the contentious nature of the litigation (notable enough to include). This is becoming one of the most notable aspects of the page, so more detail is probably warranted.

It would be a better article if balance were restored. 2600:1000:B11F:BBDE:78F1:8575:6D45:8D43 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to my comment of 23 December.  —SMALLJIM  22:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, GreenC, but I've trimmed the court case section to something approximating the ten year test guidance. Consideration could certainly be given to which are the best sources to use.  —SMALLJIM  22:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Content

The Hedge fund manager section refers to main article Lemelson Capital Management, but there's much more content here than there. It should be the other way round, surely?  —SMALLJIM  18:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Redirected, it doesn't make sense, the notability of the company and the Lemelson are basically the same thing, and one can see there is more content in the bio article than the company, they are hard topics to separate without a lot of overlap and redundancy. -- GreenC GreenC 04:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It will also help in managing the long-term severe COI problem. -- GreenC 04:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @GreenC. It's not clear if the corporate entity should even have a separate page. 2600:1000:B11F:BBDE:78F1:8575:6D45:8D43 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: having just added reference to this case to the article on the presiding judge, I would just note that this biography contains an interesting and novel instance of case law and judicial ruling. I see that there has been some dispute over the content in the article history, and would remind editors that reliable sources discussing this should be allowed to be included as appropriate. More people editing on a topic is almost always a better thing. BD2412 T 01:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Mixed verdict

This seems to be causing some confusion in the press. It's not uncommon for a jury to return a mixed verdict. For example, Elizabeth Holmes was found guilty only on some counts and innocent on others. Yet, she was found guilty of fraud. It would be rare for a white collar criminal to be found guilty of all counts, the prosecutors throw the book and see what sticks with the intention of getting at least some fraud convictions. Any fraud conviction will be a win, in their book, how many is icing on the cake. Guilty of securities fraud should not be downplayed or muddled over, it's quite serious and significant, even if the more serious charge of short and distort was not guilty. Both sides are going to distort things: the SEC will call it a win since they got a fraud result, and Lemelson will say it was win since he was not guilty of the more serious charge. All we can say is he was guilty of some things and not guilty of some other things. It adds nothing for Wikipedia to get involved with the each sides biased POVs how to spin the result. Per WP:10YT. -- GreenC 22:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the statements currently in the article seem problematic to me. For example, the article says that the jury found that the subject "lied about the company recklessly", but the sources cited for this proposition do not support this language. The Law360 source, for example, says that Lemelson "was cleared of allegations that he ran a short-and-distort scheme" but that he was found by the jury to have "violated securities fraud rules three times with specific statements". The rest of the article details assertions by parties to the case, but not jury findings. I also note that the article presently states that the jury found Lemelson "not guilty" of various charges, but this was a civil trial rather than a criminal trial. If the SEC had a case for a criminal prosecution, they would have brought a criminal prosecution, but in a civil case there can only be a finding of civil liability. BD2412 T 05:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Lied recklessly" is the language of the SEC's suit that was brought against him. Reuters "intentionally or recklessly made false statements" echoes this language. The results here: "The jury determined that the SEC proved Lemelson 'intentionally or recklessly made untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading'". Specifically the jury found found for the Plaintiff on Count 1 which is SEC_Rule_10b-5, which includes reckless, thus this wording was in the SEC complaint, and why sources like Reuters say reckless. I suppose it could be changed to "intentionally or recklessly". You are correct about civil liability that needs to be adjusted. -- GreenC 16:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Our clearest path forward would be to quote the operative language of the non-primary sources reporting on the situation. WP:PRIMARY is very specific in requiring that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", which is certainly the case with an interpretation of the outcome of this case based on the language of the charging documents. BD2412 T 17:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"violated securities fraud rules three times with specific statements" is from law360, the judgement says different. It's a vague reading IMO that obscures what he did, which is to lie, it obscures the lying behind "specific statements"; what does that mean "specific statements"? A less legalistic and more accessible interpretation is from Reuters which says he "intentionally or recklessly made false statements about a California biotech company while betting against its stock". This most people can clearly understand. Somewhere we need to say he was found liable for lying ("false statements"). -- GreenC 04:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Law360 is behind a paywall and while there is nothing wrong with that, there are plenty of other reliable sources openly available such as Reuters that are "freely" available. Law360 can't be archived at Wayback or Archive.today. Finally law360 is fairly specialized for the legal community, this is a good example how their choice of language obscures because it assumes certain legal knowledge many readers may not have, we can explain it better with other sources. -- GreenC 04:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Law360 was provided in the article as the source for this proposition before I got here. While it is behind a paywall, anyone with an institutional email address can get a free peek behind that paywall. A source that is specialized for the legal community would seem particularly useful for supporting a specifically legal point (much along the lines of WP:MEDRES being required to support medical claims). It is also legally highly important to note that a "false statement", even one made recklessly, is not necessarily a "lie". If I am certain that it will rain next Thursday, and I say this, and it does not rain, I was not lying for having said that. Absent a reliable secondary source specifying that the subject of a Wikipedia article "lied", it would be a clear WP:BLP violation to interpret the outcome that way. BD2412 T 04:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

OK IANAL but it needs to be said he made false statements. As for sticking to that sole source because it happened to be there before you arrived, I don't understand the rationale for that, there are better sources. Even Law360 has said repeatedly he made false statements: [1]. Outside of Law360 there is Reuters: "Jury in SEC case finds priest shorting biotech's stock made false statements", Barrons, CFO, Haute Living and many others. -- GreenC 15:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Interpretation of sources

A recent edit summary from User:GreenC stated, "makes Lemelson into a victim who won the case, makes it look like the SEC lost the case". This interpretation of the outcome of the SEC v Lemelson case feels unusually biased. Looking at two of the sources included in the article text that was reverted, one says "Jury Clears Priest in ‘Short-and-Distort’ Scheme" and "Ruling only on issues of liability, the jury said Lemelson did not intentionally or recklessly engage in a scheme to defraud Ligand investors..."; and a second one says "Hedge Fund Priest Beats SEC Short-And-Distort Claims" and "A Boston federal jury on Friday absolved a Greek Orthodox priest of fraud claims". That second source also says, "The SEC said in a press release Friday that it won the trial, without mentioning the claims the jury rejected." Note the use of the words clears, beats, and absolved -- all nomenclature that would suggest that Lemelson, at least in part, was a victim who won the case, and that the SEC lost the case. In the end, financially, the SEC wanted to extract a judgment of $2.3 million, but obtained only $160,000. In other words, the SEC got less than 7% of what it sought, but that is not permitted to be characterized as a "loss" for the SEC in the case? Seems odd, especially when taxpayers were likely charged far more than $160,000 just to prosecute the lawsuit.

Considering User:GreenC's activity on this biography for about 8 years, plus their accusation of "white washing", I wonder if there should be a concern that this editor is pushing to WP:OWN the content and how it is portrayed, despite what third-party sources are saying? An admin above said that they "would remind editors that reliable sources discussing this should be allowed to be included as appropriate". That is not happening. The sources are being unilaterally reverted, only minutes after their inclusion. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should be engaging in saying who won or lost a mix-verdict case it's purely opinion and opinions are mixed, it depends on which aspect you want to emphasize. And notice how sources say he "won", then Lemelson is appealing to the SCOTUS - that's not usually what people do who won. Anyway if you want me to break down all the ways your edit was biased towards Lemelson I will do so. I won't respond to your accusations about me personally other than to say 8 years is far too long but that's what we are dealing with here constant non-stop biased editors by a long list of blocked socks and meat-puppets. If you think I have an OWN problem, I will notify our COI noticeboard who can take over, they are much tougher and less lenient than I have been, when faced with difficult pages like this has been. -- GreenC 18:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If the sources characterize winners and losers in the case, then it is not our place to say that the sources reported it wrong because an appeal is underway. The care that we need to take in relaying information about BLP subjects is not slackened merely because there is a history of biased editing with respect to the article. We do not actively try to import negative inferences beyond what the sources actually say merely to balance out biased editing. BD2412 T 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly we don't need to frame this case in a pro-Lemelson way just because one can find a few sources that do so. It would be better to objectively state the facts what happened and leave all the sideline cheerleading out of it. -- GreenC 20:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A summary of the general sentiment across all available sources would be appropriate. BD2412 T 23:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Most source say it was a mixed-verdict and that is good enough because it's factually true. Even Lemelson can't keep it straight, here he is saying the SEC won: "Hedge Fund Priest Seeks New Trial After 'Trivial' SEC Win". Of course he has to say this, to justify why he wants a new trial. Should we re-write our article to frame it like the SEC had a (small) win? That's what Lemelson is saying and the SEC would agree. But no, we report the facts objectively and fairly. We don't take sides with POVs unless there is overwhelming consensus. -- GreenC 01:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, let's lay out all the sources and their statements on the matter. Swiss Mister in NY has gotten a start on that process, at least. BD2412 T 02:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I received an automatic notification that my name was invoked, so I feel compelled to reply, even if this is starting to feel a little perplexing. Here's what I don't understand about how this biography has been "supervised"... I believe that reliable sources have tended to convey the following key facts about the SEC action:

1. Internal Ligand e-mail correspondence and trial testimony confirmed that the CEO of Ligand Pharma wanted Lemelson "silenced for good". Any time this sourced fact is introduced to this biography (Barron's and Reuters), it's quickly removed. Why?

2. Ligand's CEO's internal e-mail correspondence seems to have acknowledged Lemelson's evaluation of Promacta, that the treatment could become unneeded in light of cures like Gilead's Sovaldi (Barron's). Would this acknowledgement be allowed in this biography? Doubtful.

3. The involvement of Representative Hunter and former SEC official Bondi to lobby the SEC to bring the charges (Barron's and Law360). If this is mentioned in the biography, it gets removed.

4. Lemelson's refusal to settle the case is in contrast to "the vast majority of civil enforcement cases brought by the SEC" (Barron's), but if this is mentioned in the biography, it's removed.

5. While the SEC claimed that it won the case, one source (Barron's) points out that this "might confuse the historical record". This assessment is not permitted in the biography, though.

6. Various sources quote Lemelson before, during, and after the trial, but it appears that not a single quoted statement from Lemelson is allowed in the Wikipedia biography section about the SEC action. Why? If you look at other biographies involving courtroom cases, it's customary to include quoted statements from the subject.

In all, it feels like some of the important and interesting facts that make the SEC's case relevant to a biography of Lemelson are not just missing from the biography, they're being disallowed (repeatedly) in the biography, despite there being no disagreement that these are factual elements of the case. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it's all a lot of trivia that is water under the bridge at this point and not significant for this BLP. The trial is over and yeah we could say a lot of things including about how Lemelson was sanctioned by the judge for manipulating the media while the trial was ongoing (Barron's incident see Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson/Archive_2#Update - the same Barron's you want to include a pro-Lemelson quote from). Lots of things could be said about Lemelson that would make him look extremely bad. But this BLP doesn't need all that nonsense. It simply states that facts for understanding what Lemelson did, what he was accused of, what the results were. When you add in all the other stuff, the drama, the basic facts gets lost and confused in a lot of drama that is easily manipulated and turns the article into a battleground space that explodes in size, and is difficult to impossible to fairly balance with due WP:WEIGHT. -- GreenC 01:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll restate what an administrator said above: "...this biography contains an interesting and novel instance of case law and judicial ruling. I see that there has been some dispute over the content in the article history, and would remind editors that reliable sources discussing this should be allowed to be included as appropriate. More people editing on a topic is almost always a better thing." So, here I was, providing reliable sources discussing the interesting and novel aspects of the ruling, representing more people editing on the topic, and instead of it being seen as a better thing, my contributions have been summarily reverted (by one entrenched editor, without discussion) as "trivia".

Do we have a reliable source for "manipulating the media", or is that something that an entrenched Wikipedia editor investigated and brought forward as their own WP:NOR conclusion?

Is there any evidence that Barron's did not follow good standards for investigative journalism, and is there any evidence that leaked or shared documents invalidate journalism that makes use of them?

Is it really "trivial" that a US Congressman in the district where a pharmaceutical company is headquartered was influential in bringing a case against our biographical subject person's short-selling of that company's stock? (Not to mention, that the same Representative later was convicted on criminal charges and spent 11 months in prison!) Is that "drama", or is that more appropriately context that shapes the reader's understanding of the SEC case against our biographical subject?

I'm also concerned about the lack of attention of a certain editor, if there is some confusion about the gender of Judge Patti Saris, described here as "he".

The admin's advice above was essentially "lighten up on the reversions of reliably-sourced content", and yet the response seems instead to be doubling down on reverting. It's not a good direction to be heading. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, the admins :) According to User:Smalljim - an admin - who has been involved in this article for probably 8 years, thanked me above: "Thanks for keeping this article compliant with our policies and guidance. The recentism ten year test might be helpful in deciding what should be in the section about the recent litigation." Which is exactly what we are doing, removing all the subjective and cherry picked fluff that lacks context.

• As for manipulating the media, Lemelson was sanctioned by the judge in the middle of the trial for leaking information to Barron's, it may have even been illegal (I'm not sure). The same journalist who Lemelson has a relationship with, the one making the very pro-Lemelson comments, is the same one you claim is a reliable, independent source and want to include in this article. That's just one of the many problems with your proposed edits.
• As for not following good standards at Barron's, I have no idea what a good standard is at Barron's, but that journalist is not independent on this topic. If you disagree we can open a WP:RS discussion and let the community decide.
• As for the Congressman, the judge said there was "barely" evidence of any wrong doing, only enough to do discovery for, and then nothing happened AFAIK nothing came of it, it was a non-issue. Since we don't have all the facts it's difficult to write about it fairly here, but clearly the judge didn't consider it important to the case, why should we? Otherwise it would be misleading to the reader who might reach conclusions the judge didn't who had more evidence then we do.
• As for the gender of the judge, who is a "certain editor"? I didn't write that originally, but I fixed it. Glad you are familiar enough with the judge's gender to quickly pick up on it, we do need experts like you in subjects areas like this for basic facts. -- GreenC 19:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, GreenC. I see our pro-L friend is back in another guise, quacking loudly. For what it's worth, I've tweaked the last few paragraphs to more closely match what I think may be a 10 year view.  —Smalljim  19:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It's amazing that you would question my intentions when your partner and you can't address the main issue -- that nothing goes on this biography without the approval of two editors, and that's been the case going on 8 years. Should we enter this issue into an RfC? - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There is not, strictly speaking, a rule that "nothing goes on this biography without the approval of two editors". The rule is that WP:BLP content to which any editor objects must subject to discussion and consensus for inclusion. BD2412 T 18:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Lemelson vs Lemelson

Case details. Emmanuel (Gregory) sued his brother Jason in 2015. The judge dismissed all the counts made by Emmanuel against Jason, and the case was closed. Not sure if this merits inclusion, or if the source alone is even sufficient, probably not. Dropping a note here until or if new sources emerge, since this one source is anyway comprehensive. -- GreenC 23:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Lemelson v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

Case text. Similar situation as above. Lemelson sued the bank, case was dismissed, all counts dropped. -- GreenC 00:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This article references a settlement with $1.2 million going to the plaintiff (so it might meet the standard for inclusion).174.208.231.178 (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Followers of this fascinating saga may be interested to learn who first added that rather obscure link to the article, way back in 2015.  —Smalljim  12:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is the source for the reference.--174.197.103.222 (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The IPs above are using the same dynamic VPN service (myvzw) as previous accounts that were SPA and pro-Lemelson going back years. The "here" link reads like a Wikipedia article, including the square footnotes and "References" section and most tellingly the style of writing, seen this before..

Added to Wikipedia by User:Orthodox2014 on May 30, 2015: "In August 2014, the financial media outlet Hedge Fund Alert reported that Lemelson had reached an agreement with U.S. Bank after challenging the right of the bank’s securitization trust"

Added to Lemelson's website sometime later than May 2015: "In August 2014, the financial media outlet Hedge Fund Alert reported that Lemelson had reached an agreement with U.S. Bank after challenging the right of the bank’s securitization trust"

He writes his own BLP Wikipedia-style and self-publishes. FYI the footnotes don't work when clicking on them. And if you use material previously published on Wikipedia you are supposed to give attribution, even when written by yourself, per CC BY-SA.

The Scribd document: Scribd has an entry at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Because anyone can upload doctored documents, and the document is blatant copyright infringement anyway (unnecessarily posting the whole thing instead of eg. a fair use snippit), the only way to use it would be if someone had access to the original source to verify. And that assumes the original source is reliable. Verification and multiple sources are needed. -- GreenC 16:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Article ownership problem

Terms and phrases currently on this Talk page have been used by GreenC, which to the average reader could be interpreted as characterizing the article subject in a bad light. None of these musings seem to readily appear in any reliable sources about the biographical subject, so we can assume that they are personal opinions held by GreenC.

* "may have been illegal (I’m not sure)"
* "some fraud convictions"
* "they got a fraud result"
* "a white collar criminal" 
* "guilty of securities fraud" 
* "all we can say is he was guilty of some things"
* "Lots of things could be said about Lemelson that would make him look extremely bad"
* "that obscures what he did, which is to lie, it obscures the lying"
* "Somewhere we need to say he was found liable for lying"

Terms and phrases used by SmallJim that are on the current and archived talk pages are biased, exhibit a sort of tag-team mentality with partner GreenC, and were generally not vetted by community review or checkuser standards (that I can see, anyway). Comments about the article’s subject are also opinion-driven and not supported by sources:

* "Thanks for the ping, GreenC. I see our pro-L friend is back in another guise"
* "A person who's here in good faith would understand the need for this and be willing to abide by our rules"
* "GreenC (hi!): you've spent more time considering this latest outburst of editing than me. Do you think any of the changes made warrant inclusion?"
* "An eye needs to be kept on all the Lemelson-related articles because I'm sure he'll be back again with the whitewash bucket”
* "Great work, GreenC. I'm glad someone's still keeping this under control :)"
* "The Lemelson fan club here (does anyone think it's more than one person?) could still request changes on this talk page"
* "as you know, you - like all your predecessors - have a COI over Lemelson. Your edits to the article will not stick"
* "Hope you don't mind, GreenC"
*" It's almost as if you want to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing voice..."
* "We know that Lemelson is a prolific self-promoter"
* "I suspect that these two articles will soon sink back into relative obscurity"

I myself, an editor in good standing with a very broad interest in different Wikipedia topics and dedicated to improving content across the board, have been publicly branded as being "personally or professionally connected," with no proof offered and zero warning or even notification given to me. The situation with this biography appears to be that two vested editors are maintaining a years-long control over the article that they seem to enjoy for personal and biased reasons. I'll venture to say that we actually should reevaluate who is currently a "major contributor to this article" that "appears to have a close connection with its subject". Before I am unilaterally asked to restrict my edits to the Talk page (again, without any community discussion or even diplomacy), I'd be happy for this comment to get wider attention from anyone but those two editors -- and I challenge the two editors in question to sit quietly for a week without responding to this, until several other editors in good standing have had a chance to evaluate, so that they too don't feel harangued. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Update. Two discussions have now run their course and been archived: WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Emmanuel Lemelson and WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 203#Swiss Mister in NY. The general consensus of the uninvolved editors who have commented is that Swiss Mister in NY has a conflict of interest and may be a undisclosed paid editor in relation to Emmanuel Lemelson. He has, however, stated that he won't directly edit this article again, so I guess we'll just wait until the next duck appears.  —Smalljim  12:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Reuters Opinion piece

This recently added source at Reuters Special:Diff/1204232273/1204241292 is an opinion piece by lawyers. It's not written by Reuters News, and Reuters News absolves any stake in the piece at the bottom. -- GreenC 19:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This article would seem especially relevant since it was authored by a former senior administration official at the SEC.[2] 174.198.3.61 (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Accusation of Security Fraud

The Article states that the petition to the US Supreme Court is ongoing as of September 2023. The petition was denied in December 2023, so the court ruling by the US District Court stands.

I suggest editing the article accordingly.

Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-98.html https://www.law360.com/articles/1775697/top-court-won-t-hear-hedge-fund-priest-s-appeal-in-sec-case Maennerversteherin (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've used the Law360 source, and have also simplified the section slightly. Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Law360 reporting

This edit[3] was undone almost instantly. The edit is directly cited to the law360 article Grayfell added above without any dispute as to its authority.

The explanation given[4] was that it is an "opinion piece," but Law360 does not publish opinion pieces. Also, the same facts are reported in other media outlets, which were cited.

Law360 has been discussed on this talk page.[[5]] as an especially authoritative source by User:BD2412:

"A source that is specialized for the legal community would seem particularly useful for supporting a specifically legal point (much along the lines of WP:MEDRES being required to support medical claims)."[[6]]

DownEastLaw (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't examine the entire source due to its paywall but it starts with the line "The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brings too few enforcement cases against loudmouthed short sellers" which doesn't sound like journalism to me- and it has the header "Barron's take" suggesting it is the opinion of the Barrons author. I'm not sure why you are mentioning Law360.

"Falsely claimed victory" is an opinion; the source provided says a "mixed victory" so there seems to enough there for victory to be claimed, making doing so not "false". 331dot (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! The edit was made based on the law360 article[[7]] that Grayfell added today (not Barron's). The Barron's article was just used as additional support (because it also discusses the false SEC press release, as does other sources, which could be used instead), but it was not where the material for the edit was taken from.

Barron's is definitely journalism, and we may want to add "loudmouth short seller" or any other characterization to the article. The latest Reuters article above, written by former high-ranking SEC officials, seems especially thorough and authoritative. Reviewing all of the various sources that cite the SEC's false press release indicates it is not opinion but a widely and consistently reported fact. It is also cited in the latest Law360 articles that Grayfell added, which also says right in the opening paragraph that the subject "largely beat" the SEC and discusses the motion for legal fees, etc. DownEastLaw (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Very well, I am going to defer to your judgement. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't defer. They took a neutral, accurate and unqualified statement:

The petition was declined.

And spun it this way:

Law360 reported in December 2023, that Lemelson "largely beat" the SEC, but that his writ of certiorari was declined by the top court.

His petition was declined! Simple. Opinions by journalist intentionally muddle the picture. It cherry picks positive opinions, leaves out negative opinions, then buries the actual facts in an aside statement after some puffery with vague wording. And for what? The only purpose is to make Lemelson look like the victor/victim and his enemies to look bad. As for the Barron's article, it is by Bill Alprin, who a court found Lemelson had illegally leaked information during the SEC case see Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson/Archive_2#Update - anything by Alprin is not reliable (independent) for this article, it has been established Lemelson has feed Alprin information that benefits Lemelson. -- GreenC 18:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Not to get back into this morass, but I would consider Law360 to be more along the lines of analysis than opinion. The authors of those pieces may not embrace a stodgy tone, but they write from a place of deep expertise in their matters, which is much better than the typical large media outlet legal reporting that understands none of the nuance of the legal process. As for Barron's, I am completely unfamiliar with the situation. I don't know that being the recipient of leaked information implicates the reliability of the reporter (we have all sorts of reports based on, e.g., leaks from the Trump White House, and have never deemed a report unreliable on that basis alone). However, if there is some further relationship between the subject and the reporter, that would likely be disqualifying. BD2412 T 18:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Call it what you want, but in reality it is an opinion that he "beat" the SEC. Other more sober sources called it a mixed verdict, which is factually literally true. He won some and lost some. My reading of Law360 has shown them to be all over the map with conflicting opinions, they are not a super reliable source or anything whose statement in one article supersede everything else. They don't appear to have a consistent editorial position, it's each writer to themselves and they differ. And Barron's, why is it always the same journalist there who is writing sympathetically about Lemelson. Why did Lemelson choose this journalist and not others, when making the illegal leak, and why shouldn't we be suspicious of more leaks, given all of this history. There are too many red flags.

Given all these shifting opinions and possible COIs etc.. the best thing is to cut through it by simply stating the facts and leave the narrative creation out of it. The narrative in this article has shifted from Lemelson winning the SEC case right after it ended, to loosing the SEC case and thus he was justified to take it to the SCOTUS, and now back again to winning the SEC case after he was denied the SCOTUS hearing. All very convenient narratives that certain editors keep pushing at different stages in the litigation. GreenC 00:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not a fan of pushing narratives, but neither am I a fan of suppressing those that appear in sources, which just engenders a different narrative. An alternative could be to qualify the assertion, saying something like, "Chris Villani, writing for Law360, characterized the outcome as...", which makes it clear that the characterization is indeed that of one person. BD2412 T 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"Largely beat" is another way of saying mixed verdict ("largely beat" is also a "small loss"), and we already say it is mixed verdict, without resorting to "beat" or "lost" POV terminology. The facts speak for themselves as to what he "won" and "lost". It is better let to the reader to decide, else it becomes POV-pushing when you only include one opinion. Unless you want to include other POVs. Then the question is why are we getting into the weeds of conflicting opinions over winning and loosing or mixed characterizations, in a BLP, when the entire case only needs to be summarized in a single pithy paragraph and say it is a mixed verdict, which is due weight. In most instances on Wikipedia this is how we do it for mixed verdicts, we don't cherry pick quotes about how someone believes they "beat" the other side. The press say all sorts of things we don't include in Wikipedia, it's our job to present things neutrally and not lead the reader to a favored conclusion. -- GreenC 18:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

"...in a BLP, when the entire case only needs to be summarized in a single pithy paragraph...". Yup, that's all that's needed here, a few accurate, neutral, sentences or short paragraph. Much, I contend, as is in the article now.  —Smalljim  19:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources are consistent, whether Barron's, Reuters, Law360, or others, and should not be suppressed. The issue here is you are changing terms and words and predicates. 174.197.71.30 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you forget to log in? Why don't you set out here the exact words and references that you think should go in the article, so there's something concrete that can be discussed. Making vague allegations of bias doesn't help.  —Smalljim  21:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I"'ve added back the text with the suggested language - thanks. DownEastLaw (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say, "he won some and lost some"? The sources say he beat dozens of allegations, including all the SEC headlines claims and all the fraud charges. Chris Villani appears to be one of the primary reporters covering the case for Law360.

Does Barron's write "....sympathetically about Lemelson"? User 331dot (talk) pointed out above that Barron's called the subject a "loudmouthed short seller..." Is there a source for the comment that the subject "...choose this journalist"? Is the leak "illegal"? Is there a source for that? According to the sources and the trial record, it was an accidental violation of a protective order, which is breaking a court rule but not illegal. What is the source for the subject "loosing the SEC case"?

The Reuters article, authored by former high-ranking officials at the SEC and cited above, supports the Law360 and Barron's reporting (there are other reliable sources reporting the same thing) and echoes other sources that the subject turned down multiple agency settlement offers and chose to go to trial, and "largely beat" the SEC. DownEastLaw (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I assumed the leak was illegal because Lemelson was sanctioned by the judge, but you might have access to information I/we do not. You say it was an "accidental violation of a protective order, which is breaking a court rule but not illegal", so I will not call it illegal any more. Nevertheless this accident clearly benefited Lemelson and resulted in the judge sanctioning him so if the judge believed it was accidental is uncertain.

There are multiple sources that say Lemelson beat the more serious charge - he really did - but that's different from saying he beat the SEC or won the case. The SEC for their part say they won. No one is advocating we include that in this article. Otherwise it turns into a battleground with pro-Lemelson and pro-SEC quotes vying for real estate in the article, and the actual facts of what happened disappear into a morass of undue weight nonsense. -- GreenC 18:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Here again, you insert terms that are not part of the discussion (e.g., "beat the SEC," "won the case") and confuse primary sources with what is actually being discussed, which is reporting in reliable secondary sources. When you do that, it muddy's the waters. There has been no discussion here regarding using primary sources, as you suggest above. Even if there were, the reliable secondary sources have been consistent in reporting the SEC's false claims and press releases. I have not found any source to suggest the subject put out false statements about the outcome of the case. 174.197.71.30 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The current language of the article says "in November 2021 a federal jury returned a mixed verdict finding Lemelson liable for making false statements, but not liable for fraud". To those of us who are knowledgeable of these relative charges, it is clear that Lemelson "beat the more serious charge", but is this adequately conveyed to lay readers, who may not know that "fraud" is indeed the more serious charge? Even without suggesting that he "beat the SEC", some clarification may be warranted. BD2412 T 23:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It was me that trimmed that sentence down to the current wording. If you think it's insufficiently clear, what about restoring it to "...but not liable for the more serious charge of fraud"?  —Smalljim  00:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be perfect, yes. Clear and concise. BD2412 T 00:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Complex civil litigation

This case is high profile. It is also a first-of-its-kind/unprecedented case. According to the sources and the trial record, the SEC had never brought a case even vaguely similar to this one. The reason is that there were dozens of allegations of fraud but no proof or evidence of fraud. The government also argued that the challenged statements were true on their face but allegedly somehow misleading.

The subject was ultimately found to have made two true statements that were somehow misstatements or misleading, and not about the company he shorted but about a different, non-public company he never traded in.

He was also found liable for a 1.5-second audio clip from a radio interview, in which the CEO of the company he was discussing apparently agreed (in internal emails after the interview) with the truthfulness of the statement.

This was out of dozens of allegations.

The SEC claimed a violation of subsection 10(b)5; however, as seen in the reporting and the writ of certiorari, the jury answered "no" on all questions involving fraud; in other words, the jury verdict could not have been a violation of the overarching 10b statute (which is an anti-fraud statute, not an anti-speech statute).

There are many sources for the background of this case. Law360 has done a good job, cradle to grave, with analysis. I'll include links to the Law360 reporting separately.

However, Barron has done real, in-depth investigative reporting. Bill Alpert, who covered the story, from what I can tell, is one of the most respected journalists in the industry. He has been a senior writer at Barron's since 1984. His investigations have inspired stock-fraud prosecutions and reforms in such areas as “backdoor” stock-exchange listings, for-profit colleges, and the Magnitsky Act that sanctions international human-rights violators.Link

There is no evidence that Alpert's reporting on this case was compromised by a leak. According to the trial record, only the last sentence of one of his articles covering the case was based on a leaked document. That document shows that the subject thesis was correct. The fact that the key part of the article was based on a leak (actual evidence under protective order) makes it more authoritative, not less. History is replete with important reporting based on leaks (maybe some of the most important reporting). There was never a retraction by Barron's, and as far as I can tell from the trial record and other research, no one has ever challenged the veracity of any of the Alpert reports on the subject. There has never been an indication that Alpert knew or ever met the subject. I'll include links to the Barron's reporting separately.

Interestingly, the trial record reflects that the 2016 Bloomberg article was also based on a leak by the SEC (of a confidential, non-public investigation and in violation of SEC guidelines), yet that article features prominently in the WP article.

The posture and facts of this high-profile case are so extraordinary and unprecedented that the background provided by the in-depth investigative reporting (former high-ranking SEC officials improperly lobbying, a sitting Congressmen pressuring the SEC, who later pleads guilty to criminal charges, the CEO agreeing with the subject report, the magistrate judge finding evidence of selective enforcement, etc.) seems critical to the notability. Given the expansive media coverage, this case deserves more than just a paragraph and deserves to have all the key investigative reports cited.

These reports get to the heart of the notability of the case, the subject, and why it is high profile. There are thousands of SEC cases, but they are not all high-profile.DownEastLaw (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Barron's Reporting

• Stocks Climb 2% as Nasdaq Tops 15-Year Record Link

• Emerging Markets Slump For Week: Greece & Venezuela Need Cash, India Needs Rain Link

• Tesla CEO Elon Musk Is Wrong About Short Sellers Link

• Hedge Fund Alleges SEC Bias in Short-Selling Case Link

• The SEC Wins Mixed Verdict Against a Short Seller Who Wouldn’t Settle Link

--DownEastLaw (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Integrating Barron's, Reuters and other sources

I added back previous stable content from Barron's.[[8]]. At a minimum, this supports the notability of the particular trade. I will try to incorporate the latest Reuters reporting,[9] which is the most thorough I've seen to date and written by former high-ranking SEC officials. I will also try to re-incorporate Barron's deep dive investigative reports (listed below), which are probably the most important source for the notability of the subject, his work, and the case. The fact this case is still making headlines, including in Bloomberg, almost ten years after it began, indicates it deserves more than just a paragraph. I appreciate any help and feedback. DownEastLaw (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

As you know, you don't get to unilaterally decide what goes in the article. Due to your already noted conflict of interest, please refrain from editing the article directly. You can make suggestions on this page.  —Smalljim  09:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The added language was discussed above with 331dot (talk), who agreed with the change. The language that was used was precisely that proposed by User:BD2412 above. There was a thorough discussion on this talk page, and a consensus regarding the edits that were made, or previously stable content was restored after the talk page discussion. How is that unilateral? Who noted the conflict of interest?

Have you responded or commented on the "article ownership problem" outlined on the talk page Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson/Archive 2 ? Is " It's almost as if you want to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing voice..." Talk:Lemelson Capital Management NPOV? Didn't you say you are "far too involved" in the page to take any actions? Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 203. You are saying in your own words, and per WP's description of "involved," which you linked to, that you are "incapable of making objective decisions" for this page, "to which you have been a party or about which [you] have strong feelings." Why do you have strong feelings about the subject? DownEastLaw (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED sets out the obvious principle that administrators must not use their administrative tools in situations where they are involved in any depth with an article and/or an editor. It does not stop anyone from editing any articles to help maintain and improve them.

You seem to be familiar with the adversarial type of argument that's necessary in legal cases, but you should know by now that Wikipedia doesn't work like that.

I'm almost flattered that you remember the passing remark about "Lemelson's hypnotic eyes" that I made eight years ago in Talk:Lemelson Capital Management#References. Has it rankled all that time? I'm sorry if so!  —Smalljim  16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that despite, in your own words, being "incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which [you] have been a party or about which [you] have strong feelings," there is still a sound basis for you to continue to edit this subject and continue as one of the co-owners, along with the other editor?

Your response doesn't answer the questions above, including why you have such strong feelings about the subject that, in your own words, you are "far too involved," - including using your "administrative tools." You seem to be tacitly acknowledging again your prior admission in your response above, which brings to light the NPOV and ownership problem here that has apparently caused this page to have an unnecessarily long and tortured history. Was there ever any serious question about your personal feelings based on your quotes provided above by another editor under the section "article ownership problem"? Is asking questions adversarial? I think you're honest, so you respond with carefully worded answers that try to deflect away from what's been laid out.

On your last point, why must anyone "remember" anything when WP has good search functionality? Have you tried using it? It is simple to find almost anything, including the long history of your involvement with and co-ownership of this subject. DownEastLaw (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

TA;DR (too adversarial; didn't read).  —Smalljim  18:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

This edit,[10] by User:BD2412 was immediately undone; why? The edit note says that the page has been substantially rewritten. Reviewing the history indicates that two involved editors have done the rewriting. They are not listed as connected contributors.

This edit[11] was also undone. This edit was based on a source added by Grayfell[12] and the precise language (quote in fact) was cited from the opening paragraph of the source. The edit was discussed on this talk page with 331dot, who included, "Very well, I am going to defer to your judgment."

Another editor protested, saying, "the best thing is to cut through it by simply stating the facts," - but based on the section above entitled "Article ownership problem," it looks like that editor has struggled to understand what the facts are, and instead substituted personal opinions and feelings in the place of what reliable secondary sources, are saying while inserting speculative statements to undercut the validity and authority of the secondary sources. This is especially problematic since he is the dominant editor on this page and has been for a long time.

User:BD2412 pointed out that Law360 is "more along the lines of analysis than opinion" and that he is not a fan of "suppressing [narratives] that appear in sources."

There was further discussion on the reliability of Law360, Barron's, and Reuter's sources, and there has been no credible argument that these are unreliable sources.

User:BD2412 also suggested language ("saying something like, "Chris Villani, writing for Law360, characterized the outcome as...",) as part of the discussion, which was incorporated precisely into the edit. After the discussion, Another source from a different reporter was found that made the same claim ("largely prevailed," in addition to "largely beat,") and that was added, again, using the precise language suggested by User:BD2412 as part of the talk page discussion.

This edit[13] was also reverted. The edit note says "Too vague, bordering on salacious," But the edit is neither vague nor salacious.

The definition of salacious[14] is "arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination." How is the edit related to "sexual desire or imagination" in any way? Nor is it vague; it follows the textbook WP guidelines for synthesizing a reliable secondary source.

The edit is what multiple reliable sources (including Law360) have consistently reported. Further this text was previously part of the page and stable for some time. The talk page discussion above established the reliability of the sources, and other editors had a chance to contribute their thoughts, including the problem of "suppressing" what reliable sources have reported.

Grayfell did not participate in the talk page discussions about the edits before they were made (though he added the source), but reverted the edits. Grayfell, can you walk us through why you reverted the edits that were made after a thorough talk page discussion, that used precise language suggested by other editors, and that were based on reliable sources? Can you explain why you feel the edits were bordering on "arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination."?

Separately, almost everything else that gets added by an editor (other than the two primary editors) gets removed, and the editors who make the contributions get added to a connected contributors list that states;

"The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view."

The involved editor adds contributors to the list.[15]. But there is a caveat. If negative edits are made by what appears to be a clearly connected editor, that editor(s) is/are NOT added to the connected contributor list. Here are a few recent examples: 24.7.9.22,[16] 73.170.96.18,[17] 104.7.13.118 [18] DownEastLaw (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Involved Editor

smalljim has said, in his own words, that he is "far too involved" in the page to take any actions Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 203. The quotes above under the section "Article Ownership" Link support his admission.

Yet, he continues to take action on the page. His comments above are almost the precise example WP provides of the types of comments an editor would make who seeks "ownership of articles," Link

WP's description of "involved," which he linked to in his statement, says that he is "incapable of making objective decisions" for this page, "to which [he] has been a party or about which [he] has strong feelings." His quotes above, under "article ownership," are indicative of "strong feelings"

The issue with this admission is that there has been "Multiple-editor ownership" [of content] of this page for nearly a decade, with two editors defending the ownership of the other. The history shows a dominant editor who is consistently defended by smalljim. This seems to continue, notwithstanding the admission above, with smalljim reemerging when needed (after long periods of absence) to support the dominant editor on this page.DownEastLaw (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, smalljim said "I'm far too involved to take any admin actions though." (emphasis added). The difference is significant, and you should not have cut-off the quote before that part. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That interesting since the section above links directly to his quote where any reader (including you) could view it. Also, It wasn't cut off - "to take any actions" is included, is there any question he is an admin.? Besides, your suggestion, doesn't change the meaning at all. smalljim clearly states he is "far too involved," that is the operative part of the sentence. If he is "far too involved" to take any admin actions, he is "far to involved" to be participating in the page at all, especially since he is an admin. WP definition of "involved," which he linked to, is clear.

Under your curious interpretation, he somehow stops being "involved" if he is not taking admin. actions? Or conversely, he only is "involved," i.e. has strong feelings, when he is taking admin. actions? Can you explain how that is supposed to work? DownEastLaw (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, "admin actions" means things admins can do which other editors cannot. This means things like protecting the page, Wikipedia:Revision deletion, etc. Smalljim has not made such an action, but that doesn't mean that he cannot act as an editor at all. Implying that he is far too involved to edit at all is strictly your own idiosyncratic, bad-faith interpretation of his own words with no support from Wikipedia's norms. The editors at that noticeboard already understood all of this perfectly well, so taking this quote out of context is misguided or misleading. The only reason I even explained this is to hopefully prevent future editors or sock puppets from coming along later and citing this section as 'proof' of something or other. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question.

Grayfell can you show me where on WP:INVOLVED an editor stops being involved based on the type of action they are performing? Where on the page does it say, for example, that an editor like smalljim somehow stops being "way too involved" if he is not taking admin. actions? Conversely, he is only "way too involved," i.e., he has strong feelings, when he is taking admin. actions? That's not what the page says because it doesn't make any sense and because an admin. who is "incapable of making objective decisions" for a page, "to which [he] has been a party or about which [he] has strong feelings." doesn't suddenly become "capable of making objective decisions for a page, to which [he] has been a party of about which [he] has strong feelings." when he simply changes the type of action he is performing. That is nonsensical. An editor is either "involved " or he is "not involved"

WP does not provide for a third option based on the type of activity being carried out. It is not, as you say "idiosyncratic, bad-faith interpretation of his own words with no support from Wikipedia's norms." It is logical and a common sense, clear reading of WP:INVOLVED.

Why do you speak on behalf of other editors and say, "editors at that noticeboard already understood all of this perfectly well" - can you point to the evidence for this claim?

Citing, verbatim, smalljim own words is neither "taking [the] quote out of context," nor is it "misguided or misleading," DownEastLaw (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I tried to understand the above but the two "Link"s go to the same inexplicable place (simple:Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). @DownEastLaw: Taking your comment at face value (that is, without finding the background), your understanding of WP:INVOLVED is not correct. At any rate, I am an uninvolved administrator and am willing to monitor this page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The second link should go here [19] Examples, of ownership of content, especially section 4 (under "statements"), is almost the identical language of the "involved" editors on this page.

WP's description of "involved," which smalljim linked to in his statement, says that he is "incapable of making objective decisions" for this page, "to which [he] has been a party or about which [he] has strong feelings." His quotes above, under "article ownership," are indicative of "strong feelings".

Can you show me where on WP:INVOLVED an editor stops being involved based on the type of action they are performing? Where on the page does it say, for example that an editor like smalljim somehow stops being "way too involved" if he is not taking admin. actions? Or conversely, he only is "way too involved," i.e. has strong feelings, when he is taking admin. actions?

That's not what th page says, because it doesn't make any sense, and because an admin. who is "incapable of making objective decisions" for a page, "to which [he] has been a party or about which [he] has strong feelings." doesn't suddenly become "capable of making objective decisions for a page, to which [he] has been a party of about which [he] has strong feelings." when he simple changes to the role of editor.

An editor is either "involved" or he is "not involved" WP does not provide for a third option based on the type of activity being carried out.

It is good to have more editors working on the page and I appreciate your participation.

On the recent edits that were reverted:

This edits in questions have had consensus from four editors:  - Swiss Mister in NY in NY who has advocated for the edits for months on this talk page,  331dot , User:BD2412  and myself.

Swiss Mister in NY has said, among other things:  “In all, it feels like some of the important and interesting facts that make the SEC's case relevant to a biography of Lemelson are not just missing from the biography, they're being disallowed (repeatedly) in the biography, despite there being no disagreement that these are factual elements of the case.”

BD2412 has said “I would just note that this biography contains an interesting and novel instance of case law and judicial ruling. I see that there has been some dispute over the content in the article history, and would remind editors that reliable sources discussing this should be allowed to be included as appropriate. More people editing on a topic is almost always a better thing.”

The edit was discussed on this talk page with 331dot, who concluded, "Very well, I am going to defer to your judgment."

User:BD2412 pointed out, with regards to the dits, that Law360 is "more along the lines of analysis than opinion" and that he is not a fan of "suppressing [narratives] that appear in sources."

There has been no credible argument that Barron's, Reuters, Law360, etc. are unreliable sources.

User:BD2412 also suggested language ("saying something like, "Chris Villani, writing for Law360, characterized the outcome as...",) as part of the discussion, which was incorporated precisely into the edit. After the discussion, Another source from a different reporter was found that made the same claim ("largely prevailed," in addition to "largely beat,") and that was added, again, using the precise language suggested by User:BD2412 as part of this talk page discussion.

331dot  and User:BD2412 are administrators.

Grayfell keeps reverting these edits.  He has support from two involved editors, who have been engaged in multi-editor ownership (maybe along with him, I've asked for clarification) of the page for a long time, and do not deny their multi-editor ownership of the page, which has been pointed out by more than one editor.

In summary, four editors, two of whom are administrators, and none of whom are “involved,” support the edits.  Three entrenched editors, some openly “way too involved” have consistently exerted ownership of the page, are reverting the neutral, properly sourced edits without first participating in the talk page discussion. As other editors have pointed out, it is at a minimum strange that only two editors would be gatekeepers of this page for nearly a decade. That alone is indication of a problem. DownEastLaw (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

My statement was me disengaging and shouldn't be interpreted as agreement. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I hope you decide to reengage. As User:BD2412 said "More people editing on a topic is almost always a better thing.” DownEastLaw (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Most articles are not watched by many people. There are only thousands(maybe 20,000 off the top of my head) of editors for millions of articles. It's only the highest interest articles(Donald Trump, United States of America, Russia, Biology, etc) that get many followers. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I guess it's about critical mass when it comes to editors, and the higher profile, probably the better the quality of the page.

I should have added to my comment above, that not only am I thankful for your clarification (and involvement), which I understand, but at least your comments can be understood as not opposing the edits after we discussed them. I'll change what I'm saying on this page to three editors are supportive of the edits and one does not oppose them if you agree with that characterization of our discussion and your comments.

Again I hope you will decide to reengage. This page deals with novel, complex and unprecedented issues; the history shows past errors and misstatements in the edits, and severe restrictions on and discouragement of who can be involved, which is not helping. The more editors the better, and keeping with the spirit of WP I hope as many editors as possible become contributors. There have been some insightful contributions on this talk page from new editors. DownEastLaw (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq (you wrote "... I am an uninvolved administrator and am willing to monitor this page"). Briefest history: this article was created as part of the Wiki-PR sock farm some ten years ago, and has been plagued by a series of consecutive CoI accounts and IPs ever since. I added a more in-depth summary at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Emmanuel Lemelson (just above all those red IP addresses). Hope this helps.  —Smalljim  20:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh great. There are too many walls-of-text for me to dive in at the moment but when the question of changes to the article comes up I will examine the discussion and edits and ponder what to do. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq, looking at the history of this page, the two entrenched/involved editors who have had "multi-editor" ownership of the page for years have designated just about any other contributor as "connected," or "COI" As other editors have pointed out, they have regularly included false and misleading statements on the page, that are fully unsupported by the sources. Ultimately another admin had to intervene to stop the misstatements they continued to boldly make.

Smalljim now says the page has "been plagued by a series of consecutive CoI accounts and IPs," but that "history" as he calls it, and the related designations he continues to make, is largely written by him and/or his editing partner GreenC (again he unilaterally designates as CoI any editor who contributes outside of him and GreenC [oddly unless its a negative entry]). The history shows an undeniable pattern of multi-editor ownership between these two. Another admin. was compelled to comment on the issue on this talk page.

His "ownership" mentality, continues in his recent comments on this talk page and in trying to intimidate other editors. The predictable results are that involved smalljim and GreenC have (even statistically) controlled the page for a very long time and discouraged other editors.

Several other editors have complained about the problem of ownership of this page. There is definitly a lot of text here, but it is worth reading.

SmallJim and GreenC have been asked if they have a relationship outside of WP, and/or if they know either directly or indirectly the subject. It is a valid question since SmallJim admits to having strong feelings about the subject. Neither has answered. Their comments laid out by another editor on this page, would indicate there is a severe NPOV problem if not a COI (in addition to the problem of article ownership).

Again glad to have your and the other editors involvement. DownEastLaw (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I will pay attention when people start talking about specific issues regarding article content, preferably one item at a time. Complaints about other editors belong on a noticeboard, if anywhere, and are of little interest. That's because adjudicating editor disagreements is pointless as after deciding who was nicest, the question of what should be in the article still has to be resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I think focusing on the article content is absolutely right. I personally would like nothing more, and it is what I had set out to do with specificity on this talk page. I believe the basic foundational question is; are Reuters, Barron's and Law360 reliable sources? These sources, and what they are saying, have been disputed by the 2-3 editors discussed here. However, there seems to be agreement among all other editors here, including admins. that these are reliable sources. If we acknowledge the reliability of these sources, we can then move to the next point of the specific edits based on (or quoted from) what these sources are saying. DownEastLaw (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is the relevant posts on Law360 [20] (including commentary from another admin). Here is another post on integrating the three sources [21] This section [22] on reverted edits, attempts to walk through the specific basis for the edits. It seems like each time the discussion is moved away from article content based on what the sources are saying to undermining the editor. DownEastLaw (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It sounds as if Johnuniq is suggesting a complete restart of this talk page - quite reasonably not wanting to plough through acres of existing text. I agree that that's a good plan. So, since it appears that you are the only editor here who is dissatisfied with the article as it is now, may I suggest that you set out (in a new section at the end of this page) precise wording and references for the parts that you want to be altered. You'll need to add brief explanations of why you think those changes would improve the article too.  —Smalljim  13:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Johnuniq didn't say that. Other editors as you know are frustrated with your long-term ownership together with your editing partner, of the page. Since there is now an uninvolved admin (and two other admins.), as well as other editors, overseeing or contributing to this page, why not step aside to allow other editors to contribute. ~8+ years of ownership and control is more than enough, especially in light of the fact you are, in your own words, "way too involved". It's the right thing to do. DownEastLaw (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Smalljim's comment that you are replying to is a completely accurate explanation of what I meant in my 09:16, 17 February 2024 and other comments on this page. It's not that Smalljim has some special insight—he is just aware that my words are a rephrasing of standard procedure at Wikipedia. I am not interested in complaints about other editors or the past because, as I mentioned, deciding who is nicest is not the point—what counts is article content and there would be very few uninvolved editors who would want to pick through walls of text from the past. If anyone has a proposal to improve the article, please start a new section focused on one improvement. Don't mention the past or other editors—you can talk about them at WP:ANI but they are off-topic on an article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll start a new section. My posts below was cross-posted with your comment above at the same time, otherwise, I would have skipped it. DownEastLaw (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Smalljim you have said you have such strong feelings about the subject, that you are "way too involved," - the definition of involved, which you linked to, says you are "incapable of making objective decisions" for this page, "to which [you] has been a party or about which [you] have strong feelings. "You have also made comment here [23] about the subject, as pointed out by other editors, which indicate, and in accordance with being "way too involved," very strong feelings about the subject and of course an inability to have a NPOV.

Several editors have pointed out, or commented on your and GreenC's article ownership problem, including another admin. - you have not once denied it.

Now you say, "I really wish that I had skipped over whatever edit it was that drew my interest to this article in the first place." [24]

The above seem like good reasons to finally let go of something that, in your own words, is having a negative impact on you and has, apparently, for a long time. It looks like it has consumed a substantial part of your life. It almost seems like an obsession. We have yet to hear from you on what the source of these strong feelings about the subject.

Again, I think you are an honest person, and I think you understand and believe in the spirit of Wikipedia. I think you haven't denied the article ownership problem [25] because you know it's true. In fact, you are doing the opposite, you are. admitting, continually to the problem, which I respect.

It's time to let other editors contribute and for you to let go.

DownEastLaw (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

See "off-topic on an article talk page" in my last comment just above. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I already commented above here [26] (it was cross-posted) DownEastLaw (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits on 15 Feb 2024

Opinions, please: do page-watchers think that any parts of the edits restored today by User:DownEastLaw are neutral and proportionate; do they improve the article and should therefore remain?  —Smalljim  10:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This is asking to repeat the discussion above, regarding the same edits, that Userr:Swiss Mister in NY, User:331dot and User:BD2412 have already contributed their thoughts and opinions to. It is also asking for a repeat of the section above entitled "Reverted Edits" which remained open for several days.

Can you reply to the questions under "Integrating Barron's, Reuters and other sources," (the questions are not adversarial, and you should feel comfortable reading them). Specifically can you explain why you have such strong feelings about the subject? Please also read the section above entitled "Involved Editor" regarding your self-described "involved" status. DownEastLaw (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's purely accidental that during the first year of editing on Wikipedia, you primarily only edited topics directly or indirectly related to Emmanuel Lemelson including: Emmanuel Lemelson, WWE, AbbVie. And continue to primarily spend your time on Wikipedia at Emmanuel Lemelson. A fairly obscure topic with very few page views but a constant parade of COI editors. And BTW this is not the only evidence, we can look at overlaps in style of writing, choice of content, strategies for attacking other editors, etc.. with other known socks of Lememelson. -- GreenC 15:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I went through the changes and yeah this is a depressingly familiar style of writing and choice of content. I don't see how any of improved the article, it introduced a lot of problems and for which there is no consensus. -- GreenC 14:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

GreenC please see the section above "article ownership problem," which you have not responded to. You have not responded to the other false statements you have made, and make more now. Please do not revert edits which have been discussed on the talk page.DownEastLaw (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If we go by quality instead of quantity, I see very few discussions. The problems with these edits are obvious, and restoring the content without fixing the problems is edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a vague comment. What is the obvious problem with the edits? The edits follow WP guidelines and use suggested language by other editors on this talk page. There is consensus with three other editors who are not "involved." Can you address the questions above under the "reverted edits" section? You reverted edits (again) before responding to the legitimate questions on this talk page about your previous reverts. DownEastLaw (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we differ on what the word "consensus" means, but I am going by Wikipedia's definition, and I do not see consensus for this content on this talk page. Asking me to answer loaded questions which have already been discussed is tendentious and disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

You're not going by "Wikipedia's definition." If you think there is a question of difference of opinion on consensus, then you shouldn't be edit warring in the interim. You are not being asked a "loaded question," You are being asked why you stated that the edit you continually revert is "Too vague, bordering on salacious," (those are your words). It is a simple, straight-forward question. Also, it has not been "discussed," as you falsely state, because you refuse to respond or engage in discussion on this page before reverting edits. DownEastLaw (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm going by WP:CONSENSUS, which is a Wikipedia policy. Consensus is not formed by citing a handful of editors who tepidly agreed with you one time a few months ago, according to the most generous possible interpretation of their words. Likewise, consensus doesn't allow for you to ignore the people you don't agree with, no, not even if you insinuate they have a conflict of interest.

You do not have consensus for these changes. Using niche sources to add cherry-picked promotional quotes and editorializing is never going to be acceptable. The specific wording I used to explain the problems is mostly irrelevant, but since you seem to want a clarification, your phrasing was indeed bordering on salacious. You took mundane facts and presented them in overly-broad terms ("high ranking", "years", and even "lobbying") to emphasize how scandalous they appeared. Colloquially, gossipy scandalmongering is often equated with making a claim seem "sexier" than it actually is, hence "bordering on salacious". Using commentary and opinion content to flatly declare in Wikipedia's voice that the SEC press release was "false" is not appropriate, and no ammount of run-of-the-mill WP:SYNTH would make it appropriate. This has already been repeatedly explained to you (and your many, many predecessors).

I remind you, volunteers are not obligated to help you make the article obsequiously flattering to Lemelson. Grayfell (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edits before participating in discussion is definitely not going by WP:CONSENSUS. The agreement wasn't "tepid," it was clear, and it wasn't a "few months ago," it was merely days ago. There was no "generous interpretation of their words," their words were quoted precisely on this talk page, and their precise words used in the edits. The only thing that has been "ignored" are the sections above, that you and the self-described "involved" editors can't or won't answer.

The sources are not "niche" that has been established through consensus above. Even without consensus, it is absurd to suggest Barron's, Reuters and Law360 are "niche," They are each the leading media outlets in their respective fields. There is no "cherry-picked" promotional quotes, only what the reliable sources are saying. I think you know there is also no "editorializing." Have you actually compared the sources to the edits you keep reverting?

Your explanation of why you think the edits are "salacious," require a lot of explaining and doesn't seem credible, especially since you refused to answer the question days ago, and insisted on reverting edits that had consensus multiple times before answer or participating in the discussion. I think we both know there is nothing about the edits that is "arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination." - no matter how long-winded and complex the attempted justification.

Besides, it wasn't my "phrasing," as you falsely say, it was taken right out of the reliable sources. No "mundane facts" were presented in "overly broad terms," (first you say they are "scandalous" and made somehow "sexier," then you contradict yourself by later calling the same words "mundane." In fact, it was a text book use of a reliable secondary source, using the sources language, or langage suggested by other editors. There is nothing "scandalous" about the way Barron's, Reuters, or Law360 some of the most respected media outlets in the world, reported the news. These outlets are not known for reporting "gossipy scandalmongering," as you call it, which its a ridiculous suggestion.

If a fact, such as a false press release, is widely reported in multiple reliable sources (and court filings), as it is in this case, then it is not "commentary and opinion," it is established, according to reliable primary and secondary sources. It is hardly "not appropriate" as you say, to include what the reliable sources are consistently reporting. That is what WP expects.

Can you explain how citing what reliable sources are consistently reporting is making the article "obsequiously flattering to Lemelson,"?

There is no question that smalljim is "involved" and shouldn't be participating in this page at all. There is also no dispute that GreenC and smalljim have had "multi-user ownership" of the page for a long time. Both have refused to participate in the discussions above, resorting, like you, to reverts without participating in the discussions they are invited to. Can you clarify if you have a relationship with either of these two involved editors? Or if you have a direct or indirect relationship with the subject or some other conflict of interest?

Thanks. DownEastLaw (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, you still have not answered my questions above, but I noticed you are following me from place to place on Wikipedia and now reverting my edits in other places,[27] apparently in an effort to inhibit my work. Notably, on the other high profile page, no other editor (of which there are many) thought the edit should be undone, except for you of course. Notably, you had never edited the Mosby page before my involvement.

This is a type of harassment and disruption. [28] This seems to be a deeply personal matter for you, as evidenced by the types of untrue edit notes you leave when you revert edits, and now your "wikihounding," which makes the need for you to truthfully answer the above questions all the more pressing. DownEastLaw (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Your questions have already been answered. Regarding the Mosby edit, considering the lengthy history of sock puppetry at this article going back decades, including at least one WP:SPI which I started a few years ago, I did look at your editing history. As you surely know by now, your edit history is public. That edit to the Mosby article was too bad to ignore, so I reverted it. The place to discuss this would be that article's talk page, were I have started a new discussion. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm taking the advice of Johnuniq here [29] and not responding to this entry and focusing instead on starting a new section for proposed edits. DownEastLaw (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

See what you've done now, DownEastLaw - you've caused the first admin-only access protection to be put on the article. Congratulations. (Thanks Johnuniq for applying the brake).

DownEastLaw, whilst we have all enjoyed being exposed to your boundless enthusiasm, your insights into the motivations of the other editors here, and your eagerness to share your thoughts as to how we ought to behave, I suggest that it's time to stop now. Your Lemelson-related edits have never met with much approval from the community because of their obvious bias. You can either continue haranguing everyone until you eventually get blocked for disruptive behaviour, or you can change your attitude. This is not a courtroom. Read the guideline on "Wikiquette" and try to follow it; restrict yourself to requesting changes on this talk page; and resign yourself to the fact that you cannot have the article you want. If you find these constraints impossible to follow, then maybe you should just go away - and let the unconflicted editors here have a break before for the next clone pops up.  —Smalljim  23:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC) (and no, I won't be replying to your inevitable follow ups.)

Does Johnuniq attribute the block to any one editor? Does he even mention any one editor either on the edit note or the talk page? Wasn't Grayfell the last one to revert an edit before the admin-only access protection was put on? Does your cynical and accusatory comment seem constructive and inline with Wikiquette" to you?

Why do you keep telling other editors what to do and speaking in a condescending way to them? Why do you speak on behalf of "all" other editors? Other than your long-time edit partner(s), have ANY of the editors on this talk page indicated they feel the edits are "biased" or that they feel "harangued" - in fact, that is the exact same term another editor on this page used to describe your conduct. Are you unilaterally, despite being "way too involved," in charge of blocking now, too?

Let me understand better. You want to discourage other editors, "restrict" them, and make them "go away" with threats of being "blocked"? Your way of responding is by saying you "didn't read" the responses or "won't be replying" - does that seem like the spirit of WP to you?

There are at least three other uninvolved administrators on this page. Even though it's been almost a decade, you seem to be really struggling with letting go of ownership of this page, and its content, notwithstanding your admission that you are "way too involved," - and have repeatedly attacked and discouraged other editors. It seems like it has to do with your "strong feelings," about the subject. Not once have you or GreenC denied your multi-editor ownership of the page, even though several other uninvolved editors have pointed it out.

Can you please answer the question that has been asked, namely, why do you have such "strong feelings," about the subject that you are "way too involved," - Do you have a connection or relationship with with GreenC or Grayfell outside of WP? Do you have any relationship, either directly or indirectly, to the subject? These are simple, straightforward questions that you should feel comfortable answering. I also hope that you understand, in light of the history here, why these questions are important.

Is asking questions for clarification really "adversarial," as you say above? I would think that how greater understanding is achieved. DownEastLaw (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Matthew 7:3  —Smalljim  20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Since you are "reading" and are "replying" to my entires after all, can you please answer the questions above? In light of everything that has been laid out, including by other editors, these are important and valid questions. DownEastLaw (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

As a gesture of good faith leading to the hoped-for restart of this page (see here), I'll answer your main questions. As far as I am aware, the only interactions that I have had with GreenC on Wikipedia have been related in some way to Lemelson. All our interactions are open to view. We have never emailed one another or had any off-wiki contact whatsoever. The same applies to Grayfell. I also have no relationship whatsoever with Lemelson and I really wish that I had skipped over whatever edit it was that drew my interest to this article in the first place.

Now, please be forthcoming and tell me (1) what is your relationship with Emmanuel Lemelson? and (2) what is your relationship with the Wikipedia accounts Orthodox2014, Cypresscross, RomaTomatos, and Swiss Mister in NY, and with the 17 IP addresses listed here?  —Smalljim  14:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Only you have suggested a "restart" of the page. Thank you for answering those question, I appreciate it. However, you still have not answered the key question, which was asked repeatedly; why do you have such strong feelings about the subject, such that you are "way too involved," - the definition of involved, which you linked to, says you are "incapable of making objective decisions" for this page, "to which [you] has been a party or about which [you] have strong feelings."

My statement is here [30] DownEastLaw (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected

I fully protected the article for a week to prevent an ongoing edit war. When protection expires, anyone continuing the disputed change should first ensure they can link to one section on this talk page that shows a clear consensus for their edit. If protection is no longer needed, ask me or any administrator to remove protection. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's so obvious the COI in this case for over 9 years, I don't know why we continue to beat around the bush and not lock the article down. It's one sock after the next. It's long past the point of being abusive to good faith editors trying to balance out the constant stream of COI editing. And nobody "owns" the article, the statistics show over 80% of the text derives from one of the COI socks. Yet, when we oppose their biased edits, it begins a multi-week tirade of walls of text like the above with the clear intention of wearing editors down - it has been incredibly disruptive to my work on Wikipedia, which is usually very constructive, as a bot writer. I do occasionally deal with difficult COI cases, this has been unlike anything in my experience in 20 years on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 16:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm taking the advice of Johnuniq here [31] and not responding to this entry and focusing instead on starting a new section for proposed edits. DownEastLaw (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed New Edit

Following Johnuniq's advice, I'm starting a new section for proposed edits. I will also start with a new source to make it even cleaner.

I hope the "involved" editors and those who have projected ownership of the page over an extended period will step aside so other editors feel comfortable contributing.

This is a high-profile case with lots of coverage and unprecedented legal issues. [32] - it needs more than just a paragraph, and some of the most thorough reporting on this case has been previously "suppressed," including Barron's and Law360. High-level sources, and those focused on or written by legal and finance reporters and professionals, are especially useful in complex civil litigation cases.

User:BD2412 (a lawyer) pointed out he is not a fan of "suppressing [narratives] that appear in sources." Other editors on this talk page have similarly expressed concern about reliable sources being suppressed. Link

The latest Reuters report Link on the case is one of the most thorough I have found and is authored by a former high-ranking SEC official and lawyer, which strengthens its authority.

I am proposing that the Reuters report be used to strengthen the section on the SEC case, which in its current form is badly oversimplified and, in some places, flat-out wrong. By incorporating the clarifications by Reuters, the section is strengthened and made accurate.

The Reuters reporting can be incorporated into the current text as follows (in the interest of time I did not post as WP code with references):

In 2018, Lemelson was sued by the SEC, alleging “a manipulative scheme to defraud investors” over his 2014 Ligand short sale, arguing that the campaign took the form of over a dozen misstatements and omissions, and charged Lemelson with intentional fraud as well as violations of the Investment Advisors Act. The SEC sought, in addition to other penalties, a permanent injunction.

Following a seven-day trial, the jury found Lemelson liable on just one part of one count and found his firm (LCM) liable for none. According to Sarah Heaton Concannon, writing for Reuters, “Not only was the jury unconvinced by the SEC's showing with regard to misstatements, the jury outright rejected the SEC's fraudulent scheme charge; the jury also found the SEC failed to prove a negligent, reckless, or intentional violation of the Investment Advisors Act by either Lemelson or LCM.”

In December 2021, the SEC sought $2.3 million in penalties[51] along with a lifetime injunction barring Lemelson from the securities industry.[52] At the end of March 2022, U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris fined Lemelson $160,000 and limited the SEC's request for injunctive relief to five years. Lemelson petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review.[54] The petition was declined in December 2023.[55].

According to Concannon, “The Commission brought the widest array of potential claims against Lemelson and his company, and his decision to fight the charges paid off. Most importantly, he turned a lifelong injunction into a term of years. He also succeeded in protecting his advisory business and the fund it managed from any liability whatsoever."

DownEastLaw (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, this must be a suggested rewrite of the second paragraph of Emmanuel Lemelson#Accusation of security fraud. We are all aware of the overarching need to remain strictly neutral in what we include in the article.

DownEastLaw wants to rely on a piece written by Sarah Concannon in which her main purpose is to emphasise the emerging trend of defendants not settling pre-trial when being sued by the SEC, following its recent adoption of a more aggressive approach. Concannon has chosen two cases that show where that stance has had some success. Naturally, therefore, she has emphasised the aspects of the cases that support her thesis. This reduces its value as an impartial reference.

It's also very important to note the disclaimer at the end of the article: "Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias..." This also reduces its value as a neutral source because it isn't subject to Reuters' normal controls.

Including two direct quotes from the Concannon piece is clearly excessive.

How significant is this episode in a general biography of the subject? It needs mentioning, certainly, but not in this depth. I suggest that the ten-year-view guidance is appropriate for current or recent matters such as this - we summarise the issue, proportionately to its importance, and provide references to reliable sources so that the interested reader can learn more.

I think the existing paragraph satisfactorily meets these requirements, though this Reuters article of 31 March 2022 by Nate Raymond (not presently cited in the article) appears to offer a good summary of the case up to that date and could be included.

The last two sentences in the existing version should be joined by "but", to improve the flow: Lemelson petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review,[54] but the petition was declined in December 2023.[55]

No one should feel intimidated from offering their own opinions here, because no one owns any Wikipedia articles.  —Smalljim  15:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

SmallJim continues to speak on behalf of others. When he says, "we are all aware," who are the "we," and did they authorize SmallJim to speak on their behalf? Does it refer to the edit partners discussed above?

Concannon is a former high-ranking SEC official and lawyer. SmallJim now suggests that she is somehow partial to Lemelson, with no evidence. SmallJim say " she has emphasised the aspects of the cases that support her thesis," but that is incorrect, she has given a completely thorough and balanced analysis of the case, even citing the complaint. Colcannons expert analysis does not "reduces its value as an impartial reference," as SmallJim incorrectly states - it enhances its value. As an officer of the court and a former SEC official, she is obliged to be honest and fair or could be disbarred.

Also, the boilerplate disclaimer SmallJim cites is of no import. SmallJIm left off the last sentence, which states, "Westlaw Today is owned by Thomson Reuters and operates independently of Reuters News." The very first thing the article discloses is the following:

"Attorney Analysis from Westlaw Today, a part of Thomson Reuters." - i.e., NOT opinion, but analysis, and subject to the "normal controls," as SmallJIm calls them, of Westlaw, which is owned by Reuters. This is the exact same point User:BD2412 made above about Law360 above, stating "I would consider Law360 to be more along the lines of analysis than opinion.,"

Wikipedia describes Westlaw as:

"Westlaw is an online legal research service and proprietary database for lawyers and legal professionals available in over 60 countries. Information resources on Westlaw include more than 40,000 databases of case law, state and federal statutes, administrative codes, newspaper and magazine articles, public records, law journals, law reviews, treatises, legal forms and other information resources... which customers use to determine whether cases or statutes are still good law... other tabs organize Westlaw content around the specific work needs of litigators, in-house corporate practitioners, and lawyers who specialize in any of over 150 legal topics. Most customers are attorneys..."

If it were "attorney opinion," Reuters would call it that at the top. But it doesn't. It calls it what it is, which is "Attorney Analysis" - and not just any analysis, but one of the most authoritative out there - a former high-ranking SEC official and attorney, publishing for "Thomson Reuters Westlaw." This does not "reduces its value as a neutral source," as SmallJim incorrectly says, it greatly enhances it.

Concannon is not "involved," much less "way too involved" There is no evidence that Concannon is "incapable of making objective decisions" about her analysis. In fact, she is publishing for one of the most authoritative law outlets ever created.

In other words, if asked what the most authoritative analysis of a legal case that could be found would be, most lawyers would almost certainly answer, "Thomson Reuters Westlaw."

SmallJim also suggest the "ten-year-view guidance" but that supports including the analysis. This unprecedented case [33] has been making headlines for nearly ten years across major financial and legal media outlets which have consistently reported on the novel and first-of-its-kind nature, among other critical components that have been improperly removed from the article. Colcannon's thorough, objective, authoritative analysis, with full controls and oversight from Thomson Reuters Westlaw arrives almost at the ten-year mark (and many years after the trial), and with the benefit and objectivity of hindsight.

Lastly, SmallJim says (using "we" again),"we summarise the issue, proportionately to its importance, and provide references to reliable sources so that the interested reader can learn more." but a significant part of this talk page (supported by the page history) is dedicated to questioning why SmallJim and his edit partners have consistently removed reliable sources from the page. DownEastLaw (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Concannon is somehow partial to Lemelson. I pointed out that her article was written to highlight the fact that defendants have started challenging the SEC in court and are apparently getting favourable results for doing so. She uses Lemelson as one example of this happening and has therefore, not unreasonably, restricted her commentary/analysis to the aspects of the case that came out in Lemelson's favour.

Concannon does not, for instance, mention that the judge faulted Lemelson for a "particularly egregious" false claim, that the judge imposed the temporary injunction on Lemelson because (inter alia) "he has not learned his lesson", or that the SEC's lawyers are (or were in early 2022) planning to pursue administratively a lifetime bar on him serving as an investment advisor. All of these are in the March 2022 Reuters article that I noted above.

I am not advocating that these aspects are included in the WP article: merely that they are easily available in the cited references so that readers who are interested in learning more are led to sources that give a full picture. (For the same reason, I would suggest that any restricted access sources such as Law360 are replaced where possible with equivalent open sources.)  —Smalljim  23:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Her commentary is not "restricted" - it is a thorough and complete analysis of the case - she has left nothing out from a legal perspective. She doesn't cite commentary from the judge at all from the trial record (it is legal analysis, not commentary analysis), and because it's about the outcome of the case. Also, Concannon clearly cites the "temporary injunction," in her analysis, which is also included in my proposed edit above. I have not looked at the older March 2022 Reuters article you mention, but I don't see why the elements you list shouldn't also be included, along with other details from reliable sources. Nonetheless, Thomson Reuters Westlaw is the most authoritative source for legal analysis.

More reliable sources, and what they are saying, need to be added. DownEastLaw (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@DownEastLaw: You need to dial down the aggrieved tone. There is no need to mention Smalljim and certainly no need to talk about the use of "we"—the instances you mention are bog-standard restatements of core Wikipedia policy and we simply means that anyone who wants to continue editing needs to be aware of these non-negotiable facts. This is not a debating club and scoring points won't have any effect other than to earn a reputation for battleground behavior. Re the proposed edit, I don't have an opinion and have no knowledge of the background other than what I noticed in a glance at the article. However, for your information, the above "unprecedented case" issue is again rather common and the standard response is that if an event really is unprecedented or highly significant, an article on the event should be written. It is rarely desirable to document an event in the article for a person—to do so is known as a WP:COATRACK. If a source talks about the effect of an event on the subject, that effect may be WP:DUE in an article on the person. If you want independent opinions on what anyone has written here, you could ask at WP:Teahouse. Don't ask about the issue as they won't want to be drawn into a long-term disagreement. However, for example, you could ask for opinions about a particular comment and how accurately it portrays Wikipedia's procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: You lost me on "There is no need to mention Smalljim," I used the same format he used. His second paragraph begins, "DownEastLaw wants to rely on a piece written..." thus mentioning my handle. Nonetheless, I am happy not to use his handle going forward if that is the standard we will follow. It is easier to track who is being referred to when handles are used, and I, for one, have no problem with him (or anyone else) using my handle for clarity.

This is definitely not a “debating club,” and it’s diminutive to suggest that valid points or identifying false or erroneous information is trying to “score points” - we should all care about the reader and the accuracy of the pages. Omitting key information or inserting erroneous information in other places can mislead readers.

Also, I don't agree that the case is nominal in importance to the biography. I've read and worked on other pages where a case like this becomes a defining element in a person’s biography and WP page with extensive entries. In this case, almost ALL of the media coverage of this subject has been about this case for nearly a decade. Having said that, it may not be a bad thing to do a separate page on the case, but the case as it stands now on the page is incomplete and misleading, so it would still need to be improved. There are other elements, I'd like to get to after this proposed edit, that other editors have brought up, and that are key to the notability of the subject and his work. DownEastLaw (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

New article created

User:DownEastLaw has created SEC vs. Lemelson. It's as biased in favour of Lemelson as one would expect. I've tagged it for COI.  —Smalljim  23:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the template from SEC vs Lemelson (a page created at the recommendation of Johnuniq). The new page is unbiased has several editors already working on it, and follows what reliable sources have reported without suppressing anything. There has already been a discussion on COI (see above), and Smalljim has reviewed the statement here. Smalljim, especially as an "involved" editor should not be wikihounding. DownEastLaw (talk) 06:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Smalljim,

You continue to express strong, negative feelings about the subject and your involvement, which would indicate an inability to have a NPOV. Your comments above about the subject are distasteful. There are other editors trying to work on this page and contribute. Johnuniq (talk) has said he is "uninvolved" as an administrator, and is "willing to monitor this page." There are also other administrators involved in the page, so you don't have to worry about administrative oversight. Even more editors would be involved if the decade-long "ownership" was finally relinquished. DownEastLaw (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Connected contributor

@DownEastLaw: What is your justification for diff where you assert that Smalljim (talk · contribs) is a connected contributor? Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This editor (DownEastLaw, currently) has been masquerading behind fake accounts for 9 years. -- GreenC 17:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC - these sort of accusations are counter-productive and shun other editors who try to work on the page. As Johnuniq pointed out, let's focus on "specific issues regarding article content, preferably one item at a time. Complaints about other editors belong on a noticeboard, if anywhere, and are of little interest. That's because adjudicating editor disagreements is pointless. After deciding who was nicest, the question of what should be in the article still has to be resolved."

Hi Johnuniq see sections /discussions here, here and here. Smalljim is "way too involved," in his own words and continues to express "strong feelings" about the subject which relates to the relevant policies on neutral point of view (cited in the connected contributor template). Despite being asked multiple times about these "strong feelings," he has never responded. It appears he adds other editors to the connected contributor tag who try to work on the page.

Several editors have complained including recently. There are also complaints about the multi-editor ownership together with GreenC which spans almost a decade. DownEastLaw (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The only thing productive would be to block your accounts and/or your pages. You are good at sounding like a good faith editor. You have been for 9 years, that is why you continue to get away with it. The issue is very simple: you are masquerading behind fake accounts. We normally block these accounts, because you are lying. I do not and can not assume good faith. To engage with you in any manner other than assumption of bad faith is degrading to me personally, and to everyone here who has been forced to continually respond to you, because of your biased editing. -- GreenC 14:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The accusations currently being made against Smalljim and GreenC exactly mirror those made by a previous IP in this ANI thread in 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive416#User:Smalljim_reported_by_User:199.188.176.137_(Result:_Filer_blocked_for_three_months_for_undisclosed_COI_editing) - nothing has changed, the disruption continues. It's very obvious the same user. They were blocked for 3 months. The blocks need to continue! This page and editor has been nothing but disruptive, the lies and fake accounts, one after the next. -- GreenC 15:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that Bishonen has indefinitely blocked DownEastLaw from editing this page and its related article. For the reasons, see the notice on User talk:DownEastLaw.  —Smalljim  15:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Since DownEastLaw has been blocked from this page (for very, very obvious reasons) I plan to collapse the sections on this talk page from #Complex civil litigation onward, unless anyone would prefer I didn't. Any unblocked editor can revert if they think these discussions went anywhere, but if there's any underlying point worth preserving, it would be better explained in good faith using one-tenth the words in a brand new section. Grayfell (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'd prefer it was left for a while - for ease of access and reference. When the current saga and all the inevitable appeals are over, much of the page can be re-archived.  —Smalljim  12:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I referred specifically to this section in my block rationale, so there may be some advantage to leaving it open. Bishonen | tålk 12:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC).

For the record, below are the 18 instances where DownEastLaw attempted to stop me editing this article by misinterpreting my status as an INVOLVED admin, after I made a passing mention of that status back in December here. The diffs are in date order interspersed with the four times that the policy was explained to him (the diffs in brackets). There has been some discussion about WP:BLUDGEON on his talk page in relation to the block. Well I certainly feel bludgeoned after all this in less than one month: [34], [35], ([36]), [37], [38], ([39]), [40], [41], ([42]), ([43]), [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. He also mentioned it in some of his 55 questions to the blocking admin here, and even in his first unblock request here.

Apart from any other considerations - we haven't mentioned the severe ongoing COI - the refusal to accept (or inability to understand?) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is evidence that an expansion of the existing partial block into a full one would be warranted. Collaboration is impossible because no-one is allowed to disagree with this person's opinions on anything he considers important. So I want to thank all those editors, especially GreenC and Grayfell, who have withstood the bludgeoning over many years and stopped this page from degenerating into an obsequious hagiography.  —Smalljim  13:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving on

There are a few loose ends that need tidying up in relation to the second paragraph of the Accusation of security fraud section of the article.

1. I indicated above (under #Proposed New Edit - diffs: [54], [55]) the problems that I saw in the use of the piece written by Sarah Concannon, from which DownEastLaw wanted to include two direct quotes. My objection was, and is, that the premise of that piece automatically involves a bias towards Lemelson. It might be OK to leave it in as a secondary reference to the first sentence because it does discuss the extra aspect of standing up to the SEC. But I don't think that aspect needs to be mentioned in this bio, and direct quotes are certainly not appropriate.
2. There is also the suggestion of including this Reuters article of 31 March 2022 by Nate Raymond which seems to offer a good summary of the case to that date, including the judge's comments about Lemelson which should be available for balance (though not necessarily mentioned in the article). I'll think about where that might best fit, unless anyone else wants to consider it.
3. I also suggested that closed sources like Law360 should be replaced where possible with open sources that verified the same points, so that more readers can more easily check the sources. Interested to hear opinions on that idea.
4. Lastly there was the minor point of merging the last two sentences - I don't think there would be any objection to that so I've made that change.

 —Smalljim  15:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

1 - I concur this is a problematic source for a couple reasons. It's not neutral. It's an unedited opinion piece clearly supporting Lemelson, it might as well be a self-published blog post given the lack of editorial controls. The premise is also self-serving for the author. -- GreenC 16:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Perhaps we should remove Concannon altogether then - I think all the content in the first sentence is covered by the remaining Reuters reference [56]  —Smalljim  23:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

3 - I support replacing closed sources with "open" sources (free to access). This was resisted in the past on the grounds Law360 is an amazing source better than any other source because its specialized. But all we are doing is verifying simple facts that are widely reported, and if there is an open source, such as Reuters, that anyone can verify, we should use that. The relevant policy might be WP:VENDOR: e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available. True, Reuters is a commercial entity also, but they don't use paywalls, Law360 is arguably an "e-commerce" site while Reuters is not. There is another policy about using open source content but I can't find it right now. Finally, it's not possible to archive Law360, if those pages go offline there will be no web archive, they become unverifiable and thus would need to be deleted, presenting a verification problem in the long term. -- GreenC 16:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. I don't think we need to bust a gut looking for a rule that allows us to do this - it seems common sense, especially if Law360 can't be archived. So I see three refs in this paragraph that we can look at (there are another three elsewhere in the article that we could consider later). The first two verify the sentence In December 2021, the SEC sought $2.3 million in penalties[51] along with a lifetime injunction barring Lemelson from the securities industry.[52] and I think this would be covered by the 31 March 2022 Reuters article that I linked in 2. above (I'll check properly later). The other Law360 cite verifies ...but the petition was declined in December 2023.[55]. I haven't looked for an open source for this yet, but I'd be very surprised if there isn't one.  —Smalljim  00:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The "Certiorari Denied" can be found on page 4 of the Dec 11, 2023 Court Orders (WP:PRIMARY). That is all I can find. The 2.3 million penalty is verified by Reuters. The "lifetime injunction" is interesting: Reuters says the SEC could seek a lifetime ban - it does not say they did. It is speculation. I can not find evidence the SEC "sought" a lifetime ban from the securities inustry. I note that User:BD2412 added this to the article about the judge Patti B. Saris Special:Diff/1150597590/1150598600 - I don't know if this was an oversight such as copy-paste or BD has additional insight. BTW if we accept these editors (not BD) have undisclosed COI, their edits of the judge's article are also a problem, including any content copy-pasted from this article by good faith editors. -- GreenC 04:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that research. Lots to reply to! Making a start: Re "certiorari denied", I found the Supreme Court decision on its website at https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-98.html. It simply states "Dec 11 2023 Petition DENIED", but it does also include links to pdfs of the petitions etc., so this may be a useful reference for those looking for more detail. There's nothing wrong with it being a primary source to verify a simple statement of fact like this.  —Smalljim  17:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The "lifetime bar" that the SEC's Division of Enforcement could apply for as an administrative action is different from the "lifetime injunction" that the SEC failed to obtain via the court. According to the documents on this SEC page work on the possible imposition of a bar was paused pending the Supreme Court decision, but presumably is now continuing (see this document dated 22 Dec 2023). I believe though that the decision to impose a bar could be appealed to a federal court, so round it would all go again...

Other documents on that SEC webpage provide lots of background detail: beware that the Respondent Memorandum of 29 Jul 2022 is 29+MB in size!  —Smalljim  17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I believe here it says the SEC sought a permanent injunction he can not violate certain SEC rules, and if he did violate the rules, then he potentially could face a permanent ban. The judge disagreed with the SEC and instead ruled on a 5 year injunction against violating certain SEC rules, not a permanent injunction. This not the same thing as the SEC seeking to bar Lemelson from the securities industry. Changed here: Special:Diff/1212991330/1213110032 -- GreenC 04:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

One more thing. This article makes a point the judge gave a lower punishment then what the SEC asked for ie. implying the judge came down against the SEC. However, I read somewhere (need to find again) Lemelson asked for a $80,000 fine and no injunction. So in fact the judge gave a higher punishment then what Lemelson asked for - and the judge verbally admonished him for not being repentant. Like everything in this article history, it goes both ways, but our article as written by the sock farm continually favors one POV: Lemelson's. It's often a subtle bias like this, which makes presenting facts neutrally difficult. -- GreenC 14:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Re this, Judge Saris, in her Memorandum and Order of 30 March 2022 (here), states on page 14: In asking for a Tier II violation, Lemelson essentially concedes “fraud, deceit, manipulation, or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory requirement.” 15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)(2)(B). His fraud is not in question. Yet presently our article states: in November 2021 a federal jury returned a mixed verdict finding Lemelson liable for making false statements, but not liable for the more serious charge of fraud. These are at odds. The judge said "his fraud is not in question", but we're saying "not liable for ... fraud". I wonder if this has slipped through because, as Saris wrote on page 9, he was found not liable for an overarching scheme, indicating that the SEC was not able to prove that these three separate statements were connected to a scheme to defraud Ligand investors. How best to resolve this? Pinging BD2412 - you were involved in discussing this paragraph in mid-February (see #Law360 reporting above).  —Smalljim  23:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I have basically disengaged from this subject due to the excess of drama on this page. I am frankly unconvinced that the individual case rises to the level of notability for an article on a case. With respect to statements by the judge as against the verdict of the jury, however, the only thing that really matters is the jury determination. I think it's fair to say that prosecutors and defendants both tend to make a stronger case for their position than they can reasonably realize, and accept something partway there. BD2412 T 00:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If it helps, the drama here has gone - for the time being at least - since the perpetrator has been blocked from this page (though no doubt is still reading this). We're now trying to ensure that the article covers what it should and is as neutral as possible.  —Smalljim  12:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Smalljim, when Judge Saris said "His fraud is not in question", the context is securities fraud (SEC Rule 10b-5). Securities fraud is a blanket term for many violations. One of them is short selling abuses, such as misstatements, and there is no question he made those, the jury agreed and so did Judge Saris ("not in question"). Therefore, our article is both right and wrong, depending how one reads the word "fraud". Thus the problem is ambiguous language, and I take responsibility, since I wrote that sentence. It should more correctly say "the more serious accusation of a prolonged scheme to defraud Lingland investors." More in the following post on a bigger and I think the core issue. -- GreenC 01:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits to clarify he is liable for securities fraud: diff. Supported by the SEC which confirms "Hedge Fund Adviser Who Jury Found Liable for Securities Fraud". Lemelson's lawyers argued in their petition to the Supreme Court it was not securities fraud,[57] rather Free Speech. Lemelson concludes on page 12:

SEC seems to think that because SEC and others sometimes colloquially refer to SEC Rule 10b-5 as an “anti-fraud” rule, anything covered by a literal reading of the rule must, by definition, be fraudulent.

Nevertheless, our article SEC Rule 10b-5 says the rule is "one of the most important rules targeting securities fraud", and many other sources say the same thing. 10b-5 is a core rule governing securities fraud. SCOTUS denied the hearing, the lower court order stands: Judge Saris called it fraud, it was a violation of SEC Rule 10b-5, which is securities fraud. Despite these facts, Lemelson will likely continue to argue that it was free speech, not securities fraud, and/or that SEC Rule 10b-5 is not securities fraud in this case. Look, I'm not trying to put the words "securities fraud" into this article unfairly. But we have a situation where Lemelson was found liable for something that is normally considered securities fraud. He appealed it to the Supreme Court, who denied to hear it, meaning the original order stands. The judge in the case said "His fraud is not in question". I don't know what else to do but call it securities fraud. -- GreenC 04:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I've lumped everything into my replies below.  —Smalljim  16:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: DownEastLaw has been blocked from this page for persistent battleground and tendentious editing, and it seems that GreenC and I are the only ones still interested in working on it for now. In this section and below, we're working towards a neutral version of the last section of the article. Back here, you indicated that you would be willing to keep an eye on changes to the article. In the light of the changed circumstances here, do you want to stick to that, or would you be happy for us to continue editing the article as normal now?  —Smalljim  16:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please go for it. As mentioned above, I don't know anything about the subject but it is clear that unwarranted outside attention to this topic has occurred and I will be available for discussion if wanted in the future. I'm sure you don't need advice but for posterity, I suggest not swaying the pendulum too much either way. Focus on facts without overdoing it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. We're trying to restrict the text to the facts and leave the discussion of each side's arguments to the cited references. Otherwise the section would become too long.  —Smalljim  09:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sought penalty

The article devotes a sentence to the punishment the SEC sought. What is missing is the penalty Lemelson sought. Neither side got what they wanted. The SEC wanted more, and Lemelson wanted less, then what Judge Saris ultimately ordered. I don't believe DUE WEIGHT justifies mentioning either one, and the sentence should be removed. If kept, we would need to include what Lemelson requested to avoid a POV problem, and we are back to a WEIGHT problem. -- GreenC 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

What we include here will ultimately depend on whether SEC vs. Lemelson continues to exist. I've only skimmed that article and certainly don't feel inclined to take part there at present - fighting word for word across some 20 paragraphs of probably biased text. As before, though, I advocate the 10 year view which means including less rather than more.  —Smalljim  09:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And of course, having said that we should write less, not more, I've realised that there's no mention of L's rejected first appeal to the Court of Appeals, and that as you suggested, it would be best for neutrality to include what L wanted, if we're including what the SEC wanted. So here's a rough redraft based on those changes:

• In 2018 Lemelson was sued by the SEC for irregularities over his 2014 Ligand short sale, and in November 2021 a federal jury returned a mixed verdict finding Lemelson liable for securities fraud, specifically for violating SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false statements, but not liable for the more serious accusation under the same rule, of scheming to defraud Ligand investors.[49][50][51] In December 2021, the SEC sought a total of $2.3 million in penalties, including $656,500 as a Tier III civil penalty, and a lifetime injunction barring Lemelson from further securities violations.[52][53] Lemelson insisted that a Tier II penalty of less than the $80,000 maximum and no injunction were appropriate.(cite Saris) In March 2022, U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris fined Lemelson $160,000 as a Tier III civil penalty (the statutory maximum allowable in the circumstances) and granted a prohibitory five year injunction, citing inter alia that Lemelson had "not learned his lesson".[54](cite Saris) Lemelson's appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against this ruling was rejected on 3 January 2023,(add ref) and his subsequent petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for review[52] was declined in December 2023.[55](cite SCOTUS website)

But yes, this probably goes into too much detail now.  —Smalljim  16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The injunction is limited to SEC Rule 10b-5 not all securities violations - the SEC never sought a injunction against all securities violations. This paragraph certainly could be sufficient Wikipedia coverage for the SEC vs. Lemelson case, and is pithily succinct. As BD said above, "prosecutors and defendants both tend to make a stronger case for their position", and the SEC vs. Lemelson article is nothing but a lengthy obviously biased appeal for the defense ie. free speech not securities fraud, victim of a conspiracy, aggressive SEC etc. So, it would also need to include the SECs POV, which then becomes a new arena for the pugnacious COI socks, and I would imagine nearly a full-time effort to maintain neutrality and accuracy. And, we have this case now spreading to the Judge Saris article, and possibly elsewhere. Even though this a little longer, it should be sufficient for Wikipedia coverage of the case vs. all the other places this case is being amplified across Wikipedia. -- GreenC 18:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I like to provide options, so here's a more pruned down version, removing the claims and counter-claims and some other peripheral material:

• In 2018 Lemelson was sued by the SEC for irregularities over his 2014 Ligand short sale, and in November 2021 a federal jury returned a mixed verdict finding Lemelson liable for securities fraud, specifically for violating SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false statements, but not liable for the more serious accusation under the same rule, of scheming to defraud Ligand investors.[49][50][51] In March 2022, U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris fined Lemelson $160,000 as a civil penalty and issued a prohibitory five year injunction.[54](cite Saris) Lemelson's appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against this ruling was rejected on 3 January 2023,(add ref) and his subsequent petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for review[52] was declined in December 2023.[55](cite SCOTUS website)

I think I prefer this version, leaving more details to the references for those interested enough to read them. It is, after all, just another facet of his continuing biography - I wonder what he'll turn his hand to next? :)  —Smalljim  15:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Short and factual is good. No opinions because they require counter-opinions to be fair and that is endless. Do you think calling a violation of 10b-5 "securities fraud" is an opinion or a fact? I'm unclear on this. If it's opinion it might be better to remove it. -- GreenC 03:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there does seem to be uncertainty over whether violations of SEC Rule 10b-5(b) should be labelled as "fraud" or not, so I've removed that in light of your comment, Johnuniq's note earlier, and a general superabundance of caution. I've just revised the section of the article in the light of the recent discussions here. So that it doesn't become too long, I've restricted the text to the facts and left discussions of who claimed what to the references.

@DownEastLaw: if you are aware of any errors of fact in what the rewritten section says you can ping me on your talk page.  —Smalljim  09:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)