Talk:Benjamin Wey

Unexplained removal of material sourced to nytimes.com

This article (about a person I'd never heard of just 24 hours ago) currently has four sources, two of which are merely PR Newswire and therefore, in my opinion, mere junk. (Arguably, one of the two has gained credibility via regurgitation by the WSJ and then CMU; but it still looks like PR fluff to me.)

Wey's main claim to notability seems to be as the head of the New York Global Group. This doesn't have, and has never had, an article in Wikipedia. Here's how this article described NYGG before I got here:

a leading U.S. and Asia based venture capital and private equity investment firm with access to more than $1 billion in investment capital

"Leading", by what criteria? What kind of "access"? What's the source for this?

Here's what it said after my edits:

a U.S. and Asia based venture capital and private equity investment firm that "is known for helping take midsize Chinese companies public in the United States through reverse mergers, or by buying the shell of defunct American companies that had been publicly listed".

The source for this was provided: David Barboza, "F.B.I. looks into adviser on Chinese reverse mergers", New York Times Dealb%k, January 27, 2012.

This was also the source for the assertion that Wey's surname is also spelled Wei.

In the next edit, an editor removed the description of NYGG and the source for the assertion that "Wey" can also be "Wei". There was no edit summary for this edit.

Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There is clearly some promotion of this individual going on. Several "new users" have popped up in the edit summary recently, one of them apparently attempting to impersonate another user who previously nominated the article for deletion. I'm considering semi-protection. Deb (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am Benjamin Wey, CEO of New York Global Group (www.nyggroup.com , address: The Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005, tel: 212-566-0499). Much of the information on your Wikipedia site relating to me is inaccurate and untrue. I have not established this site page therefore cannot support the accuracy of its contents. An example, I am an American and my name is Benjamin Wey, and there is NO other name that I use. Further, we are a private equity investment firm that advises businesses and government entities globally. In 2011, we were a victim of a corporate identity theft, which we put out a press release here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-york-global-group-statement---warning-against-corporate-identity-theft-123991564.html We informed and provided assistance to several U.S. government agencies regarding the corporate identity theft, including cooperation with the FBI, relating to this corporate identity theft. Such cooperation was falsely reported in the media, which is then misquoted by the Wikipedia's mysterious "sources". In May 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a U.S. government entity, confirmed our findings and put out a public alert warning the general public of a false identity carrying our name. You can find this proof at the SEC site here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/oiepauselistimpersonators.htm I assume you care about the truth and seek the truth. You are welcome to contact my office and speak to the real Benjamin Wey, an American financier and journalist. Additional information about Benjamin Wey is also available on LinkedIn. I look forward to a productive and candid discussion. If you are not willing to correct your errors, please let me know how I can help you improve your credibility by correcting your false contents. Be a man (or a woman), pick up the phone and learn the truth. Thank you, Benjamin Wey

From an anonymous guy named David? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.246.187.17 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 June 2014‎

Photos

The photo of Wei in a classroom appears to be a frame grab from this video (Youtube), which appears to be copyright NYGG. One Chighsmith claims to be the copyright holder of this and the others. There's no OTRS notice saying that NYGG has licensed it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Is this normal? (I'm rather a novice in Wikimedia Commons matters.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Me too. I'll try and find out. Deb (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion but don't know what to do next. Deb (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

mere PR

A suggestion, prompted by this recent edit: no further additions of "sources" created by NYGG, please. Such sources aren't reliable. Anyway, if Wey's activities are noteworthy, we can expect that they'll also be written up by people who aren't paid to write them up. -- Hoary (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, apart from his issues with FBI/State of Oklahoma, just about every source about him or quoting him is a PR plant. An interesting read, although quickly removed from the article by COI editors is:

Felix Salmon (November 23, 2010). "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR", Columbia Journalism Review

It's about about Wey having engaged the PR firm 5WPR in 2010 to drum up stories about him and and his company. It concluded with words that all non-COI editors of business-related articles here should pay attention to:

So the next time you see someone quoted from a firm you’ve never heard of and you have no idea who they are, feel free to ignore everything they’re saying. There’s a good chance they’ve simply been planted by a PR firm rather than chosen for their expertise by a conscientious journalist.

New York Global Group is also a client of the lobbying group Sconset Strategies and the 829 Studios who claim to provide a "fresh-minded approach to marketing strategies: Social Media, Search Engine Optimization..." I am strongly tempted to take this article to AFD. Voceditenore (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I was about to say "Yes! That could be interesting!" But actually, if you did, I would feel obliged to vote "keep", for the same reason I didn't speedy delete it in the first place. There is a reasonable amount of media coverage, even if most of it is uncomplimentary. Deb (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

Wikipedia Editors: I am Benjamin Wey, CEO of New York Global Group (www.nyggroup.com , address: The Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005, tel: 212-566-0499). Much of the information on your Wikipedia site relating to me is inaccurate and untrue. I have not established this site page therefore cannot support the accuracy of its contents. An example, I am an American and my name is Benjamin Wey, and there is NO other name that I use. Further, we are a private equity investment firm that advises businesses and government entities globally. In 2011, we were a victim of a corporate identity theft, which we put out a press release here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-york-global-group-statement---warning-against-corporate-identity-theft-123991564.html We informed and provided assistance to several U.S. government agencies regarding the corporate identity theft, including cooperation with the FBI, relating to this corporate identity theft. Such cooperation was falsely reported in the media, which is then misquoted by the Wikipedia's mysterious "sources". In May 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a U.S. government entity, confirmed our findings and put out a public alert warning the general public of a false identity carrying our name. You can find this proof at the SEC site here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/oiepauselistimpersonators.htm I assume you care about the truth and seek the truth. You are welcome to contact my office and speak to the real Benjamin Wey, an American financier and journalist. Additional information about Benjamin Wey is also available on LinkedIn. I look forward to a productive and candid discussion. If you are not willing to correct your errors, please let me know how I can help you improve your credibility by correcting your false contents. Be a man (or a woman), pick up the phone and learn the truth. Thank you, Benjamin Wey

162.246.187.17 (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The information about corporate identity theft was added to the article by User:Deb. Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Wey - American financier and journalist

Wikipedia Editors:

I am Benjamin Wey, CEO of New York Global Group (www.nyggroup.com , address: The Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005, tel: 212-566-0499). Much of the information on your Wikipedia site relating to me is inaccurate and untrue. I have not established this site page therefore cannot support the accuracy of its contents. An example, I am an American and my name is Benjamin Wey, and there is NO other name that I use. Further, we are a private equity investment firm that advises businesses and government entities globally. In 2011, we were a victim of a corporate identity theft, which we put out a press release here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-york-global-group-statement---warning-against-corporate-identity-theft-123991564.html We informed and provided assistance to several U.S. government agencies regarding the corporate identity theft, including cooperation with the FBI, relating to this corporate identity theft. Such cooperation was falsely reported in the media, which is then misquoted by the Wikipedia's mysterious "sources". In May 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a U.S. government entity, confirmed our findings and put out a public alert warning the general public of a false identity carrying our name. You can find this proof at the SEC site here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/oiepauselistimpersonators.htm I assume you care about the truth and seek the truth. You are welcome to contact my office and speak to the real Benjamin Wey, an American financier and journalist. Additional information about Benjamin Wey is also available on LinkedIn. I look forward to a productive and candid discussion. If you are not willing to correct your errors, please let me know how I can help you improve your credibility by correcting your false contents. Be a man (or a woman), pick up the phone and learn the truth. Thank you, Benjamin Wey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.246.187.17 (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly there is a misunderstanding here about how wikipedia works. Individual editors will not normally enter into a dialogue with anyone claiming to be the subject of an article. If Benjamin Wey wants to talk to someone in the Wikimedia Foundation about any issues with the article, Benjamin Wey will need to contact them through the formal channels. The article was placed under protection because of repeated vandalism in the form of the addition of unsourced promotional content. At least two of the contributors in question have now been blocked, one for placing a threatening message on the user page of a long-standing editor. If these are PR people working directly or indirectly for NYGG, the management of the company ought maybe to consider whether they are competent to carry out this role, since they have not taken the trouble to find out how to edit or reference wikipedia articles or to abide by the appropriate procedures and policies. The protection level of the article has been changed so that unregistered users can edit it, but their edits will be subject to approval by experienced editors. In the meantime, I have added the information you provided. Deb (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The formal channel being listed at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr Wey, you have now repeated this identical message 5 times on this page. I have removed two of them. Three are more than enough. When you say "I have not established this site page", are you implying that you had nothing to do with this article's creation? If so, please observe your autobiography at User:Benjaminweynygg. The page was created in March 2011, about the time the first version of this article was created. The first version of the article was subsequently deleted [1]. Administrators will be able to see what that version looked like. It was re-created on 28 April 2014 and clearly written as a piece of PR, presenting you simply as a "financier, philanthropist, and CEO of a strategic advisory group [unnamed]". Note that your official website, www.benjaminwey.com from May 2014 states "For more information visit: Benjamin Wey Wikipedia" and links to this article. Clearly, either you or someone associated with you created this article.

Unfortunately, the person who created the article (User:Lyndasim) used 2 rather "inconvenient" references. Perhaps not having read them carefully? This only became apparent when another editor formatted them to make the title and sources clear: "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR" (Columbia Journalism Review, 2010) and "Made in China, undone in America" (Financial Times, 2011). The following day, two now-blocked editors (User:Cashfranklingroup and User:DGG187) began repeatedly removing them as well as other reliable sources and re-adding promotional content, e.g. [2], [3], as did the IP 107.168.129.147, an IP remarkably similar to the one you have used above. In addition Cashfranklingroup threatened [4] another editor (User:DGG) who attempted to clean up the article and remove the puffery, while DGG187 clearly attempted to impersonate him. Meanwhile the article's creator returned in the midst of this remove yet another "inconvenient" reference to the New York Times [5]. Voceditenore (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

for example, please provide a source other than your own press releases that says that "Further, we are a private equity investment firm that advises businesses and government entities globally. " I saw no evidence of that. Nor do I see any evidence other than your own statements that you have ever been a "visiting professor of finance at China University of Petroleum, guest professor at the Zhejiang University School of Management and a guest lecturer at the University of Maryland." I saw no evidence of philanthropist--the section removed said "Lately involved in philanthropic efforts, Benjamin Wey appeared has used his fortune amassed through his career in the finance industry to donate to different charities. He has recently became involved with both the American Cancer Society and The Make A Wish Foundation. His work with these organizations, where he has volunteered both his educational skills and his financial situation, has gone about improving and bettering many communities. He has led a number of different charitable drives to help those in both the United States and China who are in need of a better education. So not only does Mr. Wey educate many people but he in turn allows for those without adequate access to be better educated." None of this was cited to any source whatever, and none of this gives any specifics.

The various dealings reported in the Financial Times article: do they represent your own firm, or that of the entity using your name falsely? Is the signed article there accurate, or not? WP can only go by published third party sources, of which they are one of the most reliable for business matters. If you think they have reported you inaccurately, that lies between you and them. We must go by what they say, not what you say, or we become no better than one of your press agents. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Note on latest edits

I've allowed the edits made today by an anonymous IP in Finland, but have amended the wording to reflect the NPOV policy. Deb (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Other activity"

He appears here, he appears there -- but (quite aside from the non-independence of some of the sourcing), it's no more than a list. There's no overall view or commentary. A view is provided in Felix Salmon, "China expert of the day, Benjamin Wey edition", Reuters (or "Benjamin Wey and the Power of PR", Columbia Journalism Review), November 23, 2010. This seems enlightening and worth adding, but I read above that it was previously removed. Is there any good reason not to add it? -- Hoary (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess they would argue that Felix Salmon is one of Wey's primary detractors. Actually, his own wikipedia article doesn't have good references - possibly calls for further investigation before including his views? Deb (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. -- Hoary (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex Scandal

I think this needs to make its way into the article, I am new here and am not sure of the best way to do it: http://nypost.com/2014/07/22/wall-street-financier-slapped-with-75m-sexual-harassment-suit/ http://www.morellialters.com/documents/NYGG_Complaint.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereporterguy (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Thereporterguy. At this point it can't "make it's way into the article", per our biographies of living persons policy. We would need a much higher quality source for it than the tabloid press, i.e. New York Post, and original court documents are not acceptable as references unless they have been discussed in high quality sources. If these allegations and the lawsuit are eventually covered in publications such as the New York Times, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, etc., then it may be suitable for inclusion. Voceditenore (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that, especially since it has appeared in two of New York's three newspapers.[6] I'll research this further. I agree we have to be careful about sourcing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've done some editing of unnecessary tags and less-than-important content in the article. As for the sex scandal, it was picked up by Law360 but I'm not clear if that makes the item usable. Have asked for guidance. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You've certainly removed a lot of instances of "{{Self-published source|date=June 2014}}" flagging self-published sources.

That aside, "scandal" wouldn't be an appropriate term if this stuff were covered, unless reliable third-party sources called it such. It's too judgmental a term. Possibly "harassment charges", but I'm not yet sure it should be included at all.

Indeed, I'm still not at all sure that any article is merited. The biographee's claim to notability appears to be the heading of a company (one that so far hasn't been thought worthy of an article here), but most of the material about this company (and its head) is generated by the company itself. -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You have a point about notability. On the self-published tags: even before reading your comment I was having second thoughts about my removing them. I hadn't read DGG's post above before doing so, and I wonder if maybe the material so sourced shouldn't be there at all. I was thinking of going back and restoring some of the tags or just delete all that material, some of which seems self-serving and yes, may not be properly sourced. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've gone back through with a fresh eye and removed the self-serving self-published sources, which I think is mandated by WP:SELFPUB. What was needed was removal, not tagging. The notability issue needs to be addressed, as does the sex-harassment suit. Have raised the issue at BLP Noticeboard. I agree that "scandal" would not be an appropriate description, and that the most this would deserve is a line or two in the article if the sourcing is acceptable. The gallery was ridiculous and there were appalling POV statements that had to go. I think at the end of the day this article is probably destined for the round file. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've verified at RSN/N that Law360 is OK as a source and will add material from it. Also am beefing up the article with an FT article already cited but not sufficiently utilized as a source. I have also removed the notability and sources tags. This person is plainly notable, and has received extensive coverage in the media, including Barron's and the Wall Street Journal. Yet, strangely, those good sources have been ignored and instead press releases and other self-serving pap has been utilized as sourcing Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is Benjamin Wey, a financier and investigative reporter. This summary page of Benjamin Wey's life experience is not accurate and is subject to libel claims. You are welcome to call me at www.nyggroup.com to get the facts or take down this page. I will pursue legal actions as needed. Benjamin Wey is also a U.S. registered trademark. Your libelous contents are also infringement upon my intellectual property rights. Take down this page, revise it with accurate information or I will take all legal means to claim my rights. Don't be a nameless coward. Pick up the phone and get the facts. Benjamin Wey Tel: 212-566-0499 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.254.107.173 (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the above comment by 23.254.107.173 from the top of the page where it had been incorrectly posted. I strongly suggest that you retract the above, 23.254.107.173. Legal threats are not permitted and can get you blocked. Instead, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. –Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The following links are obvious facts that speak contrary to your summary page of either the reverse merger business or the status involving Cleantech Innovations: 1) Forbes: In Rare Move, SEC Reverses Nasdaq's Delisting Of Chinese Company: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidyin/2013/08/02/in-rare-move-sec-reverses-nasdaqs-delisting-of-chinese-company/ The bottom line: The SEC reversed Nasdaq wrongful delisting. 2) Stanford University: Chinese reverse mergers outperform U.S. counterparts: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/charles-lee-chinese-reverse-mergers-performed-better-than-their-reputation-suggested The bottom line: Reverse merger is a plain and simple merger process between two companies, totally legitimate and can create great investment opportunities. 3) Fraud Short Sellers Trigger Regulators’ Misunderstanding of Reverse Mergers : http://theblot.com/fraudster-short-sellers-trigger-regulators-misunderstanding-reverse-merger-7715122 The bottom line: Negative connotation involving reverse mergers were motivated by stock short sellers.

Again, I hope you can reflect the truth here. The above are just a few examples of your less informed editors duped by stock short sellers or racist media articles. Benjamin Wey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.254.107.173 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added to the article the fact that the SEC reversed the NASDAQ delisting, referenced to the Forbes article linked above. Voceditenore (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I re-added a reference to a Columbia Journalism Review article that had been removed some time back by the same COI editor/socks. I think "career" might be a better title, but "financial career" is OK too. I notice that the Columbia review article mentions a Marketwatch article but the link is dead. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of primary source material

I'm not sure about the latest change. WP:Primary states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Although the wording in this case may have constituted a specific interpretation of the primary source in question, I think it would have been possible to make it NPOV without needing to throw the baby out with the bath-water. Deb (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Deb and signofnine Thanks to all for being so on top of this. Would it then be possible to add the basis for the southern district court's decision as a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This would require no interpretation as it is plainly stated by the court in its opinion. My thinking was that a dismissal on the basis of jurisdiction should not be confused with a dismissal based on the merits of a case. I don't think it too technical. Your thoughts? Also how would that rule apply to the letter from the chinese government, addmittedly it is a strongly worded document, but perhaps I could leave it to one of you to include it in a way you feel appropriate? Best, --Iclaudius markets (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)iclaudius_markets

Iclaudius markets, I believe you meant to "ping" Figureofnine. There is no such user as "signofnine". - Voceditenore (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking for consensus. Deb (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --Iclaudius markets (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC) iclaudius_markets

The term "primary sources" tends to be used in two ways on Wikipedia: (a) To refer to court documents, census listings, unpublished eye-witness accounts, etc. (b) More loosely to refer to sources written by or for the subject or a body closely connected to the subject or to other self-published sources. Both types of uses/misuses have occurred in this article and several have been rightly removed or amended to make clear what the source actually is. In my view, the use of the actual SEC decision document is OK, if a clear case can be made for using it to supplement the published sources which have discussed the document. The use of CleanTech's amended complaint in their lawsuit (later dismissed) as a source is very problematic. That complaint documents solely the claims made by the company, not any actual findings. At most, it should be use to document the company's claims and it should be made clear, in the actual text of the article, that they were claims made in their complaint. Likewise, it needs to be made clear in the actual reference, what the source is, not simply a bare URL.

There was also inappropriate and misleading synthesis added to the article, coupled with self-published sources:

Example 1. "In 2011, the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority found that the NYGG's company name was being fraudulently used by advance fee fraud scammers, in a case of corporate identity theft."

This was referenced to the official Swedish FSA [7] and this press release from NYGG. The Swedish FSA did not find that "advance fee fraud scammers" were behind the identity theft. That is a theory of Wey's. I have changed the text to read:

In 2011, the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority found that the NYGG's company name was being fraudulently used in a case of corporate identity theft.[refeernced to the Swedish FSA] In May 2012, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission put out a similar alert warning the general public of concerning the fraudulent company maliciously using NYGG's name.[referenced to official SEC alert] According to Wey's company, advance fee fraud scammers were behind the identity theft.[referenced to NYGG's press release]

I just read that source again and, to my mind, the Swedish finding does imply that scammers were behind the identity theft, although maybe the wording of the article could have been better. Deb (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Deb! I stand corrected. I've now changed that to: "In 2011, the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority found that the NYGG's company name was being fraudulently used in a case of corporate identity theft and described the identity theft as an advance fee fraud scheme." I have removed the superfluous NYGG press release. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Example 2. "Emen stepped down after the the NASDAQ delisting prompted a lawsuit in 2011 from CleanTech, which was represented by former U.S. senator Arlen Specter with Wey as a 'consultant'"

This bit of irrelevant synthesis clearly implies that Emen stepped down as a consequence of the lawsuit and is referenced solely to Emen's LinkedIn profile where he lists Senior Vice president of Nasdaq as one of his former positions. Even if a reliable independent published source could be found to verify that he stepped down because of the case, it is ultimately tangential clutter in the article about Wey—not about CleanTech. The Wikipedia article is not the place for Wey or those acting on his behalf to air his grievances about another living person (Michael Emen). The mention of Emen stepping down after the lawsuit was filed and the LinkedIn reference have been quite rightly removed. Ditto, equally tangential clutter such as quoting the letter from a Chinese provincial government official asserting that NASDAQ officers had acted "in a racist manner". That letter was an exhibit submitted by CleanTech and cited as the sole reference. We are not here to do original reporting on court cases based on editors' research using primary documents.

Finally, the source used for the reason the law suit was dismissed is an unlinked court document. The proper source to use is this one from Law360. I think it's reasonable to make clear why the case was dismissed, but it needs a checkable published and reputable source and one that puts it into context. Voceditenore (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC).

Just would like some wider consensus before we remove any reliable primary sources from the article. No problem with changing the wording to reflect the content accurately. Deb (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree as a general principle, but likewise further use of primary documents where they can be replaced by secondary sources should also have consensus. In any case, the only primary sources that have been completely removed from the article so far (and not by me) are:

1. Michael Emen's LinkedIn profile (completely inappropriate source, and completely inappropriate and irrelevant synthesis with BLP implications).

2. The copy of the Chinese letter submitted as part of the CleanTech lawsuit, which I consider valid for the reasons I outlined above. However, I have now found that the letter was covered in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review here in relation to the broader issue of the Chinese government harassing stock investigators. That article also mentions Wey (although perhaps not in the way that those editing on his behalf would like.) That could be used instead, if mention of the letter is considered worthy of inclusion.

3. The court decision dismissing the CleanTech lawsuit on technical grounds, which has no url for verification and which could be easily referenced by this secondary source from Law360 instead.

Note that CleanTech's amended complaint in their lawsuit (a primary source) remains in the article and is appropriately used to document the claims it made in the lawsuit. Any other use is inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

An example of what I consider a highly inappropriate use of the CleanTech amended complaint was to use that primary source to reference the following statement made in Wikipedia's voice about a BLP third party (Michael Emen):

The case was based in part on the Senior Vice president of Nasdaq, Michael Emen's, comment at Cleantech's delisting hearing.[18] Discussing Wey's with respect to the de-listing decision, Emen stated that "[i]t doesn't matter whether [the Consultant's] reputation is deserved or not. What matters is that he's notorious." because of his past stock promotions.[19]

See this version (now removed) where both [18] and [19] were references consisting solely of CleanTech's amended complaint, which incidentally does not mention Wey's name anywhere. Does anyone here seriously think we should publish an alleged quote by a third party BLP based on that primary source? Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

VoceditenoreI am not a "sock" as you say, but if it would make everyone less intense about this, I am happy to qualify myself publicly as having an interest here, although I still maintain that personally I am completely objective. I would like to submit changes in the future to this page, for you all to review. I think that this guy has been given a very unfair shake by a few sources. I can see that everyone here is ruthlessly objective, which is honestly excellent, though I think the "sock" reaction is a bit over the top considering my consistently open and non-hostile approach to everything related to this article. Preceding unsigned comment added by Iclaudius markets (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Iclaudius markets, no one has accused you being a sock on this talk page. I am glad that you have finally declared your conflict of interest here. However, it has nothing to do with "making everyone less intense." It has to do with you being honest and transparent and abiding by our Conflict of interest guidelines. I have added a new heading for your request below to add further adding external links. In future, please use separate headings for separate topics. The topic of this section is the use of primary sources as references. Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

External links

I would like to edit the external links portion of this article to include a link to a cctv interview Wey gave not that long ago which I think properly fits within the "external links" category. Given that Wey's blog is also there I can't imagine that this could somehow be more biased than that. I think that, because this is the right fit for the type of link at issue, that it will be found by the editors of this page to be valuable and appropriate.

Again, I am not like the former posters on this site who have caused trouble I think if that was the case this would have devolved already. Anyway, the link is as follows, and I think it fits well under the "external links" tab, unless of course youtube is taboo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xSG2LJHV5s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iclaudius markets (talk • contribs) 03:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet edits

Note that the recent edit by 192.253.249.141 is almost certainly User:Iclaudius markets evading his indefinite block. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyndasim/Archive. The edit in itself is reasonable and I would also have accepted it had Scalhotrod not done it first. However, given this group's obvious intention to abuse multiple accounts to evade blocks, I strongly suggest scrutinizing all pending changes very carefully. Iclaudius markets, I assume you are reading this talk page. Please note that you are blocked as an editor, regardless of which account or IP you use and may not edit here until you are unblocked. If you wish to be unblocked, please follow the instructions I will leave at User talk:Iclaudius markets. Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I was just trying to clear the list of articles with pending edits. I was unaware of these issues. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that an edit was made in December seeking to add a primary document and with it falsely characterized as a court decision on the merits, which it was not. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was typical devious behaviour from this sock. The IPs starting with 192... are almost certainly from a proxy server to boot. The article has pending changes protection, so it didn't get through, but it has to be watched constantly. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad to know that you are keeping an eye on it. Deb (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Current harassment trial

I have not accepted 2 pending revisions in the last two days by IPs attempting to add links to sensationalized reporting of the testimony in the current harassment lawsuit trial, all from the tabloid New York Post. One of them was doubly inappropriate per WP:EL because it was simply a link to search results at the NYP. I have added one current source which verifies that the trial has begun and where and the plaintiff's name. The article currently states the basis of the claim and its history. My own view is that no further details of the trial should appear in the article until the verdict is announced—barring some extraordinary development reliably reported in the non-tabloid press. There is nothing to be gained from a blow-by-blow cataloging of what remain only allegations (about both the plaintiff and the defendant) until a jury verdict declares otherwise. To do otherwise is contrary to both our guidelines on undue weight and biographies of living persons. Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Voceditenore (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Should we put the "current events" template up?Deb (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deb. Personally, I'd leave it off. It calls even more attention to the issue. Let's see how it goes with just controlling it via pending changes, referring any reverts to this talk page. The trial only has another week to run. Voceditenore (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've updated the article with two sentences on the outcome of the trial, referenced to a non-sensational article in the Toronto Sun via Reuters. Voceditenore (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Columbia University

The article states that Wey is a graduate of Columbia University, according to a glowing autobiographical story he authored. Normally a person's own claims about their education wouldn't arouse concern; per WP:Identifying reliable sources, "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" so long as the material is "neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" (among other criteria). but there is legitimate reason to doubt the veracity of Wey's claims to his relationship with Columbia. See this Bloomberg article:

In September 2013 the friend showed me a group e-mail Wey had sent saying he was an alumnus of Columbia Business School and touting the case study about himself. Columbia had published it, Wey wrote, and was planning to use it “in the training of global leaders for years to come.” The attached document, titled “Benjamin Wey: Global Entrepreneur,” appeared to be on letterhead from Columbia’s CaseWorks series and listed a Columbia Business School professor and Wey himself as the co-authors...

The study is not a Columbia publication, according to Christopher Cashman, a spokesman for the business school. “The document you have is not a case study and was not published by Columbia Business School,” Cashman wrote in an e-mail. “In fact, no research or case study about Mr. Wey has ever been published by Columbia Business School.” The professor credited as Wey’s co-author declined to comment.

The document opens with Wey waving goodbye to his Columbia classmates on their last day together. They’re headed toward the subway, while Wey hops in his Maserati to get back to Wall Street. The rest of the narrative mostly sticks to Wey’s personal triumphs.

Given Wey's apparent habit of...erm...padding his resume, do we retain the claim that he's a Columbia graduate, or remove unless/until some kind of third-party corroboration comes along? TheBlueCanoe 18:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've thought about that too, BlueCanoe, and have never been able to find any other confirmation of the MBA, apart from his listing on the Columbia Business School alumni website as "Class of 2013". Nor have I found an official denial from Columbia, which I'm pretty sure they would do if he hadn't received an MBA, given the latest events. Personally, I'd leave it in. The article makes it clear that it's his claim ("According to his official biography..."). Sometimes, documenting such claims is useful. Voceditenore (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It's a bit like saying, "According to Jeffrey Archer..." I think anyone with a modicum of intelligence reading this article should be able to work out the likelihood or otherwise of it being true. Deb (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore, do I understand you correctly that he is listed as part of the class of 2013 on the Columbia Business School website? If so, that does seem like adequate support for the claim.TheBlueCanoe 00:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

BlueCanoe, he's listed here as class of 2013. It's a lengthy list of volunteers with the heading: "Columbia Business School sincerely thanks the thousands of alumni and friends who volunteered their time, energy, and expertise during the 2014–15 academic year." An alumni log-in is needed to access the actual directory, and I don't have one. But like I said, as long as we make clear that it's his claim, I don't see a problem with it. An MBA is hardly the Pulitzer Prize. Note that most independent sources likewise repeat the claim and like WP state that it's his claim. I'm also pretty sure that the various investigative journalists who write about him would have found out by now if the claim was false and said so. Voceditenore (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. And well done to yourself and others who have looked after this page with admirable detachment.TheBlueCanoe 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, TheBlueCanoe. It's somewhat easier now that the subject and an army of socks are no longer editing the article and this talk page (often quite unpleasantly). Pending changes has helped too. Voceditenore (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ben Wey does not have an MBA from CBS. According to his Alumni Page, he received an MSLD, a Master of Science in Leadership. This is one of the executive programs than only required 26 days of classwork, according to the old summary page. This is actually entered in the Columbia Business School Alumni page correctly. Moreover, I believe his biographies all only state that he is a graduate of Columbia Business School, without specifying the degree, which aligns with these facts. I will correct the page now. 98.7.214.191 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

98.7.214.191, I've accepted your correction with a slight modification in wording and reference formatting. Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing request (April 2019)

Please make the following changes to the “Career” section. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Current text

Replace with

In 2015, he was named as defendant in a defamation suit stemming from his attacks on a FINRA regulator and Georgetown University law professor in the magazine. An injunction was issued preventing The Blot from writing about Brummer while the suit was pending. According Bloomberg Businessweek and the Columbia Journalism Review, he has also used the publication to defame and threaten investigative journalists, one of whom he falsely accused of ties to organized crime.

In 2015, he was named as defendant in a defamation suit stemming from his attacks on a FINRA regulator and Georgetown University law professor Christopher Brummer in the magazine. An injunction was issued preventing The Blot from writing about Brummer while the suit was pending. In September 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called on New York Court to vacate unconstitutional injunction against offensive speech. On November 15, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals, First Division ruled in favor of The Blot magazine against Brummer “on the law and the facts.” In 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek and the Columbia Journalism Review, reported that Wey used The Blot magazine to defame and threaten investigative journalists Dune Lawrence (Bloomberg Businessweek) and Roddy Boyd, who used to work for The New York Post and later founded the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation. Wey falsely accused Boyd of ties to organized crime.

--Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Pinging @Voceditenore and Deb: for their input on this request.  Spintendo  01:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I actually can't find any other mention of "Brummer" in the article - we need to add something to explain that. Deb (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: You are right. I added it to the editing suggestion and also specified a bit the details in the next phrase. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, done. Deb (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea how I managed to do that wrong as I was pretty careful. Thanks to Spintendo for fixing it. Deb (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking your time to implement these edits. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing request 2 (April 2019)

Please add the following info to the end of the “Career” section. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Current text

Replace with

(no text)

On April 9, 2018, Wey sued the Nasdaq, Inc., its former chairman Robert Greifeld and current CEO Adena Friedman as well as 13 Nasdaq, Inc. defendants for fabricating a nonexistent NASDAQ 300 shareholders listing rule that had caused a dismissed indictment against him. Wey was seeking $650 million in damages. On March 25, 2019, federal judge John Keenan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in Wey’s favor in a published Opinion & Order stating that “[Nasdaq, Inc.] Defendants have made no assertion that such a rule exists.” The ruling granted Wey’s motion to remand this case to state court.

References

Reply 18-APR-2019

• If this case has been remanded to state court, then it is still in the preliminary stages. The larger issues, such as whether the defendants owe money as a result of wrongdoing, have not been decided upon in a meaningfully conclusive way. The Wikipedia article should not become a diary of the subject's legal battles before those battles have been won, and should be mentioned afterwards when referenced by secondary sources in addition to primary court case documents, rather than by court documents alone.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Thank you for explaining that. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing suggestion 3 (April 2019)

Please add the following info to the “Career” section. I added archive parameters and suggested better sources where it was needed. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Current text

Replace with

While the allegations of assault and battery were rejected, the jurors found in Bouveng's favor on the charges of sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation. In April 2016, the award was reduced to $5.6 million by a Federal District Court judge.

While the allegations of assault and battery were rejected, the jurors found in Bouveng's favor on the charges of sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation. In April 2016, Bouveng agreed to accept the reduced sum of US$5.65 million rather than pursue a new damages trial. On June 13, 2018, Bouveng and Wey mutually dropped the case and it was closed. The federal court order entered by judge Paul G. Gardephe stated that Bouveng “voluntarily withdraws and dismisses with prejudice (and without costs, fees or expenses to any party) all claims assert in this action.”

References

Reply 20-APR-2019

  Edit request partially implemented  

1. N The requested changes are already largely incorporated in the article in summary form.
2. N The "better sources" provided are another Toronto Sun article (one was already used), another New York Daily News source (one was already provided), the New York Post and Court Listener. Those sources mention that the reduced amount was accepted. A response of "this is unacceptable" by the litigant would have been indicated by furthering the lawsuit. That this lawsuit was not continued, the reader may assume that the reduction was accepted without needing to specify that this was so.
3. Y The SCMP source, which states that the reduced amount was approved, was added as a reference.

 Additional changes made:

• An Unclear citation style maintenance template was appended to the article.

Regards,  Spintendo  13:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo I agree that the case description was somewhat unclear and thus made a total re-write of this section. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing request 4, reworked version of the editing request 3 (April 2019)

Please add the following info to the end of the “Career” section. Quick explanation of the changes: 1) I added archive parameters to all the links to prevent link rot. 2) The information about the start of the trial now has a reference, Law360 article. 3) All the unsourced information was removed per WP:UNSOURCED. 4) Law360 quoting Wey was removed as trivia and also because Law360 is a paywall publication and the quote is not present in the preview snippet. 5) Added case number in case someone would like to get more details. 6) Added page number to the closing 2018 statement (per the request above). --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Current text

Replace with

In July 2014, Wey was sued by a former employee, who alleged that he was wrongfully fired after he reported that another employee was "repeatedly and consistently” the subject of "disgusting and degrading quid pro quo sexual harassment". Hannah Bouveng, the employee who had been the subject of the alleged harassment, had filed an $850 million lawsuit against Wey's company earlier that month. Law360 quoted Wey as saying that the lawsuits were "frivolous" and "an extortion attempt." The sexual harassment trial opened on June 15, 2015, at the Manhattan Federal District Court. It closed on June 29, 2015, with the jury awarding Bouveng $18 million—$2 million in compensatory damages and $16 million in punitive damages, primarily for defamation by Wey, NYGG, and its subsidiary FNL Media who publish TheBlot. While the allegations of assault and battery were rejected, the jurors found in Bouveng's favor on the charges of sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation. In April 2016, the award was reduced to $5.6 million by a Federal District Court judge.

From July 2014 to June 2018, Wey was engaged in a legal battle with a former employee Hanna Bouveng (Bouveng v. NYG Capital LLC et al, No. 14-cv-5474). The case started on July 23, 2014 with Bouveng seeking $850 million in damages resulted from reported sexual harassment, and ended on June 13, 2018, with both parties mutually dropping claims against each other and asking for no compensation. On June 29, 2015, the jury in federal court in Manhattan awarded Bouveng $2 million in compensatory damages plus $16 million in punitive damages, primarily for defamation by Wey, NYGG, and its subsidiary FNL Media who publish The Blot magazine. While the allegations of assault and battery were rejected, the jurors found in Bouveng's favor on the charges of sexual harassment, retaliation and defamation. In April 2016, Bouveng agreed to accept the reduced sum of US$5.65 million. On June 13, 2018, Bouveng and Wey mutually dropped the case and it was closed. The federal court order entered by federal judge Paul G. Gardephe stated that Bouveng “voluntarily withdraws and dismisses with prejudice (and without costs, fees or expenses to any party) all claims assert in this action.”

References

The unclear citation style template applies to the citation style used by the article, not its content.  Spintendo  19:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo oh, I see. Please tell, will this editing suggestion be implemented? Previously you stated: "The Wikipedia article should not become a diary of the subject's legal battles before those battles have been won, and should be mentioned afterwards when referenced by secondary sources in addition to primary court case documents, rather than by court documents alone". This is exactly what this editing suggestion does, i.e. explains the case in full and provides references. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: please also share you point of view. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to call in User:Voceditenore, who's done a lot of good work on this article. Deb (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"This is exactly what this editing suggestion does" Your view of these revisions are too modest (and incomplete). What you havent addressed are your revisions which cast his role in this predicament in a much more flattering light. They remove language used in the complaint while concomitantly highlighting what the jurors rejected — they generally sculpt the event into what sounds like a gentlemen's agreement. None of the reasoning you've provided in your request was in direct response to an editor's concerns about the phrasing which is used (and which you've changed) So, could you address (a) which part of the text is that which was removed from the article and is now addressed by your changes, and (b) why the changes in phrasing were made. Regards,  Spintendo  23:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Spintendo, than you for asking these questions. As it could be clearly seen from my editing suggestion 3 published on April 19, changing the phrasing never was my intention. In the editing suggestion 3 I kept all the dirt and emotions and drama (as well as totally unreferenced information from the first part of the paragraph) and just added 1 fact about Bouveng v. NYG Capital LLC et al, No. 14-cv-5474. This fact is that on June 13, 2018, Bouveng and Wey mutually dropped their claims and the case was closed. We never know what was behind the scenes. Was there a gentlemen's agreement or not? We can only guess. We can assume that there was some kind of negotiation between the legal teams, but, again, we don’t know for sure. Even the New York Post article about it says It’s unclear if the amnesty between Bouveng and Wey includes any payment. On Wikipedia we should be adding just facts and avoid options per WP:FAPO. The fact is that on June 13, 2018 the case was closed by a federal judge. Since this information was not added by the reviewing editor, I assumed it was because the whole paragraph was a bit misleading and decided to rewrite it. I understand now that it was the wrong move that just created more confusion and apologize for it. I guess it makes more sense to rewrite editing suggestion 3. Please suggest what exactly needs to be done to add the information on how the case ended to the article. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

If the problem arises from the unclear citation in the phrase “The federal court order entered by federal judge Paul G. Gardephe stated that Bouveng “voluntarily withdraws and dismisses with prejudice (and without costs, fees or expenses to any party) all claims assert in this action” please note that I added the link to the statement itself with the page number (page 2) to the editing suggestion 4. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing request 3 (reworked)

Please add the following info to the “Career” section. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

LIST OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Current text	Replace with
In April 2016, the award was reduced to $5.6 million by a Federal District Court judge.	In April 2016, the award was reduced to $5.6 million by a Federal District Court judge. On June 13, 2018, Bouveng and Wey mutually dropped the case and it was closed.

References

Reply 25-APR-2019

• That the award was reduced in amount to 5.6 million ought to be the final mention-able point regarding this case. Further descriptions of this case as being "mutually dropped by both participants", while being technically accurate, may be done so in order to imbue the end of the case — in particular its participants actions in ending it together — with a sense of bonhomie not evident in a perusal of the court's documents. No other reading of this request offers an explanation as satisfactory as this one, for why such a redundant step in the legal process would wish to be added to the article. The language of "dropping the case" is merely the language used when a settlement has been achieved and the plaintiff wishes to end proceedings. I'm afraid that here, the hope may be that mentioning the case as "being dropped" might imply that the entire affair was misguided, owing to the natural misconception of what it means to "drop a case" in the public's sense of those words. Regards,  Spintendo  12:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

General note to Deb and Spintendo

Spintendo and Deb, I am currently travelling and unable to comment in detail here until next week. However, my impression is that there is a considerable amount of attempts at "massaging" in these edit requests, and I suggest proceeding with extreme caution in implementing them. Especially since Bbarmadillo is being paid by Wey's PR company [8] for this very purpose. Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not happy about the number of requests. Deb (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid edits

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: Boredathome101 (talk · contribs), Carlcarterx (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring notability, due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. There are 3 other recent sockpuppets who are stale and not blocked, as well as a long history of other UPE sockpuppets. MarioGom (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)