Talk:Reebok insider trading case

Delete 75% of article and start deletion?

That's a bogus method that has nothing to do with good faith editing. Start an afd if you want to get rid of the article, but leave it as it stands. The guy is notable by our rules. Repeated deletions like this will just get the article locked up until you stop it. Try to learn our rules or go to the help desk. Smallbones (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

Does Smallbones have a personal interest in the subject of this article? The information presented in this article does not pass the test for impartial objectivity and numerous details are not corroborated. In addition, it does not pass the test for notability and the test for criminal acts perpetrated by a living person. Therefore, deletion is the responsible action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackadvisor (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a personal interest in this subject. Smallbones most likely created this article so people could be informed, isn't that the point of Wikipedia. I don't believe your arguments for deletion are even compelling and the whole nomination is corrupted. JayJay^{Talk to me} 16:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing material again?!

There seems to be a fairly subtle campaign to remove material from the article a bit at a time, e.g. the middle initial, the external link to the NY Magazine article. I don't think this will fly any more than the last campaign to remove material and then delete the article, which was supported by a flock of socks. Ultimately this type of campaign will likely have the effect of getting the article locked up. I'll revert to the last Smallbones version and report this at WP:BLPN. Smallbones (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This applies to any article, but especially here, where's concerns about deleting material. Editors should always use a edit summary to explain their edits. If other users have to guess about the reason for an edit, they may guess wrong—and when there's been a prior campaign of deleting content, they may assume it's more of the same and disruption rather than improvement. Also, if the edit is controversial and gets deleted, then it's time to come to the talk page and discuss, not to keep making the same edit. —C.Fred (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That said, unsourced material—statements in the article with a {{cn}} template at the end of the sentence—is subject to removal per WP:BLP, especially if it's sat around for six months without getting sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who added that info. It seems tame enough, but you're right - if it's unsourced it should be deleted. I have deleted it. Smallbones (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed material again?

Lots of material was recently removed again, e.g. in

" He was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine and to forfeit up to $6.7 million, the amount of the scheme's illegal profits. Plotkin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and eight counts of insider trading. The efforts were described in 2008 as "one of the broadest insider-trading conspiracies in years".[3] "

The fine, and forfeiture are all described in the BBC source. There shouldn't be any question about this. Also there were several examples of "Hid did ...." changed to "Prosecutors claimed that he did ..." There's no legal question that he did what was claimed by the prosecutors, he pled guilty, was convicted and sentenced. We don't need to retry the case in Wikipedia. If there is somebody in a reliable source that says he didn't actually do this, then we can cite that but the guilty plea, conviction, and sentence in court (not to mention the apology to the court) have to have the greatest weight.

If anybody has specific questions about specific sentences in the text, please put them here and I'll be glad to spell them out for you, but the footnotes in the text do the same thing if you read them carefully! Smallbones (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I read everything carefully. When I removed the comment about the fine and the forfeiture, I had not yet read the BBC source. The source that was actually attached to the statement mentioned nothing of the sort, but if it's just a case of improper footnote placement, then I'm not going to argue that one. But with regard everything else, the important thing is that while he plead guilty, he did not plead guilty to what he was accused of. As a careful reading of the press release sent out after the guilty plea shows, Plotkin only admitted to contacting Shpigelman and making illegal trades. I have not yet read the actual text of his plea and the judge's decision, which I hope to have in my hands soon. But it appears that aside from making contact with Shpigelman, Plotkin made no other admissions of guilt with regard to conspiracy, such as buying and selling insider information, or trading under false names. Independent of what Plotkin admitted to, the "fact" that he and Shpigelman were "college buddies" (as worded in the source), or that Plotkin was the first to seek him out, remain accusations (Plotkin and Shpigelman didn't go to the same college). Someguy1221 (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very careful if you are getting information from an inside source here.

According to the press release you provided "At today’s proceeding before United States Magistrate

Judge DEBRA FREEMAN, PLOTKIN pleaded guilty to one count of

conspiring to commit insider trading and multiple counts of

insider trading. During the proceeding, PLOTKIN admitted his

culpability in three insider trading schemes."

I count that as a minimum of 4 counts pleaded guilty to. There's no maximum given in the press release, so I'd go with the other source if it's any good (will check). Note also that 26 stocks are mentioned (6+20) and it could be 26 counts legally, just for the insider trading.

Also

"Scheme To Trade on Inside Information Regarding

Merrill Lynch Merger and Acquisition Deals

PLOTKIN’s plea today related to, among other things,

his efforts to obtain inside information from co-conspirator

STANISLAV SHPIGELMAN. ... In exchange for cash payments and promises of

future payments based on a percentage of profits, SHPIGELMAN

provided PLOTKIN and PAJCIN with information concerning

approximately six different pending mergers."

This sure looks like pleading to buying inside info to me!

Also

"Scheme To Trade on Inside Information Obtained From

Pre-Publication Access to Business Week and

the “Inside Wall Street” Column

PLOTKIN also pleaded guilty to counts related to a

second scheme to gain insider trading information from the

“Inside Wall Street” column of Business Week Magazine. At the

same time that PLOTKIN was trading on the Merrill Lynch deal

information from SHPIGELMAN, PLOTKIN and PAJCIN bribed RENTERIA

AND SHUSTER, who worked at the printing plant where Business Week

was produced, to assist in obtaining inside information from the

unpublished magazines. "

Sure looks like pleading guilty to conspiracy and buying inside info to me.

Also

"Scheme To Trade on Inside Information From a Grand Juror Leaking

Details of Federal Grand Jury Investigation into Bristol-Meyers

PLOTKIN also pleaded guilty to an insider trading

charge relating to a third scheme to gain inside information from

SMITH, a grand juror in New Jersey who reported to PLOTKIN and

PAJCIN .... who traded and tipped others

to trade in Bristol-Meyers securities"

He pled guilty to all of this.

As far as the "college friend", it seems trivial, but if it's in the source I'd accept it. Note that Plotkin went to 2 colleges, one in California. Smallbones (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Old source now a dead link new source, might also check the American Greed episode.

Frankly, I think somebody is trying to use you. Smallbones (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make sure we don't state as a fact something that's just an accusation. I'll get back here when I have read the court documents, as I have a sneaking suspicion the journalists (yes, even the ones at NYT and BBC) are just paraphrasing press releases instead of doing actual, independent reporting. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd think the 8 counts can be roughly checked by the 165 year possible sentence reported in the official press release. If I remember correctly, 1 count of insider trading is 20 years, but that's just guesswork at this time. I wouldn't assume that 2 reporters at good sources are less accurate than an inside source. Smallbones (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything from any inside sources, actually. It has been credibly suggested to me that Plotkin never admitted to 90% of what the SEC accused him of. Basically, that he admitted to making illegal trades, but not the story behind it. My suspicion about the news sources relates to how tightly they match the initial SEC press release, with no mention of independently interviewing anyone or reviewing official documentation. Straight up regurgitating what officials have stated is unfortunately common practice, even amongst the best publishers. In any event, I will be acquiring the plea and the ruling myself from the court, not from an inside source. If I'm being lied to, I'll find out very soon, and then I'll forget this page even exists. Incidentally, I'm not allowed to discuss my source, lest I run afoul of the Foundation's privacy rules. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to article about scheme?

This article talks primarily about the insider trading scheme, with Plotkin simply one of several players. If others agree, it probably makes more sense to move the content to an article about the scheme (if it is notable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker25 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• "one of the broadest insider-trading conspiracies in years" receiving coverage from reliable sources around the world is certainly "notable". What would your suggestion for a different article name be? -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• absolutely notable - do please note that if the article gets moved to another title "Eugene Plotkin" will just become a redirect to that article. I have a couple of problems with using a broader title. 1st most of the solid information is about Ploktin, the other guys are mentioned and perhaps they did a lot, but the reliable sources (perhaps unfairly) focus on Plotkin. If there are other reliable source that focus on the other guys, we could work on it. 2nd the names of complex criminal incidents like this tend to get pretty strange. I wouldn't want to use a title like "Insider trading plot involving an underwear seamstress from Croatia." So it all depends on the title suggested - I can't think of anything offhand. Finally, I've noticed a series of attempts by new editors and SPEs to slyly discredit this article, remove information and delete the article. There have even been suggestions that I am somehow personally involved. Let's make it clear right now - I have no personal involvement in this case whatsoever. I do think it is a good example of how some folks can laugh at the law and then be hoist by their own petard. I also get somewhat defensive sometimes when people - SPEs especially - try to prevent me from editing Wikipedia. I don't like being censored. Smallbones (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• There is plenty of coverage focusing on David Pajcin, Stanislav Shpigelman, Jason Smith, Juan Renteria, and other participants in this scheme. A simple Google search of news archives shows this. Suggest this article be re-titled as "Reebok Insider Trading Conspiracy" or "Business Week Insider Trading Conspiracy". On a separate note - Smallbones, if you have no personal involvement with the subject of this article, why have you been by far the most vociferous critic of all edits made and so impassioned in fighting for its retention in current form? You created this entry and then you proceeded to roll back every change that did not make Plotkin look more unfavorable. I think your comment of "some folks can laugh at the law and then be hoisted by their own petard" is very telling. An objective editor would not be fighting so hard. It sounds like you have had people take issue with your edits before. Allow me to suggest that you show the same respect for the viewpoints of others that you accord to your own views. Factchecker25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: DISCUSS THE CONTENT NOT THE CONTRIBUTOR. People may wish to review and strike any of their comments that may not be appropriate.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Move

Based on prior talk posts, article has been renamed to reflect its subject matter. Eugene Plotkin is just one of six co-conspirators involved in the inside trading scheme and does not appear to be notable outside the scope of the scheme. Subsequent media coverage suggests other participants and David Pajcin in particular are notable within the scope of the inside trading scheme, but none are notable beyond the scope of the scheme. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the page back. There was no consensus for a move. There has been a history of rather crude games here, e.g. flocks of sockpuppets, deleting cited material, then filing for AfD. We can discuss introducing new information, but hiding old well-cited info is not needed. If I feel somebody is trying to censor me here, I will just inform the proper notice boards and administrators and there will be no censoring. Doing this every 6 months is getting tedious. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The recent name move was not an acceptable version. some options to discuss:

• Pajčin and Plotkin insider trading conspiracy (based on alpha order of the primary participants)
• Plotkin and Pajčin insider trading conspiracy (based on coverage each of the major participants has received)

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove 33% of new content, remove new references, and restore old references, many of which are not working properly? This is vandalism. Please do refer this to the proper notice boards and let us get a general discussion going, but this article is not "owned" by a particular editor. What is getting tedious is the clear campaign to keep the article limited in scope and lacking in NPOV. We can have a discussion on the talk page or on the notice boards, but that discussion needs to be completed with mutual respect before extensive edits and additions are simply removed. There has been a history of improper edits with this page, and the current attempt to keep new cited information out and challenge the expansion of scope is an extension of that impropriety. There have been particular individuals who have rolled back every edit as if this article is their own domain. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

it is ENTIRELY Appropriate to keep an article focused on the actual subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple question: what is the subject of this article? It is entitled 'Eugene Plotkin', but appears in fact to be almost entirely devoted to an insider trading scheme involving six different people. Why is the article about one of the individuals (who appears to be notable for nothing else), rather than the insider trading scheme? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. What is notable is the scheme, which is the reason for the move and the expansion of the NPOV. Article struck me as being biased to artificially focus on a particular individual even though the media coverage was clearly devoted to the scheme and the most recent coverage focused on other members of the group. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop undoing my revisions until a full discussion can take place on the BLP notice board.Factchecker25 (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) and do you have a suggested name for the article about the scheme? All of the coverage is about Plotkin's involvement (and not about others' involvement) and the media did not seem to give it a nifty name. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That is simply not true. All of the coverage is not about Plotkin's involvement. There is significant coverage regarding Pajcin, Shpigelman, and Smith. The most recent coverage is about Pajcin. There is less coverage about Renteria and Schuster, but they had an admittedly lesser role in the scheme. The coverage does focus repeatedly on Business Week and Reebok, which is why I moved the page to "Business Week and Reebok Inside Trading Ring". It is a title that best reflects the coverage. No story refers to this as the "Plotkin Ring" or the "Pajcin Ring", which is why I think those titles would be missing the mark. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Not having a 'nifty name' is no reason to skew an article, and the sources cited in the article clearly mention other people. I ask again, what is the topic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

we can decide what the subject is. it has been: "Eugene Plotkin, a man involved in one of the largest insider trading schemes that the media has focused much coverage on." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. If the insider dealing scheme is notable, we cover it. If it isn't, there is no justification for a biography of one of those involved. 'We' do not misrepresent articles about individuals involvement in crimes as biographies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGump. It is particularly egregious in this case, when so much of the conspiracy involves Pajcin, Pajcin's aunt, Pajcin's high school friend, and Pajcin's girlfriend. Plotkin is not notable outside of the scheme. The question is whether the scheme is notable. If the consensus is that it is, then the name and the content of the article should reflect the topic. Factchecker25 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

the fact that we are talking about people involved in "the largest insider trading scheme" means that we are obviously talking about something that is notable and that will at the minimum result in Eugene Plotkin being a redirect to whatever the final subject is determined to be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I take it from that reply that you agree the article should be about the insider trading scheme rather than Plotkin? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

i agree that the community might come to the consensus that it is the scheme and not the individual that is notable, but i dont think that consensus has been reached yet. Plotkin has had specific features written about him and sources specifically singly identify him and no other individual names when talking about the event. while i have only seen one [1] that talks about any of the others without Plotkin.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It simply makes no sense to suggest that a biography Plotkin can meet Wikipedia guidelines solely on the basis of being one of several participants in a non-notable insider trading scheme. If the scheme was notable, we must have an article on it before even contemplating having an article on Plotkin. If it wasn't, this article must be deleted per WP:BLP1E policy. There really aren't any other policy-complying options. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that "largest insider trading scheme" is not an accurate description of this scheme at all. The scheme netted less than $7 million, which means it pales in comparison to schemes such as Galleon, Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken, SAC Capital, and others which are 10 to 20 times the amount. The only notable things about this scheme, aside from the media coverage, seem to be the usage of multiple sources (Business Week, Merrill Lynch, Grand Jury) - although the Galleon case involved even more sources - and a collection of a fairly motley group of conspirators. Factchecker25 (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It is 'media coverage', or rather "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that determines notability, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The 26 refs look pretty solid, perhaps overwieghted to the New York Times, with a Washington Post, and Boston Globe, and several good international papers. Many of the rest are the usual sprinkling of AP, local sources for local details (Harvard Crimson). The 2 new ones can be linked to the source. I checked back to the first "finished version" Jan 15, 2008, which still stands up as a marvelously written article (if I do say so myself) which reflects the sources at the time, which was when Plotkin was being sentenced and Pajcin being release for cooperating. Back then I missed the NTY 2006 article which shows the story in a more rounded out way. There likely were tons more stories that are now behind archive paywalls, but a google search on "Eugene Plotkin" gives 186,000 results, "David Pajcin" gives less than half that at 69,000. "Stanislav Shpigelman" only 2,720. I conclude that the way the article is written now is consistent with the coverage in the media. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes - there are quite sufficient sources to justify an article on the insider trading scheme - can you explain why you are opposed to Wikipedia having one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out elsewhere, the number of Google hits on "Eugene Plotkin" only means that "Eugene Plotkin" is a far more common name than either "David Pajcin" or "Stanislav Shpigelman". A majority of those hits do not refer to THIS Eugene Plotkin, so they are irrelevant. All the trades were in Pajcin's account, Pajcin's aunt's account, Pajcin's girlfriend accounts, and various Croatians' accounts. The key trades came from Reebok, which was info provided by Shpigelman. Plotkin introduced Pajcin and Shpigelman, but then it was the Pajcin/Shpigelman nexus that drove this to the big payday. The coverage makes that clear. In any event, I think it has been well established here and I agree with AndyTheGrump that an article on the case should not masquerade as a BLP of Plotkin (or any of the other co-conspirators, for that matter). Factchecker25 (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You say "The coverage makes that clear." Actually, no. It appears that there is a lot of interpretation going on here, or stuff that I haven't seen in the sources. In any case, please provide refs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources could not be more clear. The New York Times reported [2] that Reebok represented $6 million of the case, of which $2.5 million was in Pajcin's aunt's account, and that Pajcin was the leader. The New York Times also reported [3] that the $6 million was primarily distributed among the accounts of Pajcin's aunt (Anticevic), Pajcin's girlfriend (Vujovic), and various Croatians (Sormaz, Lopandic, Borac) living in Croatia and Germany. No surprise, as Pajcin is Croatian. The Boston Globe confirmed [4] that Pajcin is an ex-broker who was trading through his own accounts and a network of personal connections in Croatia, Germany and Austria. The Age confirmed [5] that Pajcin is a former stockbroker and that the FBI stated that Pajcin bought and sold the stocks. USA Today reported [6] that it was the Reebok trades in Pajcin's aunt's account that tipped off the investigation and that Vujovic was an exotic dancer who was Pajcin's girlfriend. With regard to Shpigelman, the Boston Globe reported [7] that Shpigelman leaked information about Reebok (largest part of the case) and that the government said he did it "out of greed". The New York Post reported [8] that Shpigelman was introduced to Pajcin in late 2004 and elsewhere it was reported that Pajcin was the one who paid Shpigelman. A number of these sources refer to it as the Reebok Insider Trading Case or similar. Factchecker25 (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Read the sources you provided: the 2005 and 2006 sources (before Plotkin was arrested) don't mention Plotkin, but the others (2007 sources) say that Plotkin was trading on the info and spreading the information to others. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read the sources in depth. I suggest you finally do the same. Plotkin was involved in the case. He introduced Shpigelman to Pajcin and was involved in recruiting the Business Week plant workers. However, Pajcin was clearly the central figure as the majority of the tippees were his Croatian family members or friends and the key accounts were traded in and controlled by him. The investigation started with him and his aunt and he was the only one to violate his sentence and flee the country. Within the case, the most valuable information was provided by Shpigelman. Plotkin received a lot of media attention in 2006 because he was arrested at that time and Pajcin was already cooperating, so the government's press releases (and the media, by extension) focused on Plotkin. However, if you look at the media coverage as a whole, meaning from August 2005 until the present, the case and the underlying story line become far more clear. I realize that when you wrote the original Wikipedia article, you missed the 2005 coverage and did not go beyond the 2006 coverage. But that is certainly no reason to fight against the inclusion of that information and the revision of the article into one that deals with the topic in a more objective and even-handed manner. Factchecker25 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC page move: "Pajčin & Plotkin insider trading scheme"

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Reebok insider trading case There was clear consensus to move this article from its current name, and focus the scope of the article on the conspiracy. So the question is, what to call it? Arguments were made that the principle conspirators should be named; however, stronger arguments were made on the basis of WP:TITLE, demonstrating that several independent sources referred to this case using variations of "Reebok Insider Trading Case". I realize there are open sock puppet investigations, but this close is not dependent on vote counting, and was made solely on the basis of reading the arguments and judging their merit and applicability to policy. The long argument about whether Pajcin or Plotkin was the ring leader and who should be named in the title was discarded because government and other reliable sources have called this the Reebok insider case, even if it went beyond Reebok. (I note, for example, that Watergate was about much more than a hotel break-in) FWIW, I'm going to request page protection for this page to prevent future undiscussed moves. (Page protection has been granted for 3 months) Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Proposal: move page to Pajčin & Plotkin insider trading scheme, so that we do not have an article about a crime masquerading as a biography of Plotkin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move. Currently the article begins, preposterously, with the name of another person, not the named subject. Even if the order were reversed, we would still have another person's name in the opening sentence. This article is manifestly about the crime, not the person, and it should be named as such. These two are the leaders; they hired/directed others (so yes, there were six people involved), but we don't need to name all of them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move - though I'd suggest that we stay open to alternative suggestions regarding the name. The important point is to ensure that we end up with an article which is actually about the subject matter - the crimes - rather than this 'biography' charade which seems to serve no legitimate encyclopaedic purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move, although I would suggest a different name. There is at least one other Plotkin involved in an insider trading scheme: [9]. The common thread in the media coverage of this scheme had to do with the sources of the information, specifically Business Week and Reebook. There was also discussion regarding the key players coming from Goldman and Merrill. Consequently, I would suggest the following names as being appropriately descriptive: "Business Week and Reebok Insider Trading Scheme", "Goldman Analysts Insider Trading Scheme", and "Goldman and Merrill Analysts Insider Trading Scheme". One final element is that when coverage first began in 2005, it focused on the Croatian Seamstress whose trading gave rise to the investigation, so I would also add "Croatian Seamstress Insider Trading Scheme" as a viable candidate. Factchecker25 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• General support, but... we have to be very careful about which name we choose. I'll have to get back later to be really careful here, but general considerations are covered at WP:name. I'd make sure to put the leader's name first - which is likely Plotkin's. See, LA Times, Leader of insider trading ring sentenced to prison that names Plotkin as the leader, and calls Pajcin an "accomplice", but Plotkin's lawyer calls them "partners". We need to check however to see whether there are articles calling Pajcin the leader. The made-up names immediately above seem to be against WP:Name in that they are not natural or well-known. They also seem to confuse the issue - you'd have to have at least three elements in the title if you chose that path: 1) bribing the grand juror, 2) stealing the pre-publication Business Week info, and 3) stealing the Merrill Lynch merger info. Use of "&" may be problematic, a dash - is likely better. Also question of using first names, e.g. we have at least 8 articles on various Plotkins and one other on a BDP Pajčin. More later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's move the article to Eugene Plotkin - David Pajčin insider trading ring. I've now read all the "new sources" listed on this page and at ANI. They essentially tell the same story (and it's quite tedious going through them all) with different details thrown in. They also show how the story evolved over time. The first stories, before Plotkin was arrested, focus on Pajcin. The stories at the time of Plotkin's conviction (when I wrote the article) focus on Plotkin. The stories after Pajcin violated his probation focus of Pajcin. The overall coverage, as far as I can tell, focuses on Plotkin -since the coverage was heaviest at the time of Plotkin's conviction.

As far as who was the leader (and who's name should be listed first), both "Plotkin - Pajčin insider trading ring" and "Pajčin - Plotkin insider trading ring" are very occasionally used to name the ring. The LA Times gives the headline "leader" to Plotkin (at the time of Plotkin's sentencing), another source names Pajcin a "mastermind" (at the time of Pajcin's flight)

As far as logic and interpretation of the material, IMHO Plotkin was the leader since he helped get Shpigelman the job at Merrill Lynch and then brought him into the ring to provide the inside information. This was the only truly successful part of the ring, everything else netted less than $1 million. Plotkin also supplied the cash to start trading in at least one case (an insider trading ring should only need cash 1 time; there's no other info in the sources about anybody else supplying cash). Plotkin coached Pajcin on his testimony before Pajcin was arrested. The Business Week scheme continued after Pajcin's arrest.

The movie that those convicted made, which has a plot that parallels the story of the insider trading ring, has a character that parallels Plotkin's role (and is actually played by Plotkin) who is the main character and "hero" of the film.

Finally, I must say that there have been multitudes of SPAs and sockpuppets presenting views in this article (or just trying to get it deleted) in a way that supports Plotkin's likely interests. There don't seem to have been any Pajcin-favoring SPAs or socks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am very concerned about this post. There is a lot of information Smallbones provides that suggests more personal knowledge of this case that can be gleaned from an objective reading of the media coverage alone. SPAs and sockpuppets aside, there have been two editors who have taken a clear stance that they want to keep the article focused on Plotkin at all costs to the detriment of its objectivity. I have grown increasingly concerned at this activism. Factchecker25 (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. My reading of the coverage, in its totality, suggests Pajcin was the leader. The investigation started with Pajcin's aunt, who was living in Croatia, and then led to Pajcin. It was Pajcin's high school friend, Jason Smith, who was providing Grand Jury information, and Pajcin's girlfriend, Monica Vujovic was also involved. The majority of the individuals involved in the civil case that gave rise to the criminal prosecution were Croatian, like Pajcin. Pajcin is referred to as a "co-lead defendant" at the very least [10] and as the "mastermind" in the most recent coverage by the New York Times: [11]. But I question if all this is even relevant for the article name? The names "Business Week", "Reebok", and "Goldman" are not only natural and well-known, but they also preserve NPOV, per WP:Name, and describe the scheme rather than attempt to pull out one individual or another from a fairly labyrinthine case. I think it has been agreed by the community that it was the unusual nature of the conspiracy rather than the individuals involved that attracted the media attention. Factchecker25 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You must be looking at completely different sources than I am: multitudes of sources that mention only Plotkin by name [12] [13] [14] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Even greater multitudes of sources dealing with Pajcin well before Plotkin appeared in any coverage: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. And additional multitudes dealing with Pajcin well after Plotkin disappeared from the news: [20] [21] [22] [23]. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

the "ones after" that you have listed here are not about the trading scheme but about the fact that someone jumped bail and hence are focused on the one who jumped, but that is a minor aspect of the subject. the "ones before" are based on partial understanding of the case at the time they were written. those written with full understanding site Plotkin. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether Plotkin or Pajcin has been the focus of more attention. We must write an article about the roles they both played in the insider trading schemes. Sources should be chosen for relevance, not for which person they refer to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How exactly do you propose that we determine how the reliable sources have weighted their discussion about the topic if we dont discuss how the sources have covered the topic? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I am very curious how TRPoD determined that Pajcin jumping probation or the original investigation is not relevant to the article and at the same time decided that Plotkin's ballroom dancing or the two's supposed involvement in a film is relevant to the article. I would say that the original investigation and subsequent actions of each conspirator with regard to penalties imposed by the courts are far more relevant to the topic covered by the article than their part-time hobbies, especially when those supposed hobbies are rather poorly sourced. Definitely a discussion worth having after the renaming discussion is completed. Factchecker25 (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not say any such thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So are we all agreed tha Eugene Plotkin - David Pajčin insider trading ring is acceptable? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a RfC. "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days": Wikipedia:Requests for comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with name proposed by Smallbones. This is a conspiracy involving at least 6 people who were all convicted for their participation. As I stressed repeatedly, what made this conspiracy unusual is the multiple schemes involved. Not a single source refers to this as a Eugene Plotkin - David Pajcin conspiracy. It seems to me like what Smallbones is trying to do is keep the name as close to "Eugene Plotkin" as possible while sidestepping the issue of BLP1E. This is neither a BLP of Eugene Plotkin nor a BLP of David Pajcin, so using the full names of both is misleading. In addition, this title does not meet the criteria for naturalness, conciseness, recognizability, and consistency per article naming conventions. Factchecker25 (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rather than just disagreeing, wouldn't it be more constructive to offer an alternative name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Propose the article be moved to Reebok Insider Trading Case. This is how the U.S. government referenced this case: [24] and also how news outlets subsequently referred to it: [25] [26] [27]. In addition, we can avoid the discussion of which individual received more or less coverage and focus on the entirety of the scheme. There were no other notable Reebok insider trading cases, so it is accurate and concise. Finally, as noted by others, it was the Reebok component of the case that netted the vast majority of the profits and turned it into a media event. Factchecker25 (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reebok is only one of 26 separate stocks that were traded by the ring. The type of scheme - stealing merger info - was one of 3 schemes used, which also include bribing a grand juror, and stealing pre-publication info from Business Week. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reebok accounted for almost all of the profits in this case. The Reebok trades led to the investigation, the prosecution, and the extent of the sentences. The SEC called it the "Reebok Case". The newspapers called it the "Reebok Case". Nobody called it the "Pajcin and Plotkin case". So "Reebok Case" is the most common name used consistently in the media coverage and it is the one name from those suggested that best balances WP:POVNAME, WP:NDESC and WP:NATURAL. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move and add my vote to Reebok Insider Trading Case as article name. It derives directly from government and media sources, so preserves neutral point of view. Editors seem to have strong opinions about relative prominence of individuals involved in this case. This title avoids judgment per [WP:Article titles]. Editors should also consider the moral implications of placing the names of living persons in article names, especially in reference to one-off events. Negashek (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

there is no "judgement" issues in naming the insider trading scheme by Plotkin and Pajčin as Eugene Plotkin - David Pajčin insider trading ring - its a simple statement of fact. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but there are judgment issues. A statement of fact would be that this is a Pajcin, Plotkin, Shpigelman, Smith, Schuster, Renteria conspiracy. Without Shpigelman, there is no Reebok, and no news coverage. Without Schuster and Renteria, there is no Business Week angle, and so forth. According to U.S. law, each co-conspirator is equally culpable for the entire conspiracy. The getaway car driver is as responsible as the bank robber. Singling out individual co-conspirators is therefore a judgment call in a case like this where none of the co-conspirators were enhanced for a leadership role at sentencing. I would also like to point out a possible moral issue here. These are all living persons who by now have completed their sentences and paid their debts for their crimes. Putting their names front and center in the name of a Wikipedia article carries implications that should not be shrugged off so easily. Negashek (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but we are not operating in a US court under US law. We are following "Wikipedia law" in which we follow what the sources identify and how they identify it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll just note that this user has made a total of 7 edits now, including one which deleted material from this article. diff Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And I'll just note that it doesn't matter a damn how many edits a contributor has made. This is an article talk page, and anyone is entitled to contribute. Please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to recommend a wonderful book called Animal Farm to Smallbones. In it there is a quote that, if I may paraphrase, applies quite nicely. "All contributors are equal, but some contributors are more equal than others." Perhaps I was mistaken, but I had always believed that Wikipedia was one place where this quote did not apply. Negashek (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support move and I am also voting for Reebok Insider Trading Case as the article name. I've only made seven or eight edits myself, and I've just signed up for the Feedback Request Service, after I stumbled across it accidentally. It hasn't sent me any requests yet, so I thought I'd go looking at Requests for Comment. It's already being called the "Reebok insider trading case" by the prosecution and the news media, so we should follow their lead. I hope that I've coded this correctly. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Albeit possibly to Pajcin and Plotkin insider trading case as it is not really about a "Scheme" but the actual events. Collect (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Reebok Insider Trading Case. This is not a BLP and, if it was, would be deleted per WP:BLP1E. It is an insider trading case. Media sources that refer to it as Reebok Insider Trading Case (or permutations thereof) include the BBC [28], the Boston Globe [29], the New York Times [30], the New Zealand Herald [31], the Boston Business Journal [32], the Economist [33] (which, interestingly, fingers Shpigelman as the leader). Per WP:Title, the right title is the one "most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Here, it is Reebok Insider Trading Case. There is no reason to invent a title since reliable sources have already done that. Jaytwist (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. It appears there is broad consensus to move the page and a slight majority support for Reebok Insider Trading Case as the new title. Any strong objections to that? Factchecker25 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fine by me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic nonsense. If one of you wants to accuse the other of WP:COI, do it at the appropriate noticeboard. This thread is about the title, and only about the title. If you have nothing useful to add, add nothing.

Complete nonsense - Reebok Insider Trading Case is a misleading title since there were so many other companies traded by the ring. I'll ask Factchecker25, who has questioned whether I have a COI on this (I don't) to state whether he has a COI on this. I'll also note that this article has a history of being manipulated by sockpuppets, and that there are several new editors who have all supported the nonsense name Reebok Insider Trading Case. In particular User:Jaytwist is new, quoting policy and misquoting sources in a similar way to previous sockpuppets. It's time to stop this nonsense now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Smallbones, please review WP:PA. I am not a sockpuppet. I did not misquote sources and policy is there to be followed. That's why it's policy. If the consensus view differs from your view, attacking the other editors is not the way to go. Jaytwist (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) I think you should quit this nonsense now. The more you write the bigger the hole you dig for yourself. Take a fair warning at face value. So, for example you misquote the Economist article [34] stating that it "refer(s) to it as Reebok Insider Trading Case (or permutations thereof)" - it does not. You say that article "fingers Shpigelman as the leader" - it does not even mention Shpigelman. The Economist article says the case was "led by a Merrill Lynch analyst". That means Shpigelman. Read the source. Jaytwist (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Your first edit was less than a month ago and you've made almost 50 edits now, only 2 of those were on talk pages (both right here), and a couple were on noticeboards. So where do get your knowledge of Wikipedia policy from in a month's time (in a week's time for your first edit here)? If you really know how Wikipedia rules work, you'd know that this is one of the red-flags for sockpuppets - newbies who just out-of-the-blue start quoting fairly abstruse policy like WP:BLP1E. So, since factchecker25 won't answer, I'll ask you. Do you have a conflict of interest on this article? Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Smallbones, I suggest you drop this, before it rebounds on you. If you wish to propose an alternate title which will comply with the emerging consensus above, do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC) These accusations are getting tiring. I have no COI. I think the rationale for the proposed title is pretty well laid out by now. Do any other editors have an issue with the proposed title? Factchecker25 (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Just to be clear, how do you explain your first edit [35] which in effect says that Plotkin did not plead guilty to the crimes he was convicted of - only that he was accused? By all reliable reporting of the case he pled guilty to all charges and was convicted. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC) How do you explain your fanatical focus on Plotkin at the detriment of objectivity? How do you explain your ignoring all pre- and post-2006 coverage? All my edits retained the fact that Plotkin (and others) pleaded guilty, meaning convictions. I strenuously suggest you stop the personal attacks. This is an RfC for page move and new title. Stay on topic. Factchecker25 (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC) (EC)It's getting late, we can continue this tomorrow. But just to be clear you made this edit? Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Both of you stay on topic. If I see any more of this nonsense I am going to request that participants be topic-banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Andy, you are right. Just a final note regarding my edit: All my edits retained the fact that Plotkin (and others) pleaded guilty to criminal charges, meaning convictions. Plotkin pleaded to eight counts, meaning less than the 25 stocks accused by the SEC. So the accusations were greater than what was actually pleaded to. An SEC accusation is in civil court and is completely different from the criminal charges. I hope that clarifies it for Smallbones. Factchecker25 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) In addition, this document [36] shows that the SEC settled with Plotkin without requesting disgorgement because he (along with Smith) did not "receive any substantial ill-gotten gains from the charged conduct". It states that these were consent judgments and further characterizes the conduct in the SEC complaint as "alleged". This should fully address the reasons for my earlier edits. In general, I think the article is still some ways from NPOV, but I agree with Andy that we should table that discussion until this RfC is resolved. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Eugene Plotkin → Goldman Sachs 2005 insider trading case – Or alternative Reebok stock trading case in line with ImClone stock trading case. Or alternatively Pajčin & Plotkin insider trading scheme etc. No opinion from nominator, just bringing a stalled RfC [non-RM] page move discussion to RM for possible conclusion. Arguments presented above. (Be aware that arguments above include several new accounts SPI awaiting Clerk so perhaps not weigh previous arguments on numbers). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Might as well wait for the SPI. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article updates

Given there was clear consensus to move away from the biography title, I suggest editors start to work on reframing this article to be about the crimes - IMHO, biographical details of the two key protagonists should not be included unless they are germane to the case. I've updated the categories and project linkages, but haven't made any other major edits.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Since there has been a very grotesque set of sockpuppeting earlier, and a rather bizarre attempt to change the article by an unsuccessful OTRS request, I think we can wait for the outcome of the current Sockpuppet investigation. I'll change it back and the SPI will make everything clear whenever those folks get around to finishing it off. At that point there should be very little to discuss, same as with the last SPI. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The SPI has little or nothing to do with the RFC results. As I noted above, the call I made was based not on number of votes, including votes by potential socks, but what this was called by reliable sources. There was clear consensus to move this away from being a bio, so the categories you're trying to re-add don't make any sense anymore.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The SPI was closed with no connection alleged by Smallbones found by the CheckUser. Looks like just a misguided attempt to fight against consensus. The results may be seen here: [[37]]. Jaytwist (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be very careful about making conclusions here. To quote " but I am in the process of investigating another aspect of this. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Per Obi-Wan's suggestion, I have reframed the article to focus on the crime and removed irrelevant biographical details, particularly as most were based on a single non-mainstream source and, in any event, were not germane to the case. I believe the article now conforms to NPOV and accurately reflects coverage in primary sources. Factchecker25 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a major problem here - Factchecker25 has almost completely removed Plotkin from the scheme and the article. The "non-mainstream source" he removed appears to be the New York Times article [38] which puts Plotkin at the center of the scheme. Could Factchecker please outline what he thinks Plotkin did so that he pleaded guity? And what about his father? Why did he give back his trading profits to the SEC? The article as it now stands is simply a whitewash. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

False on both accusations. The "non-mainstream" source I specifically removed was a tabloid-y New York Observer article, which is a far different sort of publication than the New York Times. If a New York Times source was also removed in the course of my editing, I have no problem with it being put back. The only elements I removed regarding Plotkin had nothing to do with the crime described in the article, namely it was the references to ballroom dancing, film-making, college housing affiliations, and other quasi-biographical irrelevancies. Regarding the SEC components of the case, there were numerous defendants, most of them Croatian. They do not individually belong in this article because this is an article about a criminal case involving six people and none of the SEC defendants were criminally accused. I have asked several other editors to take a look at the article as I believe it now conforms to NPOV after a long time of singling out a specific person (even going so far as to masquerade as a BLP) at the expense of reality and actual coverage. Let's wait and see what they and others in the community think. As far as Smallbones' comments, it is difficult not to take them as anything other than pushing POV given that Smallbones has followed a very single-minded agenda with regard to this article, as his edits here and comments on various noticeboards show, fighting consensus, rolling back good-faith edits, leveling accusations at other editors, and even going so far as requesting an SPI which was completely spurious and closed as such by the CheckUser service. Then, even after the CheckUser closed the case, Smallbones still tried to insinuate in comments above that there was something editors need to be "careful" about. I have rarely seen a more blatant case of pushing POV, frankly. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the on-going attempts to push POV: This article is about an insider trading case involving six individuals. The article's job is to summarize what happened. Any attempts to push POV by demonizing any one individual or exaggerating events have no place in an encyclopedic article and will be rolled back. Factchecker25 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've notified the NPOV noticeboard to ask some other people to come take a look and weigh in.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as the new language introduced by Smallbones regarding "led by...", a number of editors including myself have read the coverage as indicating that the ringleader was Pajcin. The Croatian trader whose girlfriend, aunt, friends, and half dozen fellow Croatians were involved, who had the largest financial penalties levied, and who was the key to the investigation back to 2005 appears to have played a greater role than the Russian fixed income analyst who was not enhanced for leadership at sentencing. In any case, to avoid the argument, the article as written focuses on facts rather than labels. The names of all involved and their individual actions are clearly listed in the article. The article was thoroughly reviewed for NPOV at the time it was reframed and moved. With no additional news coverage or new information, the purpose of Smallbones' edit is not clear aside from more of the same pattern of anti-Plotkin POV shown throughout this article's history. Therefore, I am in agreement with Jaytwist that this unnecessary edit should be reverted. Factchecker25 (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Smallbones is continually returning to this page to re-inject the article with some of the things that made it problematic in the first place and led to the RfC and subsequent consensus move. The pattern needs to be watched and, if it continues, reported to the boards. Jaytwist (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible Sock Puppet Edits

The article's edit history reveals a pattern of POV-pushing edits from IP addresses beginning with 108... Although the IP addresses differ slightly, a simple IP search shows that all of these IP address accounts are originating from the same geographic location. The only edits made from these accounts are specifically to this article, showing classic sock puppet behavior. Each of these edits was reverted by different editors. The pattern seems to have started again and should be watched. Factchecker25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reebok insider trading case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140916055744/http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/505460/Forklift-operator-won-t-go-to-prison-for-insider-trading.html to http://www.observertoday.com/page/content.detail/id/505460/Forklift-operator-won-t-go-to-prison-for-insider-trading.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)