Talk:Steve Down

Recent Edit Revert
Regarding the recent edit revert (at 19:07, 5 October 2017‎), there was no censorship of information. No cited information was removed from the page, but rather some information was moved from the summary to the appropriate location on the page for clarity, and duplicated information was removed for conciseness. The entirety of the information was still there, along with all cited references, so I don't understand why the edits would be accused of censorship. The edit summaries were very precise and descriptive of the edits that were made. Having so much detail about the SEC events that occurred 20 years ago in the page's initial summary is giving undue weight to these events. This goes against Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View fundamental principle, which states "undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." No cited references were removed. Information was only moved to the appropriate sections of the page (the majority of which was already duplicated in the Investors Dynamics Corporation section), and a summary of this information was left in the initial page summary. Reverting these edits removed applicable information from reliable cited sources that are already cited elsewhere on the page.Anon89537 (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon89537! Thanks for reaching out on the talk page to discuss these edits and reversals. The reason those edits were removed was because this biography page has little actual substance and has been nominated for deletion in the past. The intro paragraph provides a brief overview of the subject and is often the only thing some readers see.  The information regarding IDC appears to be one of the few pieces of information about Steve Down that makes this Wikipedia page viable.  Removing it from the summary leaves very little substance or significance of the rest of the content.  News such as an SEC decision or news article about a topic are common in Wikipedia articles - take a look at the bad press mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
 * -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition, the page intro paragraph of the page contains all significant press, good and bad, without any undue weight either way. Anon1-3483579 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon1-3483579, Thanks for your reply. Moving a sentence or two of specific (and duplicated) details from the summary to the applicable section isn't reducing the viability of this page. I agree, the intro paragraph should provide a brief overview of the subject, and the recently reverted edits did leave a brief overview of these events in the intro paragraph. No coverage of the IDC SEC investigation was removed at all, just merely placed in the appropriate sections rather than having redundant and needlessly specific details in the summary, and a summary of these events was left in the intro paragraph. You are correct that the page was nominated for deletion, but the verdict was to keep it due to "sustained coverage on account of his sandwich shop and other activities 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8" (quoted from GretLomborg on this article's deletion page). I understand Wikipedia pages have good and bad news, and the "bad news" was not removed. The intro paragraph still summarized the IDC SEC investigation in the edits that were reverted.


 * Please refer to these pages regarding reverting edits on Wikipedia: WP:ROWN and WP:DONTREVERT
 * --Anon89537 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon89537, Thanks again for your reply. I understand your concern here, however, more details of the IDC litigation are contained in the lower section. What is contained in the information removed in your edits were primary source documents included in the summary, in favor of news articles that were already mentioned. These primary source documents bring legitimacy to the article.  The sentences on IDC in the summary contain a brief summary of the entire section.  It is larger, as the section is one of the most noteworthy items in the article.


 * Now, with regards to the comment on the deletion of the page, you are entirely correct! What saved the page was the news articles regarding the sandwhich shop, with reluctance of some admins still. Now, since then there have been many more significant national news articles which are included, and which pointed out the SEC-IDC litigation. Becuase of this relatively new light on the subject of IDC, it makes sense to have it described from reliable, federal primary source documents in the intro summary.


 * -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Continued Efforts to claim unsupported information about IDC
Hi Anon89537, Although I truly do appreciate your efforts to edit this page, it seems very clear, that, as an employee of Steve Down, it is increasingly clear that your goal must be to remove harsh information.

I'd like to address your continued efforts to claim that IDC was not proven to be a pyramid scheme, however you cite that no civil penalties in a monetary amount were issued. The SEC documents clearly state no civil penalties in monetary form because the defendant had no ability to pay. This was final judgement, and although defendant did not deny or confirm allegations, he accepted the penalties as if they were confirmed. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Civil penalties included: Permanent injunction and barring. The court waived disgorgement and determined not to impose civil penalties based on the demonstrated inability of the defendants to pay. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

IDC was told to cease operations and barred him from "association with any broker, dealer, investment company, investment adviser or municipal securities dealer" for two years.

-Anon1-3483579 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon1-3483579, I am not removing "harsh" information from the page. My most recent edit was clearly adding information from reliable sources already existing on the page, not removing information.


 * I do not "claim" IDC was not proven to be a pyramid scheme−−this information is from a source already existing on the page: "A judge later determined there was insufficient evidence to prove the company operated a pyramid scheme."[3 ] There is no evidence that IDC was proven to operate a pyramid scheme, only that allegations were made. If there is any verifiable verdict that states otherwise, please advise.


 * You are correct, the SEC documents clearly state no civil penalties were imposed (as well as the article I just cited: [3 ]). In the second source you site, it states "On July 21, [1998], the Commission accepted an offer of settlement submitted by Steven L. Down in connection with administrative proceedings which had previously been instituted against Down."[2 ] This is the most recent news direct from the SEC regarding these events. By no means does this confirm any allegations. If you do have verifiable evidence that confirms allegations, please advise.


 * Also, the second source you cite says nothing of IDC being told to cease operations. The only article that says anything on this matter is this article: [4 ], which was written in 1996 (at the very beginning of the investigation) and clearly states "A federal judge has ordered Midvale-based Investors Dynamics Corp. to cease operations temporarily following allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission." Thus, this was temporary, and is not a final judgement nor listed anywhere as such. Again, if you have verifiable evidence that confirms this as a final judgement, please advise.


 * You seem very intent on reverting any and all edits you do not agree with, even despite properly sourced references. This goes against Wikipedia's policies. As stated before, please refer to WP:ROWN. Anon89537 (talk) 18:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Anon89537, I think it's clear users not involved in the previous editing of the page ought to let others take a neutral fresh look at the page. I still maintain my positions on the subject, but let's let power~enwiki and other admins figure this out, as he seems to have taken it upon himself to do cleanup. Thanks for your help. I don't want to be a biased party here, but I saw some biased content that was here originally.-Anon1-3483579 (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Anon1-3483579, You're correct, the original page did have biased content and wasn't written in a neutral point of view, which I agree isn't content that should appear on Wikipedia. I appreciate your efforts in making the page more neutral than it was originally. Getting an opinion from a neutral third party is necessary at this point, since any edits I do are instantly reverted. I am not here to make the page non-neutral--I am in full support of Wikipedia's policies on this matter. However, reverting factual edits you personally disagree with is not a neutral or unbiased stance. (As stated before, please refer to WP:DONTREVERT before proceeding with reversions in the future.) Anon89537 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Anon89537, I do not have any personal involvement with the matter at hand. The reasoning for my reversal for many of your edits was explained before. It appears to be a whitewashing by an employee of the subject, which has been done repeatedly in the past (and by the past I'm referring to before your account was created). From my examination of the facts, the points that you removed and replaced clearly changed the meaning of the description in a way which doesn't appear to correlate to the SEC documents which, as I've stated, explain the final judgement of IDC and Steve Down's case in 1998. IDC was required to cease operations and the founder, Steve Down, was censored by the SEC for two years.  The SEC documents clearly provide that this was a result of violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities  Act  of  1933,  and  Section  10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated  thereunder. This has nothing to do with WP:DONTREVERT. My explanation was provided. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup
I came here after a post on WP:ANI.

The article needs more cleanup. I'm going to wait until AnomieBOT fixes the references before doing any more myself. If somebody else is interested, go ahead. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 - January 2018 repeated IP vandalism/censorship
I would just like to note that there continues to be repeated attempts by IP vandals, most of which appear to be from Salt Lake City, Utah - the same place of origin of Steve Down, to remove almost all content from this page. They repeatedly cite "Clark Gardner is no longer employed." However, 1) the information pertaining to Clark Gardner is not the only info removed, 2) the information about Clark Gardner pertains to Steve Down's company, Financially Fit, whether or not he is still employed, 3) all evidence suggests that Clark Gardner is still employed, 4) no evidence is being presented by said IP vandals to the contrary, and 5) at least one of the IP vandals even went to my talk page to sprinkle personal accusations across random threads. It's clearly some sort of attempt by someone who doesn't like the information. Wikipedia contains the good and the bad, whatever is well-documented - and this page contains what is well-documented. Please, if you are reading this, IP vandals. Please stop. Wikipedia is not a promotional piece, it is informational. - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What is your connection to the subject? 172.56.41.247 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As stated in my User page, I do not make edits to any subjects that I have any real life involvement. I have no involvement or connection to the subject. As of late I have not been editing new pages but rather keeping tabs on vandals and updates on the ones I have edited, which is why I continue to remove Vandal edits, such as the one which I recently undid. I believe you were the user that made the edit correct? Anyways, please do not use Wikipedia to advertise. Censorship with no explanation is also against Wikipedia guidelines. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to make a note to any aspiring vandals (sarcasm) that they should not make personal accusations in edit summaries, as some of them have have done recently, or any personal attacks at all. This violates Wikipedia guidelines. -Anon1-3483579 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewed
I went over this pretty carefully. The citation formatting could be improved and there are still reference piles but it is mostly OK now. Lots of excessive detail removed. Encyclopedia, not newspaper. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent SEC News & Related Coverage Reversal of Edits
Scope creep, I noticed your recent reversal of edits I've made related to the recent plethora of news coverage related to the conclusion of an SEC investigation, which resulted in a consent to the charges. This does represent a consensus? - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Consensus for SEC Charges May 2018
There's been recent coverage of the subject regarding an SEC lawsuit. This lawsuit was consented to by the subject without admitting to or denying anything. Is there a consensus here? The proposed edits can be seen in recent edits by me, user:Anon1-3483579, that were removed by user:Scope creep ( 15:34, 23 May 2018 ). Should this article mention the SEC lawsuit on May 10, 2018? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 00:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC). Anon1-3483579 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose The lawsuit is still in motion, and WP has a policy not to include such lawsuits in the article, until it is settled. scope_creep (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The SEC lawsuit has concluded, as a consent agreement was signed in December of last year. Steve Down, and other reps can make any comments about the matter, but the said lawsuit has been concluded. From the Salt Lake Tribune: "In a consent agreement dated Dec. 12 but filed Thursday, Down agreed to pay a $150,000 fine “without admitting or denying” the SEC’s allegations." - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the edit mentioned here is stating he is best known (violates WP:OR) as involved with criminal fraud (violates WP:BLPCRIME). The resolution was a settlement not a criminal conviction, so it is BLP inappropriate to mention for someone not a PUBLICFIGURE.  Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Of course we include it. The first link in the "sources" list above does not go to the SEC website but to an article.  Here is the link in question: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2018/lr24139.htm.  It says in pertinent part: Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, The Falls and Down have consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from future violations of Sections 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Down has also agreed to pay a civil penalty of $150,000. So this is concluded litigation resulting in what is known as  a "consent decree." It is not continuing litigation. It was settled with payment of a substantial civil penalty. It is relevant to the article, and omission would constitute a serious WP:NPOV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unlike Markbassett I believe this is less about WP:BLPCRIME than it is about WP:BLP. Like Markbassett, I believe we have all the more reason to make sure that we are not including original research. -- Marie Paradox (talk &#124; contribs) 05:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Most the references seem to indicate that the lawsuit is still in motion and WP has a policy, where no lawsuit is included in an article, if it is still in motion. scope_creep (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * scope_creep, It isn't in motion, as Steve Down consented to the charges without denying or admitting to any charges. Mr. Down and related organizations appear to make comments as if they didn't, but most of the news references do say he consented to the charges. Which is legally the conclusion of the suit. He signed a consent order, which cannot be revoked, no matter what he may say. The articles, such as the news videos, do feature the actual lawsuit. From the Salt Lake Tribune: "In a consent agreement dated Dec. 12 but filed Thursday, Down agreed to pay a $150,000 fine “without admitting or denying” the SEC’s allegations." - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * scope_creep, see the lawsuit at 1:37 of the CBS Sacramento video: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/15/elk-grove-wedding-venue-auction-has-couples-scrambling-for-new-locations/ - Anon1-3483579 (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Anon1-3483579 I cleaned up the citation mess just under the RfC question. The link in the first citation is not correct.  The link is the same as the 4th bullet (Oregon Live). Please fix it. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I've started an AfD discussion on this article as frankly it seems that the subject's notability is questionable at best. A previous AfD ended without a consensus, so perhaps we can do better this time. However, if this article survives I would caution those who wish to remove the recent SEC action. The fact is that if this subject is notable, it would largely be due to the sourcing and coverage related to his SEC troubles. Removal or underplaying of the latter creates a serious NPOV issue, in my opinion, if we are indeed going to have an article on this person. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Good writing & SEC
First update:

The intro should read: Steve Down is a Utah-based entrepreneur and author.[1][2] He is best known as the founder of The Falls Event Center and the Even Stevens chain of sandwich shops.[3]

with citations:

"How Unique Collaborations Propel Impossible Goals". Forbes. Retrieved 22 June 2018. "How this Entrepreneur is Winning the Hearts of Millennials". Huffington Post. Retrieved 22 June 2018. "This Entrepreneur Would Like to Make 'Cause Capitalism' the Theme of all Business, With 4 Steps". Forbes. Retrieved 22 June 2018.

Do we have agreement on this non-controversial edit? Scope creep 2601:86:200:3247:A9E2:4FB7:7327:84E0 (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Forbes references are /site which is Forbes subdomain for web hosting, which means it is non RS. scope_creep (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Huff post ref is also non RS, and is not suitable. It explicit states: This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work. It is not under editorial control. With stronger reference, possibly, but these are not suitable. scope_creep (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Huffpost isn't RS; Forbes is if there is editorial oversight. Either way, the page needs some work just from a perspective of English-language basics.Moresie (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Scope creep what do you want to add on the SEC? How about a section on SEC charges? Like I said no dog in this fight but a garbage page is a garbage page. Moresie (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Moresie, Your adding WP:PUFF back in to the article and that is expressly forbidden. In January 2018 the junk was explicitly removed as part of WP:COI operation. The consensus was that no more advertising was going to be added back in. Prior to that, the article would expand with junk then it would it was removed, every 3-4 months, and that went on for years until January, when it underwent copyedit and cleaned up. You seem to attempting to adding that stuff back in, plus softening the stance on the SEC filings.


 * chain of sandwich shops - non notable. Removed several times in previous versions.
 * Your shorting the SEC section, removing salient information, that is verified by the references.
 * You have changed the The Falls Event Center section and removed verified facts, about the centres being in financial straits.
 * You have added an Even Stevens section, which has been removed multiple times in the past, and most recently in Jan 2018 as being non notable and asserting WP:NOTADVERTISING.

scope_creep (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Moresie has a point about the line "about the centres being in financial straits." its actually in there twice, which just looks repetitive, not to mention a bit silly. I assume it was leftover from the last cleanup/edit session. I removed the second incident of it, as it looked easier. No refs were lost; (they used the same refs except for one extra; i saved it and tagged it onto he saved sentence).

Got it. Chain of sandwich shops: There's new coverage of this Even Stevens chain. There's more coverage on Even Stevens than on Falls Event Center. It should probably have its own section.

Even Stevens
Down opened the first Even Stevens restaurant, a chain that makes craft sandwiches under a "buy one give one" charity model, in downtown Salt Lake City, Utah in 2014.[17][18] Operating in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Idaho and Texas, the company donates roughly 120,000 sandwiches each month.[2][19]

Perhaps there's something negative on Even Stevens to add?

Google News results Moresie (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That has already been removed twice for being not notable. scope_creep (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean an Even Stevens restaurant Wikipedia page was removed twice for not being notable? I'm referring to a section, given the volume of media coverage on it that -- from the looks of it -- didn't exist a year ago. Moresie (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not notable, and asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING. It has been removed twice because it native advertising. scope_creep (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but that doesn't make any sense at all. Are you trying to say that Even Stevens shouldn't be discussed until it warrants its own page? Or are you saying that the sources to support its inclusion on this page are not reliable? Native advertising means the articles on the company/person are sponsored posts -- paid for. You're saying that media coverage was paid for?

This was paid for, for example? https://utahbusiness.com/even-stevens-shows-make-capitalism-cause-enterprises-work/

Let me know how you know such a thing. Moresie (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)