Talk:Marshall Strabala/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Late May 2012 update

Strabala during his employment was the sole "Director Of Design" (this not a regional title rather a company wide posistion) at Gensler.

MStrabala's had the first and sole title at Gensler, e.g. "Director of Design". This unique posistion held while employed at Gensler is not described correctly on the Marshall_Strabala page and is misleading implying his title/position was only "regional" not company wide.

Strabala was hired as Gensler's only "Director of Design" this is documented by his title in projects both in the US and also overseas as well as a declaration made by Strabala under penalty of perjury (oddly enough in the SOM case not the Gensler case). See: Docket 35 Paragraph 3 of "DECLARATION of Jay Marshall Strabala in Support re: 33 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint.". Document filed by Jay Marshall Strabala. (Chuang, Willliam) (Entered: 05/11/2012) which can be found at (a) http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/copyright-lawsuits/new-york-southern-district-court/76456/skidmore-owings-merrill-llp-v-jay-marshall-strabala/official-court-documents/ and specificall (b) https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/127110792489 which states I left SOM to work for M. Arthur Gensler, Jr& Associates ("Gensler"), where, as the only Director of Design, I was the Chief Architect on the design of the Shanghai Tower. In February 2010, I left Gensler. It should be noted that Gensler has dozens of "design directors" but during Strabala's employment he was the only "Director of Design". I have also added a refence showing Marshall Strabala's title while in China working on the Shanghai Tower. Refer to http://texas.construction.com/news/building/archive/2008/0812.asp#10 which states "Strabala is based in the Houston office of the Gensler architecture firm, but has resided in Shanghai for the past year overseeing the building as director of design".

In a regional context the cite http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1004303 which states "The architect for the project is Marshall Strabala, director of design for Gensler, who has designed three of the world's tallest buildings, including China's 632-meter-tall Shanghai Tower, which is under construction, and 420-meter Nanjing Greenland Financial Center, as well as the 160-plus story Burj Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Richard Maxwell is the project principal." Further more WRT the Hess Tower see http://www.facebook.com/pages/HESS-Tower-Houston/205578959456540?sk=info which states "Architect Marshall Strabala was the building's lead designer" 108.75.223.67 (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

Most of these sources are not appropriate (facebook and skyscrapercity, a discussion forum...) per WP:RS. And what Strabala claims to be in a lawsuit is not the sort of self-published material we can rely upon (WP:SPS). As for his position at Gensler, the Gensler press release announcing it (cited in the article) notes that Strabala "has joined the firm as Director of Design for Gensler's South Central Region, which includes offices in Houston and Dallas." That is what the article reflects. And as a COI editor, please discuss your proposed edits here and allow others to make them (WP:COI). Of course, if something is wrong, feel free to follow WP:AUTOPROB or have Strabala do so. Novaseminary (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In an effort to handle the issue raised by Jon Strabala (about text in the article that has been there well-sourced and unchallenged through other of his spurts of revision), I changed the paraphrase to a snippet directly quoted from the Gensler press release with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nova, thanks for your review and comments as always they are appreciated. Note, just because you say things have been unchallenged in the past doesn't make them true and "sticky forever", furthermore as to well sourced you are relying on a press release form a company, Gensler, that has a vested interest to IMHO downplay contributions of its star designer with said behaviour evidenced by its unsuccessful suit against Strabala. The citation you stress is a press release about Marshall Strabala's hire to Gensler and it is not from a neutral third party, it is from Gensler's PR department. So be it below I will introduce an actual cite for a publicly organization chart, also authored by Gensler, showing Strabala's position when he lived in China his two (top of the org chart) concurrent titles of "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead". Despite anything Gensler in an attempt to diminish Strabala's role now says after the fact these prominent titles held by Marshall when he lived in China and worked on the Shanghai Tower can not be questioned.

In my prior update and discussion - I also provided a very strong 'cite' e.g. a declaration signed under penalty of perjury (I believe there is jail time if proven false) filed with a federal district court which IMHO is a reliable source. The other cites were merely to support the court document showing indeed that the title "Director of Design" was used both domestically and internationally. You should qoute the title of the document not the first line of text e.g. "Marshall Strabala joined Gensler Houston As Director Of Design" rather the location of a physical office. However additional court documents - I refer you to "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS" docket #71 Case: 1:ll-cv-03945 Document #: 71 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 4 of 30 PagelD #:I186 - states that:

Gensler identified Strabala in its Complaint as its "Design Director" (in fact, the title was "Director of Design") and conceded that he "was one member of project-specific teams that worked on Gensler-designed projects." (Docket No. 1, 79). In fact, organizational charts created by Gensler showed Strabala as "Director of Design" for the projects. See, for example, the organizational chart for the Shanghai Tower dated "1.1.09," created and provided to Strabala well before the filing of Gensler's lawsuit, attached as Exhibit A

Where Exhibit A to said document (quoted above) "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS" docket #71 is a organizational chart of the Shanghai Tower this is page 31 of same document e.g. Case: 1:ll-cv-03945 Document #: 71 Filed: 05/04/12 Page 13 of 30 PagelD #:I195. It is obvious from Gensler's own documents that Marshall Strabala held the title Director of Design in China during his work on the Shanghai tower. The lawsuit by Gensler is all about "not giving credit to Strabala" so relying on a poorly written press release form 2006 does not trump his actual title on his most significant project while he worked there - while living in China (as per the references you deleted in your last update Nova). Okay so her I used Genser's own document rather than Marshall Strabala'a declaration to prove the same e.g. page 4 and specifically page 13 of https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067110906092. It is a bit funny that a) Jun Xia (the only other individual with his name at the very top of the organizational chart) is not a licensed architect anywhere in the world, thus he can never use the word architect next to his name b) Mashall Strabala's name is prominently at the top of the organizational chart top middle as "Director of Design" c) Marshall Strabala's name is prominently at the top of the organizational chart (left top) as "Design Team Lead" d) remarkable earlier in the law suit Gensler filed in open Court Gensler tried to "hide" such organizational charts from the Federal Court, I refer to Gensler's attorney Rompella's statement to Judge Guzman during a Motion by Strabala to compel the release of documents from Gensler that were not forthcoming "No such documents exist, your Honor." concerning Request for Documents #8, "All documents relating to organizational charts" specifically see docket ##, Exhibit A Case: 1:11-cv-03945 Document #: 26-1 Filed: 01/03/12 Page 6 of 26 PageID #:193 https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067110342067 originally served on Gensler on Oct. 11, 2011.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:

All documents relating to organizational charts while Strabala was in the employ of plaintiff, including those that include Strabala.

below is a portion of the transcript before Judge Guzman from January 10, 2012 9:30 a.m. (part of Gensler's filing of Docket 76, Exhibit A, for Case: 1:11-cv-03945 Document #: 76-1 Filed: 05/10/12 Pages 13-14 from the full transcript see https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067110934999

MR. ROSENWEIN: Okay. No. 8 is organizational charts showing where Strabala fit in the organization.

THE COURT: Do you have a problem with that if you have it?

MS. ROMPALA: If they exist and for a time period, yeah. The problem would be, your Honor, how is it relevant?

THE COURT: Well, suppose the organizational chart has a little box that says, "Mr. Strabala, chief designer of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 projects." Would that not be an admission by your client that he was a chief designer of the projects you're claiming he's falsely saying he designed?

MS. ROMPALA: No such documents exist, your Honor.(emphasis added)

THE COURT: That's not the point though, is it? You asked me how it would be relevant. It's very clear how it would be relevant. Put yourself in his shoes and you'll see clearly this could be relevant information if it tells what he is within the organization.

As an attorney making a statement as above pages 13-14 of https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067110934999 when docket #71 page 30 of https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067110906092 exists (along with other organizational charts) is not a very smart thing to do as it could and probably will lead to direct sanctions if not a bar complaint (but I am not involved in the case other thanlooking at public documents, so that's just an opinion of mine). Okay yes what does a lying attorney have to do with anything - not much - but it does show a pattern of behavior that Gensler takes to hide Marshall's true position and title in a fairly grandiose way. Gensler commits a bald faced lie to supress material evidence of Marshall Strabala's stature and importance and the lie shown by supplying one of their own organization charts (which they claimed did not exist).

My key point is Gensler and its attorneys are both not in the frame of mind to tell the truth, IMHO suppressing and hiding evidence, yet there own documents that prove that Marshall Strabala was the "Director of Design" while in China and a very important part of the project e.g. "Design Team Lead". What Gensler does it try's to constantly recast Strabala's posistion (unsuccessfully) as a "design director" a dime a dozen position at Gensler where there are several dozen such titles instead of his unique sole position across the company Strabala had of "Director of Design" during his employment with Gensler.

Nova, the bottom line documents like https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067110906092 (a Gensler document) actually shows that Strabala's title/position was not limited to the Southwest Region of the United States but was international in scope. Further more if you search on the your phrase in google as follows you will get a mere 195 hits

+"Director of Design" +"South Central Region" +"Strabala"

yet if you remove the "South Central Region" we now get 6,530 hits.

+"Director of Design" -"South Central Region" +"Strabala"

Or even removing Houston and Texas we get 3,050 hits (which is not entirely fair to Marshall Strabala as he was 'based' in Houston Texas, but it proves my point shows a 15x yield in cites)

+"Director of Design" -"South Central Region" +"Strabala" -"Houston" -"Texas"

Hey I seem to recall you said to me a long long time ago Wikipedia is not necessarily about the truth but about citabel sources - I find it nice when you can have both. I submit to you that the predominate 'citing' of Strabala as the overall "Director of Design" is not a title limited in scope to a region nor to you need to add that it includes two (2) cities.

However (Nova) I will shorten your last update "as Director of Design for Gensler's South Central Region, which includes offices in Houston and Dallas." to just "as Director of Design for Gensler's South Central Region." - why because it is shorter, more concise, doesn't lose any meaning, and is closer to the original. FYI this is more of a revert than anything else (I guess I can use the same logic - (about text in the article that has been there well-sourced and unchallenged through other of his spurts of revision) - and revert it a bit).

As an aside - I am curious if the Gensler press release - concerning Marhsll Strabala's 2006 hire, is so reliable and definitive, should I or others cite the following:

"With an impressive record of design performance, Marshall brings both talent and leadership to our firm," said James E. Furr, FAIA, Gensler's South Central Regional Managing Principal. "Marshall's collaborative approach to project delivery also makes him an excellent fit for Gensler."

and also

"He was the SOM Associate Partner in Charge of Design for several "supertall" mixed-use projects, including the 5-million-square-foot "The Burj Dubai" in the United Arab Emirates"

Back to my overall analysis above via publicly available citations, declaration, hit counts, and the existance of a publically viewable organizational chart - all available on the web I plan to making another edit next week on Marshall Strabala's title/position, as such I will give you or other members of the community a few days to make any needed corrections or adjustments, put down thought on this talk page to direct me and/or redirect my efforts me - before I modify things on the artical again. One might claim his position was regional from the Gensler press hiring release, but either it was a) his title was international in scope from the beginning or b) he was promoted to have the exact same title in China for the Shanghai Tower project.

In all seriousness the above is what makes the xisting article text "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services ..." and "Gensler has claimed that "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services ..." seem so superficial and silly. Gensler's own org chart (below) shows that everyone else involved in desgn essentially worked under him. The cite https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/06711090609 proves this for the Shanghai Tower, I hold that these assertions need to be eventually removed from the "Career/Gensler" section or be moved part of Gensler's claim in the "Litigation concerning design credit" section - but that is for another day, as today I am focused on his "global" title of the sole "Director of Design" at gensler when he was employed there.

What make more logical sense regardless of the truth being a) being the truth?

FYI this is a non-citable public copy of docket #71 (for talk discussion only) of what's on pacer e.g. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4KiE8753BbaeER3Z25vNFRLbFk see page 13 for the org chart see https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067110906092 for the proper pacer document 108.75.223.67 (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

• This is an encyclopedia article, not a resume, and we certainly don't take sides in a lawsuit. We can use self-published sources for things like job tites (especially releases sent before the relationship went south). I am ok with your edit here, though. We could also delete his title entirely, but not change it based on your personal knowledge or OR. Novaseminary (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nova a) as to the edit it was a simple revert b) I am glad you agree "self reported job titles are fine", note I will still hold off until next week to address the "job titles" issue, I am thinking of asking Marshall to "quote" his actual employment contract and post it here to this talk page (after all he has as much right to "self report" as Gensler). Furthermore I hold that the organizational chart for the Shanghai Tower which was published by Gensler is much much more reputable than a self published "job title" by Marshall (which is both true and also consistent with Gensler's org charts) and more importantly the org chart even takes precedence over a Gensler "hiring" press release - all cites dated prior to litigation (as you say 'before the relationship went south'). Obviously I am trying to cover all basis here. Finally c) I never asked wikipedia to takes sides in a ligation - I just showed (only on this talk page) the extreme lengths Gensler went to in an attempt to hide there own highly material documents (org charts) which turn out to show facts, e.g. Strabala's "job title(s)" that Gensler didn't want the court to know about or the world to know about.

Thinking a bit more, next week at a bare minimum I will change the second sentence from (regardless of the "job titles" issue):

"Strabala has been reported to have led the design of the 128-story Shanghai Tower while at Gensler and to have completed the "bulk of the design work"."

to:

"Strabala led the design of the 128-story Shanghai Tower while at Gensler and reported to have completed the "bulk of the design work"."

citing Gensler's own organizational chart about the Shanghai Tower e.g. https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067110906092 in the pacer U.S. court record, after all it says both "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" (in the most prominent of positions) - it couldn't be more clear facts are facts. The cited org chart is from Jan 1, 2009, if needed I can cite another org chart in the public record also from Gensler from 2006 showing Marshall Strabala as "Director of Design" in the proposal documents to China prior to the Shanghai Tower award to Gensler as the architectural firm 108.75.223.67 (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

It is not worth delving into primary sources to establish what his title was (and it could have changed over time for all we know). If he had been made a partner or something it might be different. With this edit, I took it out. As for his role designing, that is obviously disputed. We don't resolve it here. Novaseminary (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nova, completely disagree with your last edit, I reverted it back to the original that was written by you back in May of 2011 last year, what is important was he was hired with the specific title (the first and only time to up to the end of his employment with Gensler that a Gensler employee held the title "Director of Design"). This fact both an important milestone in Marshall's career and an evoloution in the way Gensler does business. I also feel it is critical to provide "balance" to the negativity in this section.

Let's talk about the negativity, things get even more important when you read the second half of the existing paragraph e.g. "Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design ...." without his title, "Director of Design" as cited in the original Gensler press release - Strabala's stature is demoted to a mere employee perhaps is he a dime a dozen architect or even a mail clerk. With this in mind it is critical to use citable sources to counter an imbalanced negative set of statements, e.g. ".... not Strabala's design ....". I have added two citations in particular Page 13 of 30 of Docket #71 (which I discussed last week) e.g. Shanghai Tower Gensler Team Organization, Appendix A of MOTION by Defendant Jay Marshall Strabala for sanctions (docket #71, Appendix A, Page 13) (easy click to 30 page document here, https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4KiE8753BbaeER3Z25vNFRLbFk or the 1-page Appendix A e.g. the actual org chart here, https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4KiE8753Bbab1lQN0dyVGhnYTQ, these are non-citable in my google docs for the purposes of talk only)

After reviewing the policies of Wikipedia again, I feel strongly that this org chart needs to be added to counter the second half of the paragraph. If it is important to leave "Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design ...." then it is important to use Gensler's own organizational chart to show that Gensler's statement is patently false. FYI I think no one would care about the organizational chart if Gensler wasn't making the claim that Marshall Strabala didn't design the Shanghai Tower, however since that text remains in Wikipedia, that a org chart made by Gensler itself dated Jan 1, 2009 (prior to any "bad blood") is well warranted. Bottom line that Shanghai Tower is a major project and who designed and in what capacity it very noteworthy.

Nova your comment It is not worth delving into primary sources to establish what his title was (and it could have changed over time for all we know) is incorrect primary sources are important, as I point out because of the lawsuit (filed by Gensler) and IMHO the resulting slander it is critical to provide a fair balanced portrayal of the situation. Next my revision does not change or even impact your concern 'could have changed over time for all we know', we start with how he was hired and we also show a Gensler org chart to show his posistion on that major work, the Shanghai Tower. Yes your comment is correct "and it could have changed over time for all we know" it did it became both both "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" during his employment iwth Gensler when he lived in China and worked on the Shanghai Tower project. This document by Gensler itself makes the existing Wikipedia text (I have no idea who put it in) "Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower." look pretty silly. In the spirit of [Verifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability] the org chart inclusion is required by Wikipedia policies, since Gensler issued the org chart (before any falling out) it meets the Burden of evidence (as everyone well knows documents that exist before a falling out are more reliable that press releases after bad blood exists) and since the org chart is part of discovery and in the pacer system (court documents) filed as a "true and accurate" document it meets the reliable standard. And finally you say "If he had been made a partner or something it might be different", thank you Nova, you actually make my point Gensler has one to two dozen partner's but Marshall Strabala (refer to last week talk e.g. his declaration in the SOM case) was the sole Director of Design while he was employed at Gensler. Yes it is a big deal if you want to cite is declaration go ahead and add it to the Article.

So in closing Nova, feel free to discuss here on talk with me about removing the "negative" section in the Career/Gensler area (as I reference in full above) as it appears to be patently false as shown via Gensler's own org chart from jan 1, 2009. I personally am not touching that text even though I feel it has no place in the Career/Gensler section and might be better placed down in litigation. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

True or not, the fact that Gensler said it is all the article claims (and noted in RSs). This is not Strabala's resume or a marketing piece, and certainly not the forum for discussing the bonefides of a lawsuit. And no source supports your assertion about the importance of the title. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that the coverage (as opposed to OR) is silent on that. And you are not claiming he was more senior than a partner, are you? And yes, primary sources are important, but WP is a tertiary source that needs to rely on reliable secondary sources with few exceptions. Novaseminary (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nova, I never said it was "Strabala's resume or a marketing piece", you are the one I believe who has turned the article itself (I am not saying the Talk page) into a "discussing the bonefides of a lawsuit". As to claiming he was "more senior than a partner" I didn't put that in the Article you drew your own conclusion form the Talk page (you indeed are correct - but it isn't relevant I didn't put it in the page). I provided two cites that collaborate each other and updated soem text accordingly and then you saw fit to completely remove them creating a non-neutral article - I am left wondering why?

And then it seems you accuse me of original research, e.g. OR, why I added two cites and I quoted them - please explain what I did wrong - I certainly did not "publish" my results on the Main Page, I utilized public documents to clarify Marshall Strabala's title and position when he was at gensler?

As I said I merely put in two citations 1) http://texas.construction.com/news/building/archive/2008/0812.asp#10 and also 2) Page 13 of 30 of Docket #71 (which I discussed last week) e.g. Shanghai Tower Gensler Team Organization, Appendix A of MOTION by Defendant Jay Marshall Strabala for sanctions (docket #71, Appendix A, Page 13) The two items speak for themselves short simple and also show his job title and position when he designed the Shanghai Tower. Seriously you leave in a cite that says

"Gensler, however, claims that the tower is not Strabala's design. According to Gensler in an unsuccesful lawsuit, "Gensler, not (Strabala), is the source of the architectural and design services rendered in designing the Shanghai Tower."

Yet you refuse cites that say

Construction began recently on what will be China’s tallest building — a structure designed by Houston-based architect Marshall Strabala. The 120-story Shanghai Tower will be one of the 10 tallest buildings in the world when it is completed. The 2,070-ft building in Shanghai, China, will be more than twice the size of the 1,002-ft JP Morgan Chase Tower, the tallest building in Houston. Shanghai Tower will take the form of a soft triangle, with a skin of two walls of glass and steel. It will generate some of its energy from wind turbines. The building will have office space, residences, a hotel, retail space and restaurants. Strabala is based in the Houston office of the Gensler architecture firm, but has resided in Shanghai for the past year overseeing the building as director of design.

The I collaborate it via Gensler's own org chart from Jan 1, 2009 showing his titles (according to Gensler itself) of both "Director of Design" and "Design Team Lead" while constructing the building e.g. the Shanghai Tower. I am almost at a loss for words here on why you immediately reverted this update 108.75.223.67 (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

• One thing you don't seem to be is ”at a loss for words”! By OR I mean you are using primary sources to prove a point. Except for truly non-controversial stuff, we generally just summarize existing secondary sources. I see you have submitted this to the DR board (perhaps not the most appropriate WP:DR option) and already received some feedback that his title probably doesn't belong. I think you may be a little too close to this to see why. It is obviously very important to you (and Strabala's lawyer, it would seem), but that doesn't mean it should be included on the basis of documents Strabala sent to court. Novaseminary (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Litigation update 2

SOM itself (via SOM's own attorney Leah Rachel Bruno) proposed an Order Case: 1:12-cv-05252 Document #: 67 Filed: 12/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:869 "Upon motion of Plaintiff Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, it is hereby ordered, that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Jay Marshall Strabala are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, and with the parties to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs." this order was granted by Judge Geraldine Soat Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and SOM's complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The litigation by SOM is now terminated with no possibility of appeal. The order was signed by Judge Geraldine Soat Brown in Case: 1:12-cv-05252 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:873. So here we have both cases Gensler (Gensler still may continue an appeal) and SOM have been dismissed with prejudice (SOM can make no future claim) - this phrase "with prejudice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_prejudice has a lot of meaning in both cases.

Note the docket on http://www.rfcexpress.com for the public is not yet updated, however the direct court records are on PACER e.g. https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067111940056 Anyone can go to https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/WrtOpRpt.pl and enter the case number 1:12-cv-5252 and see that the case was closed or terminated on Dec. 12, 2012.

As such I will be updating the primary wiki page WRT the SOM litigation. I will then annotate or cite with RFC express (rather than PACER) when it RFC express shows the update. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

No reason to post this twice. Let's keep any additional discussion of this below at Talk:Marshall_Strabala#SOM_action_terminated. Novaseminary (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

SOM action terminated

SOM itself (via SOM's own attorney Leah Rachel Bruno) proposed an Order Case: 1:12-cv-05252 Document #: 67 Filed: 12/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:869 "Upon motion of Plaintiff Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, it is hereby ordered, that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Jay Marshall Strabala are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, and with the parties to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs." this order was granted by Judge Geraldine Soat Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and SOM's complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The litigation by SOM is now terminated with no possibility of appeal. The order was signed by Judge Geraldine Soat Brown in Case: 1:12-cv-05252 Document #: 69 Filed: 12/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:873. So here we have both cases Gensler (Gensler still may continue an appeal) and SOM have been dismissed with prejudice (SOM can make no future claim) - this phrase "with prejudice" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_prejudice has a lot of meaning in both cases.

Note the docket on http://www.rfcexpress.com for the public is not yet updated, however the direct court records are on PACER e.g. https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/doc1/067111940056 Anyone can go to https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/WrtOpRpt.pl and enter the case number 1:12-cv-5252 and see that the case was closed or terminated on Dec. 12, 2012.

As such I will be updating the primary wiki page WRT the SOM litigation. I will then annotate or cite with RFC express (rather than PACER) when it RFC express shows the update. Until then the cites from PACER for case 1:12-cv-05252 docket #67 and #69 will suffice.

108.75.223.67 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

These appear to be good references but one thing seems clear now. It's clear that there was a settlement reached between the plaintiff and defendant. The article should reflect this and that the allegations were neither proven to be true or untrue. OlYeller21^Talktome 02:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. So one lawsuit was dismissed and has been appealed while the other was settled? Do the court papers show what the settlement was? Novaseminary (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like OldYeller21 was right. According to this court paper, "A binding settlement agreement has been reached." I will update the article with this, but it would still be helpful to know what the settlement was. Novaseminary (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you forgot to mention that SOM case was dismissed in Lawsuit section. That is key missing fact. For lead graph, is a dismissed case (SOM) relevant for second sentence of article? To me, appears to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight, after disproven charges from nearly 2 years ago, dismissed with prejudice .24.148.81.208 (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Chances are the terms of the settlement are private and those in the know are bound by a confidentiality agreement and/or attorney/client privileged. It's doubtful that we'll ever know what the settlement was but when a plaintiff proposes dismissal with prejudice, 99 times out of 100, a settlement has been reached. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Second try. You still forgot to mention that SOM case was "dismissed" in lead graph and later in article. Do you just tell the facts you like, and leave out the rest? Appears that way. Next stop: DR.24.148.81.208 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the documents the case was dismissed because it was settled. Settlement seems to be a type of dismissal. The charges were not disproven in court (of course, they were also not proven in court, either). In the other case, dismissed by a judge's ruling, for example, the judge said "the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factua allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor" (page 2) for the sake of deciding whether the allegations are enough under the law (they were not, according to the judge). As things stand, we don't know whether any of the charges are true. It doesn't look like Strabala ever actually denied anything formally (he didn't need to in the judge dismissed case and settled the other case, so who knows). Novaseminary (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

With this edit I tried it make abundantly clear. I think it was fine before, but maybe this would satisfy even Strabala's publicist, if he has one. Novaseminary (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The most accurate solution would be to say the case was "dismissed and settled." That is what the two documents communicate - correct. Why mention the results of one documetn and not the other. Are you a lawyer or are you just pretending to know that "settlement seems to be a type of dismissal." Give ma a break. Please do not jump to legal conclusions if you are not an attorney practicing law in Illinois. How do you know if the charges were not disproven in court. That's your opinion; you weren't there. Tell the whole truth, not just what you what to convey, please. 24.148.81.208 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the text there now is most consistent with the referenced documents (the docket page and the notice). I do know there is nothing presented so far that shows the allegations were disproven (or that they were proven, either, I hasten to note). One case was dismissed even though the judge took all the facts to be true for the sake of argument and the other case was settled before any judge made any dismissal rulings other than the ruling to transfer the case to Illinois (which I also noted). Novaseminary (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you arrive at your above personal conclusions, as a layman, not an attorney. My questions remain unanswered: The SOM suit was brought nearly 2 years ago, and has now been dismissed and settled. Of course, the allegations as stated by that firm were never proven in the court of law, otherwise, the architect would have been found guilty as charged. No, that didn’t happen! Charges were brought, and not proven; end of story. 1) Why is this case relevant in the lead graph? After all, this has been in the lead paragraph for more than one year and now is still there, and it now appears to be totally biased and have undue weight. 2) In addition, why is this quote presented by Jon above, not reflected in the story?: "Upon motion of Plaintiff SOM--------, it is hereby ordered, that Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant ------- are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, and with the parties to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs." I would welcome opinions from Novaseminary and other editors.24.148.81.208 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's clear the there was a case to be had. It's also clear the the plaintiff requested and was granted a dismissal with prejudice due to a settlement being reached. I don't get what's so difficult about this. The charges were neither proven nor disproven - that's what a settlement can do. It doesn't mean the plaintiff is compensated until the defendant is proven innocent.

Whoever you are (24.148.81.208), you opinion regarding the placement of this information is rather unimportant to me at this point. Totally bias? Really? It's totally bias? There's no reason what-so-ever for it to be mentioned in the lead? Who are you kidding? I found that comment rather telling. I don't know if or what connection you have to the subject of this article but given your interest in this subject and almost no others, along with your use of absolutes, I don't particularly value your opinion. Perhaps you were being hyperbolic but using the word "totally" to represent an extreme but using that word is very drastic, in my opinion. Citing no policies or guidelines in your opinion also shows a lack of value in your opinion.

Personally, I believe that we should, like with many other articles, create a section for this subject (see WP:CRIT) that mentions the controversy. Mentioning the lawsuit and subsequent settlement is all that's needed. No quotes from the judges, attorneys, or family members. No mention in the lead. Just the section with the vague outcome that inherently comes with a settlement (with the plethora of references that we have). OlYeller21^Talktome 03:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

First I am very suprised at the amount of "TALK" being generated - this is a low level interest of mine and I rarely check ion things - WRT OIYeller21's comment "It's clear the there was a case to be had", Courts move slowly the original venue was NY it was fought over for month on just the nature of Venue, SOM was told to put up or shut up (my reading) and there whole case hinged on tying Marshall to NY by a trade show in which he talked to a international reporter (my reading and opinion again) on the flip side there can often be be vexatious litigation perhaps this was what SOM (and Gensler were up too) as always two sides to a coin and yes they are only opinion's. When I made my recent update I did not make any opinion, I only noted what the court said "dismissed with prejudice" any para legal or businessman that does contracts know the importance of "with prejudice" there can be no further litigation over any of the original charges. OIYeller also points out "the allegations were neither proven to be true or untrue" yes BUT the party who lodged them did indeed withdraw them. Nova - I will see if the settlement is a "public" document I am not sure as I only looked at the docket. 67.120.51.46 (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

If the cases are to remain in the lead the line "though one of the lawsuits was dismissed before trial and is on appeal and the other was settled" should at a minimum read "both lawsuits and all allegations were dismissed with prejudice before trial, it should be noted one was settled and the other is pending an appeal". Seriously at this point keeping this stuff in the lead might be a violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCRIME#BLPCRIM this is even more apparent due to the "dismissed with prejudice" aspects of both cases - I don't think that anyone can hold the opinion that the lawsuits were successful at this point as Strabala successfully got them both dismissed BUT I do see OIYeller21's point if the settlement agreement is confidential did Strabala pay SOM $21,000,000 millon dollars or did SOM pay Strabala $21,000,000 or was SOM word about being sued due to vexatious litigation - all we know is there is no case and no further claims against Strabala 67.120.51.46 (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER consider me a potential WP:COI

Like OlYeller21, my patience is being tried here. With this edit, I removed all mention of these disputed items from the lead. I think the lead, while short, is a decent summary of the rest of the article. I think the lawsuit section neutrally covers that subject (without the indepth personal knowledge Jon Strabala brings here). And Strabala was never accused of a crime, so fr as I know (he may have been, who knows). He was accused of exagerating his resume amd the like. Regardless, I hope COI editors will accept this and move on. Novaseminary (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This story is much fairer in terms of less and more balanced reference to the two lawsuits. I applaud that. However, the page "violates" Wikipedia's own "Biography of Living Persons" rule as related to crimes. Based on this Wikpedia rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCRIME#BLPCRIM This rule states: “For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[5] There has been no conviction. End of story. There should be no mention of the lawsuits, that have been trumpeted on this page for the past 18-months. I look forward to your response. Thank you and Happy Holidays! Potential COI24.148.81.208 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet another COI editor at this article... I wonder if this article will ever make one of the periodic real news pieces that cover COI editing on WP. But I digress. The article makes no mention of Strabala being accused of a crime and doesn't come close to even suggesting he has been. The only mention of Strabala being accused of a crime was by people claiming to be COI editors here on the talk page. (With friends like these...) If Strabala is arrested or charged or accused of a crime, we would need to think about BLPCRIME then. And while I agree Strabla is not well-known, the lawsuits (not arrest, not criminal charges, not indcitment) are directly relevant to his career for which Strabala otherwise barely passes WP:BIO. Though BLPCRIME does not apply (unless you know something about Strabala's arrest record, if any, that I do not), this article complies with every relevant part of WP:BLP. Novaseminary (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that there's a violation or that undue weight is being given to the suit. End of story. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Novaseminary It appears Strabala was actually accused of crimes by both Gensler and SOM from the complaints which allege both Lanham Act and Copyright Act violations. Unless I am mistaken I don't think WP:BLP differentiates between Civil and Criminal crimes the term used is merely "court of law" nor does Crime seem to define things unambiguously the way you just presented them (I see many definitions Crime#Categorisation_by_penalty or using Crime#Classification_by_mode_of_trial I assume you picked the latter). Please try to stay constructive and positive and avoid future digressions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.49.35 (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Stay positive? I think he's stayed positive in light of having several anonymous WP:SPAs come and cite policies and guidelines they have little understanding of, if they present any policy with their opinions.

Would anyone object if I alerted WP:COIN to see if the editors there have an opinion? OlYeller21^Talktome 03:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not object. I would also note that Strabala's publicist or the like had edited this page as Mykjoseph and several socks and was blocked, as had someone claiming to have the same name as his wife (see old talk). Oddly enough, Mykjoseph had also edited in a POV way at Pradeep Dadha. Lo and behold, our firendly IP has edited these same articles. As for the substance, 76.175.49.35 is mistaken. There is no such thing as a civil crime. Crimes are criminal. The claims made against Strabala in the non-criminal, civil lawsuits were not criminal in nature. Strabala would not have been found "guilty" or "innocent" and there is no need to prove anything beyound a reasonable doubt, etc. BLPCRIM absolutely does not apply to discussion of these lawsuits. Novaseminary (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As stated last week, I continue to disagree with NovaSeminary and other editors inclusion for more than one year of the lawsuits on this page. I request that Wikipedia reconsiders these editors willful and ongoing violation of Wikipedia rule as directly related to “Biographies of Living Persons.” Please review this information on this situation, which is potentially Libelous Wikipedia: Libel (also see Defamation). Wikipedia’s rule for Biographies of Living Persons , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

states that when a person is accused of a crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCRIME#BLPCRIM) that, “For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[5] Please note, this rule: A. As one other reader recently commented, Wikipedia’s rule does not differentiate in any way between civil or criminal offenses, it simply says “crime.” B. Merriam Webster’s dictionary identifies a “crime” as http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime “an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” To my understanding, this includes civil crimes, and makes no distinction at all between civil and criminal actions. C. Both lawsuits involve accusations that the architect violated the Lanham Act. The Wikipedia page for the Lanham Act’ categorizes the act as a Public Law within the first few words of the act’s definition: “The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79-489) Pub.L is “public law 79-489).” D.The word “accused”: Wikipedia’s rule states a person who…”has committed or is accused of committing, a crime…” Merriam Webster’s defines “accused” as http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accused , “one charged in an offense.” Again, Webster’s does not distinguish words between those charged with civil crimes or criminal violations – in either case, the person is “accused.” And Webster’s defines the verb “accuse” as to “make a claim of wrongdoing against.” Again, it does not distinguish wrongdoing between as civil or criminal wrongdoing, simply wrongdoing. E. Wikipedia’s rule states “accused of committing.” For more than one year, this article has used the words “alleged” and “allegations” in relation to the two lawsuits that the architect is “alleged” and “allegations” have been made against him. Merriam Webster’s defines “alleged” as http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alleged “accused but not proven or convicted” and “allegation” is defined as the “act of alleging.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegation?show=0&t=1356630814 So, in other words, while the story has not used the word “accused” it has meant the same thing with use of the words “alleges” and “accusation.” Beyond this rule, Novaseminary, who first posted these lawsuits and has expanded their presence over time, has kept the two lawsuits prominently featured on this page for nearly two years now. Meantime, he continues to violate this rule as there has been no conviction, and one case was settled without a conviction, and the other is said to be on appeal. NovaSeminary nor any of his colleagues has followed Wikipedia’s rule of “…giving serious consideration” to delete these “two accusations (my words)” based on their edits and comments on this page during this time. Quite to the contrary. I am sending this comment to Wikipedia’s Libel contact (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel , emailed info-en-q@wikipedia.org ) and look forward to a response asap. I would also appreciate in the response, clear explanations of the selected Wikipedia rule(s) followed for the resolution of this issue. Thank you. RobertJoeIllinois (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about whether or not it was a crime. I find that point to be irrelevant, especially considering that the policy you keep blindly citing only mentions that consideration should be given and not that it shouldn't be mentioned. It only states that it should be given serious consideration which is to avoid synthesis (noting something that is true but is given undue weight in the article). Editors who have no interest besides what's best for Wikipedia feel that there is no undue weight being given.

This is most definitely not libel. If you're familiar with libel, you'd be aware that you would need to prove that nothing happened, including the settlement. I'm guessing you're well aware that there was a case that was to go to trial but it was settled out of court instead. Those are the facts presented by Jon Strabala and backed up by the references he presented. Accusing others of libel is not exactly conducive to a constructive discussion.

At this point, you need to make yourself familiar with WP:NLT before getting yourself banned from editing Wikipedia.

As I feel that more WP:SPA-WP:COI editors are appearing and verging on legal threats, I have alerted WP:COIN to this issue here. More eyes on this situation is what's best for the encyclopedia and Strabala as it will help assure that WP's policies and guidelines are being adhered to. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

OlYeller21, you have proven my point: You, and most notably Novaseminary, have shown no consideration for not including material in this article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured, and have violated the rule that clearly and simply states: "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[5] That makes the last words in your closing comment -- "...it will help assure that WP's policies and guidelines are being adhered to.." -- laughable at best. Personally, I could care less what your thoughts are OlYeller21. I will wait for the page overseer Novaseminary's response and that of Wikipedia's Libel contact. I should add, contacting Wikipedia's Libel representatives -- as Wikipedia itself encourages -- is hardly a legal threat. (See "Subject Guidelines" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel Get a grip! RobertJoeIllinois (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Have I (shown no consideration)? Exactly how would one prove that another has given consideration? Were you sitting behind me at my desk with a stopwatch? How much time must pass before consideration is achieved? I don't mean to sound facetious but this is something you couldn't possible know. This brings me to my next point.

You conflict of interests is clear now. You've assumed bad faith that I haven't given any consideration to a policy (something you couldn't possible know). You're bolding and italicizing your assumptions of bad faith in others. You've stated that you don't care about the opinions of other, established editors who have no conflict of interest. These actions shows me that your emotions and your conflict of interest regarding this issue have gotten the best of you. Do you assume that others have given "no consideration" because they disagree with you?

Again, the policy states that consideration should be given. It has been given. It's as simple as that.

Page overseer? That doesn't exist. We're all page overseers. I guess I'm not surprised that this isn't something you're familiar with.

I never said that you were making a legal threat. I've been editing for several years and been involved in hundreds if not thousands of discussions and my experience told me that it would be beneficial to you, me, and Wikipedia if I let you know about the policy that would be used to ban you from editing before you crossed that line.

You can continue to quote the same policy but non-COI editors feel that the page is fine as is. If you feel that undue weight is being given, I would be happy to help you work on adding more information to the article, outside of the lawsuit, to further offset the weight of the section you object to. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with OlYeller21. As for RobertJoeIllinois, the lawsuits are no longer in the lead (I removed the mention); is there a single word in the lawsuits section that is not true? Are the lawsuits not relevant to Strabala's career (indeed, I'd say that all they are relevant to is his career, not his personal life, for example)? RobertJoeIllinois, do you have a conflict and if so what is it? Novaseminary (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)