Ground101
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 18:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)The block is a challenge to the integrity of Wikipedia. Controlling and deleting unfavorable content of this article and allowing it to exist in present form of an advertisement. To disregard posted information when all information was referenced and proved to be factual, examples of other pages containing the same information were sourced as well. The creation of offering a fair and balanced information might offend the company but does not give them the write to choose only what serves their best interest Here is an example (see below)of jp morgan chase, I will let you block them and remove those comments as well -- ground101 additional note allow them to reference one of there own press releases and surpress offical court and government records I take it since no reponse you work for them also. This all started when FDR emailed me - real spam - and on the advertisemnt stated follow us on wikipedia ground101 22:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)ground101
Misuse of administrative tools
Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.
Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:
Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.
Communal norms or policies – When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable. Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation. Reinstating an admin action that has already been reversed (sometimes known as "wheel warring") – Responses have included Arbitration and desysopping even the first time.
See below for these and for the very few exceptions.
In most cases even when use of the tools is reasonable, if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action. This is a matter of judgment if necessary.
Legal and regulatory proceedings
[edit] Conflicts of interest on investment research
In December 2002, Chase paid fines totaling $80 million, with the amount split between the states and the federal government. The fines were part of a settlement involving charges that ten banks, including Chase, deceived investors with biased research. The total settlement with the ten banks was $1.4 billion. The settlement required that the banks separate investment banking from research, and ban any allocation of IPO shares.[41]
[edit] Enron
Chase paid out over $2 billion in fines and legal settlements for their role in financing Enron Corporation, which collapsed amid a financial scandal in 2001. In 2003, Chase paid $160 million in fines and penalties to settle claims by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Manhattan district attorney’s office. In 2005, Chase paid $2.2 billion to settle a lawsuit filed by investors in Enron.[42]
[edit] WorldCom
JPMorgan Chase, which helped underwrite $15.4 billion of WorldCom's bonds, agreed in March 2005 to pay $2 billion; that was 46 percent, or $630 million, more than it would have paid had it accepted an investor offer in May 2004 of $1.37 billion. J.P. Morgan was the last big lender to settle. Its payment is the second largest in the case, exceeded only by the $2.6 billion accord reached in 2004 by Citigroup.[43] In March 2005, 16 of WorldCom's 17 former underwriters reached settlements with the investors.[44][45]
[edit] Jefferson County, Alabama
In November 2009, JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to a $722 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to end a probe into sales of *derivatives that helped push Alabama’s most populous county to the brink of bankruptcy. The settlement came a week after Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Larry Langford was convicted on 60 counts of bribery, money laundering, and tax evasion related to bond swaps for Jefferson County, Alabama. The SEC alleged that J.P. Morgan, which had been chosen by the county commissioners to underwrite the floating-rate sewer bond deals and provide interest-rate swaps, had made undisclosed payments to close friends of the commissioners in exchange for the deal. J.P. Morgan then allegedly made up for the costs by charging higher interest rates on the swaps.[46]
[edit] Financial Services Authority
In June 2010, J.P. Morgan Securities was fined 33.32 million pounds sterling ($49.12 million) by the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) for failing to protect billions of dollars of client money over almost seven years. The firm had erroneously failed to properly segregate client funds from corporate funds following the merger of Chase and J.P. Morgan, resulting in a violation of FSA regulations but no losses to clients. J.P. Morgan Securities reported the incident to the FSA, corrected the errors, and cooperated in the ensuing investigation, resulting in the fine being reduced 30% from an original amount of £47.6 million.[47]
[edit] Mortgage overcharge of active military personnel
In January 2011, JPMorgan Chase admitted that it wrongly overcharged several thousand military families for their mortgages, including active duty personnel in Afghanistan. The bank also admitted it improperly foreclosed on more than a dozen military families; both actions were in clear violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act which automatically lowers mortgage rates to 6 percent, and bars foreclosure proceedings of active duty personnel. The overcharges may have never come to light were it not for legal action taken by Marine Capt. Jonathan Rowles, a fighter pilot. Both Capt. Rowles and his spouse Julia accused Chase of violating the law and harassing the couple for nonpayment. An official stated that the situation was "grim", and Chase initially stated it would be refunding up to $2,000,000 to those who were overcharged, and that families improperly foreclosed on have gotten or will get their homes back.[48] Chase has acknowledged that as many as 6,000 active duty military personnel were illegally overcharged, and more than 18 military families homes were wrongly foreclosed. In April, Chase agreed to pay a total of $27 million in compensation to settle the class-action suit.[49] At the company's 2011 shareholders' meeting, Dimon apologized for the error and said the bank would forgive the loans of any active-duty personnel whose property had been foreclosed. In June 2011, lending chief Dave Lowman was forced out over the scandal.[50][51]