Talk:W. Mark Lanier

WP:BLP

Even laudatory or neutral material must be removed if it's unsourced, per WP:BLP, so I did remove that material. The subject appears to be notable. Pinging Jytdog, Edwardx, and Eggishorn. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Help with Edits

Hello, Sxg169, Smartse, Classicwiki, and any other interested parties. My name is James, and Mark Lanier is a client of mine. I understand this presents a COI which is why I'm reaching out. I would like to help improve the article along the lines of the suggestions in the banner at the top of the page. I want to make sure I'm following Wikipedia's best practices, and would appreciate any help you can offer, including reviewing my suggested edits (pasted below). I've edited this page before under the username Jimmy Bing. However, that account is no longer being used in a professional capacity. Please pardon formatting and I hope to hear back from you soon. Thanks..WriteJames (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

William Mark Lanier (born October 20, 1960[1]) is an American trial lawyer.[2] He lives in Houston, Texas, and is the founder and CEO of The Lanier Law Firm, which maintains offices in New York, Houston, Los Angeles, and Oklahoma City. Lanier also writes about the Bible and teaches Biblical classes at Champion Forest Baptist Church, online and in print. He is the author of Christianity on Trial (2014), Psalms for Living (2016), and Torah for Living (2018). EDUCATION - After graduating from Coronado High School in Lubbock, Texas, Lanier attended Texas Tech University and David Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee. In 1984, Lanier attended the Texas Tech University School of Law, where he completed his J.D. Lanier was selected as Texas Tech's distinguished alumnus for 2005. He currently serves on the law school’s Foundation Board and contributes to the school financially.[3] In 2008, Texas Tech opened the Mark and Becky Lanier Professional Development Center. LEGAL CAREER - Lanier began his legal career working in Houston for Fulbright & Jaworski (now Norton Rose Fulbright) in 1984, in the appellate and trial divisions.[1] In 1990, Lanier founded The Lanier Law Firm, which specializes in civil trial work, personal injuries, products liability, corporate disputes, and asset recovery.[4] Verdicts have included $253 million in the first Vioxx verdict in America (Ernst v. Merck),[10] $480 million in a business fraud case (Rubicon v. Amoco),[8] $4.69 billion in the first trial linking baby powder, asbestos, and ovarian cancer, and a $9 billion verdict in a trial against the diabetes drug Actos. Some of Lanier's trials have been carried on the Court-TV website and have been the subject of various articles and books. Lanier was the principal subject of All the Justice Money Can Buy, by ex-NPR reporter Snigdha Prakash, in which the author was embedded in the Lanier trial team for the Vioxx lawsuit against Merck & Co.[11] Beyond Bullet Points by Cliff Atkinson describes the approach used by Lanier in the Ernst trial.[12] Texas Justice: The Legacy of Historical Courthouses details Lanier's involvement in the Rubicon trial.[13] In 2004 Lanier founded the Christian Trial Lawyers Association.[14] Lanier was elected president of The National Trial Lawyers for 2018.[15] PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION - In a survey of legal peers and from independent research conducted by Thomson Reuters, Lanier was selected to the list of "Texas Super Lawyer" from 2003 to 2019, and a "Top 10 Texas Super Lawyer" from 2007 to 2019.[16] In 2015, Lanier was named the 2015 Trial Lawyer of the Year by The National Trial Lawyers and The Trial Lawyer magazine. The Best Lawyers in America recognized Lanier by naming him to their Best Lawyers guide from 2006 to 2020.[17] Texas Lawyer newspaper called Lanier one of the twenty-five greatest attorneys of the past twenty-five years.[18] Lanier was recognized with a Lifetime Achievement Award by the American Association for Justice (AAJ) at the organization's annual convention.[19] In 2017, Lanier was inducted into The Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame by National Trial Lawyers.[20] In 2019, Lawdragon recognized him as one of the 500 Leading Lawyers in America.[21] Also in 2019, Lanier appeared on the Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, receiving recognition as one of their "Leaders in Their Field" based on his work in product liability and mass tort cases.[22] JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALC LITIGATION - In 2018, Lanier led a trial team representing 22 women who had filed suit against Johnson & Johnson. The lawsuit alleged that the company's talcum powder products contained asbestos and that, after several years of use, had caused each of the women's ovarian cancer. The trial lasted six weeks and resulted in $550 million in compensatory damages and $4.14 billion in punitive damages being awarded to the plaintiffs.[31] The National Law Journal listed this as its Top Verdict of 2018. ARTIFICIAL HIP LITIGATION - Lanier has represented plaintiffs in several lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson and DePuy Synthes, which Johnson & Johnson acquired in 1998.[25] The lawsuits allege that DePuy marketed a faulty hip replacement system despite knowledge that the devices were defective and that the company failed to warn doctors and patients about the risks involved. This has led to several replacements being removed after failing prematurely.[26] In March 2016, five North Texas residents represented by Lanier were awarded $497.6 million for alleged complications arising from the hip implants.[27] In November, 2016, Lanier won a lawsuit in which Johnson & Johnson and DePuy were ordered to pay more than $1 billion to six plaintiffs affected by the implants.[28] In 2017, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $247 million in another suit in which six New York residents whose hips were replaced.[29] VIOXX LITIGATION - Lanier has represented plaintiffs in several lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson and DePuy Synthes, which Johnson & Johnson acquired in 1998.[25] The lawsuits allege that DePuy marketed a faulty hip replacement system despite knowledge that the devices were defective and that the company failed to warn doctors and patients about the risks involved. This has led to several replacements being removed after failing prematurely.[26] In March 2016, five North Texas residents represented by Lanier were awarded $497.6 million for alleged complications arising from the hip implants.[27] In November, 2016, Lanier won a lawsuit in which Johnson & Johnson and DePuy were ordered to pay more than $1 billion to six plaintiffs affected by the implants.[28] In 2017, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $247 million in another suit in which six New York residents whose hips were replaced.[29] PERSONAL LIFE - Lanier is married to Becky (Smith) and the two have five children.[4] Lanier has organized several events on behalf of Guatemala SANA, an organization which provides health and education services in Santa Maria de Jesus, a town near Antigua Guatemala. Performers featured at these events have included Faith Hill, Miley Cyrus, Bon Jovi, and others.[7] Lanier is the brother-in-law of former state representative and former congressional candidate, Kevin Roberts. Lanier contributed to an opposing super PAC which ran ads against Dan Crenshaw's candidacy for the nomination leading up to the Republican run-off election between Roberts and Crenshaw in the 2018 race to replace retiring Congressman Ted Poe.[6] Lanier appears as himself as a successful trial attorney in the 2011 film Puncture. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION - Lanier teaches regular classes on biblical literacy at Champion Forest Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. Lanier and his family built the Lanier Theological Library, one of the world's largest private religious studies libraries open for public usage. The library houses nearly 100,000 volumes in areas of Biblical Studies, Judaic Studies, Church History, Greek and Latin Classical Studies, Linguistics, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, including the collections of a number of now deceased scholars.[32] The library has been featured on HGTV along with a replica 6th century chapel built onsite.[33] Lanier has published two books focused on integrating Christian faith into daily life, Christianity on Trial: A Lawyer Examines the Christian Faith (2014),[34] Psalms For Living (2016),[35] and Torah for Living (2018). In 2018, Psalms For Living won the Illumination Book Award in the Devotional category.[36]

@WriteJames: It's not clear what changes you are suggesting be made. Please follow the instructions at Template:Request_edit#How_to_use to request an edit i.e. write "change this to that per this source". SmartSE (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Smartse, I've edited the page in Word to add some updated information, add clarity, and hopefully remove the promotional language. I'll place my changes below. Because some of these edits are smaller than others, it may be easier for me to edit a section and have you review for potential problems. I've placed the top half of my edits below. If this works for you, I'll add the rest. Thanks. WriteJames (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

INTRODUCTION Information to be added or removed: 1) Add “is the founder and CEO of The Lanier Law Firm” 2) Add “and Oklahoma City” to offices. 3) Add “and Torah for Living (2018).” to list of authored books Explanation of issue: 1) Differentiate between Lanier and the Lanier Law Firm 2) Add unlisted office 3) Add additional book authored by Lanier. EDUCATION Information to be added or removed: Change last two sentences. “He currently serves on the law school’s Foundation Board and contributes to the school financially.[3] In 2008, Texas Tech opened the Mark and Becky Lanier Professional Development Center.” Explanation of issue: More accurate explanation of his current role. Additional information regarding his contribution to the school. References supporting change: https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/buildings/campus-architecture-database-markbecky-lanier-professional-development-center/20754 PERSONAL LIFE Information to be added or removed: 1) Move entire section down, just above Religious Education. 2) Delete second sentence of first paragraph (info moved to Education section). 3) Replace “funded” with “contributed” in sentence regarding Super PAC. 4) Add sentence, “Lanier appears as himself in the 2011 film Puncture” (moved from Legal Career. Explanation of issue: 1) Lanier is notable for his work as an attorney, so it makes sense to have that information come first in the article. 2) Info moved. 3) “Contributed” is more accurate, as “funded” makes it sound as if Lanier was the sole donor. 4) Film appearance wasn’t part of his practice. LEGAL CAREER Information to be added or removed: 1) Add “products liability” to practice areas in last sentence. 2) Replace second paragraph with the following text. “Verdicts have included $253 million in the first Vioxx verdict in America (Ernst v. Merck),[10] $480 million in a business fraud case (Rubicon v. Amoco),[8] $4.69 billion in the first trial linking baby powder, asbestos, and ovarian cancer, and a $9 billion verdict in a trial against the diabetes drug Actos. 3) Third paragraph, combine second and third sentences to, “Lanier was the principal subject of All the Justice Money Can Buy, by ex-NPR reporter Snigdha Prakash, in which the author was embedded in the Lanier trial team for the Vioxx lawsuit against Merck & Co.” 4) Remove fourth paragraph, place in Personal Life section. 5) Fifth paragraph, change last sentence to “Lanier was elected president of The National Trial Lawyers for 2018.”[15] Explanation of issue: 1) Provide fuller explanation of work the Lanier Law Firm does. 2) Give additional information on verdicts 3) Edited sentence for clarity 4) Move information to more appropriate section. 5) Update and give additional information. References supporting change: 2) Vioxx verdict: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/business/jury-finds-merck-liable-in-vioxx-death-and-awards-253-million.html, Baby powder verdict: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/business/johnson-johnson-talcum-powder.html, Actos verdict: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/actos-verdict-9-billion-in-damages_n_5108656 VIOXX LAWSUIT Information to be added or removed: Replace “Lanier securing” in first sentence of second paragraph with “a jury awarding her” Explanation of issue: Remove promotional language ARTIFICIAL HIP LITIGATION Information to be added or removed: 1) Replace “taken on” with “represented plaintffs in” 2) Delete “being” from first sentence of second paragraph. 3) Replace “On November 29” with “In November” in second paragraph. 4) Delete sentence “On Thursday, November 16, Lanier won another suit.” 5) Replace “Here” with “In 2017” in next sentence. 6) Replace “to” with “in another suit in which” 7) Replace “removed” with “replaced” at end of sentence. 8) Delete “Industry analysts believe these lawsuits, of which more than 11,000 have been filed, will ultimately cost Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars.” Explanation of issue: 1) Less promotional. 2) Clarity. 3) More neutral language. 4) Less promotional. 5) Clarity due to previous edit. 6) Clarity. 7) Clarity. 8) Remove promotional language. RECOGNITION Information to be added or removed: 1) Delete first sentence of first paragraph. 2) Replace “published” with “and from independent research conducted” 3) Replace “Texas Monthly” with “Thomson Reuters” 4) Replace “as a” with “to the list of” 5) Update 2018 dates in first paragraph to 2019. 6) Change “U.S. News and World Report’s Best Lawyers” with “The Best Lawyers in America” 7) Replace “list” with “guide” and “2018” with “2020.” 8) Add newspaper after Texas Lawyer in next sentence. 9) Add “by National Trial Lawyers” after “Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame” 10) Remove “500” from after Lawdragon and place it before “Leading Lawyers in America” 11) Change name to “Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business” 12) Update 2018 dates in third paragraph to 2019. Explanation of issue: 1) Remove promotional language 2) Clarity 3) Thomas Reuters conducts the survey, not Texas Monthly. 4) Clearer language 5) Most recent information. 6) Accurate name 7) More accurate and current information 8) Accurate title. 9) Accurate name 10) Accurate name of publication and list 11) Accurate name 12) Updated information RELIGIOUS EDUCATION Information to be added or removed: Add Torah For Living (2018) to list of authored books in final paragraph. Explanation of issue: Update list of authored books.

WriteJames (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply 17-OCT-2019

Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request.  Spintendo  21:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal review 17-OCT-2019

Is the founder and CEO of The Lanier Law Firm  Approved. and Oklahoma City  Declined. and Torah for Living (2018).  Partly-approved. He currently serves on the law school’s Foundation Board and contributes to the school financially. Clarification needed. In 2008, Texas Tech opened the Mark and Becky Lanier Professional Development Center.  Unable to implement. products liability Clarification needed. Verdicts have included $253 million in the first Vioxx verdict in America (Ernst v. Merck), $480 million in a business fraud case (Rubicon v. Amoco), $4.69 billion in the first trial linking baby powder, asbestos, and ovarian cancer, and a $9 billion verdict in a trial against the diabetes drug Actos. Lanier was the principal subject of All the Justice Money Can Buy, by ex-NPR reporter Snigdha Prakash, in which the author was embedded in the Lanier trial team for the Vioxx lawsuit against Merck & Co. Clarification needed. Remove fourth paragraph, place in Personal Life section. Clarification needed. Lanier was elected president of The National Trial Lawyers for 2018.  Approved. a jury awarding her; represented plaintffs  Approved. Delete "being" from first sentence of second paragraph; In November Clarification needed. Delete: On Thursday, November 16, Lanier won another suit.  Approved. Replace “Here” with “In 2017” in next sentence. 6) Replace “to” with “in another suit in which” 7) Replace “removed” with “replaced” at end of sentence. Clarification needed. Delete “Industry analysts believe these lawsuits, of which more than 11,000 have been filed, will ultimately cost Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars.”  Approved. Delete first sentence of first paragraph. Replace “published” with “and from independent research conducted” Clarification needed. Replace “Texas Monthly” with “Thomson Reuters” Clarification needed. Replace “as a” with “to the list of” Clarification needed. Change “U.S. News and World Report’s Best Lawyers” with “The Best Lawyers in America”. Replace “list” with “guide” and “2018” with “2020.” Add newspaper after Texas Lawyer in next sentence. 9) Add “by National Trial Lawyers” after “Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame”. Remove “500” from after Lawdragon and place it before “Leading Lawyers in America”. Change name to “Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business”. Update 2018 dates in third paragraph to 2019.  Unable to implement. Torah For Living (2018) to list of authored books in final paragraph.  Already done. ___________

Spintendo, thanks for your help! Will address your notes soon.WriteJames (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

COI

Looking through the article history this content has almost exclusively originated from COI editors at one time or another and there's no evidence of others looking for coverage. Sure we've deleted promotional crap, but as this shows that does not mean that the content meets WP:NPOV. Some of the coverage is less than complementary e.g.

• in relation to the hip case:The 5th Circuit panel – Judges Jerry Smith, Rhesa Barksdale and Stephen Higginson – reamed Lanier repeatedly and by name, accusing him of inflammatory tactics and outright deception. Lanier ran afoul of the Rules of Civil Procedure at least twice in his closing arguments, the 5th Circuit said. The appeals court said those violations, on their own, would have warranted a new trial. But that’s not all the famed trial lawyer did wrong, according to Judge Smith’s outrage-fueled opinion. Lanier told jurors several times that two key medical witnesses for his side were unpaid, drawing a contrast with DePuy’s expert witnesses. But Lanier’s witnesses, in fact, had either received or expected to receive compensation. Lanier had “manufactured” a “false” choice for jurors between his side’s unpaid experts and the other side’s hired guns, the 5th Circuit said.
• in relation to the talc case (note this is a rare exception where forbes.com/sites is reliable):One thing Lanier didn’t want the jury to see, J&J complains in its motion for retrial, was a sentence on his own law firm’s website stating asbestos-contaminated talc “is not used in modern consumer products.” The language disappeared midway through the trial, the company says, then in closing arguments Lanier told the jury he “looked at the web address” and it wasn’t there. All of the samples tested by the plaintiffs’ expert were supplied by law firms involved in the litigation, J&J says, and the only ones that the expert found contained asbestos fibers came from Lanier. Defense lawyers complained during trial that the plaintiff expert couldn’t identify his samples as having come from J&J and suggested they may have been tampered with.
• again about hips: This sort of behavior has gotten Lanier in trouble before. In April the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a $151 million verdict he won against DePuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson, saying Lanier misrepresented to the jury that his witnesses weren’t compensated and introduced “inflammatory character evidence,” such as unrelated allegations the defendants had bribed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq regime and engaged in racial discrimination. ^[ibid]

That's just from a few minutes of searching so I suspect there may be more. SmartSE (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Also this (need full text) SmartSE (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Dec. 2020 edit request

Spintendo, Sxg169, Classicwiki, regarding an edit made to the Personal Life section of Mark's article on 12/18. The edit lists Freddrick Lanier, a convicted sex offender, as one of Mark's children. This is false. If you follow the citation listed, you can see that Freddrick Lanier is 65 years old. Mark was born in 1960, making him five years younger than Freddrick. Can you have this edit removed? Thanks for your help. WriteJames

I have removed the claim. I have not even investigated whether it is true or not: such a claim does not belong in any article without a reliable secondary source. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Mark Lanier

Can you explain why you reverted my additions of this subject's accolades? They are legitimate and noteworthy are deserve to be there according to WP:BIO criteria. 50.233.66.15 (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am copying this question from my talkpage, as it is more appropriate to be answering it here. Firstly, they are all uncited, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. None of them appear to be notable awards, and there are a huge number for someone of marginal notability. This article has a long history of promotional and COI editing - do you have a COI to declare? Edwardx (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No I do not have a COI to declare I don't know who the guy is, but he has more awards and peer recognition than most! So let me make sure we are clear here; if I cite an award it can then be placed on the page? I'm curious, are you sure you would know what a notable award is in the legal profession? Please state your qualification to determine legal industry award notability, thanks. 50.233.66.15 (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well you probably do more about the legal industry. We know more about Wikipedia rules and regs :) How about pick the top 5 most significant awards and find sources for those 5 so they could be added. Let's start there. It's not a good idea to put too many that are not major awards (blue linked). -- GreenC 17:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete and total checkover

I spent hours going through every sentence, word and source in this article. I am a 16 year user of Wikipedia and have no COI. The article is scrubbed, large blocks of text deleted etc.. checked for everything that needs to be checked it is a neutral article. The banner tags at the top at this point are not needed. If you think they are, I expect to see a talk page notice explaining which words, sentence or sources are so problematic that a banner tag was added. You need to provide a reason for the tags ie. specific words and sentences you disagree with. -- GreenC 21:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: Did you see the above? COI can affect what isn't said as much as what is said. SmartSE (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

So add whatever you want. Frankly this article is missing a ton of stuff, positive and negative. No one is preventing you or anyone from improving the article. No article is ever complete, and if you think there is material that passes BLP mustard, go for it. It's like your sitting on this negative material not adding it to the article for some unstated reason, but then using that to justify a banner tag. It makes no sense. -- GreenC 01:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral means representing the available coverage with due weight. If an article subject pays someone to add loads of promotional content and we just remove that, it does not mean that the sources are fairly represented in the article. I've added more information about the hip replacements. It wasn't tagged to act as a permanent black mark, but as what I just added shows, we were (and still might be) missing very relevant information and that can only be resolved through examining the available sources. It can take a while to get around to fixing it, but there is no rush is there? SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Education section

The Education section does not verfy. The given source does not verify. Per policy WP:V it is being removed. Per WP:BLP is is being removed. This is simple basic Wikipedia procedure. We do not have unverified material about BLPs particularly of this nature. If you want to add it, then produce a reliable source. It is that simple. If it is re-added without a source, I will start an RfC for 30 days and bring in dozens of editors to comment if we should have unsourced material about a BLP (vote "Yes" or "No"). You will loose. Guaranteed. Don't waste our time. Get a source, or leave it out. -- GreenC 15:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

Per WP:LEAD starting the process of summarizing the most important elements of the article and why this person is notable:

He has led a number of high profile product litigation suits resulting in 100s of millions of dollars in damages, including Johnson & Johnson baby powder and Merck & Co.'s Vioxx drug.

This describes why they are notable. This section is for discussing the filling out of the lead section per WP:LEAD. If you decide to remove this sentence, it is important that you discuss it here to avoid an edit war. -- GreenC 15:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Banner tags

This article is being aggressively banner tagged. The issue is a UPE. At this point 5 or 6 editors with no COI have gone through and edited the article. At what point do we say, OK, checked out. It's been checked out, many times, by many people. My concerns is that we have one editor who is aggressively treating this article like nuclear waste regardless of what work is done by neutral uninvolved editors.-- GreenC 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Family and children information

Removing the sentence about his wife and children which is only sourced to a primary source. This is sensitive personal information that does not belong in a BLP article unless there are reliable secondary sources that cover it. Do not add it back w/out reliable secondary sources. If you do, I will start an RfC and/or notify the BLP Noticeboard. -- GreenC 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

Thanks for the work. Although, There were some questions asked which I was not able to answer as because I am quite busy. So, it all started when my page got nominated for deletion. I hired this agency for saving my page. They told me their editors are working on this and will save my page ASAP. For which I have paid them a good amount of money. Luckily, they saved my page. After that, They offered me that they will also fix potential COI issues on my page. As a proof, they told me that the Keep vote of User:GreenC which you see in the deletion discussion is done by them. I trusted them and agreed to their proposal. Although, Later, I saw that same editor tried to fix my page but seemed like admins reverted their edits. So, As of now I just want to confirm will these edits will stick or can be still reverted. Waiting for an answer. Also, I want a proper answer to this. You all know how notable I am. User:Beyond My Ken this is my page and I will decide what will be done or not. Please don't advise me on this. Laniermark (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Caution: The above post is probably by an unknown party pretending to be W. Mark Lanier. -- GreenC 22:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned on Laniermark's talk page, their persistence —without a shred of evidence— in alleging that GreenC works for the agency in question, counts as an WP:ASPERSION of the first order. As a result, I have converted their partial block to a sitewide one. El_C 18:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd advise you to read WP:OWN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO not credible this account is who they claim to be. If it is, Lanier is a first class dupe ("I trusted them and agreed to their proposal"), which doesn't fit the profile of a high end fraud lawyer with a PR team posting embarrassing events publicly on his Wikipedia talk page. They also exhibit an insiders knowledge of Wikipedia rules ("this is my page and I will decide what will be done"). -- GreenC 20:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Note regarding recent edits to W. Mark Lanier Wikipedia page

User:GreenC, User:MelanieN, User:The Bushranger, User:CaptainEek, User:Tenryuu, User:Beyond My Ken, and other interested parties, I’ve had a chance to read the discussion from the past few days and hope I can add some clarity. I represent Mark Lanier and have stated my COI in the past. Anytime we have an edit we would like incorporated into the page, we post on Mark’s talk page and request that experienced editors review and implement the edits themselves. We have spoken to Mark regarding the activity on the W. Mark Lanier article over the past few days and confirm that neither he nor I have relationships with any of the editors of this page. Whoever is making these edits under his name is not Mark. We don’t know who is using the Laniermark username, but it’s no one affiliated with Mark Lanier or the Lanier Law Firm.

Further, it has come to our knowledge that User:Akronowner, who nominated the page for deletion, subsequently contacted Mark Lanier via email and asked for money to keep the page from deletion. No renumeration was made and we view this as a case of extortion and encourage the Wikipedia community to look into this matter. WriteJames (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree whoever is running Laniermark is almost certainly not the fraud lawyer. It should be treated as a WP:BLP concern since the account makes a number of personally embarrassing statements if it were taken at face value as being posted by Lanier. -- GreenC 22:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for page protection

At this time, I would also ask for the following protection of this page by a qualified admin.

W. Mark Lanier

• W. Mark Lanier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full-protection: High level of IP vandalism and unauthorized edits or deletions.

WriteJames (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Declined. I only see one edit by an IP in the last year and change. I do not see disruption of a pervasive enough nature that full protection is required—or even semi-protection. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think your allegations about off-Wikipedia actions by an editor would best be handled in an email exchange, rather than in an open and logged discussion. I would start by emailing the Volunteer Response Team (see WP:VRT for instructions); they can either assist or refer you to the party at the Wikimedia Foundation who handles such issues. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

C.Fred, thank you for your response and for directing us to the VRT. We will pursue that path. WriteJames (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)