Talk:American Academy of Financial Management

Youtube interview and Name Change

Kingbr recently posted a set of Youtube clips purporting to discuss the change in the AAFM's name to IAFM. I did not watch all 40 minutes of the clips, but after 10 minutes it became clear that Brett King was being interviewed about the financial crisis, not about the organization. Moreover, a claim he makes on the air differs from a news agency's reporting on that claim. A statement he makes (which I have yet to find) in an interview that was not checked by the news agency should be treated as self-published, and as Mr. King has a vested interest in this matter WP:SELFPUB recommends against treating this as a reliable source. I have therefore reverted his edits. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 12:38 pm, July 28, 2009, Tuesday (1 year, 3 months, 11 days ago) (UTC−4)

Asian lawyer (talk) RJC - this announcement also appears in the Gulf News, Asian Banker Journal, Singapore Straits Times. I'm guessing the evidence is building sufficiently to allow this revision as clearly the name change is starting to kick-in after what appeared to be an early dispute with disenfranchised US members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asian lawyer (talk • contribs) 11:12 am, July 29, 2009, Wednesday (1 year, 3 months, 10 days ago) (UTC−4)

Could you provide the links to these articles? A Google News search, as you suggested I do on my talk page, turns up nothing. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 11:42 am, July 29, 2009, Wednesday (1 year, 3 months, 10 days ago) (UTC−4)

All of the AAFM American Academy Board USA websites that were quickly found using web search are still live and operating as AAFM, and AAFM is easily found on US government websites such as: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos259.htm Here is a Sample list of AAFM global websites below. "NO NAME CHANGES ON ANY OF THESE" www.aafm.us - www.financialanalyst.org - www.aafmasia.com - www.aafmchina.com - www.aafmindia.com - www.aafmglobal.com - www.aafmgcc.com - www.aapm.info - www.eafm.org www.americanacademyoffinancialmanagement.com - www.financialcertified.com - www.aafmla.org - www.aafmtw.com - www.aafm.com.br - www.academyoffinancialmanagement.com - www.aafm.me - www.certifiedwealthmanager.com - www.charteredwealthmanager.com - www.aafmafrica.com

A quick analysis on www.archive.org shows that AAFM sites such as: www.financialcertified.com is much older and have been online for many years before any other offshore website or operation. Simple Research: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://financialcertified.com After gathering info at the AAFM USA websites, A quick check of the Secretary of State websites shows that the AAFM is still registerd and has never changed its name....

After 2 minutes of searching, Relevant Information about KingBR dismissal and banning can easily be found on several of the AAFM websites: It does not take a rocket scientist to find out about this former disgruntled associate and make a correlation. http://financialcertified.com/terminated.html

Anyway, it seems that Kingbr still wants the wiki to make or allow unauthorized changes of the legal name of a real & existing US company. It would be nice if Kingbr could create something new, restrain from vandalism, and leave existing Wiki pages alone.

Being familiar with RIA licensing, law and exams, Kingbr needs to do some more research on US law regarding Rule 2210 before creating stories. The disclosure of this 2210 rule still appeares and is disclosed on the AAFM websites. Rule 2210, for example, would prohibit/prevent a training certificate/or credential from a 3 day course in Australia from being used in the USA. However, 2210 respects accredited degree educational criteria that is recognized by the US CHEA and Dept of Education. i.e. AACSB and ACBSP double accredited "government recognized" education is accepted from 560 prominent business schools by AAFM via articulation. As Kingbr is based somewhere offshore, it is not expected for Kingbr to comprehend these rules and policies.

FinancialLawyer —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Archive.org, Trademarks, Copyrights, and American Situs

After a review of the earliest/original AAFM WIKI article and the www.archive.org ,it is obvious that www.financialanalyst.org or www.financialcertified.com is the primary domian used in the earliest posts and revisions by the AAFM American Academy of Financial Management : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&dir=prev&action=history The offshore Arab Emirate domains such as aafm.org are labeled as fraud Phishing websites on the internet. It seems that the people offshore in Asia/Arabia are still attempting to make phony claims as above.

Checked the Archive.org, and the original websites for AAFM are: www.financialcertified.com and www.financialanalyst.org The earliest AAFM USA websites have clear fraud and cybercrime warning alerts on their home pages about the websites www.aafm.org and aafm.com.hk as being imposter phishing and cybercrime websites along with warnings about the webmaster Brett King who has somehow stolen websites according to the cybercrime alerts. http://www.financialcertified.com/fraudalert.html

Based on first impression, it appears that offshore offenders are attempting to Phish for money from innocent victims using stolen or converted domain. It looks like aafm.org and aafm.com.hk are based somewhere in Dubai or China and stangely claim to be formerly the AAFM USA company. The WHOIS.com information about the aafm.org website shows that is squatted upon by mjehanzeb/Muhammed Jehanzeb and Mr. Brett King who may be in the United Arab Emirates.

Looked up the Federal Trademark for AAFM in the USA. AAFM is registered witht the USPTO number: Reg. Num. 3714562 and owned by the AAFM, LLC USA. As per the AAFM founding websites: The original and registered Federal copyrights are disclosed on the financialanalyst.org and financialcertified.com websites: Registration Number: TXu 1-602-366 - The American Academy of Financial Management AAFM Handbook and Web Content © are Federally Copyrighted Materials with the US Library of Congress. Registration Number: TXu 1-602-366

Overall, it only takes a small child to surf and discover real AAFM websites in Asia and the Middle East that are backed by the government. Thus, it seems that there are authentic AAFM organizations in China and Asia and the Middle East: www.aafmchina.com www.aafmasia.com and www.aabfs.org

The research quickly made it apparent that this small band of thugs such as Kingbr and his alias name Muhammad in Dubai and China are seasoned con artists who think they are above the law by phishing with websites such as aafm.org

In sum, there is vast evidence from the AAFM ® {as shown on website} USA news or the Founding Board that the AAFM American Academy of Financial Management is taking steps to warn the public and the consumer about offshore cybercrime, fraud and/or phishing that may be coming from Dubai and China and Kingbr.

Doctorlaw —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

Reading the AFD for this article, I notice that the ".us" domain is the one listed by the US bureau of labor statistics [1] and by the US department of education [2] (you have to search for "aafm"). Those same websites have no entries for "iafm". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't get too sucked in to this. Now Doctorlaw, a new sockpuppet, is making the same claims about robust evidence without providing it, or taking one side to a dispute as the reliable source concerning the dispute. Finding the "true" aafm is probably not going to happen. I think the fact that there is absolutely no coverage of the aafm-iafm controversy argues against this organization's notability, but at the very least it means we lack reliable sources to change information. I relented in this latest website change because the old website no longer claims to be the aafm. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

All 3 Wall Street Journal Articles about the AAFM are important and so are the US government references to AAFM. The WSJ knew clearly of the education and exam requirements of the AAFM because the governmental NASD and FINRA referenced them for 6 years. Also the WSJ knew or should have known of the AAFM Accredited Law School program which has been public for several years. This long article in present form is very inclusive and hope non-biased parties can expand the links, factual content, and citations. Doctorlaw —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Current Link to AAFM in the US Government Occupational Handbook is: http://books.google.com/books?id=SItpcVinZlUC&pg=PA105&dq=%22american+academy+of+financial+management%22+occupational+handbook&hl=en&ei=UhfCTMODLY6ksQOGjqWVDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22american%20academy%20of%20financial%20management%22%20occupational%20handbook&f=false Please do not use the outdated links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorlaw (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment on ARTSPAM and NPOV issues

To what extent are the various products and services offered by the American Academy of Financial Management described in a manner consistent with WP:ARTSPAM in this version and this one? Do the citations in the longer version of the article support the statements to which they are attached? How should the October 14 Wall Street Journal article that discusses the AAFM (among others) be presented in the article (i.e., should there be a separate criticism section, or should it be mentioned as listing the designations the AAFM offers)? RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The WSJ list has been distorted and misused. It's not a positive article making an endorsment of the credentials listed. It's a derisive article using a derisive name ("Alphabet soup") and it says "Those credentials include those that are tracked in a database kept by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and others that are less well-documented. Some are even defunct, but may still show up in advisers' marketing materials. " The same day they published an article called "Is Your Adviser Pumping Up His Credentials?". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

General note: WSJ Not adhering to neutral point of view - There are 3 Key Articles covering the AAFM

In October 2010, the Wall Street Journal published an article detailing the use of designations and credentials by financial advisors that discussed the AAFM extensively. The article also specifically referenced the AAFM policy regarding double accredited education from government recognized business schools The article noted that the AAFM included among its Honorary Academic Advisors & Award Winners several prominent industry experts and faculty from around the world. The article criticized the practice of many standards boards of awarding credentials without extra exams; however, the AAFM Board USA does have a practice of granting awards to to those who graduate from its approved law school program or doctorate degrees holders who complete the required exams from government accredited programs without requiring applicants to undergo further exam, citing the AAFM Legal Offices and the FINRA websites. A claim on the AAFM website that it has had a long standing legal trademark agreement with both the CFA Institute and the CFP Board, which administer Chartered Financial Analyst and Certified Financial Planner certificate programs, respectively, was strangely rebutted by representatives of both the CFA and CFP organizations in the article; however, the AAFM Board's websites freely show the documents online and the contracts and consent agreements for the public to see on the AAFM website while fully disclosing the evidence provided to the Wall Street Journal.

Some Editors Removed dozens of positive press articles to include one confusing and negligently written article by a recent college student named mary pilon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.218.8.166 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARTSPAM, WP:SPAM, and WP:SOCK seem relevant to the article. Read the results of the RfC above. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 09:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mary Pilon might be or might not be a "recent college student", but that WSJ article is co-authored by Jason Zweig, who has previously written for Money, Time, and cnn.com, and edited for Forbes, and has other credentials. All comments by this group of accounts seem to have this sort of distortions and omissions. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

True about Mary, but the expert, Zweig , obviously did not receive or read the legal documents that reject and disprove all of the bogus criticism It obvious that somebody wrote this article and just put Zweig's name on it..... Also of importance is that AAFM and its credentials were listed in the Forbes & Investopedia Dictionary for years and if Zweig worked for Forbes or knows FINRA, he would have at least seen it or searched it. Further, the FINRA governmental body has listed the requirements for AAFM Certifications for years. http://apps.finra.org/DataDirectory/1/prodesignations.aspx It is clear, that the author ignored the government documents and other documented and signed evidence. By the way, the AAFM certification requirements (which were copied from the NASD/FINRA) are also outlined on the WSJ website which shows that the article is a JOKE. Somehow Pilon and Zweig missed that too? Strange ? AAFM should demand a retraction and apology

The semi-protection has ended, and another IP has repeated yet again the same misleading edit. Is this related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Doctorlaw? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

One way to find out: permanent semi-protection. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Review the evidence. This article without clarification is misleading and fraudulent.

The article should be expanded to include all press and government recognition such as FINRA US Dept of Labor and the varioius articles from WSJ. Overall, if we delete the facts and global recognition and contracts etc, then the article is useless. If we can not expand the article to include the 3rd party independent citations, then the WIKI is becoming joke.

If we can't include the facts, Please delete the AAFM article all togther because the AAFM and CWM and other AAFM credentials are included in the Definitive work 'Investopedia" which is the premier and neutral finance and investment encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.218.8.166 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait, I think I have it now. Vanispamcruftisement governs here, as does WP:SOUP. Not policies or guidelines, admittedly, but by far the most accurate description of these arguments. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 03:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait, I think I have it now. RJC is NPOV master.

This article is just a blog and spam and RJC keeps removing the links from the US government, FINRA, Department of Labor and other citations from a law school.

Why does RJC keep removing the list of non profits that offer education? Why does RJC keep removing the Law school alliance Why does RJC continue to remove the references from the Investopedia. Why cant RJC comprehend that a registered trademark with the US goverment is not just an application. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.144.184 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Because I can put only so much into a comment line, I've posted it here. Sources do not support statements to which attached (e.g., that AAFM was "first" at something); directory listings do not warrant a mention and do not suggest endorsement; reworded "criticism" section does not accurately portray the article's content; AAFM was not "recognized" by WSJ in any idiomatic sense of the word. If you want more explanation, look at the edit summaries from when I removed this puffery the first time around, a year ago. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The latest edits also try to push a lot of Marketing speak into the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See, this is why I hate temporary semi-protection. At least the return of the morons reminds me to change the batteries in my smoke detector. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Prod

Refused Deletion by RJC 2nd December - OK fair enough its probably better to have the expose of AAFM by the WSJ. As regards relationship with AAFM i am simply someone who was stupid enough to get ripped off Dickietr (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

AAFM Wiki Article is Does not Add up?

I just read the related WSJ article by Mary Pilon. The WSJ article reveals nothing about a special affiliation with CFA or CFP. However, I went to the AAFM website and it has links showing where the CFA and CFP recognize the AAFM credentials in writing for educational credit. Also, I went to the AAFM website and they disclose documents signed by the Legal Counsel of CFA and CFP available to the public. Thus, I am not sure who is lying here? Did Pilon make up all of this stuff? Is this WSJ article simply phony journalism?

Also, The AAFM Website and its Board of Standards only shows a few key people on the board (7 or so people) and the rest of the professors and industry leaders on the list are only designated as Honorary Facutly Award Winners. Does this mean that Pilon did not comprehend the differnce or did not understand the astericks? next to peoples names The WIKI Article comments about people not giving their permission does not make any sense because these people are NOT Listed as being on the actual board.

Also, I went to the WSJ search, and the WSJ has all of the AAFM credentials listed along with the Accredited Education and Exam Requirements. Therefore, I can not understand how WSJ can ignore accredited exams and courses that are disclosed on their very own websites. Appears to be journalistic negligence or just sheer ignorance?

Anyway, the AAFM is just a small American and US based board of standards. It has only been around for 10-15 years, and I am Not sure why anybody even cares about the AAFM or its accredited law school graduate law program. AAFM are just small players, when CFA and CFP are 100 million dollar operations that issue awards to people around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdeditguru (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Certification and Exams from Accredited Institutions

All AAFM Certifications Require Accredited Program Exams and Courses. Any business school professor familiar with accreditation would know that ACBSP and AACSB education represents the top 10 percent of business schools globally. As per the public disclosures on the NASD FINRA and Wall Street Joural Websites, all AAFM Certifications require enrollment into accredited program and passing all of the exams. I would know because I completed the accredited degree and exams that lead to certification qualification. AAFM is the only group in the world to accept coursework and exams from accredited business school masters and doctorate programs. Non business school professors may not comprehend this. If you think that accredited business school courses do not require exams, then that would be a problem in this discussion.

AAFM Global Exam requirements are listed here http://apps.finra.org/DataDirectory/1/prodesignations.aspx Financial Advisor Acronyms Listed by Wall Street Journal showing FINRA monitored credentials and the education/exam requirements.

Here are the links that show AAFM Accreditation Articulation with the top 2 US Business School Accreditation Authorities. ACBSP Accrediation Alliance http://www.acbsp.org/download.php?sid=10 AACSB Press Release http://web.archive.org/web/20071217181507/http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/enewsline/Vol-2/Issue-4/assoc-aafm.asp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.234.102 (talk • contribs) 16:34, October 20, 2011

Whether or not to include mention of the fee

Regarding this edit, the question is whether to include mention of the fee or whether there is a better way to mention the fact that there are few if any requirements beyond the payment of the fee for these designations and that AAFM's role in the affair is simply to process the fee, in that it does not offer the prerequisite courses itself. EconomicTiger further disputes whether the fee is the only requirement for these designations beyond an applicant's previously completed coursework, but this was the main point of the two Wall Street Journal articles: AAFM simply charges for the right to use its designations without providing additional training itself. So that is proof enough of AAFM's practices. I am open to alternate wordings, but given this article's history of WP:ARTSPAM and the mendacity and willingness to engage in sockpuppetry of those affiliated with the AAFM, I am opposed to any wording that implies or leaves open the possibility that AAFM provides anything except the opportunity to pay a fee for the right to use its trademarks as postnomials. I believe that the wording preferred by EconomicTiger misleads in precisely this direction, suggesting that the requirements mentions are prerequisites for admission to a program rather than prerequisites for getting to pay a fee. Is there another wording that does not imply this and does not mention the fee by name?

Incidentally, the reverted version takes out the name of one of the certifications, which I have restored. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't introduce WP:OR on Wikipedia articles. You are trying to interpret from Wall Street Article your own point and adding fee in each and every other sentences. That is in my point vandalism.EconomicTiger (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

RJC is correct. The WSJ article says:

One designation, the MFP, or master financial professional, is a "gateway credential," says AAFM president George Mentz. It requires a graduate or undergraduate degree that includes five or more approved business courses and an AAFM certification course. But according to Mr. Mentz, those requirements can be waived for anyone with sufficient professional experience who is willing to make "certification, registration and initiation payments," typically $300 or more. There is no exam to become an MFP.

So the article is explicit that there is no exam, that the requirement for getting the designation is a certain amount of previous education, and that for professionals even that requirement can be waived -- so the only thing that AAFM absolutely requires is trhe fee.

EconmicTiger, please stop reverting RJC's edits, they are by no stretch of the imagination WP:OR, they simply reflect what the WSJ article says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the reverted information. Also, EconomicTiger, please do not refer to other editor's contributions as "vandalism" when they are not. See WP:VANDALISM if you'd like to read the formal definition of what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia. Just because you're in a content dispute with another editor, and you disagree with their view, doesn't mean that their reversion of your edit is vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you and made a final clean up and want to be away from this article.EconomicTiger (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your adjustment to the text seems good to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems, RJC has some WP:COI with this institution in real life. He is in dispute with two editors on what is agreed.EconomicTiger (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My only experience with this institution has been through its Wikipedia, the editing of which is the only interaction I have had with people affiliated with it. If you want to know why I look at every edit to this page suspiciously, take a gander at the talk page, its archives, and my talk page archives. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The text said "fee" everywhere, then it changed to "initiation payment" in the controversial sentence.... We don't know who is paying which fees, people who pass examination might be paying also the "initiation payment". Also, it's a bit weasel-y to say "in some cases" (which implies exceptional circumstances) when the source says "anyone". --Enric Naval (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Dispute

I have reverted this edit as part of an on-going dispute, previously reverted by more than one editor. The legal threat has been reported at AN/I. Discussion? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reason there appears not to have been discussion about the latest round of edits is because this point has been rehashed time and time again. See discussions with the various incarnations of Doctorlaw, permanently banned from editing Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts. Wealthadvise is pursuing the same edits. If I had the time, I'd ask for a checkuser. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see that I may have been "identified for libel and defamation and "removed from article under legal policies until the fraud dispute is settled." I think the editor is trying to say that the AAFM has accused us of libel and defamation (though I am unaware of any claim that I have been malicious or knowingly posted anything false...) and that the AAFM has demanded that I not edit the article as I would be "committing a conflict of interest" (?).

In any case, the editor (and his apparent socks) will obviously need to work through our usual process unless and until the Foundation weighs in. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

"AAFM does not offer any diploma or degree"

I was wondering why the socks of Doctorlaw were complaining of "diplomas" or "degrees", when the article only mentioned "certifications". Turns out that FINRA uses the name "professional designation", but wikipedia only uses the synonymous "professional certification".

The WSJ article appear to use them interchangeably. The AAFM itself seems to mix designations and certifications all over their website, for example in AAFM ® Professional Designations & Certifications I can't tell which are certifications and which are designations.

Is there any legal difference between "professional designation" and "professional certification"? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats

I have been named in a lawsuit here [3] I made one revert of an IPs edit which added comments about legal action. I will not be making any more edits to this article.Theroadislong (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Theroadislong: That's not a "lawsuit." That's just some postings by someone on his own internet web site.

A lawsuit is something that can be created only by filing some official papers by a plaintiff in a court of law. And, for you to be brought in as a defendant in a lawsuit and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court, generally someone would have to show up and deliver certain official papers to you on behalf of the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit. To do that, the plaintiff would have to know who you are and (probably) where you work or live, or would have to somehow find you somewhere. As noted elsewhere of course, even threatening legal action is a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Famspear (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

But it's not just someone's website, it's on the American Academy of Financial Management's website? and it's written by Mentz Law Firm, LLC - George Mentz, Esq. Theroadislong (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's just someone's web site -- apparently for the "American Academy of Financial Management," or George Mentz or both. My point is that what you are seeing on that web site is not a lawsuit. The material is not even close to resembling papers that would be filed in a lawsuit. Famspear (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It still scares the hell out of me!Theroadislong (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand. But there's no substantial need to be concerned.

I tell you what: If someone from the Internal Revenue Service were to show up and identify himself or herself as a "Special Agent" and show you a badge, THEN you should be scared. That's when you should call someone like me. I deal with the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of taxpayers. The IRS is scary for some people, for some reason...... [insert smiley face here!] Famspear (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Mentz Law Firm, LLC - George Mentz, Esq." is the same George Mentz who founded AAFM. As far as I can tell, he is the AAFM. A quick Google search for the law firm turns up only take down demands filed on behalf of AAFM on websites where people are claiming they were riped off by the AAFM.

The repeated additions to this article citing the threat of legal action have all been made by the numerous sockpuppets of Asian lawyer/FinancialLawyer/Doctorlaw. The saga is outlined at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Doctorlaw/Archive.

IMO, the threat is an attempt to shut us up. It says it is "a mere exercise of legal rights to investigate accuracy and competence, and should be valued by Wikimedia as priceless feedback to protect the public against fraud, collusion, misuse of wikipedia, or incompetence." Right, and I'm the Emperor of Mars.

It says the AAFM has "initiated a legal and ethical complaint". Yes, with Mentz Law Firm. Mentz complained to Mentz. What law? It doesn't say. Ethics? Of what professional body? There isn't one.

"Collusion"? Personally, I have not agreed with anyone to hide anything or cheat anyone. If Mentz and/or AAFM would like to claim otherwise, I would consider that to be a problematical claim, of the sort being made here against me.

If we edit the article, we would be "committing a conflict of interest". If I were tied to AAFM or a competing organization, I might have a conflict of interest. There is no way to "commit" a conflict of interest. (Mentz needs someone to proofread.) Mentz, for example, would have a clear conflict of interest editing this article.

As for "defamation and fraud", AAFM would need to prove that what we have written is false, harms their reputation and, presumably, that there was malicious intent. Personally, I believe everything I have written here is demonstrably true and my intent is not to harm Mentz/AAFM, merely to communicate what I see. That's the "defamation" bit. "Fraud"? That would require deception for financial gain. If I'm gaining anything from this, the checks haven't come in the mail yet.

All of that covers the absurdities I find in the first two paragraphs. The rest is similarly absurd, IMO. If anything is filed with the Wikimedia Foundation, we'll hear about it. If anything shows up in reliable sources, we'll add it to the article. Until then, I intend to participate in this public exercise. As there is nothing to add to the article here (so far) I'll continue to remove unsourced claims, add reliable sources as I find them and block socks as needed. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

AN/I Report

An AN/I complaint concerning this article has been filed. It can be found here. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

AAFM

Your edits appear to be an attempt to whitewash this article in the organization's favor. I suggest that you may have a conflict of interest in regard to the AAFM, and that you should no longer edit the article directly. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't removed the critics completely, but I tried to balance the content with Reliable Sources. But it seems by reverting the cited content you are in COI with the institution or its founder.EconomicTiger (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that's why the AAFM issued a press release threatening legal action against Wikipedia editors includng myself. Please get your story straight, you can't whitewash the article in the organization's favor and then accuse me of being in cahoots with them.

And, BTW, going to AN/I immediately, without discussion here or on the article talk page -- not a really classy move. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The above dialogue moved, without permission, from User talk:EconomicTiger

First of all, you are not professional by putting something on my page and then claiming it is on the article's talk page. That professionalism shows why a naive institution about Wikipedia would be forced to take legal action against Wikipedia. Because of a few editors like you, the entire project is compromised. Removing content cited from WP:RS needs Administrative Action, not the Dispute Resolution Initiative. If an experienced Wikipedia Editor like me could get frustrated, why the concerned institution won't go for a legal action against Wikipedia? AAFM is not the first institution, there are number of individuals and institutions personally told me they want to take legal against Wikipedia since my association with Wikipedia which started in 2007.EconomicTiger (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to correct a misapprehension, I never claimed there was a discsussion here. In fact, in the dialogue you moved here without my permission, I clearly wrote "here [meaning your talk page] or on the article talk page", and in my comment on AN/I I clearly stated that there was no discussion on the article talk page. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Doctorlaw/Globalprofessor/Financiallawyer/Asianlawyer and all the rest of the socks have used broken English to make legal threats in defending their whitewashing of AAFM. Now EconomicTiger narrowly avoids making legal threats by implying he is a lawyer for others who "want to take legal action against Wikipedia" in similarly broken English. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck and is an enclosure at the zoo with a big sign that says "Duck", it's probably a duck. If, through some miracle, you do not turn out to be at least a meatpuppet, I will print out this article (in a very large font with wide margins) and eat it. Then, I will profusely apologize to you and listen as impartially as I can to what you are saying. Until then, all I hear from you is loud quacking. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't want credentials from you. And Wikipedia doesn't have any immunity over law suits; I don't think there is special US legislation or an UN Charter which covers Wikipedia over its legal immunity. But the AGF of Wikipedia Editors can protect the project over any threats. I have added Content based on WP:RS, which should be kept there. If I look like a "Duck", better browse my history since 2007, you will know my vast interests on Wikipedia other than AAFM.EconomicTiger (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There you go with the red herrings and pseudo-legal threats again. No one has made an intelligible claim that there is anything to sue over. (What any of this has to do with my "credentials" or the "UN Charter" is anyone's guess.) I get that AAFM and various socks don't like some of the facts here. Too bad. Wikipedia publishes verifiable information about notable subjects. Those who wish to quash that information cannot do so with lame threats of laughable lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 12:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Drimies, Really glad you can take a look at RJC and the other ad lib edits. This article for AAFM has been spammed for 5 years, and now even the editors such as RJS and BMK refuse to allow edits of substance for 5 years. If you compare the article to Certified Financial Planner or CFA Institute, you will see that this article needs editors with some financial background to make the article accurate, neutral and without COI. RJC and BMK are just mad that they were reported for defamation and fraud and now a few editors are acting like socks for CYA purposes. It looks like they are now taking it out on the AAFM organization. If you look at the article before RJC got involved see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&oldid=264251240 , it was a useful and well cited article. Now, the article looks like it was written by a former disgruntled employee at the post office. Here is what the AAFM releases for press and media: See AAFM Press http://aafm.us/press.html With so much good AAFM press, it makes you wonder about why the article is now so negative. Overall, it looks like editors are being paid to spam the article. Even the criticism has been debunked completely with evidence http://aafm.us/wsj.html Again, please find the right neutral folks to fix this article Beyond8 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the reason you created this account to make this comment? Are you a banned editor? BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A company article sourced by the company's press releases to puff it up is never going to happen. Try finding independent third party reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Monitored by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following content is supported by WP:RS, if you differ, please state why?.EconomicTiger (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of its credentials are monitored by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

"Alphabet Soup". The Wall Street Journal. October 16, 2010. Retrieved March 31, 2014. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)</ref>

Please point out where the American Academy of Financial Management in mentioned anywhere in the cited article. I've looked several times and I cannot find it.

On the other hand User:EconomicTiger is one of the accounts that have attempted in the past to whitewash this article, which raises serious questions about their independence from the AAFM. If he or she is able to point to a specific part of the Wall Street Journal article which points to the AAFM's credentials being monitored by a higher authority, I'll be glad to allow the citation in the article, but since I searched the citation and did not find anything, I'm inclined to believe that this is yet another attempt by the AAFM to skew our article away from NPOV. BMK (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It is because you a few editors interpret my edits are whitewash that doesn't mean it is universally accepted norm. You should prove it clearly. You a few have taken me that I am sock of some one but finally failed at CU. I edit Wikipedia when I want only and Not addicted to it.

The link (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_CREDIT1015_20101015.html) which I have sourced clearly says within brackets; "Rows in yellow indicate Finra-monitored credentials."

There is third column which says, "Issuing Organization"; once you scroll down the way there you will find, "American Academy of Financial Management" is mentioned in number of places.

Please bear in mind you have violated reverting "3" times and that clearly shows your COI with this page and qualifies you for an imminent block.EconomicTiger (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this issue on my talk page so I figured I'd take a look. I've reviewed the Alphabet Soup article and it looks like the American Academy of Financial Management (AAFM) is cited as the Issuing organization (i.e. the third column) for the designation "Chartered Asset Manager" (Look at the third column in the row for the acronym "CAM"). Since this row is highlighted in yellow, it would indicate that this particular designation is a "Finra-monitored credential[s]". I also looked at FINRA's website and it does list the AAFM as the "Issuing organization" for the "Chartered Asset Manager" designation (see CAM - Chartered Asset Manager. However, FINRA's website also states that "FINRA does NOT approve or endorse any professional credential or designation." Therefore, while FINRA may "monitor" (i.e. watch, keep track of) designations, it does not necessarily mean that these designations are of a certain quality or meet certain standards.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hyperionsteel: Very good work in your part on not being sucked into supporting this very-borderline credentials operation. BMK (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hyperionsteel doesn't need your Kudos; he has actually corrected your mistake.EconomicTiger (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hyperionsteel doesn't need your Kudos; he has actually corrected your mistake. Really? What fantasy world do you live in? I see no edit by Hyperionsteel to the article at all. Do you actually have any idea how Wikipedia works? BMK (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are unaware of your own edits. You claimed initially, "Please point out where the American Academy of Financial Management in mentioned anywhere in the cited article. I've looked several times and I cannot find it.....". Then I went for the others opinion. Hyperionsteel has come out with his opinion above. Further Hyperionsteel clearly highlights in his Edit Summary, "the Alphabet Soup article does cite the Academy of Financial Management (AAFM) as the Issuing organization (i.e. the third column) for the acronym CAM)"

Now, tell me, is it wrong to say, he has corrected your mistake?EconomicTiger (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

EconomicTiger's suggestion that I have a COI in regard to AAFM is pure and utter bullshit. I'm a Wikipedia editor of long standing with a wide range of interests, not an SPA about AAFM (which EconomicTiger aqppears to be), and if ET makes this claim again against me, I will bring it to the attention of admins for adjudication. The result, I predict, will be the indef blocking of EconomicTiger as an agent of AAFM - so, really, keep on doing what you're doing. BMK (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If someone check my Contributions they will come know before I edit AAFM I have contributed many articles on Wikipedia. If you feel I am an Agent of AAFM, you report at ANI. You seem to me with your previous 3RR blocks(and with the 3RR violations here), you are more a stubborn POV pusher.EconomicTiger (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ET, that's complete and utter bullshit. I've got 140k+ edit to Wikipedia, if I was a POV-pusher, it would have been uncovered long go.

There are only two logical options here. The first is that you are one in a long line of AAFM-related sock or meatpuppets editing on behalf of that organization. The other is that you are an ignorant patsy, editing in their favor without being cognizant of exactly what you are doing.

I don't care which of the two options actually describes you, because the end result is the same. As for myself being a COI/POV editor -- good luck in convincing anyone about that. I may not be well-loved on Wikipedia, but I'm certainly well-known, and no one is going to take your claim seriously. BMK (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you are going out of the way accusing me unnecessarily for my content addition which is supported by WP:RS, I brought this issue to the attention of User:NuclearWarfare who has blocked you initially for your 3 RR violation.EconomicTiger (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Heard about WP:BATTLEGROUND? Probably not. BMK (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of that; but you are not. That is the reason, I have taken it to the Admin who is familiar with you rather than further discussing with you.EconomicTiger (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You know what? You are so entirely off base that it's even not worth my discussing anything with you either. Rest assured that you will not be allowed to add unsupported material to the article, so your mission will not be successful. I'll standby and await the block you so obviously feel that I observe.... but I won't be holding my breath, just going about my business. (Which, in my case-- unlike yours -- is improving Wikipedia). Have a really fabulous day. BMK (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are ridiculous with your comment above. The content which I have added is supported WP:RS. Hyperionsteel clearly highlights in his Edit Summary, "the Alphabet Soup article does cite the Academy of Financial Management (AAFM) as the Issuing organization (i.e. the third column) for the acronym CAM)".EconomicTiger (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Previous versions of the article touted that AAFM was listed by FINRA, and that was removed. This seems to be the same content presented a different way. Also, given EconomicTiger's well-established mendacity, he cannot expect that we engage him in a long discussion that terminates only when he declares himself convinced (i.e., never). RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are monitored by FINRA. This is true, but meaningless and deceptive. Basically, it means they exist and fall under FINRA's umbrella. If they sold frozen vegetables, we wouldn't mention that they are monitored by the USDA as this would also be true, but meaningless and deceptive. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Here there is meaningless or deceptive is not a issue, but it is mentioned at FINTRA's website and The Wall Street Journal carried this in their newspaper. When you want some Criticism of this Academy you can use The Wall Street Journal as a source and you can refer in the lead para as "The mainstream media criticized..."; but when something favourable to this Academy appear in the same newspaper, you cry that it is meaningless and deceptive. FINTRA is not listing each and every other designations but a few.EconomicTiger (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It is trivial. Presenting it as a meaningful piece of information about your organization is distortion. Perhaps you could explain for us, the numerous editors who disagree with you, what makes this a significant fact. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Single Source

The article is structured mostly based on the articles of The Wall Street Journal.61.245.165.21 (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And, as usual, we are not going to allow the AAFM to control the content of this article. For this reason I have removed your edits, and I, and other editors, will continue to do the same for any future whitewashing you attempt. This article is not under your control, and will never be. BMK (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If you continue to over power that AAFM control this article without addressing the issue raised, I will have to report each and every other ArbCom members to have a look on what is happening to this article.61.245.160.221 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The WSJ is a rock-solid source for the content you're trying to remove. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

But still that is a Single Source. And it is covered on the Criticism section, you don't need to repeat that on the lead.61.245.160.221 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article, including the Criticism section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Then either you should include the AAFM refusal as well.61.245.160.221 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reported in what secondary source? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

In that situation, even you can use the AAFM site; you don't need a secondary source.61.245.160.221 (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to bring this issue to ArbCom, where the entire history of the article will be examined, and it will undoubtedly be determined that you are simply the latest representatives of the AAFM, who have lost each and every examination of the article from the very beginning. Again, you are not going to control this article, stalwart Wikipedia editors will see to that. BMK (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If I represent the AAFM, why you can't represent the two previous directors, King and Baring, who took the founder of the AAFM, George Mentz, to court for libel, slander and defamation after he made numerous claims publicly on various websites about them and their business activities..61.245.163.56 (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your fallacious argument is that I am a long-time Wikipedia editor, with a track record of thousands of edits to hundreds of articles, whereas you are a WP:SPA here only to represent your own interests in the AAFM, which is why you will not be allowed to edit the article. That's rather unofficial, I'm sure no admin will admit to it, but it's nonetheless the fact of the matter - numerous editors will see to it that your edits to this article will never see more than a momentary publication. You must be aware of this. it's been the case for years now. BMK (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your long time presence doesn't validate why can't you be a POV pusher or why you can't be influenced by King and Baring subsequently. I have seen number of Administrators on Rfc against them vanished once and for all. Also AAFM article was created in 2005 and your account was created in 2009. 4 years gap is enough for a person methodically start a new account with the intention of controlling an article solely but by tricking editing other articles as well. Though I am a SPA, I don't see, why I can't raise any serious issues which are fallacious or correct wrongful facts.61.245.163.44 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's examine the possibilities:

• Beyond My Ken created an account and has since been compromised by those wishing to harm the AAFM. Maybe they are holding BMK's beloved beagle hostage, threatening to harm it if BMK does not do their nefarious bidding. They are also holding other editors' beagles.
• Beyond My Ken created an account and spent 5 years making over 100,000 edits, waiting for the opportunity to sabotage the AAFM article. Ever the patient sleeper agent, BMK waits until 2012 to edit said target. BMK is using mind control technology to get other editors to follow suit.
• Beyond My Ken is editing in good faith and a single purpose editor is joining a long list of socks associated with the organization aiming to polish their image contrary to our policies and the established consensus. This option also explains the actions of numerous other editors with similar histories (and no beloved beagles).

Please try to keep the paranoid conspiracy theories in check. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I expect the response from BMK not from you? There is no such consensus here. Only a few of you join together and criticizing each and every other account and IP address as somebody's sock.61.245.163.11 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really strange that editors might expect sock puppets and banned editors returning when that's happened repeatedly in the past. That's clearly paranoid. Thinking that an editor in good standing with 5 years under their belt is some kind of sleeper agent for unknown forces lying in wait to block efforts to...ahem..."polish" some of AAFM's rough edges is clearly more rational.

As for the consensus, when a few editors agree and are countered by a conflicted editor, that is a consensus.

By the way, please don't hurt the beagles. They're innocent in all of this. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Free Bailey! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I checked, in India AAFM is working with the National Institute of Securities Markets, a public trust, established by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). I don't think so, SEBI will work with an unrecognized institution.61.245.163.56 (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations from reliable sources, please. BMK (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Why NISM site can't be a reliable source?61.245.163.44 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That accreditation appears to be offered by only AAFM in India. Any independent sources to show the certification is notable? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

AAFM(India) is a subsidiary or affiliate of AAFM. If you question whether the certification is notable, can you show me independent sources to convince the legal action which is on the article is notable? If you can't, why you haven't so far removed the section from the article space?61.245.163.11 (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A good point, finally. I've removed that section as nothing came out of the legal action and there were no independent sources attesting to its significance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Federal Court Order Approving AAFM Lawsuit to go Against Brett King and Geoff Baring in US Federal Court

On July 17th, 2013, a US Federal Judge ordered that all of the of seven lawsuit counterclaims by AAFM and Mentz could go forward to court against the former trainers: Brett King, Geoff Baring and the IABFM. The US Court order stated that AAFM and Mr. George Mentz could sue Mr. Brett King, Mr. Geoffrey Baring and IABFM individually for numerous lawsuit counts in federal court including: (1) theft (2) defamation, (3) breach of contract, (4) intentional interference with contractual relationships,(5) conspiracy, (6) copyright infringement, and (7) fraud violations of the Consumer Protection Act. After this key decision, the case was settled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IBLSLAW (talk • contribs) 17:12, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

Primary source and your point? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It denied a motion to dismiss counterclaims, which is not the same thing. The suit was later dismissed, with prejudice, as the parties settled out of court. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

References

Here we go again

We have a new editor, who is about letting the truth be heard in a way that is ethical and legal, attempting much the same as was talked about in the Monitored by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority section. As SummerPhD astutely noted, "This is true, but meaningless and deceptive. Basically, it means they exist and fall under FINRA's umbrella. If they sold frozen vegetables, we wouldn't mention that they are monitored by the USDA as this would also be true, but meaningless and deceptive." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No surprise there. "ethical and legal" is right out of the Doctorlaw playbook, isn't it? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Food for thought: This article is semi-protected. To edit the article requires an auto-confirm (account must be four days old and have ten edits). Additionally, sock accounts often start by editing their user page, to get rid of the red link in the article history. Now check Smoothpanda's edits. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Smoothpanda's been blocked by the Good Doctor, Drmies. BMK (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

For 31 hours. They'll be back but as I said on their talk page, discussing here first and getting consensus is the only way they'll get anywhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted all edits by Smoothpanda that haven't already been deleted. Any editor-in-good-standing who wants to vouch for any of them is free to restore it without any hassle from me. BMK (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Now blocked indefinitely. I don't know what they were doing here (their musings are too incomprehensible to me), but they sure as hell weren't here to improve our beautiful project. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Certified financial analyst

Certified financial analyst redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That appears to have been a huge mistake. The "Certified Financial Analyst" designation has nothing to do with the "American Academy of Financial Management," as far as I can tell.

I deleted the redirect, and the article on "Certified Financial Analyst" can be expanded and cleaned up later. Famspear (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the article Certified financial analyst doesn't capitalize the name properly. Famspear (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused -- the CFA Institute grants the designation "Chartered Financial Analyst," for which the abbreviation is "CFA." So, I'm not sure about who if anyone grants the designation "Certified Financial Analyst." Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The certified financial analyst designation is sold by AAFM. Years ago, there was an article for each of AAFM's designations. Then they were listed here, with the articles redirecting here. Now we no longer list AAFM's entire product line in this article, since that would in essence be an advertisement, but apparently the old articles remain. The certified financial analyst article shouldn't redirect or refer to chartered financial analyst, since that would bolster the misimpression that the AAFM grants a designation that people care aobut. I would recommend tracking down and deleting the lot of those articles for failing WP:notability. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 05:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)