Talk:Weil, Gotshal & Manges

message: Wiki policy is not to trust the posting of content which is from an unverifiably source.  Would the editor who added the "Public Service" and "Notable Deals" sections please come forward and identify your factual basis for these entries?  Thanks.  
Knowsetfree (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, as discussed extensively here, anyone who wishes the extensive unreferenced conduct on the [Weil Gotshal] page to remain.  Put up or shut up.  Either provide reliable references to the awards, practise areas, and etc or they will be deleted.  I have no objection to the content or presentation other than it is totally unreferenced. --Knowsetfree (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extensive content without identified reference

message: User: 38.228.47.11 made a questionable edit, and I have invited him/her to comment here by leaving a comment on his/her Talk page.  The user entered the following quote attributed to John Martin described as a former District Judge, in the "Controversies" section which dealt with the Leslie Fay misconduct ruling and fine:
Former Southern District of New York Judge John Martin stated that Weil Gotshal's "lawyers conducted themselves in a fully appropriate and professional manner." [6]
The text as enterred by anonymous user 38.228.47.11 tends to contradict the clear message of the finding by another Federal Judge, that Weil Gotshal had engaged in misconduct related to the failure to make mandatory disclosure and corresponding false nature of each fee application wherein the firm's lawyers swore that it was "disinterested"  (see conflict of interest).  The entry clearly leaves the reader with the impression that reasonable minds could have disagreed as to the facts, and that a respected authority in the form John Martin did not find misconduct, or even murky conduct, but that the firm was above board.
However, I checked the actual referenced source and found something very different in the actual article  here:
The firm went on to state that the trial testimony of one of its experts, former Southern District of New York Judge John Martin, now of counsel at Debevoise & Plimpton, established that Weil Gotshal's "lawyers conducted themselves in a fully appropriate and professional manner."
Here we see that first of all, John Martin was not acting as a Judge reviewing the dispute.  But much worse we see that John Martin was not even acting as a disinterested party.  In fact, John Martin was getting paid by either Weil Gotshal, or a law firm representing Weil Gotshal.  John Martin was acting as an "expert", which is to say a hired gun giving testimoney in return for money.  This is far far from a ruling disputed by another member of law enforcement of the judiciary, or from being any sort of arms length analysis.  It seems to me that this entry is an example dishonest discourse and an abuse use of Wikipedia.  Would the anonymous editor please come forward and explain your rationale?  Was it a careless mistake, was it intentional?  Let me know if you believe I am not fairly describing the flaws in the edit.
Knowsetfree (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous edit with questionable content

message: ===relevant wiki rules===
"As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " WP:INDISCRIMINATE
"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP:WEIGHT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.41.177 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this entry from the top to the bottom.  The anon talk had previously placed her comment as the first entry of the page.  To be sure, I don't claim claim she was intentionally trying to try imply any official basis or superiority by doing so.  But the simple fact is, it's not polite in Wiki to do that.  And now to comment on the topic.  First, I would like to recognize the anon for at least tacitly conceding the accuracy of the entries she wishes to censure from Wiki.  And she is speciously correct in saying that truth and verifiability are not by themselves necessary and sufficient conditions to merit inclusion.  But she hopefully does not expect other wiki editors to swallow the notion that she has done anything to establish that the content should not be included.  In fact, the long history of vandalism and unethical argument in the Weil Gotshal article's talk pages really underscores the need for sunlight.  I don't want to rehash what has already been shown on the talk page, but the unethical conduct includes someone misrepresenting argument for hire by a lawyer as having come from the same person in his rule as a Judge.  We also have someone claiming that an industry report shows that the number of malpractice lawsuits against the firm should be 60 in one year, and thus the malpractice section should not be mentioned.  But this flies in the face of their argument about balance.  There are only 4 or so malpractice lawsuits mentioned, and they each have a special significance.  Plus, the editor failed to present any reference or proof of the 60 lawsuits after invitation.  The biggest problem that this "balance" has is that they are only trying to eliminate unflattering, yet true and significant information.  Wikipedia <> PR.  The biggest overall issue with respect to Weil Gotshal is the long history of anonymous vandalism, and that these issues were already looked at and addressed by many editors and some admins.  Last, and perhaps relevant, is that any lawyer member member of a bar, or agent/employee working for them, which includes mandatory notice/disclaimer of a lawyer's advertisement is quite likely in violation of such rule if you are editing by entry or deletion on Wiki pages.  Not a Wiki rule, a rule of your profession.  I suggest anyone guilty of such conduct, or aware of such conduct by a brother/sister of the bar report such misconduct immediately.  Remember, the cover-up always brings more serious ramifications than the crime.   --Knowsetfree (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Another quick review of the edit history of this article shows a quick series of 3 deletions of the misconduct and malpractise section of this article.  Perhaps not a coincidence as that the first deletion was by an Anon claiming of "personal soapbox".  Followed closely by two edits by the newly registered editor self titled Antisoapbox.  This could be a 3 revert rule violation, but Antisoapbox won't identify any anonymous edits prior to registering.  A significant point is that periodically there are anon edits to this 1,000+ lawyer firm's article which result in the page looking like a PR sheet.  One of these censoring editors belatedly admitted on wikipedia of being associated with the firm.  If wikipedia can't provide its readers of full and well rounded picture of a commercial firms history, then wiki should officially drop the official "Wiki is not PR".  Perhaps this article should be protected?  I tried talking with user Antisoapbox (as well as a string similarly editing anons over the last year or two) but the editor seems more interested in talking about me than the article. --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " WP:INDISCRIMINATE
"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." WP:WEIGHT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.41.177 (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this entry from the top to the bottom.  The anon talk had previously placed her comment as the first entry of the page.  To be sure, I don't claim claim she was intentionally trying to try imply any official basis or superiority by doing so.  But the simple fact is, it's not polite in Wiki to do that.  And now to comment on the topic.  First, I would like to recognize the anon for at least tacitly conceding the accuracy of the entries she wishes to censure from Wiki.  And she is speciously correct in saying that truth and verifiability are not by themselves necessary and sufficient conditions to merit inclusion.  But she hopefully does not expect other wiki editors to swallow the notion that she has done anything to establish that the content should not be included.  In fact, the long history of vandalism and unethical argument in the Weil Gotshal article's talk pages really underscores the need for sunlight.  I don't want to rehash what has already been shown on the talk page, but the unethical conduct includes someone misrepresenting argument for hire by a lawyer as having come from the same person in his rule as a Judge.  We also have someone claiming that an industry report shows that the number of malpractice lawsuits against the firm should be 60 in one year, and thus the malpractice section should not be mentioned.  But this flies in the face of their argument about balance.  There are only 4 or so malpractice lawsuits mentioned, and they each have a special significance.  Plus, the editor failed to present any reference or proof of the 60 lawsuits after invitation.  The biggest problem that this "balance" has is that they are only trying to eliminate unflattering, yet true and significant information.  Wikipedia <> PR.  The biggest overall issue with respect to Weil Gotshal is the long history of anonymous vandalism, and that these issues were already looked at and addressed by many editors and some admins.  Last, and perhaps relevant, is that any lawyer member member of a bar, or agent/employee working for them, which includes mandatory notice/disclaimer of a lawyer's advertisement is quite likely in violation of such rule if you are editing by entry or deletion on Wiki pages.  Not a Wiki rule, a rule of your profession.  I suggest anyone guilty of such conduct, or aware of such conduct by a brother/sister of the bar report such misconduct immediately.  Remember, the cover-up always brings more serious ramifications than the crime.   --Knowsetfree (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: relevant wiki rules

message: A rehash of prior arguments against the verified content by a brand anew wiki editor.  User Antisoapbox: this is the page that you would comment about your argument for deleting the content before you decide on your own to censor the controversies section.  I boggles the mind to to consider your argument that a $ Million dollar fine levied against a law firm is somehow out of date.  Can you think of any other law firm which had to pay such a large sum?  A number of  proto editors, mostly anons and newly registered editors such as yourself, have already attempted to sway long standing wiki editors and failed.  Your self righteous manner merely adds to the legacy of censoreship on the conflict of interest problems of Weil Gotshal.  I'm not sure how much time I should give you before I just revert.  And would you answer the question of whether or not you are associated or employed by Weil Gotshal.  --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another quick review of the edit history of this article shows a quick series of 3 deletions of the misconduct and malpractise section of this article.  Perhaps not a coincidence as that the first deletion was by an Anon claiming of "personal soapbox".  Followed closely by two edits by the newly registered editor self titled Antisoapbox.  This could be a 3 revert rule violation, but Antisoapbox won't identify any anonymous edits prior to registering.  A significant point is that periodically there are anon edits to this 1,000+ lawyer firm's article which result in the page looking like a PR sheet.  One of these censoring editors belatedly admitted on wikipedia of being associated with the firm.  If wikipedia can't provide its readers of full and well rounded picture of a commercial firms history, then wiki should officially drop the official "Wiki is not PR".  Perhaps this article should be protected?  I tried talking with user Antisoapbox (as well as a string similarly editing anons over the last year or two) but the editor seems more interested in talking about me than the article. --Knowsetfree (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New editor [[User:Antisoapbox|Antisoapbox]] deletes unflattering content without prior discussion

message: Knowsetfree has repeatedly edited this and other articles to prominently highlight a few select, usually old, often to nonworking links, news items from the many thousands about the subject of the article.  Repeatedly other editors, with varying degrees of politeness and patience, have corrected this and pointed out to Knowsetfree that such edits violate WP:NPOV among others.
On this particular discussion page, there was already a clear consensus that Knowsetfree's edits violate Wikipedia policy.  Of the four other editors with signed comments on this talk page, all of them have noted in various ways that Knowsetfree's edits violate WP:NPOV, primarily because of WP:WEIGHT. Specifically,
"there may be a WP:WEIGHT problem here because of the prominence given to the misconduct and malpractice sections. Question is, does this represent the available sourcing on this law firm from WP:RS sourches? If it does not, then there is a WEIGHT problem. --Samiharris (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Knowsetfree's repeated edits violate consensus of editors on this page and WP policies

message: Just noting here for third opinion purposes that the above dispute is about the addition (sample diff) and removal (sample diff) of an approximately 3.5kb "Controversies" section with "Misconduct ruling by federal judge" and "Malpractice" subsections.  — Athaenara  ✉  21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: A comment from an uninvolved editor: It would be surprising if a law firm of this size had not at some point had an unethical employee, but that doesn't mean that a neutrally phrased report of the company's problems is inappropriate. The first section, although it dates from 1994, appears to me relevant, significant, well sourced and neutrally phrased: especially if the comment by the firm about the rules on disclosure in bankruptcy cases can be supported by independent comment.
The second section is more problematic. The operative ruling in the first case is "subtly" and it seems to me the Judge was not certain. Although unsourced, the fact that the case was apparently settled outside court (which presumably means no admission of malpractice by Weil, Gotshal and Manges) leads me to the conclusion that it would be best not to include this case in the article.
In the second case the fact that it is ongoing strongly argues against inclusion. The mention is unbalanced because it includes only Radman's allegations, and it also makes them against named individuals which is problematic under WP:BLP. I would therefore remove mention of this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A third opinion