#1 WMF contractor complains about neutrality of their en.wp entry
-
ericbarbour
- Sucks Admin
- Posts: 4626
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
- Location: The ass-tral plane
- Has thanked: 1158 times
- Been thanked: 1848 times
Re: #1 WMF contractor complains about neutrality of their en.wp entry
Next edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1160166906
A number of people have editwarred this article over the years so it's difficult to analyze. But I can say this: FuriouslySerene (Canadian, Jewish, uses the same username on Reddit, formerly called "mikeman67" which he ALSO used on Reddit, loves to start AFDs and vote for deletion on others, clearly hates corporations, real name possibly Michael Nichols (a semi-pro race driver?), and is possibly yet another Cirt sockpuppet or supporter) was the first to insert the stuff about Jones Day representing the Trump election campaign. Just after removing a load of factual stuff that he called "promotional material".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =711268626
YOU TELL ME
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ta ... uslySerene
MelanieN later offered to helpI've removed the adminhelp template as you don't need administrator intervention. In the future, do not put templates in section headers.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1160166906
A number of people have editwarred this article over the years so it's difficult to analyze. But I can say this: FuriouslySerene (Canadian, Jewish, uses the same username on Reddit, formerly called "mikeman67" which he ALSO used on Reddit, loves to start AFDs and vote for deletion on others, clearly hates corporations, real name possibly Michael Nichols (a semi-pro race driver?), and is possibly yet another Cirt sockpuppet or supporter) was the first to insert the stuff about Jones Day representing the Trump election campaign. Just after removing a load of factual stuff that he called "promotional material".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =711268626
YOU TELL ME
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_ta ... uslySerene
-
Boink Boink
- Sucks Fan
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: #1 WMF contractor complains about neutrality of their en.wp entry
Karma, bitches.
Their complaint is similarly worded...
Hopefully what comes out of this is Jones Day having to formally ask the Wikimedia Foundation to provide them with the personally identifying information of Chip&Dip so they can be fired or sued, and the Wikimedia Foundation telling them to go fuck themselves because that request is unconstitutional or whatever.
Since the complaint is detailed but comicaly inept all at the same time, whilst also demonstrating quite well the shortcomings of the edit request system for COI edits, my instinct is that this is someone trying to make trouble for Jones Day and Wikipedia.
If so, it has already yielded results in showing that the very first respondent*, MelanieN, is so short of time and interest, they didn't even spot that she wasn't actually pinged to the request because she had edited the Jones Day article before, as she wrongly assumed, she was pinged precisely because she has directly relevant editing experience. MelanieN is so dumb, she tells Chips something he literally already told her in the request....
So unless showing the world that Wikipedia is a joke is the purpose of it, Chips is wasting their time.
Either nothing will come of the request, or someone will see it and make the article even worse from Chip's point of view, If we are to assume Chips is who he says he is.
The article is already manifestly not neutral, and that is obvious from the various first line...
Chips is definitely not as stupid as he first appears. That will definitely trigger a Wikipedia editor. Or at least it would have before Wikipedia had declined, decayed and generally slid into irrelevance to the point that it's quite unlikely there are enough editors with Trump Derangement Syndrome left to even want to find the time or energy to wander over to a moderately relevant page like this to neutralise it.
For those wondering if Chips is a right clever bastard looking to prey on naive cult members as a form of bloodsport, the comparison to Kirkland and Ellis is not as it first appears an eminently irrelevant OTHERSTUFF argument. As is already made clear by one of the reliable sources already in the article.....(The FT April 2021 piece)
Although of course, asking editors to look further at the FT piece rather obviously does not result in what Kenny the Copy Guy might consider a more neutral Wikipedia treatment......
Very clever.
But I rather fear it might be wasted effort, because as I say, Wikipedia is already far enough along on its slow death spiral, that the more likely outcome of such things, is just, well, crickets.
* - the first person to actually respond was Bbb23, but of course all he did was chastise Chips for daring to consider a matter of neutrality to be an issue that requires Administrative help. He also removed the section header used by Chips, which at first glance might appear to be simple incompetence, but to those of us who know Bbb23, was meant to achieve exactly what it does achieve, namely to hide the fact this is nominally a fresh complaint about neutrality and is quite a separate thing to the earlier mundane request by Jon Gray. It is Bbb23's unsubtle way of telling Chips he is on to them so fuck off I imagine. Most likely he has already determined through the use of illegally held CheckUser data and improper back channel communication that Chips is merely just a trouble maker, but he can't actually say it because Chips clearly has that skill every Wikipedia trouble maker needs, knowing how to craft experiments that trap Wikipedia's corrupt actors in their own web of deceit.
Although of course, the immediate question that arises, is whether this is actually Jones Day making a complaint. For a start, they already seem to have a fully declared paid agent in User:Jon Gray, who did work for them on their Wikipedia article as recently as April/June. As Jon declared....Jones Day serves as outside global trademark counsel to Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization that operates some of the world's largest collaboratively edited reference projects, including Wikipedia®, a free-content, online encyclopedia.
This new complaint comes from a user who calls themselves "Chips&Dip", who merely declares...This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by FleishmanHillard on behalf of Jones Day for their contributions to Jones Day.
Note that he doesn't say he is being paid or directed to represent Jones Day on Wikipedia.I have a conflict of interest as a staff member of Jones Day, and I will not directly edit articles related to the law firm.
Their complaint is similarly worded...
Other than the use of "we", there's nothing here to indicate the complainant is acting for and on behalf of Jones Day. He could be Kenny the Copy Guy, who is struggling to get ahead in life because his C.V. says he worked for Trump's lawyers, and that is the extent of his involvement as a "subject".Edit Request
Note: I am making this edit request as an individual with a conflict of interest with the subject.
I work on the staff of Jones Day, the Contact Us page for Wikipedia says that subjects of articles who have complaints about bias should bring these issues to the attention of independent editors on the Talk Page.
....
We understand that it is not up to Jones Day to determine the content of the article, but request that facts are stated neutrally and do not contain emphasis on opinions. We request that the lead for the Jones Day page be edited to .....
"We request"......
"We request"......
etc
Hopefully what comes out of this is Jones Day having to formally ask the Wikimedia Foundation to provide them with the personally identifying information of Chip&Dip so they can be fired or sued, and the Wikimedia Foundation telling them to go fuck themselves because that request is unconstitutional or whatever.
Since the complaint is detailed but comicaly inept all at the same time, whilst also demonstrating quite well the shortcomings of the edit request system for COI edits, my instinct is that this is someone trying to make trouble for Jones Day and Wikipedia.
If so, it has already yielded results in showing that the very first respondent*, MelanieN, is so short of time and interest, they didn't even spot that she wasn't actually pinged to the request because she had edited the Jones Day article before, as she wrongly assumed, she was pinged precisely because she has directly relevant editing experience. MelanieN is so dumb, she tells Chips something he literally already told her in the request....
That MelanieN can be so dumb in her very first reply, hardly inspires confidence that this complaint will be responded to in a timely and appropriate way. As she makes clear, if she can find the time she might look into it, but at first glance she doesn't see herself being minded to make any changes, since the article already seems neutral to her.Over the course of several years, the Wikipedia page for Jones Day has been edited so that it does not reflect the structure,nor neutrality of other law firms of its size. WP:5P2
The lead: Please compare the lead of the Kirkland and Ellis page which contains neutral facts: “Many attorneys from the firm have served as federal officials or judges, including United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and former Attorney Generals William Barr and Robert Bork.“
vs. Jones Day’s lead: “Since the 2000s, the firm has become increasingly active in aiding the Republican Party and American conservative movement. Jones Day was outside counsel for the Trump 2016 and Trump 2020 campaigns.
In 2021, Jones Day hired a significant number of former Trump administration lawyers.”
.....
We would note that MelanieN and Lindenfall are editors who have contributed to resolving issues regarding neutrality of some peer firm pages.
So unless showing the world that Wikipedia is a joke is the purpose of it, Chips is wasting their time.
Either nothing will come of the request, or someone will see it and make the article even worse from Chip's point of view, If we are to assume Chips is who he says he is.
The article is already manifestly not neutral, and that is obvious from the various first line...
Elite is not a word Wikipedia should be using in this context, even if it can be reliably sourced (naturally, it isn't). How ironic that Chips goes to great lengths to complain about the article containing subjective opinions and original research.Jones Day is an elite American multinational law firm.
Chips is definitely not as stupid as he first appears. That will definitely trigger a Wikipedia editor. Or at least it would have before Wikipedia had declined, decayed and generally slid into irrelevance to the point that it's quite unlikely there are enough editors with Trump Derangement Syndrome left to even want to find the time or energy to wander over to a moderately relevant page like this to neutralise it.
For those wondering if Chips is a right clever bastard looking to prey on naive cult members as a form of bloodsport, the comparison to Kirkland and Ellis is not as it first appears an eminently irrelevant OTHERSTUFF argument. As is already made clear by one of the reliable sources already in the article.....(The FT April 2021 piece)
So, If it is true that the rather generous language in Kirkland's page which seems to deliberately obscure the Trump connections of its senior partners is the result of it being edited by MelanieN, of Wikipedia's most respected Administrators, it seems like a reasonable request to expect the same for Jones Day.Although its network of senior Trump administration alumni is perhaps rivalled only by Kirkland & Ellis — last year the world’s highest-grossing law firm — not all Jones Day lawyers favour Republicans.
Although of course, asking editors to look further at the FT piece rather obviously does not result in what Kenny the Copy Guy might consider a more neutral Wikipedia treatment......
Hence why this reads to me like a carefully laid trap for any half assed Wikipedia editor coming into the request with an intent to dismiss it with jargon like OTHERSTUFF and rapidly edit the article to better reflect the weight that reliable sources give to the whole Jones Day is for Trump angle, showing a fool like Chips that Wikipedia is not so easily manipulated by the forces of corporate evil.Jones Day has welcomed back a slew of lawyers from the Trump administration since the start of the year, sealing the Midwestern firm’s reputation as a central player in Republican party politics.
The return of Jones Day partners began in earnest in April 2019 when Don McGahn came back to the 2,500-lawyer firm based in Cleveland, Ohio, after serving as Donald Trump’s first White House counsel.
Between January and March of this year, Jones Day welcomed back at least seven more lawyers from the White House and federal agencies such as the Department of Justice, according to announcements by the firm. Eighteen Jones Day lawyers worked for the Trump administration, according to ProPublica.
Some of the returning lawyers were given higher positions than they had before at Jones Day, underscoring the ties between the Trump movement and the firm, lawyers and recruiters said. They included McGahn, who now heads its government regulation group, and Noel Francisco, the former US solicitor general, who leads the firm’s Washington office.
Federal records show Jones Day has earned more than $25m in fees from Trump campaigns, groups linked to the former president and the Republican National Committee since 2015. However, after representing the Pennsylvania Republican party in litigation over mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, the firm said in a blog post it was “not representing President Trump, his campaign, or any affiliated party in any litigation alleging voter fraud”.
Jones Day declined to comment.
......
The firm’s relationship with Trump was forged by McGahn, 52, who met the property developer in 2014 and joined his White House bid in 2015, when his victory seemed improbable. A product of Atlantic City, New Jersey, McGahn also had family connections to the future president through his uncle Patrick “Paddy” McGahn, a lawyer who helped Trump cut deals in the seaside gambling centre during the 1980s.
Very clever.
But I rather fear it might be wasted effort, because as I say, Wikipedia is already far enough along on its slow death spiral, that the more likely outcome of such things, is just, well, crickets.
* - the first person to actually respond was Bbb23, but of course all he did was chastise Chips for daring to consider a matter of neutrality to be an issue that requires Administrative help. He also removed the section header used by Chips, which at first glance might appear to be simple incompetence, but to those of us who know Bbb23, was meant to achieve exactly what it does achieve, namely to hide the fact this is nominally a fresh complaint about neutrality and is quite a separate thing to the earlier mundane request by Jon Gray. It is Bbb23's unsubtle way of telling Chips he is on to them so fuck off I imagine. Most likely he has already determined through the use of illegally held CheckUser data and improper back channel communication that Chips is merely just a trouble maker, but he can't actually say it because Chips clearly has that skill every Wikipedia trouble maker needs, knowing how to craft experiments that trap Wikipedia's corrupt actors in their own web of deceit.
-
Boink Boink
- Sucks Fan
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2023 8:50 pm
- Been thanked: 85 times
Re: #1 WMF contractor complains about neutrality of their en.wp entry
Two weeks later, and Chips&Dip has quite literally been ignored.
One can argue whether an edit request is a proper notification, but one cannot argue the mountains of evidence that show Wikipedia heavily steers anyone who has an issue with Wikipedia content and has a conflict of interest, and in a very official way, to go the route of the edit request system. It isn't the way people should go if they want results. For that you must completely ignore the volunteers and contact the Foundation legal department directly. But figuring out how to do that is almost as hard as figuring out how to cancel your Prime subscription.
So, why isn't the mandated route working in this case? There is no excuse really. They will have excuses, but they wouldn't stand up in court. Hence why it would pay a firm like Jones Day to have them tested in court.
If it were me, if I was responsible for millions of dollars of donor money, I don't think I'd be taking even the slightest risk that Chips&Dip isn't who he claims to be and doesn't at least have some merit to his request.
Moderator note: This post has been shortened to be more readable, the original version can be found here.
One can argue whether an edit request is a proper notification, but one cannot argue the mountains of evidence that show Wikipedia heavily steers anyone who has an issue with Wikipedia content and has a conflict of interest, and in a very official way, to go the route of the edit request system. It isn't the way people should go if they want results. For that you must completely ignore the volunteers and contact the Foundation legal department directly. But figuring out how to do that is almost as hard as figuring out how to cancel your Prime subscription.
So, why isn't the mandated route working in this case? There is no excuse really. They will have excuses, but they wouldn't stand up in court. Hence why it would pay a firm like Jones Day to have them tested in court.
If it were me, if I was responsible for millions of dollars of donor money, I don't think I'd be taking even the slightest risk that Chips&Dip isn't who he claims to be and doesn't at least have some merit to his request.
Moderator note: This post has been shortened to be more readable, the original version can be found here.