Talk:Jim Walden (lawyer)

Reverting contributions by
I'm reverting all edits on this page to a version on March 16 (6+ weeks ago). All of these edits seem to have been made by User:Walden, Macht & Haran or were tweaks and changes made to an enormous amount of text added by that editor. You can view. The edits themselves have many issues in terms of tone, puffery, and neutrality and more. One example of non-encyclopedic content (removed by another editor before I found it) includes:


 * "Defiant in the face of injustice, Walden’s inventive class-action litigation strategies brought against city and state agencies have resulted in triumphant outcomes for thousands of New Yorkers."

In addition to peacocking, the edits also include quite a bit of new factual information. I reverted them en mass because User:Walden, Macht & Haran appears to be an employee of the article subject editing at his request Edit summaries make this clear and include:


 * "Minor edits at the request of Jim Walden, the subject of the page, who I work for directly."
 * "I updated specific background and case work for this lawyer, Jim Walden, at his request. I work for his firm and have fact checked all changes."

User:Walden, Macht & Haran appears to be a good faith editor but the account and the edits on the wrong side of many Wikipedia policies. The account itself is in violation of WP:ISU and WP:BFAQ and will likely be banned. I will leave a message on that user's talk page to try to suggest that the authors read up on relevant Wikipedia policies on conflict of interest, neutral tone, and editing as an organization, before using something like edit requests to have the constructive changes made. — m a k o ๛  05:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Other Issues
Honestly, the rest of this article history looks pretty sketchy too. Basically the entire content before these updates seem to have been added by User:Unbreakable9, User:Mike Slice, and User:Bkleinberg. All three are confirmed sockpuppets of the same user and their contributions and pretty consistently suspect. There's no question of notability but the article would clearly benefit from some careful attention and editing by a neutral third party. — m a k o ๛  05:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft for review (16 December 2019)
Adding this so that this draft of the article, which should reflect all edits and suggestions from Wiki editors, can be reviewed for publication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jim_Walden