Talk:Peter Strzok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I made my first and last revert (per 1RR) to the article today (July 24, 2018). However, nothing was removed over disputed notability as @Snooganssnoogans inaccurately surmised or discerned, but primarily, rather, due to questions about POV. Please see diffs ([1], [2]). Quis separabit? 23:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Quoting Strzok is not a POV violation. Other language that was removed mirrored the sources' language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The POV found in RS must not be altered or neutered. Neither sources nor content must be "neutral", but editors must be neutral while editing. POV deletions and alterations aren't allowed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

consensus required[edit]

Re [3] - this text has been in the article for some time, so's removal was challenged by Snooganssnoogans and should not have been made again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Misleading mention of Sessions[edit]

With regard to the following sentence in the lede:

"The Department of Justice, led by Republican Jeff Sessions, has defended Mueller's response to the text messages."

The phrase "led by Republican Jeff Sessions" gives a strong impression, in my opinion, that Sessions himself has opined on the issue of Mueller's response. Neither source footnoted for that sentence makes any mention of Sessions. He is titular head of Justice, but is recused on the investigation and is unlikely to say anything about it. The sentence should be changed to eliminate the misleading mention of Sessions. The footnoted NY Times article states that Rosenstein defended Mueller's response, so we should make that clear, instead of falsely implying that Sessions commented. A suggested alternate: "Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has defended Mueller's response to the text messages." DonFB (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


This edit claims that it's adding two sources which speak of "demotion" of Strzok. The first one, CNN, actually says "was cast as a promotion by some at the bureau despite the fact it is widely seen to be a demotion". The second one, WaPo also only says that it was "viewed" as a demotion. Not the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

We can't say in Wiki voice that he was demoted, but we can say "considered internally as a demotion" perhaps within parentheses after we say in wiki voice that he was "moved" or "reassigned" (which is the language that RS say). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree, topic of "demotion" needs to be attributed and can certainly be included, along with the highly complimentary report from the NY Times. An edit to do it would probably look a lot like this one I made, since reverted. DonFB (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
He was clearly demoted (before being fired) and the article should reflect that. As proof, here is a quote from his own lawyer using the word demotion, the deputy director “reversed the decision of the career FBI official responsible for employee discipline who concluded, through an independent review process, that a 60-day suspension and demotion from supervisory duties was the appropriate punishment.” .[4] Since his own lawyer says it was a demotion, then it should be considered undisputed.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion. Sources disagree whether the transfer that happened as a result of removal from the Russia investigation was a demotion. Strzok's lawyer seems to be referring to a hypothetical demotion. The FBI's response says that the OPR review happened after the IG report: "Strzok was subject to the standard FBI review and disciplinary process after conduct highlighted in the IG report was referred to the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)". Politrukki (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Blind revert[edit]

by User:D.Creish, the account who's very first edit was to cite an obscure Wikipedia policy ([5]) on a controversial article, made here: [6]. Why do we have to put up with this WP:GAMEing anyway?

Regardless, this is ridiculous. At the very least, please update the freakin' timeline to note that he ALREADY TESTIFIED rather than reporting old shit from March or whatever about how he was GOING TO TESTIFY. Sheesh. Can't even bother to edit war correctly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary, (additional) falsification of a source[edit]

This edit, in response to a failed verification tag I added, claims to have found a source for the claim that Strzok "agreed to testify" after "further anti-Trump messages were revealed". Neither the previous source (CNN) nor the new source (WaPo) say anything like that. This is a fairly blatant, POV manipulation of sources on an article which is subject to discretionary sanctions.

(Nevermind that the info is outdated since Strzok ALREADY freakin' testified!) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Single-purpose account and 1RR violations[edit]

A single-purpose account has now four times in a span of two weeks mass-removed reliably sourced content. On two occasions (19 July, 31 July), the editor violated the one-revert rule. There are several discussions above wherein the editor, Vaalpak, can argue for why reliably sourced content should be mass-removed, and the editor has not taken a single opportunity to do so. The editor has also been repeatedly warned on his user talk page, yet the behavior persists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Responding here to Snooganssnoogans false statements above: I have never violated any one-revert rules first of all (why is this user allowed to just make things up and no admin steps in to do anything)? Besides lying they also smeared me as "fringey", and they consistently remove any RS content added into an article because Snooganssnoogans disagrees with it personally and labels those editors "fringe"? Vaalpak (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, obviously they aren't an SPA since they have edited articles other than this one. They are, however, a newbie - please don't bite the newbies. Also please stop attacking editors with whom you don't see eye to eye. This is an issue with you that keeps coming up at article after article - when are you going to stop? He also did not violate 1RR. Don't lie about other editors (also something that's become a habit with you). -- ψλ 23:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Mr. Tone Police, you long ago lost any moral standing to give advice to other editors -- not to mention you forgetting that calling someone a liar out of the blue like that qualifies as, you know, attacking editors. Maybe you ought to read the links you toss about. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Where's my laughing emoji when I need it? -- ψλ 02:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I will grant you that, yes, you are a joke, sure. --Calton | Talk 02:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You're killin' me, Smalls! Have you thought about taking your act on the road? Perhaps the Comedy Store might be a good first gig for you? -- ψλ 02:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Stupidity of "consensus required" bites again[edit]

First, I am challenging the entire sentence about starting with "After the release of the DOJ-OIG report, which revealed further anti-Trump texts from Strzok..." because it is NOT supported by sources, which do not 1) link OIG report to Strzok's decision to testify 2) do not link Strzok's decision to testify to "revelation of further anti-Trump texts"

The above is grounds enough for a challenge and in fact is some serious abuse and misrepresentation of sources by User:D.Creish.

I am also challenging the info for the very simple reason that it's outdated. Strzok ALREADY testified but the text reads as if that was yet to happen.

Now, I would love to add the fact that Strzok already testified, and I did, but then D.Creish went and "challenged" that. So we're in this dysfunctional situation where the article cannot be updated - indeed it's a few months behind the times now - because ONE user, who has not even bothered to participate in talk discussion can hold the article hostage and make it outdated and ridiculous. Am I really expected to start a RfFC on the very obvious and non-controversial fact that Strzok ALREADY testified before the freakin' committee? (And can we please get rid of this idiotic restriction?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with updating the tense, even expanding now that he's testified. I objected to was your POV rewrite. Propose something and we can work on it. You should know your latest removal breached the DS by reinstating a challenged edit. D.Creish (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Fired in August 2018[edit]

It should be added to the lead text that Strzok was fired in August 2018. Strvk (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. -- ψλ 19:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you also add "Good riddance"? Strvk (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

We go with reliable sources[edit]

This reversion [7] of sourced content occurred. It's been said numerous times that "we go by what reliable sources say". The source attached to the content added [8], stated specifically that Strzok's firing was due to his anti-Trump texting. I'm now quite confused. And honestly, I don't see how the edit summary explanation is valid ("Details and context are not fully known. BLP requires caution in tone and substance of assertions here") when I and other editors have been told repeatedly by the reverting editor that "we go with what reliable sources say". The reliable source said it, why do we have to take caution with tone and substance? I'm quite perplexed at what seems to be blatant duplicity. -- ψλ 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it is really too early in the news cycle to be characterizing his firing. If, after some time has passed and no other narrative emerges, then I agree we should be putting in the "due to anti-Trump texts". As it stands though anything beyond that he was fired is treading pretty close to controversial BLP claim territory. In addition there is the matter that his firing was against the recommendation of OPR so characterizing the reason for his firing before we have more complete information has some ethical implications which may implicitly raise BLP issues re the individual who fired him. Jbh Talk 20:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
"I think it is really too early in the news cycle to be characterizing his firing." You're saying then that we don't go with reliable sources that are characterizing his firing when it's on the same day as the firing? I mean, it is in a reliable source. As a matter of fact, it's all over the internet in numerous reliable sources:[9] Not sure why there's now a wait-period (is that policy?). -- ψλ 20:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Well-put, Jbhunley. This is a frog patch with BLP issues lurking all around underfoot. NOTNEWS tells us be patient and BLP requires it. SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
"This is a frog patch with BLP issues lurking all around underfoot. NOTNEWS tells us be patient and BLP requires it." I'll be sure to remember that. -- ψλ 20:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 I am saying WP:NOTNEWS and that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not CNN. As to why we should wait, I believe I was pretty clear – We do not know the actual reasons and circumstances, we know what was reported a few hours ago. That may or may not be accurate and because it is a 'controversial claim about a living person' we should not be using 'breaking news' reports. All initial reporting on an event is primary once the story settles and has been subject to analysis and interpretation then we will have something to base detailed article text on.
The story is going to continue beyond this first 'flash' (if not then WP:DUE would be an issue) so we can wait a few days for things to settle out. In fact I would say WP:BLP requires we wait in the case of matters regarding personal ethics and/or accusations of ethical failure. Jbh Talk 20:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to note the different interpretation of what sources say with your comments and the different interpretation of what I've seen numerous editors (even administrators) say in regard to inclusion of content based on what reliable sources say. Full disclosure: I've always seen it as you are saying you do above. I've been mocked and chastised and even ABF'd time and again over the last several months for that interpretation. I was led to believe that my interpretation (aka your interpretation) is silly and plain wrong. I've seen what I believe is the incorrect interpretation applied and defended by a plethora of editors and admins at certain articles that all fall within a specific genre. But today, suddenly, that's changed. Hopefully, you can see why I'm "confused" by these differences. -- ψλ 20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep. Wikipedia has, in my rather strong opinion, a huge problem with editing based on 'breaking news'. There is an art to figuring out what events are significant and worth including and it becomes more difficult as the news and outrage cycle becomes shorter. A few years ago it was easy to discount an event as not being encyclopedic if reporting on it dropped off after a few weeks. Now we have the significant being up-staged by the venal being up-staged by the outrageous in rapid and continuous succession. Now the best we can do is, at a minimum, wait for a settled narrative to emerge after all the players have had a chance to get their bit in. Jbh Talk 21:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
If we are supposed to wait for the news cycle to finish WP:NOTNEWS, why note that he was fired? You just get to WP:CHERRYPICK what is news and what is not based on your own well developed "art" of figuring out what is important? I thought we just quote reliable sources and attribute appropriately, if they are wrong, it is on the source, not WP. Man have we lost our way, which leads to garbage articles, like this one. 2600:1700:1111:5940:1C10:FFB4:FF54:7E2E (talk) 00:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Here's an addition to the narrative: Strzok has a GoFundMe page and has set up a anti-Trump Twitter account.[10] [11]. And for the record, Jbhunley, there are even more reliable sources saying definitively that he was fired because of his texting habit. -- ψλ 00:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
And by "narrative", of course, you mean "spin". --Calton | Talk 00:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I've never played that game. 00:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winkelvi (talkcontribs)
Even though Specifico's explanation of the revert is lacking, the revert per se was good (as a side note, the next edit was unnecessary weaseling). I assume that you added "as a result of his anti-Trump text messages" because the Washington Post headline says "fired over anti-Trump texts". Headlines are not considered reliable sources for statements of facts because usually they are not subject to the same editorial oversight the text is. In this case the headline is not substantiated in the body.
You say "there are even more reliable sources saying definitively that he was fired because of his texting habit". Could you provide sources? So far I have not seen anything definitive. For example AP news minute headline says "fired over texts that were critical of President Trump", but the voice-over attributes that to Strzok's lawyer. The folks at CNN who were reading The Washington Post report as the story broke said it was unclear what the ultimate reason for firing was. Though I don't know which revision of the WaPo report, which went through major changes before it was published in the paper, they were reading. Politrukki (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I found some sources that say Strzok was fired over text messages:
  1. "an F.B.I. agent who helped oversee the Russia investigation and who was fired for sending texts critical of Mr. Trump." – The New York Times
  2. "Strzok was fired Monday ... for sending texts to FBI lawyer and girlfriend Lisa Page that were critical of Donald Trump while working on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team." – HuffPost
  3. "Strzok was fired from the FBI on Monday over anti-Trump texts." – CNBC
  4. "after he was fired for sending texts to a former FBI lawyer that expressed his dislike for President Donald Trump" – Newsweek
  5. "Peter Strzok ... has been fired over controversial texts that subjected him and the bureau to national scrutiny, the Washington Post reported on Monday." –Business Insider
  6. "after he was fired for sending texts critical of President Trump before the election while involved in multiple politically relevant investigations" – The Hill
Then on the other hand, former FBI Special Agent Chris Swecker writes that "the reasons for Strzok's firing, other than the texts, are still not public ... In other words, Strzok was not fired for simply expressing his opinion privately. According to the Department of Justice inspector general, Strzok also used his private email to send and receive classified information – exactly the misconduct by Hillary Clinton he was supposed to be investigating.[12] Politrukki (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Was Strzok a member of the SES?[edit]

I think that division directors and their deputies are members of the Senior Executive Service, an employment category that was created to make civil servants more responsive to elected leaders. If so, this is a critical piece of missing information from the article, because the rationale for firing a member of the SES meets a much lower threshold than other civil servants. John (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Claim that Strzok worked/works for CIA as well as FBI[edit] would fit in with living in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and 1963 work in Vietnam, but needs more verification. GangofOne (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

None of these appear to be reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is argumentative[edit]

From the opening section where Republican concerns about Strzok are dismissed as "conspiracy theories" (a value judgment backed merely by the citation of opinion pieces) this article is argumentative and needs major revision. Wikipedia is not a forum for polemical writing.

From the subtle clues, however, it's clear that any attempt to edit it would be promptly reversed. This unfortunately means that responsible editors are discouraged from wasting their time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)