User talk:Michaelscott40
June 2020
[edit]
Your recent editing history at John Brennan (CIA officer) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michaelscott40 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Editing war with whom? After hearing about the Mike Gundy on the news, I looked him up on Wikipedia just out of curiosity and found a description of OAN being a “far right wing” orginazation. This is a non-sensensical statement so I investigated and found that it was inaccurate. OAN is not named by SPLC or any other recognized organization as far right wing, yet it was allowed to stand by Wikipedia editors. I deleted “far right wing,” only to have it added back multiple times by “contributors” without intervention by Wikipedia editors.
The lack of Wikipedia editorial control on Wikipedia article on “Mike Gundy” prompted me to look at someone who is very controversial. John Brennan has significant evidence, not news stories, but sworn congressional testimony and government records recently released to the public, contradicting not only his public statements, but statements in his Wikipedia biography. My FIRST contribution to John Brennan was CORRECTLY flagged as inappropriate by Acroterion. After admitting my mistake to Acroterion and correcting the mistake, Acroterion continued to target me and deleted my unbiased contributions to the John Brennan biography. To Acroterion’s credit, they stepped in and stopped the idiocy in the “Mike Gundy” article. But the burden of proof is on Acroterion for the John Brennan edits per Wikipedia’s BPL policy.
Acroterion did not provide any feedback on my “John Brennan” contribution but only stated that it was against BPL policy and continued to delete it. I reviewed the Wikipedia BPL policy and did not violate it after my first contribution. My contributions were LESS SENSATIONAL than the any of the news articles or source material I cited in my contribution. There is SWORN congressionnal testimony and JOURNALISTIC ARTICLES FROM NEWS SOURCES SYMPATHETIC TO JOHN BRENNAN that Acroterion deleted from the Wikipedia article. There are passages contained in the John Brennan biography that CURRENTLY VIOLATE the Wikipedia BPL policy that Acroterion or any Wikipedia Editor did not flag or delete.
Are we going to ignore these events, or does Wikipedia benefit from current updates from contributors who COLLABORATE with editors and their comments to improve the article?
———- SUPPORTING MATERIAL ———- Dictionary.com - EDITOR: a person having managerial and sometimes policy-making responsibility related to the writing, compilation, and revision of content for a publishing firm or for a newspaper, magazine, or other publication - EDITOR IS NOT A DELETER.
WIKIPEDIA POLICY: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.
—————- JOHN BRENNAN CONTRIBUTIONS AND INTERACTIONS WITH ACROTERION _____________ curprev 01:11, 28 June 2020 Acroterion talk contribs 68,165 bytes -760 Reverted to revision 964851993 by Acroterion (talk): Rv per BLP - this conclusion is not plainly stated in the sourcesw (TW) undo Tag: Undo
- curprev 23:58, 27 June 2020 Michaelscott40 talk contribs 68,925 bytes +1 See opposing view in artiicle: On August 16, Brennan stated that Trump's claims of no collusion with Russia were "hogwash": "The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets."[94] undo
- curprev 23:55, 27 June 2020 Michaelscott40 talk contribs 68,924 bytes +759 Seems that facts and news articles are not allowed. Two references widely reported about Brennan have been added. This article has not been updated with recent information. Editors are deleting information reported by NY Times, CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC and citing policy. Brennan unmasked Flynn, is being investigated, and public statements are not consistent with his congressional testimony. Is this Pravda? If you think the language is inappropriate, fix it, don’t delete it. undo
- curprev 23:34, 27 June 2020 Acroterion talk contribs 68,165 bytes -861 Reverted 4 edits by Michaelscott40 (talk): You can't say that in Wiklipedia's voice like that, go to the talkpage (TW) undo Tag: Undo
- curprev 23:29, 27 June 2020 Michaelscott40 talk contribs m 69,026 bytes +3 undo
- curprev 23:28, 27 June 2020 Michaelscott40 talk contribs
Michaelscott40 (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Be fair, eyes are on this assessment and proper justification for a decision consistent against your own established policies and standards as applied to all contributors will be made public requiring explicit justification or explanation of the ruling. Michaelscott40 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "will be made public"? I'm concerned about the chilling effect of that statement. —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
———
Listen, that was probably a little over the top. I appreciate Wikipedia and was extremely frustrated when I tried to add recent events broadly reported in the news on John Brennan and continued to have it deleted by an “editor.” Just be fair and find a path where the information can be added to the biography.
Chilling is not being allowed to update a page on John Brennan with information that is substantiated by mainstream news articles, government document releases and congressional testimony when the same page has quotes of Brennan calling the president a traitor/criminal which was a completely unsubstantiated claim! ACROTERION then uses their authority to delete my initial submitted contribution then delete my “modified” contribution without any suggestions on how to make it acceptable. My last post was pretty vanilla, but the response was to delete and suspend. That is chilling.
Was it not reported the Brennan may be under investigation? Is prosecutor John Durham not looking into this? Did Barr not appoint a prosecutor, John Bash, to investigate unmasking recently revealed with the declassification and release of materials by Richard Grennel? Did the released government documents not have John Brennan as one of the people unmasking General Flynn in the waning days of the Obama administration?
None of this information was in Brennan’s bio, when I tried to put a blurb In about it and point to some news articleS, I was shut down by ACROTERION. That is chilling.
- Why did you not engage in any discussion at the article's talk page about it? —C.Fred (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Is that where the discussions happen? I am a bit of a novice so I had the discussion on ACROTERION talk page.
—-
My last post was this:
——
Brennan is currently under investigation by the US Department of Justice where documents declassified by Richard Grennel show Brennan unmasked Michael Flynn and wasn’t truthful publicly about the Russian investigation.
—- My response and ACROTERION response on their talk page was: —-
MSCOTT - These are NY Times, CNN and NY Post “news” articles that have been broadly reported with accurate citations of the news? Why are you not stating the unmasking which is a public record of a very high level person? John Brennan was the CIA Director, one of the most powerful positions in the world. He was caught lying. The NY Times carries it but not Wikipedia?
ACROTERION: You are drawing a conclusion that isn't plainly, explicitly stated in either source. "The Times reported that Durham is also looking into whether Brennan privately contradicted his public comments" is very far from your accusation. And an account in the New York Post (!) of a discussion on Tucker Carlson's show is not close to satisfactory sources, far less since it doesn't say what you're asserting either.You can't complain about propaganda when you're drawing conclusions not present in sources. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
—— Then deletion and suspension by ACROTERION.
Seems like ACROTERION believes the “NY POST(!)” is not a good source. No where on the BPL did it say that NY POST was not allowed. All I did was state Brennan is under investigation, he unmasked Flynn, and wasn’t truthful in his public statements. The response COULD have been to find additional sources to support the modification, but ACROTERION response was instead deletion and suspension.
——— As a compromise, I can add sources. The unmasking is in the Washington Times. I know ACROTERION will probably state that the “Washington Times (!)” is not a good source, but subscriptions are required for WPost, NY Times, WSJ, therefore free material that meets ACROTERION’s standards is hard to come by.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/13/biden-comey-brennan-among-obama-era-officials-who-/
Honestly, I am not looking to write a bulletproof exhaustive expose on this part of John Brennan’s bio. Given his inflammatory rhetoric, which was known when he was opposed by the ACLU when nominated by Obama, there should be a blurb about current news concerning the unmasking and Russian collusion in his bio. If other people want to expand with reasonable editors after that, great. Hopefully they don’t have to put up with the editorial comments like “NY Post(!)” and suspension for trying to add the vanilla blurb above like I have to endure.