User talk:JasonDeanBrock

Hi JasonDeanBrock. You have violated the 3 revert Rule with your latest revert. What is more, your edits are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines for biographies. And one of your latest reverts, removing a NPOV tag without contributing to the discussion or settling the dispute that led to the tag, is considered poor form for Wikipedia -- the tag is meant to avoid endless revert wars by letting readers know of a dispute. Please revert your self or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

In addition, I would urge you to look through the talk archives for this page and to read the rest of the article. The issues you raise have been discussed over and over again the past few years, and many of them are already dealt with on the page. There is no reason to rehash them.

In either case, however, you should revert your last changes as soon as possible or you will be blocked. And if you continue to add material calling Wilson a "liar," or a "perjurer," I will also report the BLP violations to Wikipedia administrators, which could lead to an extension of the length of the block. It's really not necessary to do any of this if you are willing to engage in the discussion page and follow the rules. Thank you. csloat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect. It is you, Commodore Shoat, who started this war. I find your editing of what is clearly additional and important (verified and authoritative) discovery as to the falsified assertions of Joseph Wilson, both unwarranted and deceptively justified. It certainly has the appearance that your intentions are other than a proper and accurate article. Your tone with me is clearly condescending and, therefore, insulting (attacking). This does not lend itself to a harmonious relationship.

I see many links in this article that don't hold a rhetorical candle to the research that I offer, yet you seem to be perfectly willing to accept them. From this I can only assume that an agenda is afoot. If someone steps on my foot, and does it multiple times, and then insists that I behave myself and play by the rules, I have a tendency of reacting. This is my error. It is clear to me that you have vandalized the article and you violently protect what is not factually accurate. I can take this place or leave it, make no mistake. I enjoy the battle against untruth and I know that there are people, paid and otherwise, committed to deception. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? You are still personally attacking me after being blocked and warned about personal attacks by an admin? First you're accusing me of being someone I've never heard of, and now you're accusing me of being a paid agent of "deception"? Can you please let it rest? Some of us are trying to edit an encyclopedia here. csloat (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are still falsely accusing me of doing something I am not. I don't know definitely if you have an association with Joe Wilson, or you are simply devoted to flushing truth down the memory-hole. I must say it appears that way. Not only are you making false claims as your justifcation for reverting my edits, but you are then making false claims as to what I am doing, you are abusing the "report" function and not even disputing the facts that I have edited in. You then claim I am not willing to start a discussion in the talk area. I don't see any effort in the talk section to contest my points. This lends credibility to my point regarding what I consider your vandalism of my additions. I know, I know, you consider this an attack, right? It is not, and if you take it personally then you will have to look in the mirror and wonder why.

If you aren't simply harrassing me then why are you following me around to other articles and re-inserting text (removed by me) that clearly violates standards of Wikipedia? Why do you not edit out violations in those articles? I attempt to do so and you revert my edits JasonDeanBrock (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I have lost my appetite for this conversation. csloat (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not kidding. I was simply asking a question. There are clear and gaping holes in the Wilson time-line. There are overt inaccuracies and clearly suspect citations in the article, yet you seem not concerned in the least. In the spirit of a full reckoning of all the evidence I have offered unbiased and factually substantiated clarifications and you howl. You begin an edit war and then you use the "report" function and demand some concocted justice when the culprit in this whole brouhaha has been yourself. I don't know how to deal with your condesending claims that are somehow the voice of reason here. Any objective analysis of our interchange would reveal that your claims are not grounded in the desire to come to terms with what I offered. There are many places in the article that are clear violations in sourcing, yet you seem disconcerned with these violations. Is it any wonder I hold this war you began as suspect?

You still haven't put up an argument against the facts I present, instead you merely make claims and accuse me of minor infractions that any green editor would commit. You have just decided to attack the messenger. I would love to see your refutations of the content (the citations and conclusions). I won't hold my breath. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have [1] reported your continuing 3RR violations. csloat (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JasonDeanBrock (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is unjustified and reported due to a disruptive editor (Commodore Shoat) who has justified his edits with deceptive claims. I was warned and I complied with the 3R rule. I did not violate it after the warning. What editing I re-inserted after the warnings were not the same as the original edit. Commodore Shoat obviously has a personal stake in this issue. Commodore Shoat has not only used false charges for his editing of my edits, but he has abused the reporting function by claiming I violated the 3R rule.

Decline reason:

The block is justified, and the focus exclusively on others' behavior is most unreasonable. east718 // talk // email // 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JasonDeanBrock (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly appears that you were edit warring, and likewise that no single editor has sunk more reverts into the page than you, in the past day or two. I count six times you inserted a paragraph to the effect of "The Wilson Op-Ed [foundation for the Wilson/Plame scandal) was contradicted by the Senate Intelligence Committee report...": [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. If you haven't yet actually read WP:3RR and/or WP:EW, please do so; if you already have, you may wish to do so in more detail. Changing the text slightly does not mean you're no longer reverting -- edits which partially revert, or which restore substantially similar content, are still considered reverts for the purposes of this policy. I might be more amenable to an unblock if you convincingly commit to use the talk page to develop consensus instead of (not in addition to) further revert warring. If you earnestly believe other users are approaching the situation in bad faith, there are better ways to resolve that. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect. Commodore Sloat has a history of questionable behavior. I don't understand how a disruptive poster can vandalize unimpeachable text, instigate an edit war, and then be overlooked as at least a participant in the dispute. It has at least the appearance of favoritism (why does it take 4 administrative mods to comment about this dispute?). I still haven't seen a valid or honest attempt to discuss the changes, or reverts, that are in question. Commodore Sloat's justifications go unquestioned to this day. I followed the rules and I heeded the warnings immediately. I was told exactly how to deal with reverts and I abided. What was re-inserted by me was clarified for NPOV, as per direct direction from Gamaliel. This ban is both unwarranted and founded in retributive and vandalistic behavior on the part of Commodore Sloat (IMHO). JasonDeanBrock (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note from blocking admin

Please review the 3RR report. As I count it, there are at least 4 reverts on that article, and I can't say that the user was reverting vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was warned and I still hadn't seen the warning, or knowledge of the rule, until after the warning. This is all a byproduct of unjustified and vandalistic edits by another poster, Commodore Shoat. This problematic poster has a long history here and is gaming me. I did not violate any rule knowingly. I was warned by Gamaliel and I took his advice. I ceased reverting what were clearly vandalistic attempts at editing out citations that I offered. That which I did re-insert was as per Gamaliel's advise and by the book. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Question: will you refrain from edit warring if I unblock you? Toddst1 (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I wish you would also take my advise about your dealings with other editors and treat them, including Commodore Sloat, with civility and not describe their edits as vandalism. Gamaliel (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Sloat has clearly and maliciously edited my posts and deceived in his reasoning. He created the war and he has gathered his associates to wage a war on the truth. I did precisely as I was advised by you, Gamaliel, and then after I complied I was reported by Commodore Shoat. I am not waging an edit war, I am waging an edit defense. The war was initiated by an editor with an obvious agenda. I violated no rule and the only posting that has been lacking civility has been his. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, other editors are your collaborators, not your enemies. You will have to work with editors whose opinions differ from yours. You are required to treat them with respect and not in the manner you have in this post I am responding to. If you make further posts like this on the article talk page I will remove them. Gamaliel (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you several times to stop personally attacking me Jason. I gave you several clear warnings about the 3RR as well as the personal attacks. I also warned you about Wikipedia policy regarding BLP. You should not continue personally attacking me after you have been blocked. You should also not blame Gamaliel or anyone else for your own edit warring. You did continue to revert several times after multiple warnings. csloat (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really hard to take you feigned calls for civility seriously. I have done some research on vandalism and it seems to describe your behavior perfectly. I have also researched the ideas of "sock puppet" and "meatpuppet" and it is clear to me that you are exhibiting these characteristics. You haven't offered a single honest defense for the edit war you began. I am reminded of a person who punches someone in the face, unprovoked, and then falsely blames the victim for the act of aggression. I suggest you read the "vandalism", "sock-puppet" and "meatpuppet" articles.

Apparently I struck a nerve as my ban has been increased. If the justification for my ban is correct "revealing personal information", I have been justified in my conclusion that you are indeed harassing me. You are following me from thread to thread and restoring deceptive text. If my ban is justified (which it must be) you indeed are an insider here and the very reason Wikipedia's research is scoffed at. You, Commodore Sloat, make false claims and abuse wikipedia policy. It is evident that you have fellow liberals here meatpuppets who are willing to cosign your offenses. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fabricated false justifications for removing my text. This is an attack. It is clear you have an agenda and it would be dishonest if I did not spotlight that reality. I did not attack you personally but you certainly waged a war on me. You have clearly contacted fellow associates to make sure a full realization of the facts does not occur. It is becoming obvious that there is a violently defended liberal perspective here and it shows through wikipedia globally. It is not surprising in the least and I am beginning to understand why. Even when faced with the most objective and authoritative citations, Commodore Shoat vandalizes my additions.

I reverted nothing after several multiple warnings. You vandalized the original edit. I changed my addition to reflect a more objective tone. As is your nature, deceptive, you claim I reverted something I didn't. As per the "advice" of Gamaliel I edited my edits to make them appear less opinionated. Before you go falsely claiming I "reverted", check my work. If you check before you prematurely accuse you will see very definite changes to the original work. This by definition is not a "revert" as I have been led to believe.

So, who do you work for Commodore Shoat? Are you Bob Burton, cause your style is just like his. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this, it is some friendly advice for new users on how to deal with Wikipedia. You need to dial it back a notch or you are headed for a block based on your behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Blocked for revealing personal information"

I did not reveal anybody's personal information. I asked a question. Apparently I struck a cord. If indeed I did strike a cord, I was correct about my assumption as to who was vandalistically editing out my additions, or deleted material. If indeed I was correct (which would be the only valid justification for the extension of my block) this reality should be taken into account. Commodore Sloat mentions on his personal talk page that it is not hard to find out who he is, so why would I have an extension for revealing what you himself claims is public information? JasonDeanBrock (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bob Burton, Jr. this who you think I am? I assure you, I can barely figure out where to start with one of those puzzles. csloat (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if you are not Bob Burton (how much ya wanna bet some moderator is going to once again claim I revealed personal information? ridiciulous), then why was that used as an excuse to increase my block? Something is fishy here. It is clear that the moderators are having serious difficulty following the through-line of this current block. They consistently have no idea what is going on, which makes sense as there are 4 moderators who have decided to take their turns at chefing this kitchen. It is clear, Commodore Sloat, that you are harassing me. Even here on MY talk page. Have I entered YOUR talk page? No.

Your assurances give me no comfort, Commodore. Now don't you have anything better to do than to harass me? JasonDeanBrock (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]