User talk:BiggerBrat

March 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I did not make a legal threat. This is an unauthorized biography that contains misinformation and libelous statements and actually violates Wikipedia policies regarding biography's of living people.As Stacy Garrity's agent for all matters regarding Wikipedia, she has requested the entire page be deleted from Wikipedia because it contains numerous elements that are false, incorrect and libelous. As an example, Stacy Garrity's DD214 which shows her discharge date from the military absolutely proves she was NOT at Camp Bucca as falsely stated in the article and that doesn't count all the other false allegations and slanted comments which Wikipedia so adamantly, apparently falsely, claims articles MUST be non-biased. And I'm politely asking you to abide by all your so called rules which I have thoroughly read. Delete the article per Ms. Garrity's request. BiggerBrat (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-read the article, and look at the recent history. Also, telling editors they can be sued is a legal threat. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't making a threat. I was trying to make Wikipedia aware of a court order they might not have known about especially since Wikipedia isn't following their own rules or policies regarding an unauthorized biography about a living person. The article is biased, against Wikipedia rules and policies. The article has libelous statements, against Wikipedia rules and policies. The article has numerous erroneous statements which I only mentioned a single one, but they are against Wikipedia rules and policies. If you want, I can copy all those rules and policies and post them here for you? Tell me how I directed anything against any specific person? I didn't. I was sending Wikipedia a point of information. I don't think it bodes well for Wikipedia to violate its own rules and regulations which it has done and so very easy to prove. Here is the information Wikipedia needs to be aware of and I make no threat of any kind providing this information to Wikipedia. It is pure facts, I didn't create it. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=federal+court+9%2F16%2F22+allows+lawsuits+against+facebook+and+social+media&ia=web Please delete the article regarding Stacy Garrity. Thank you. BiggerBrat (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * BiggerBrat: We never ask for "authorisation" for biographies or any article, indeed that's in direct contradiction of fundamental principles here. However content which isn't support by sources like the abuse stuff about Camp Bucca (apparently, I didn't look into it personally but am going by what others have said) should and has been removed before your last legal threat. If you withdraw all your legal threats and agree to stop making them, then you can be unblocked. You're then free to discuss if there is any other remaining content which you feel is not support by the cited reliable secondary sources or which is contradicted by other reliable secondary sources or for other reasons in accordance with our policies and guidelines. However we cannot remove content just because your client does not like it. And there is no "rule" which requires us to "" I suggest you read or re-read WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. That only applies for "" which is clearly not applicable when the person was elected to a significant state level position in the US. If you wish to be involved in legal action for your client, you're free to do so, but you can't be editing here as long as you're doing that. You can also try contacting Biographies of living persons on behalf of your client if you feel there are legal issues. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not delete articles simply because the subject requested it. — Czello 15:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We sometimes do; it's simply that it wouldn't be correct procedure to do so here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to one side, of course. What I mean is there needs to be a reasonable justification for less notable figures, and that doesn't apply here. — Czello 15:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the name of your state treasurer? Before Stacy Garrity I didn't have a clue who any of the prior state treasurers in the state were. I'll bet you any amount of money you are willing to lose, 99.99999% of people in this country have no clue who their state treasurer is. The content and tone of the Stacy Garrity article plus when corrections had been attempted after the article was created (75 edits) and returned to the pre edit version (a violation of Wikipedia policies) clearly show the article was written by a hack with intentions to disparage her. Please do NOT try to imply a state treasurer is some kind of significant famous person. BiggerBrat (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It has occured to me your false accusation that I made some kind of threat of legal action and you are blocking me (your words) "while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved." is in and of itself a THREAT. I'm asking you to show proof I made any kind of threat of legal action. I'm also interested in why the intense attention you and others have with regards to an article that is clearly a hack job created by people or persons that hates Ms. Garrity, an insignificant state treasurer the majority of people in Pennsylvania aren't even aware of her name. The only purpose for the article and the harsh, biased tone and multiple false and very biased statements are intended to sway readers to immediately dislike Ms. Garrity. I doubt Ms. Garrity would be interested in creating a biographical article that includes her full and complete personal and military information in a truthful and factual manner considering the treatment received from Wikipedia thus far. As far as I personally am concerned, while chit-chatting with my attorney (we're family friends) he advised me social media and their employees, even volunteers no longer have the protection of section 230, which I already knew and he told me to remove my name as a volunteer editor which I intend to do. I've used Wikipedia for a long time and have seen other issues with articles that I guessed were created by a hack intent on making a really, really bad, very well known political person a great many people know on the national scene to be this fantastic, great, wonderful person. Most people are intelligent enough to see garbage when they see it. There are some great authors/editors in Wikipedia but many, many hacks that for some reason are tolerated and I can only guess its for political reasons. You violate your own rules for articles to be non or unbiased. The same for falsehoods and libelous material and material that has no source or verification. You accept opinions that are nothing but malicious statements. It just appears from what I'm seeing now, nobody has confronted you about these problems and you have threatened or intimidated them if they did that you will block them. FYI I don't readily accept your kind of threats and intimidation and if you are part of Wikipedia management, you're doing a very poor job and your actions could be the downfall of the company, something I do NOT want to see happen.I have been civil and polite in my requests. If you thought I would simply go away because of your threat and the intimidation it hasn't worked. Your actions are only making the situation worse. In the scheme of life, deleting a small, erroneous, libelous article about an insignificant person from a web site that contains billions of articles isn't gonna be the end of the world or Wikipedia. Getting into a monumental battle that can very easily blow over into public media, newspapers, TV, etc. is another matter. That's not a threat, just something I've seen happen over and over in my 77 years when people in government try to bully individuals. And I do consider your threat and intimidation as a bullying tactic. BiggerBrat (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just coming to this issue now, and I don't understand what the problem is. Above, you state that "Stacy Garrity's DD214 which shows her discharge date from the military absolutely proves she was NOT at Camp Bucca as falsely stated in the article". But the National Public Radio source given says, "The images come from Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. Most include Maj. Stacy Garrity, an Army reservist who became known as "the angel of Camp Bucca."" You can't both be right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that it had to do with a pile of SYNTH/OR tucked into the article about possible abuses at the camp. This is what it looked like before I took an machete to it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Stacy Garitty was not at Camp Bucca at the time of the so called problems with prisoners being abused and alcohol was being used and her DD214 which has the date she left the military. But that's just one of the erroneous date Wikipedia seems to find acceptable to leave in the article. Just a short time ago Stacy texted me and asked me to drop the matter and she will give it to her lawyer. I told her Wikipedia had already falsely accused me of threatening legal action but for her to give me some more time to work this out since the article is so riddled with problems and biases that are too obviously are in violation of Wikipedia's own rules I think it can be worked out.At this point in time I'm gonna say if Wikipedia wants to leave the false information about Sracy and Camp Bucca in the article, have at it. I'm trying very hard to inform Wikipedia about things they seem to lack knowledge of. Such as the loss of section 230 protections resulting from the 9/16/22 federal court order.I actually found a link, and this isn't any threat, how Wikipedia is/was concerned about the loss of section 230 protections for employees. FYI section 230 protections are gone. https://gizmodo.com/wikipedia-section-230-scotus-encyclopedia-1850085090
 * I find Wikipedia to be very useful and its a minority of authors that write erroneous, biased article and get away with it. At the moment, Stacy wants me to give up on my efforts and she will turn the matter over to her lawyer. I have asked her not to do that because Wikipedia runs on donations. My research already shows numerous lawsuits have been lost by Wikipedia but the was before the federal court orders of 9/16/22. I'm not going to even attempt to correct all the problems with the Wikipedia article on Stacy Garrity. I've previously written thousands of documents in compliance with CFR and NRC rules and regulations and I know from experience when there are numerous problems the ONLY way to fix the problems is to start from scratch. My research has shown Wikipedia should NOT ignore obtaining authorization from people prior to writing a biography as its very dangerous from a legal standpoint. Wikipedia openly admits they do NOT even attempt to obtain legal authorization to do biographies. Ya got me baffled. I think Wikipedia would do well to follow the guidelines in this article https://www.thewritersforhire.com/privacy-protection-and-copyright-the-legal-side-of-writing-a-biography/ because the guidelines in this Wikipedia info are NOT being followed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Legal_issues
 * I hate to keep repeating myself but the article is biased against Stacy Garrity in many ways and has numerous, erroneous statements. A simple matter to honor my request and delete the page. Uf/when "I" give up the person or people you will be dealing with are going to be looking at this matter totally differently and probably NOT Wikipedia users like me. BiggerBrat (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you look at the article as it currently stands and outline some specific issues? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. "Stacy Garitty was not at Camp Bucca at the time of the so called problems with prisoners being abused and alcohol was being used" - there is currently no mention of abuse of prisoners in the current revision of the article. It only states years of tenure as 2003-04, and 2008-09, where she treated prisoners affectionately - which the opposite of what you said here. The years of service appear to come from Garitty's own campaign site viz. "Stacy served a remarkable three deployments in defense of America: in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm, in 2003 in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and in 2008 in Operation Enduring Freedom. She was awarded the Bronze Star twice for exceptional service and received the Legion of Merit before retiring from the Army Reserve with the rank of colonel." I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your concerns are, you seem to be talking about things that aren't in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I also ask you (or anyone else) to review this revision of the article dated 12 December 2020? This version was linked to the main page, and I find it extremely unlikely that any serious issues would not have been reported at the noticeboard for main page errors. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * From my research the article was edited 75 times after being created. I also know for a fact that Stacy Garrity had a tech knowledgeable person do some of those edits only to find the original material returned verbatim. I just now completed a conversation with Stacy and besides NOT being a correct, truthful biography, it is missing numerous pertinent items regarding her personal and military life that all virtually always shown in the biographies of other people. We're not going to perform work that should have been done by any person doing a biography and if Wikipedia wants to stand by an erroneous, libelous biography, that's a problem with Wikipedia that could end up being addressed by someone NOT me.
 * FYI, weather or not I am able to resolve this matter to Stacy Garrity's satisfaction, when I am done of Ms. Garrity requests me to step aside, I will be removing my name as a Wikipedia editor since I have been advised by my attorney section 230 protections are no longer valid. I've only made minor edits to articles on Wikipedia byt this experience has left me thinking Wikipedia isn't as reputable as they want people to think and I'm not going to be involved in any litigations such as my research has shown to happen in the past before the loss of section 230 protections. BiggerBrat (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My research has shown Wikipedia should NOT ignore obtaining authorization from people prior to writing a biography as its very dangerous from a legal standpoint. This would inherently compromise our ability to be neutral. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 17:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutrality or a bias in the article is just one of the problems. I sent Ms Garrity an email just a short bit ago regarding this exact problem about the article and the Wikipedia failure to follow their own rules, plus things she can give to her lawyer that I have accumulated if she pulls me off trying to resolve this.
 * Here is the email. Be aware this is not a threat by any means and only research information I have accrued. I strongly suggest someone with authority at Wikipedia look at the links and information they contain.
 * Stacy,
 * I received your text about stopping my attempts to convince Wikipedia to delete the unauthorized, erroneous, and libelous article and just turning the matter over to your lawyer. As I stated in my reply, Wikipedia falsely claimed I threatened them with legal action and I asked you to wait on that action and I would create a file of information for your lawyer if I actually do fail in my efforts.
 * Wikipedia is clearly in violation of their own policies and rules about biographies of living people which I have included the link from Wikipedia's own site in the information below.
 * I believe if an actual wikipedia employee with even slight legal experience can be involved, they will agree to delete the article. So far, the people making comments obviously don't have legal experience and are not up to date on current laws and court orders.
 * If legal action is required, all of the information and links below should be an excellent starting point for your lawyer.
 * I pointed out to Wikipedia that there are numerous problems that I was not going to go through and make a list of but for starters the false statements you were involved in all the problems at Camp Bucca didn't happen while you were in command which could be verified by your DD214. Wikipedia came back and said they corrected that erroneous information on my say-so but apparently they are willing to accept all the remaining false and biased info and texts in the article which baffles me. That sounds like a very amateur management policy.
 * All I can add at this point in time with the information below is if Wikipedia ignores the information below, they are essentially asking/inviting an expensive lawsuit. As I said to you before, Wikipedia supposedly runs on donations and they are always begging for donations so I have my doubts how they'll able to afford an unnecessary lawsuit on their part.
 * Let me drag this out a little bit longer before I give up'
 * Wikipedia hides behind these rules and policies falsely claiming authors are not supposed to write article that are biased:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Legal_issues
 * This link gives some basics about writing biographies/biographical material and legal ramifications:
 * = Privacy Protection and Copyright: The Legal Side of Writing a Biography =
 * https://www.thewritersforhire.com/privacy-protection-and-copyright-the-legal-side-of-writing-a-biography/
 * More legal material can be found here:  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=legal+ramifications+of+writing+a+libelous+unauthorized+biography+about+a+living+person&ia=web
 * These links are about the 9/16/22 Texas federal circuit court order against things social media does on the internet:  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=federal+court+acts+against+facebook+september+16%2C+2022&ia=web
 * These links are about the second court order on 9/16/22 stating people wronged by social media companies can legally sue the social media companies. Wikipedia IS a social media company.  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=federal+court+9%2F16%2F22+allows+lawsuits+against+facebook+and+social+media&ia=web
 * I believe the second court order of 9/16/22 negates what this link is about with regard to section 230 which previously protected social media employees from being sued along with the companies they work for. In this case the article is specific about wikipedia employees being sued. Many of these social media companies fail to inform their employees they can now be included in lawsuits:   https://gizmodo.com/wikipedia-section-230-scotus-encyclopedia-1850085090
 * Most all of these articles in this link are before the 9/16/22 court ruling allowing people to sue social media companies but it shows Wikipedia has a history of defamatory and libelous articles. The court order of 9/16/22 has removed all the protections of section 230 for social media companies and their employees:   https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lawsuits+against+wikipedia&ia=web
 * Many of these links are about section 230 no longer giving protections to social media companies. Pretty much any of the links before 9/16/22 about section 230 protections are null:  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=federal+circuit+court+order+of+9%2F16%2F22+in+Texas+negates+section+230+rules+against+suing+social+media&ia=web
 * Vic BiggerBrat (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation has annual revenue of $155 million and net assets of $240 million. If you think that they can't afford good lawyers, you are mistaken. Cullen328 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So when I get the notices from Wikipedia they are strapped for cash and please send money its just a big joke? I think some people might call that fraud. I think I'll pass your message around the internet and see what other people think. BiggerBrat (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The WMF asks for money each year. People freely give money. I have some criticisms of their ads, and they are responsive to criticism. Pass the message around the internet all you want. Shout it from the highest hills. You are not the only person who dislikes Wikipedia. There are websites going back years devoted to attacking Wikipedia. Here are two facts as takeaways for you and your client: First, Wikipedia is a top ten website worldwide with billions of monthly pageviews, and hundreds of millions of dollars in resources, including a highly professional legal team. Second, the specific error you identified has already been corrected. So, what do you think a judge will say when you try to argue that Wikipedia editors refuse to correct errors? Ponder that. Feel free to pass my comment on to your client. Cullen328 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with Cullen328. I've asked for detail, explaining that the article has been improved, and the conversation doesn't appear to be going anywhere. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has been repeatedly told and shown there are problems, too many to try to edit the existing article. Correct, the discussion isn't going anywhere because Wikipedia chooses to allow an incorrect article with numerous, erroneous statements that are biased and libelous to be show in the platform. A simple matter to delete the entire article and then see if Stacy Garrity wishes an authorized biographical article to be included in the Wikipedia platform. At this point in time with Wikipedia basically choosing to allow crap/garbage articles with falsehoods, etc. we're not going to try to continue this dialogue. All we can do now is make the public aware the article is pretty much junk and Wikipedia openly admits to allowing things like this to happen. And I personally will see if Ms. Garrity still wants me to quit and turn all information over to her lawyer of which I will inform you of the results. I've already spent far too much time on this and violated my mother's advice over 60 years ago not to get into these circular discussions because i'll only get dragged to their level. Wikipedia IS showing itself to be an incredibly dishonest organization and when the argument doesn't follow their narrative they go on the attack with false allegations. You've shown me no reason why I should be involved in trying to find a resolution when the only viable resolution(s) have been offered too many times. The ball is in your court. BiggerBrat (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you have chosen to continue with your unproductive posts that utterly fail to identify any specific errors to be corrected, I have removed your talk page access. Please read WP:UTRS. You are free to help put your client's legal team in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team. We will then all see what happens in court. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)