User talk:MicahWright

Welcome!
Hi MicahWright! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, MicahWright. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Micah Wright, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. ''You may not have seen that IMDB is not a reliable source (it says it on the tag you removed), but you are not a very experienced Wikipedia editor: you've only edited your own article. In addition, your username is a violation of our policies. The content you re-added is unverified, or improperly verified, which violates our guidelines. Finally, you made a ridiculous accusation in that edit summary of yours. I will ask on an administrator's noticeboard if you should be blocked: I think you should be.'' Drmies (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, MicahWright, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username.

If you choose to keep your current username, please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org including your real name and your Wikipedia username to receive instructions from our volunteer response team about account verification. Please do not send documentation without being requested to do so.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding below this notice. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename declined
Please see request here. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 00:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I chose my Wikipedia user name in the spirit of full disclosure. Due to my 2004 controversy detailed in the article about me, I make every possible attempt in life to be completely transparent and scrupulously honest in all public dealings. I felt, therefore, that it was important that I "sign" any changes I made to my own Wikipedia page to avoid being accused of lying about what I was doing, or using a pseudonym to disguise my identity when editing the article about myself. I didn't create this article, and had I known it was going to be created, I would have strenuously protested its creation. Frankly, I would prefer that it be deleted entirely because from the moment of its creation, the article has been unceasingly used by conservative editors to post lies about me, to post insults and profanity, and to distort my public statements and malign my work. I only ever created this user account because I was in a job interview and a potential employer mentioned that this Wikipedia had article come up in their Google search, and expressed surprise at the "facts" they found here. I realized at that moment that the article about me was filled with misrepresentations and that no one else was ever going to fix or correct the incorrect things conservatives post about me here. So I created my account and began doing the work myself, attempting to studiously stay within a careful reading of your Conflict of Interest rules, your Biography of Living Persons rules, to maintain a Neutral Point of View, and, when I post new information, to link to verifiable sources backing up the information. I don't edit my page for the purpose of advertising, publicizing myself, or promoting my work. I edit it so that potential employers don't see lies about me and believe them.

I don't enjoy editing Wikipedia. I find its HTML layout confusing, its various acronyms to be multitudinous, the entire process to be overly complex, and I believe the rules to easily gamed by bad actors, especially those with any sort of administrator status. I would, in fact, support a complete deletion of the entire article about me from the site. But since this article is here, and evidently cannot be deleted, it's in my best interest to check it every once in a while and to correct the continual parade of vandalism it has garnered since its creation.

Recently, on 20 October 2020, an anonymous user deleted my tribal registration status. Then, 2 minutes later, a user named RedFraud undid that edit, then re-did the edit. I can only assume they were attempting to hide their IP number. Given the close proximity of the two edits, I believe that user 2602:30a:2cb9:a0c0:8ab:dc5c:1f64:7a90 and user RedFraud are the same person. User RedFraud then went a step further, and not only deleted my tribal status, but also including extensive libel about me, saying that I have no Native registration status, claiming that they had called my tribe (which they hadn't), asserting that I had lied previously about belonging to other tribes (which I hadn't). I did not notice this new vandalism for three months, until, when preparing to begin a round of interviews for a new job I thought "Hey, I'd probably check Wikipedia to see what lies have been posted about me lately." Sure enough, "RedFraud" fulfilled my usual expectations for the article; that it is just a convenient place for people with a political grudge to work out their issues with my politics. So I reverted the false claims of the one-time user RedFraud, whose very name is an ethnic slur against Native people.

Enter Wikipedia administrator Drmies, less than 12 hours later, to not only revert the vandalism of RedFraud, but extend it, and to delete several other truthful, verifiable facts about me, including 3 years of my work history at, unsurprisingly, FNX, the country's only Native American broadcast network. I was struck by the fact that at every turn, anonymous editor, RedFraud, and Drmies all seemed drawn directly to disparaging and deleting my Native identity. My work for FNX is easily checked; I was featured in several articles in CURRENT magazine, the trade publication for the Public Broadcasting industry. Such as this article; or this one; or this one; or this one: -- the existence of the TV series that Drmies deleted are not only clearly listed on the IMDB (which, contrary to claims here DOES require verification of the existence of work before film & TV listings are created), but some of the series are also listed in the articles, and some of the shows can even be -watched online- at FNX's own webpage here; I'm not sure what lies behind the removal of this content, but as a Native, it sure -felt- like it was racially motivated, and I reacted in anger and undid Drmies edits... and then found myself on the receiving end of an administrative suspension and being discussed for a permanent ban. What a shocker. This is my entire 16-year history with Wikipedia writ small.

And so, finally, to Drmies' edits;

1) Changing the verb "indicates" to "claims" is deliberately chosen and weighted to insinuate that I am lying. "Indicates" means "to point out" whereas "claims" means "to state that something is the case without providing evidence or proof." This is the type of harmless-seeming edit which only reveals its true intent when taken with the other edits as a whole, but it's indicative of every change enacted by Drmies.

2) Drmies deletes my tribal identity. Why? Because it's not pertinent? Or for some other reason? No justification is given. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Sampson was a member of my tribe. His article states "without any evidence" that he is likewise a Muscogee Creek. Should that information be deleted from his page? Or the Cherokee citizenship of Wes Studi stripped from his? What makes me different than these two actors, other than Drmies (and anonymous IP guy and RedFraud) don't believe that this information belongs on Wikipedia? Again, this feels like Native Erasure, and if you're not sure what that is, I invite you to google a bit. It means when white people remove all mentions of Native people from their histories and primary documents, and it's especially common in the United States.

3) Drmies deletes the qualifiers "first" and "action-adventure" from the description of my pilot. Why? These are both true, and easily checked. Nickelodeon's first aired action series was Avatar, the production date for which occurred two years after my pilot was produced and production on my series begun then halted due to 9/11. It would seem to be in Wikipedia's interest to have MORE detail, rather than less. Again, this seems more about removing any sort of positive reference than it does about correcting boosterism or self-aggrandizement. Let's remove all references to George Washington being America's first president while we're at it, we wouldn't want to violate the rules regarding qualifiers.

4) Drmies removes references to a union organizing effort which is well documented and cited in the article. Again, I did not add these details, I did not post these links, other people did. Why does Drmies remove them? Unexplained. It was this anti-union deletion combined with the anti-Native deletion which led me to suspect and accuse Drmies of committing "right-wing vandalism" to the article about me. I admit that this was rash and solely a personal judgment; I did not contact the user first, but I -did- look at their other edits and notice that whenever the edits were to pages involving political subjects, the Drmies tended to make edits which conformed to conservative beliefs. Based on that reading, I felt that Drmies was not acting in good faith with regard to the edits to my page, but was just the latest in a long line of conservative Wikipedia editors intent on vandalizing the article about me, knowing it would be seen by the public to be true.

5) Drmies removed mention of Kickstarter. Not sure why, the link itself was only posted long after the fundraising effort had closed, not as advertising for it, but so that people would understand the context in which the book was funded. Many, many other comic book creators fund their books through Kickstarter, and those references are not stripped from Wikipedia. This change felt designed to strip away the idea that perhaps people like my work enough to fund it through crowdsourcing, to diminish me and my reputation. It's irrelevant to me, but again, it's stripping away facts and information and no explanation was given as to why.

6) The film Wonderful Days was stripped. No reason given. Again, it seemed designed to reduce my overall body of work and to diminish my body of work.

7) ELEVEN television series were stripped out from my article. 215 episodes of television. I defy anyone to justify the removal of this much material on any grounds, especially when the existence of these shows is so very easily verifiable. How does it help Wikipedia to remove factual details? Is it because the series are by, for, and about Native people? That's certainly what these edits seem to be motivated by.

Again and again and again, this Wikipedia Administrator subtly vandalized the article about me in ways intended to diminish my work, to strip me of my tribal identity, and to make me seem a liar. It might not be racist, but it sure FEELS pretty racist. It might not be motivated by conservative political beliefs, but it sure FEELS like it's motivated by them. Yet I find myself on trial here for correcting falsehoods and vandalism. Cool.

I close by mentioning that I'm totally open to a complete deletion of the entire article. I resent the fact that there's an open-source page where any politically motivated cretin who means to cause me career harm and to abuse my mental health can come and post lies that are simply accepted by the general public as true. After all, if they weren't true, someone would correct them, right? Except they don't, so that work falls to me, the person harmed by consistent abuse of the article. I don't feel like I have a Conflict of Interest with regard to this article, I feel that the entire existence of the article conflicts with my life and my mental well-being. I despise the fact that I have to check it every 90 days to ensure that someone like Anonymous IP/Redfraud/Drmies or whomever else feels that it's okay to malign me publicly using the public's trust of Wikipedia as their weapon.

I ask that these malicious edits to my page be undone and further, that Drmies desist from reinstating them. MicahWright (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't ask the public to trust Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and those sources are provided so members of the public can evaluate them and judge them for themselves. You do indeed have a conflict of interest with regards to yourself, please review the autobiography policy.  You should avoid making direct edits to the article, and instead propose changes as edit requests on the article talk page.  If the reliable sources in the article about you are not being summarized accurately, we want to know about it. 331dot (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah? Cool. Isn't that what I just spent 2 hours doing? The above summarizes exactly the reversions I'm requesting. If your rules preclude me from making changes to my own article, fine, that wasn't my reading of your rules. The rules say "Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously:

-you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles; -- I DID. I used my REAL NAME when I made edits. -you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; -- it says I am STRONGLY DISCOURAGED, not that it is forbidden. Had I felt anyone else cared to correct the bias and mendacity, I wouldn't have needed to get involved. -you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed; - I'll do this in the future, but most of my edits have been deletions, so this has never previously come up. -you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise. -- Believe me, this has been four hours of my life wasted by user Drmies and RedFraud (whose entire user name is a racist slur) and the anonymous user who is most likely RedFraud.MicahWright (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Once your identity is confirmed per the instructions, you will be unblocked. If you've sent the email, it may take time for a volunteer to respond. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I can confirm that this is indeed Micah Wright. See . Best, Blablubbs | talk 14:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the block; please discuss your concerns on the article talk page, or use dispute resolution if discussion does not help. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Two things are relevant here, right now, and, they matter: a. the editor keeps accusing me of "right-wing vandalism", and b. the article flies in the face of WP:BLP and WP:RS. The editor is free to click on Reliable sources/Perennial sources and search for IMDb, which will show a dozen or more discussions that definitely establish that it is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia, despite their claims. The editor should not be editing this article, should not try to beef it up as if we were LinkedIn, and should retract their ridiculous accusations and personal attacks. In fact, they should have been blocked for these these three reasons, and remain blocked until they state they actually understand how we work, and that unfounded personal attacks are unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the lifting here.  I invite you to also read WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. Please do not continue to violate WP:CIVIL. It is a founding principle of this project. I invite you to read WP:conflict of interest. It is doubtful that you are objective enough to edit an article about yourself.  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Response, Apology, and Admin Request for Article Edits
To the Admins who weighed in on this article, both here and on the Administrator noticeboard,, , , and , I would first like to say that I unreservedly apologize to Admin Drmies. I am sorry if I've violated WP:ASPERSIONS or WP:AGF, but a simple look at the history of this article on Wikipedia indicates that it has been subjected to repeated attacks of a politically motivated nature for over a decade, and I admit I stopped assuming good faith of the people who edit this article long ago. I was wrong to do this, and I was wrong to assume Drmies' edits were more of the same type of right-wing assault I've seen here over the years. I admit that I grew incensed when I saw a blatantly racist attack by the sockpuppet user RedFraud, and reverted it, only to have Drmies reinstate it hours later and then make further edits in the same vein. I assumed that given their edit proximity, anonymous user 2602:30a:2cb9:a0c0:8ab:dc5c:1f64:7a90, Redfraud, and Drmies were one and the same person. Again, I apologize, I should not have made this assumption. I am sorry.

I hereby request that the removed information put back on the article for the following reasons; (1) The information is true. If the point of Wikipedia is to be an informational resource, I don't see the point in removing accurate information from my bibliography and filmography. I cannot see the difference between a listing of my filmography and such a listing on the page of say, Steven J. Cannell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Cannell#Selected_filmography or David Simon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Simon#Filmography -- this is not to compare myself to them, merely to point out that I'm not "using Wikipedia like it's LinkedIn," I was merely comporting the article about myself with those of other television creators and authors.

(2) Setting aside the question of whether the IMDB is a legitimate online resource for a moment, I posted a link above http://fnx.org/watch/ to where several of these shows can be viewed online. Another one can be seen on Amazon Prime at https://www.amazon.com/First-Nations-Comedy-Experience/dp/B07W4WM45C -- My name is quite clearly listed in the credits of those TV shows. I understand Wikipedia's policy concern about the fluid nature of the IMDB, but surely viewable proof of the existence of these shows elsewhere is a primary source and must count for something, yes?

(3) RedFraud's edits were racist, their username in conjunction with an attack on Native identity is a racist codeword, and their attacks on my racial identity were unfounded and frankly outrageous. People can -say- they weren't racist, but how else to explain the removal of my Native identity, the removal of my Native television work, and the fact that I ran America's only Native broadcast television network? Nothing else was removed except for facts and items revolving around Native identity. This is de facto Native Erasure at its most intrinsic. No one here would ever dream of removing the fact that Les Moonves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Moonves ran the CBS network, or that Lloyd Braun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Braun ran the ABC network, so why is such vandalism suddenly acceptable when the television network is a PBS subnet dedicated to Native American life and issues?

I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor. I only ever make changes to the article about me, typically only to remove vandalism or to make small updates in the spirit of continued accuracy (for example, my film is NO LONGER available on Netflix currently, it IS available on Amazon Video at https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B08FBM5XRH/ -- this was the item I came to Wikipedia intending to correct when I discovered Redfraud's racist accusations and this entire saga began). I always believed that by signing my edits of the article about me with my own name, I made it quite clear that I wasn't attempting to stealth edit the article or to hide a COI. If one examines my edits over the years, I think they'd be hard-pressed to find a pattern of self-promotion or puffery. I don't know all the Wikipedia User Guidelines, and apologize if I stepped over a line. I do feel that I was tricked into violating the rules by someone deliberately gaming the system WP:GAME and afterward felt I was subjected to a blizzard of WP:vaguewave which I didn't understand and lashed out again. Again, I apologize for my previous tone, I felt attacked on a deep level and allowed myself to get angry.

In the future, I will make requests to change the article here on the talk page, rather than executing them myself.

In closing, please unlock my account. I promise to not edit my own page in the future. Please revert the removed information, I cannot see any reason to remove it except to diminish me as a creator. Please update the notice about my film being available on Netflix, that's incorrect. MicahWright (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MicahWright, I have to be quick but let me say, quickly, that I appreciate your note. The people you pinged, I know them as dedicated to neutrality and to making our articles as good as they can be. The biggest thing, from my point of view, is that we need to verify information with reliable sources, and that is where you can be of the greatest service--that includes statements about ethnicity, for instance, but also things like date of birth and film distribution: we simply need reliable, secondary sources. In the meantime, I'll wait for some of the others to weigh in and will look this over more carefully when I can, but I have no problems with an unblock if you stick to the talk page, so to speak. As for right-wing assault, yes, that was an incorrect conclusion, and it saddened me to see that you thought I belonged to that camp; I assure you I do not, and I am deeply invested in repairing Wikipedia's content gap, its lack of coverage of topics typically of interest to the white male editors who make up so much of our editing corps (that includes me). So thank you for your note, which I very much appreciate. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)