Talk:Scott Bloch

message: I'm confused about whether the probe of Bloch is being conducted by the Office of Personnel Management or the Office of Management and Budget. There are conflicting sources (see Washington Post and Washington Blade in external links) -- or else I am misinterpreting. Clearly they are both involved in some capacity. Queerudite 07:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are the links... the Washington Blade article [] and the Washington Post article []. The Post article is more recent. I'm not sure if one of the two is wrong, if there is more than one probe, or if the probe changed oversight. Please correct the wiki if you find better references. Queerudite 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article contains slight factual innaccuracies. The details of  Bloch's interpretation of the law, are different than described here. He believed that sexual orientation is protected by law, but that sexual lifestyle is not. (My wish to correct this has nothing to do with my personal ideologies, as I believe orientatino should be protected. This is in the hope for factual accuracy) I will come back with sound references''''
Rivka3 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Innaccuracies

message: With reference to my own edit to this article (or my first edit, should I make subsequent edits)...
I saw that the wording "He has moved to withdraw his plea because it was obtained in violation of the Constitution and the federal rules governing pleas" [emphasis added] had previously been changed from the wording "He has moved to withdraw his plea claiming it was obtained in violation of the Constitution and the federal rules governing pleas" [emphasis added] on the basis that the word "claiming" prejudicially implied that Bloch's motion was improper. I felt that the choice of "because" in place of "claiming" hypercorrected to the point of prejudicially implying that a court had already ruled in favor of Bloch's motion, or otherwise made a finding of fact that Bloch's original plea violated the Constitution, federal procedure, or anything else. Hopefully my revision of this sentence, and the wording "...moved to withdraw this plea on the basis that it was obtained in violation..." [emphasis added] are sufficiently neutral.
Regarding the second paragraph under the heading Criminal Conviction, concerning what statute Block pled guilty to violating and under what circumstances the (alleged? I guess? since he's now trying to rescind his guilty plea? IANAL) violation occurred, I found the previous text read more like a defense of Bloch than a dispassionate description of the events and issues. I have attempted to remove this perceived pro-Bloch bias without leaving anti-Bloch bias in its place. 
I am not particularly happy with the following sentence as it appears in my (initial) edit:
"Bloch testified without any reference to notes or documents of any kind; it is not clear whether such notes or documents were requested by Congress when Bloch was summoned to testify, or whether, conversely, he was prohibited from making reference to any documentation." 
I do not have access to the transcript of Bloch's testimony -- or if it's available online, I haven't found it, and it doesn't seem to be linked from this article -- and don't know whether the wording of the Congressional summons Bloch received would be part of the public record, or even relevant. I was loath to simply delete the statement that "Bloch testified without any reference to notes or documents of any kind" when I cannot currently determine either the truth or the relevance of that statement, as I am trying to assume good faith on the part of the editor who inserted that statement. It may, indeed, be "clear" what instructions or permissions Bloch received regarding documentation and/or notes to be presented or used when he appeared before Congress; it's entirely possible my addition to the previous-version statement regarding "notes or documents" is factually erroneous, and I dislike adding information to Wikipedia which may be inaccurate. This seemed the best compromise to me, under the circumstances, but I am hopeful that another editor who can access (or point us all to) a reliable source which would settle the issue will happen by, and edit the article accordingly, in the near future. —(You are correct, sir; I do tend to babble.) 50.14.33.235 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit on 10 May 2013‎ by IP-ID editor 50.14.33.235 (me) 

message: I have no connection with either Mr. Bloch, nor his detractors, and unlike many contributors to this page, I will leave my wikipedia name. That said, parts of this article read like a PR piece to pair with his cv (which I have linked although I don't have time to clean up this mess) and the comments above by people leaving only web addresses seem like the worst sort of legalism or entitlement=to-pr thinking. For what it's worth, I tried to simplify matters with an updated heading section, new biography section, and links to the latest reports. I also write here because I am disturbed by the "official website" link in the textbox, and also think the photo should be dated/sourced--but I don't have time to do that either, perhaps because of the obfuscation tactics at the heart of this scandal.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  wp used for advertising 

message: The article is a real mess. At one end it can be argued that it is a WP:COATRACK and at the other end, it can be argued that many of the statements in his defense are self-serving, and made in Wikipedia's voice and without attribution. It needs a thorough cleanup.-  Cwobeel (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag