Talk:Armando (blogger)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Current Status?

This talk page, imo, should have been undeleted when the article was undeleted.

Was there ever any decision about what should happen to I've seen claims that it's currently under study by the Foundation and claims that it's not. I've seen claims that it's under truce, and that it's not.

The article is currently a redirect to Daily Kos, which seems to be the worst of both worlds -- it acknowledges that Armando of Daily Kos is yet does not actually give any information about him.

In the meantime, I've got a very very rough draft of an article in progress, so please help flesh it out. Dori 00:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I was gonna revert to the last acceptable version of the article last night and post an AfD to find community consensus, but WP acted up and I haven't gotten around to doing it today. I agree, there should be a community decision over this, and individual editors shouldn't try to override this. To be clear, my sympathies in this case are more on Armando's than on the NRO's side, but that doesn't override truthfinding. The main issue I think is that the editors of an entry need to show that this made more than a minuscule splash in the non-blogging world. So far, I haven't found much. ~ trialsanderrors 00:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My take on this is that it isn't about whether or not this one event "made more than a minuscule splash in the non-blogging world." I think it's about whether or not someone who's enough of a public figure to speak about politics on NPR and at Stanford should have a Wikipedia article (obviously, I think yes). Once that's determined, then it's a separate question as to whether or not it should include mention of this particular controversy. Let's take this one step at a time. Dori 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, if you were actually personally involved in this you might want to take a backseat in the editing process, or otherwise you're putting yourself in a situation where any of your edits can be reverted. WP is not an attack site, not a soabox, not a secondary source, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 01:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't involved in the "outing," (or whatever y'all want to call it) whatsoever. I agree that it's not appropriate that anyone who was part of that should edit. Dori 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case the AfD is open now. ~ trialsanderrors 03:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And now it's closed again, as User:Guettarda has changed it back to a redirect. So much for that attempt. Dori 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Trialsanderrors deleted Guettarda

It's a clear attack page which does not belong in Wikipedia. It was used to "out" the subject in real life, and threaten his livelihood. But DR does not address content. Most non-delete votes said merge, as does the current AFD. Leave it as a redirect, it does the least harm that way. Guettarda 04:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not going to restore it, but it's not a personal attack. It's an accusation, which I don't believe is fully supported, but is a reasonable interpretation of the actions of Guettarda.) Nonetheless, merge seems the best option, although his name should be in the article somewhere. (The claims of WP:RFA on any version of the article are clearly not justified. Repeating "attacks" (actually, statements of fact) from a WP:RS are generally includable.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

Please review WP:BLP and WP:RS

Specifically "Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them."

This excludes any links to a conference speakers list, a law firm director or something along those lines. Those are primary sources, and not acceptable.

and

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used (see above)."

This applies. Please exercise restraint and include only information relevent to his notability, which includes what is currently in the article - a redirect.

and

"In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

This applies. Do not harm anyone, period. No harm. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for citing the above ~~policies~~/guidelines, but if you intent was to demonstrate how actual harm was being done in this article, you have failed miserably at it. Silensor 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this count as secondary source? Google cache I hate to flaunt The New Republic as a magazine of note, but WP apparently thinks so. How about this [1]? ~ trialsanderrors 23:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit box comments

06:49, 27 June 2006 Guettarda (Talk | contribs) (rv anti-consensus edit)

06:40, 27 June 2006 Trialsanderrors (Talk | contribs) (Rv another attempt to disrupt ongoing AfD)

05:06, 27 June 2006 Guettarda (Talk | contribs) (if the page exists it should be a redir as per BOTH afds. Disgraceful to support page meant as harrassment)

User:Guettarda, there was never a consensus for a redirect, especially not in the 1st AfD. The word "merge" appears only once on the 1st AFD, the word redirect not at all. There is clearly no consensus for a contentless redirect as you just performed. Stop lying to suit your purposes, and stop deleting secondary-sourced information. If the community consensus of Merge and Redirect emerges (which is far from clear yet, I count 9 Merge, 12 Keep), it will be properly performed by an independent administrator. And stop accusing me of doing anti-consensus edits without proper evidence. ~ trialsanderrors 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I will repeat BLP

WP:BLP is very clear: "Material from primary sources should generally not be used." A lawyers findlaw entry, or his firms page on him are primary, not secondary sources. Convince TNR to write about them, or leave them out. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well. however, plenty of sources, as indicated at the AfD, have used his name. The moves are not necessary, and having the page at his name is entirely permissable. Please, indeed, read BLP, it's very clear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Is he better known as "Armando" or as "Armando L-S?" If A, the article should be at Armando (blogger). If B, I agree it should be at A-L-S. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the crux of his expanded nobility comes from B. He's only known to Daily kos readers as "Armando," he's known as "Armando Llroens-Sar" or however you spell it to those same readers, as well as readers of The New Republic, listeners to certain NPR segments, and to National Review readers. If this article was being created without the "outing" controversy, i'd agree with you. Not here. Besides, there's plenty of precedent in other non-political areas - take a look at any pro-wrestling article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The TNR article - the only secondary source for the name (blogs are not RS, everything else has been primary), refers to him repeatedly as "Armando." It refers repeatedly to Markos Moulitsas as "Moulitsas" and Jerome Armstrong as "Armstrong." In fact, it only writes 3 times, and all in one paragraph, compared to 8 Armandos spread across 4 paragraphs. Why would they do this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The NRO is an extension of the magazine. It's not a "blog" in the sense of what we know blogs to be, and I'm perfectly willing to abide by a neutral (i.e., an uninvolved party from RfC and not someone you or I dig up) third party's opinion on the matter. Stephen Sprueill, who posted the entry, is a regular columnist for the magazine, and it would be akin to eliminating something Buster Olney reported on his ESPN Insider blog because "it's a blog." ESPN, like National Review, are respected reliable sources. Meanwhile, TNR does use his name - it's on page 16 of the 26 June print edition sitting right in my lap - and other sources like NPR are NOT primary. In fact, I'm going to flip-flop a little bit and say that the law firm website may not, in fact, qualify as a primary source for his name, as it is a secondary source not provided by him, but rather his employers. I certainly have no interest in battling over whether his law firm's web site is a primary source for his name or not, but the point is that there's certainly an argument to be made. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the thing about compromise - you have to do it also. If I had his buisness card right here, would that be a secondary source because it was printed by the company and not Armando? TNR uses his name, like I said, 3 times in 1 paragraph, refering to him as Armando throughout the rest of the article unless they changed it for the in-print version. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They didn't, but it doesn't matter if they continued to call him "Armando," the point is that his name is public, published, and verified by a third party source. The rest is just window dressing in terms of the policy, which is what you're using as your rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I argue above that the article should be at Armando (blogger). Above, you disagree. TNR agrees with me, refering to him numerous times as Armando. You believe that it is permissable (thought you have yet to take a position) on where the article should be. TNR and myself agree - Armando (blogger) is his most-commonly-used name. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Re wrestlers, from a recent debate on the subject (I suggest people here NOT get involved) "There is a large precedent for using wrestlers' real names as their wikipedia articles and, although Calaway is highly unlikely to gain wrestling acclaim under any other name and will likely be known as the undertaker to most people, this article is foremost about the person (hence the "shoot" information and discussion of his life outside of his character), and secondary about the character gimmick." Looking at the most offensively BLP violating version of this article (and noting, again the fact that wikipedia is biased to current events taking up far, far too much space - witness Brian David Josephson, who is a world-renound, nobel-prize winning physicist who also recently began embarassing himself recently about crazy psychics - 70% psychic, 30% physics!), the article was, by word count 118/30, 80% about blogging 20% about being exposed/personal details

I still see no BLP-violating version in the history, however, at least concerning the facts within the article. The only part you continually claim fails BLP is his name, from what I've observed, and plenty of sources exist to fulfill the requirement. If I'm wrong, please tell me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC) --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We differ on the degree of BLP violation. The MOST EGGREIOUS version, in my opinion, is still only 20% revealing his name, 80% blogger. The only think I believe violates BLP is stuff that was not printed by TNR. Anything printed by TNR does not violate BLP. If you can cite TNR for your information, I'm fine with it. TNR says that ARMANDO is known as , not that is known as Armando. They call him by ARMANDO over and over, and very rarely. I suggest you read fully what I write before responding - your faliure to address my "the bulk of the article is about Armando (blogger)" demonstrates that you are not doing so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're not opposed to "Armando, known as Armando ," but you are opposed to "Armando , known as Armando?" It's the same thing! --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't care, then you can let me win without cost to yourself. Leave the article at it's current name. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

no, I do care, especially when you threatened people with blocks if they disagreed with you at the AfD. It's a much better idea to figure this out now, and if your main opposition is because TNR decided as an editorial decision to go with his blogging name as opposed to his last name isn't much opposition at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, so the real reason you are arguing here is vindictivness. An excellent quality. Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Vindictiveness? Uh, no. There's really nothing to be vindictive about. If you acted on the threats, then maybe it might have to be dealt with differently, but we thankfully haven't had to walk down an RfC road yet. I'm interested in making the article accurate, and making sure the information belongs there based on consensus, not threats. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] word count details

[edit] Blogging

is a progressive online writer or blogger who is best known for his contributions to the website Daily Kos (where he wrote as Armando but filled-in for Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (better known as Kos) as a "front page diarist" during Kos's book writing hiatus in 2005. was well known on Daily Kos for being one of the most prolific contributors and occasionally had his articles (called "diaries" on the site) featured on the front page. and is a co-founder of the political blogging website SwordsCrossed.org. He is a frequent guest commentator on politics in a wide variety of media outlets, including the national radio program, The Majority Report [1], and Talking Points Memo.

[edit] Exposed

resigned in June 2006[1.

[edit] Counsel is a job title, counsel is a job.

In law firms, there are a number of levels.

(people without law degrees)
Associate
Counsel
Junior Partner
Partner
Senior Partner
Managing Partner
Founding Partner
Named Partner

Saying someone is a "Counsel" is saying he's a mid-level employee. Saying someone is "counsel for" is saying that he represents them in court. Is there a secondary source that says that Armando is "counsel for" his firm, or are you working without a net, here? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article (under "Puerto Rico opposes Wal-Mart/Amigo," December 20) looks like it might qualify: "In Puerto Rico, Armando , a special counsel with local firm McConnell Valdes, handled the initial negotiations..." However, I don't know anything about that site except that they describe themselves [2] as "The international journal of competition policy and regulation". Dori 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no year on that article. We cannot use articles without a year labeled to determine what someone's job is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Even worse, the article clearly states that it is before the end of 2002 (though how far before is not clear without engaging in origional research.) I've been promoted since 2002. Have you? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A site search for dates the article as of Dec 20, 2002. Clearly the procedure is to summarize the article as it pertains to the subject at hand. "In 2002, represented Wal-Mart in pre-trial negotiations with the Puerto Rican justice department." I fail to grasp how this could possibly be construed as an attack on the subject. ~ trialsanderrors 23:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy, we write "at one time was..." Problem solved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that provide any value, whatsoever, to the article? I was at one time in Kindergarden, a graduate student and unemployed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes,it does. It provides a context into one of his more noted cases, and if yet another source to back up any allegations that people may have doubts about from NRO, TNR, etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you a lawyer? If we are about to go into lawyers client lists and cases where they served as local-council, I want to know if I have to deal with laymen here or if I can just say "We can do that as soon as you publish your client list. Thanks." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

i'm not, but we're not talking about a lawyer's client list as a source here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You were about to - "It provides a context into one of his more noted cases." If you think that some chumly working for some Puerto Rican lawfirm was involved in a "noted" way (when he was not even a partner) in a major case when Weil Gotshal was even remotely involved, we need to talk about having the requisite info to participate intelligently here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your borderline attack aside, his participation was enough to be noted by a third party before his "outing." I was never "about to" go into a lawyer's client list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the whole issue of the meaning of "counsel" may depend on jurisdiction. I suspect the "ranking" provided above is in the American context. In most Commonwealth countries, there is no differentiating between Counsel and counsel. "Counsel" and "counsel for" is dependent on context, and I can't see that calling a senior partner in Toronto "counsel" means anything other than that he or she is a lawyer. Agent 86 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uninclude

Do we truly believe that information about Armando's job title, clients and his activities are competently verifiable, or do people just really want it in there because it meshes with their worldview? I'll say that I feel that it is innapropriate of the encyclopedia to expose people who took active steps to not be exposed - and doubt it not, we were the verifing exposers here (the genesis of the NRO article were diffs in wikipedia combined with the malicious anonymous email by the individual inserting those diffs, along with armandoatdailykos' hamhanded attempts to get rid of said informations public perview). I think it tarnishes our reputation, and the only reason that the push is still on is that political POV warriors are damaging the encyclopedia, yet again. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF Stop making unsourced accusations. I have no stake in this action other than not letting two editors do an end-run around established consensus finding mechanisms. TBC already cited the Tron case as strong precedent for inclusion. And the idea that a sixty year old law firm has an active interest in falsifying his job title strains credulity, to not use a stronger word. ~ trialsanderrors 22:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - no. You obviously have a stake, otherwise you would not have been edit-warring and engaging in personal attacks to keep the page in your favoured version, rather than at was then clearly the consensus version. You seem committed to maintain the content posted in the original attack page. The Tron case was very different - he was dead already, the article was not meant to harrass and intimidate, and the Tron issue did not start with Wikipedia. Together with your friends, you have forced the subject out of blogging - now you are working on getting him to lose his job. Good job - hurt people in the real world and generate ill-will for Wikipedia. Good job. Guettarda 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that trialsanderrors is a sockpuppet or in any way related to the bad-faith editors who initially created and then edit-warred over this article. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you before to stop lying or imputing anything about my motives without evidence. Your continued assertion that this is an attack page clearly has at best minority support. The call to reinstate and relist was made in the review decision without opposition and was sanctioned by the closing administrator's decision to reinstate the edit history, and there was never a consensus, nor is there now, to redirect. I have posted the tallies above which you have still not contested. As about edit-warring, just check out the number of editors who have reverted your repeated attempts to remove this article, none of which I ever had any prior dealings with. Your idea that "I have forced the subject out of blogging" is ludicrous. I didn't even know the background of the story until it came up for the first AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 00:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and feel free to parse my edit history on Mary McCarthy (CIA) to see how ludicrous the idea is that my ideology comes anywhere near that of the NRO. Or just go all the way to the top on this talk page where I make my position clear. ~ trialsanderrors 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"I think is that the editors of an entry need to show that this made more than a minuscule splash in the non-blogging world." I assume you found that his representing wallmart as local council below WG made such a splash, right? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As of now he still fails my T&E:510 test and I would personally vote for merge and redirect to Daily Kos if I hadn't recused myself from voting. I'm still in two minds about between Keep and Merge and Redirect and my opinion might change as new evidence emerges. This is clearly an interesting test case for a topic that makes a big splash in the blogging world but relatively little outside. I see no evidence nor anything resembling consensus for an attack page. Nor even that the original version of this site was more than a minor chip in the whole brouhaha. The partisan blogosphere is enough of an echo chamber in itself, it doesn't need WP for the verification of its beliefs. ~ trialsanderrors 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It would really be appreciated if certain people would stop perpetuating mistruths here, such as "with your friends, you have forced the subject out of blogging - now you are working on getting him to lose his job", that is totally uncalled for. Silensor 01:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely include it. It's noteworthy, well-sourced, and part of the whole of his biography. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self reference/ whitewash

Self references are bad in general, but he was outed here. That was the purpose of this article. Might as well be honest about it. The information is factually accurate and verifiable. It's a clear conflict of interest to remove it. Guettarda 01:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

He apparently outed himself at NPR months before anyone here noticed it, although (apparently) few noticed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If a tree falls? Hipocrite - «Talk» 01:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith Guettarda, his name has been a matter of public knowledge as far back as October 2005. Wikipedia is not responsible for the actions of this subject. Silensor 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

False. It was available, but it was generally unknown until this page was created. If it was public knowledge before this page was created, why did it's creation cause him to resign form blogging? Why this: The absence of Armando , a corporate lawyer whose DailyKos postings did not sit well with his firm, was keenly felt. Many of the bloggers in attendance chatted nervously about the "outing of Armando," wondering could it happen to them? The information was in an obscure source. It was highlighted in one of the top websites in the world. After sitting here and in the dKos article for a couple weeks, Armando shows up, blanks the page as "harrassment". A couple days later NRO breaks the story. Coincidence? Totally unrelated to the articles? AGF? That's an insult everyone's intelligence. Guettarda 01:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Generally unknown" or not, it was a matter of public knowledge and record before it was added here, Armando almost certainly drew attention to it, didn't really care as much when he put his name out there on NPR, and even if NONE of that occurred, and NRO still broke a story about who he was, it would meet the inclusions standards now. Mentioning it does not violate any standards on living people whatsoever, as it is extremely well-sourced and does not pose a threat to his livelihood, employment, safety, or anything else. It's out there, and we would be lax (and it could very well become a non-political POV issue) if we leave it out of here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, please figure out what the discussion is about before jumping in. Try reading the context of the discussion and figuring out what it's about first, and then find something relevant to say. I was talking about Silensor's whitewash, not whether this article should exist. It obviously shouldn't, because attack articles and articles designed to harrass are speedy-able. It's an embarrassment to the project that people would argue to keep an article designed to threaten the subject's livelihood. But that wasn't what Silensor removed from the article. Guettarda 01:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite aware what this is about, actually. If you can come up with any argument as to why a line of information that was published in two magazines with readership in the hundreds of thousands, countless other websites, and on NPR is somehow going to threaten his livelihood, I'll be glad to retract my statements on this. You need to take a look at what constitutes an attack page, as well as re-read WP:BLP, specifically here. The first paragraph is especailly important. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, so you understand what the issue is about but you choose to answer off-topic? A very useful contribution. Guettarda 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm on topic. Thanks for the input, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, [3] ~ trialsanderrors 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There's this, from April 2005. First name, last name, Kos affiliation, lawyer, law firm affiliation, college background, etc. This doesn't appear to me to be someone making any attempt to remain anonymous. Dori 02:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Included despite his efforts not to have that info released. Anyway, if you are right, then why did he try to get the information removed from this page and quit after he was "outed"? How do you explain this anomaly? Guettarda 02:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, he clearly wasn't too concerned that his law firm could find out. Maybe the Stanford conference and the NPR appearance didn't make waves in the world at large, but the likelihood that someone in your firm reads this is much higher, and if you're worried about your job (btw, how many law partners are?) you take more precautions to protect your anonimity. Like, pick a handle that's not your first name for starters. Besides, what actual evidence of on-the-job harassment do we have other than A's own "Help, help, I'm being harassed!"? Last time I checked he was still at it at SwordsCrossed (same combative style) and announcements of his firing aren't forthcoming either. To me this looks like Armando used a little strategic maneuver to discredit his opponents ~~and Guettarda fell for it hook, line and sinker~~. ~ trialsanderrors 02:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that a criterion you only apply on editors you have an edit conflict with? ~ trialsanderrors 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there an instance of someone violating WP:CIVIL at you as blatently as you violated it there? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How about Together with your friends, you have forced the subject out of blogging - now you are working on getting him to lose his job. Good job - hurt people in the real world and generate ill-will for Wikipedia? ~ trialsanderrors 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked that editor to show the same respect for you that I expect you will show to him and myself (and everyone else) going forward. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Respect is something that is earned, not inherited. But I will certainly continue to focus on the matter at hand. ~ trialsanderrors 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resigned but posted June 20.

The June 20th post says at the very top "Editor’s Note: First published June 7, 2006 at Swords Crossed. Ender missed it apparently." Armando announced his resignation on June 13th. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Source? I see 3 more posts after that, up until June 17, plus the June 20 post "from the archives". I scanned the June 13 post, but didn't see a note of resignation. (It was just too damn long.) In any case, I have no problems taking it out. ~ trialsanderrors 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This still needs clarification. ~ trialsanderrors 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it really dosen't. If you are going to say he still posts there, you'll need to cite that information before including it, given that he hasn't posted about anything but his outing since his resignation, and hasn't posted for two weeks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you are retracting your above claim then? As I said, I don't have problems with removing it, I just want to know if your statement has evidential support. If so, it might be pertinent. ~ trialsanderrors 21:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Where? On SwordsCrossed? Can you cite? I did a search on his June 13 post for "resign" but couldn't find anything. ~ trialsanderrors 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"This will be my last post. I will no longer be blogging. But not due to any embarrassment or problem. But to avoid the problems sure to come in the future, as evidenced by the “promise” I received from one of the debunked bloggers. And this is now “legitimate” according to National Review. The fact is Spruell should be the embarrassed one." If you are insistant on paraticipating in this discussion, I suggest you read all of the background material. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think it is incumbent on me to verify positive claims made by others. ~ trialsanderrors 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The number of times I will continue to assume your good faith and answer nitpicky queries questioning my honesty or reliability is limited. When I say something says something, you can either read the something and tell me I'm wrong, or you can assume I'm right. Not reading something and assuming I'm wrong is not appropriate behavior. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me evidence that I acted in bad faith. And on "nitpicky", please concentrate on the subject at hand. ~ trialsanderrors 21:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

JFTR June 17th was his last post on the front page at swordscrossed. He still posts in the comments of course. Arkon 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return in December?

I saw the claim that his new sigline at DKos say he will return to blogging in December? I have no idea how to navigate DKos, so I wonder if this is true. (Meaning I saw the sigline but I cannot tell if it recent.) ~ trialsanderrors 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

His signature is not a reliable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That was not my question. I was asking people more experienced than me to provide technical support. ~ trialsanderrors 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:TPG says that "Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. That's what I'm doing. ~ trialsanderrors 21:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question, his sigline has changed as of late if it indeed says he'll be back in December. I think the DKos blogging program changes sigs automatically and doesn't do so by when it's posted (unlike, say, wiki software which will convert the four tildes to the signature of the moment). It could be worth noting if we can find a quick cache to verify the change. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just went back to his March entries and found the same sig line throughout. ~ trialsanderrors 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, semi-retired from blogging. Returning fulltime in December.

by Armando on Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 07:16:17 PM PDT

By blogging frequency I don't think he was "semi-retired" back then, but I don't know what frequency constitutes "non-retirement". ~ trialsanderrors 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, on His signature is not a reliable source, you might want to review the policy on self-published sources and let us know passus this runs afoul of. ~ trialsanderrors 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As it's assumed that what's attributed to him are, in fact, his words, we can certainly use the sig. It's assumed to be a direct quote. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And afaict, Arkon's observation from above goes for DailyKos as well. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Sources

You believe a conference speakers list is a Secondary source? Justify. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm working off of the reliable source guideline, specifically the part I've pointed the wikilink to. Call it what you want, but it's not a primary source. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable is not enough for WP:BLP, which I must insist you read and abide by. Could you please define how the source, which is created at or near the time being studied, by the people being studied is not a primary source? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

We've had this discussion on WP:BLP before, and while it's pointless to rehash it, I'll do so anyway: For the discussion above this one, "A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is not used as a source." For this specific situation, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." You'll, of course, refer to the relevant reliable source guideline regarding "Company and organization websites" to find out how the reliable source exists in regard to BLP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable is not relevent. Please read, AGAIN, WP:BLP, specifically the part that reads "Material from primary sources should generally not be used." Please explain how a conference atendees list is not a primary source. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we've been through this before, and, for the purposes of how we do things here, that's not a primary source. It's an independent source that discusses what its attendees do, independent of Armando. Would you prefer I replace it with this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That other source would be far better, as it is not a banned primary source. You appear to not know what a primary source is (hint - Primary source). Please use it as soon as you have verified it is a reliable source - paying specific attention to

Find out what other people say about your sources.
Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.

After you have done that work, please come back and report on your results. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good, so while we disagree that the other source is okay, we at least agree that the Global Competition link is valid. I'll change the article to reflect that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not. Have you determined that "Global Competition" is a reliable source? Please do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing to give me pause that it is not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see quite a bit. You don't know what year that article was published. You don't know who the publisher is, and there are no links to that site elsewhere in wikipedia. You have googled for what you wanted to find and used the first source you found. When it turned out that source was not acceptable, you googled again and used the next target. This is not good reasearch practice. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tellingly, their internet site is down right now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the site is up. Worked for me when I clicked it, at least. At the very least, start working among the same fact base the rest of us are, this source comes from the NRO link provided above and at the AfD. It's been easily known throughout this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Truth is not the standard for inclusion in Biographies. Please review WP:BLP, already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[4] is down. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget it. I'm leaving at note at RfC after the AfD concludes to sort this out, I'm not going to continue this with someone who's uninterested in a resolution. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't given up. The conferee list a primary source toward his presence and/or invitation at the conference, not toward his identity. It's a secondary source toward his identity. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Justify, paying specific attention to Secondary source, which starts "Secondary sources is a term used in historical scholarship to refer to works of history written as synthetic accounts" Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My mistake — as we define it, the conference schedule is a Primary source. However, the reference in WP:BLP to primary sources is a not even a full guideline (Material from primary sources should generally not be used. — emphasis added), and the examples seem to refer to public records which might be difficult to find, rather than such sources as conference proceedings. Furthermore, although this is not exactly a parallel construction, the about the author information preceding a journal article probably does qualify as a secondary source, although it may not name its primary sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion is moot as WP:V doesn't even once use the word primary. It speaks of reputable sources. And now I want to hear why Stanford University cannot be considered a reputable source. ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to get him fired

Can one of you explain why you believe that trying to get the guy fired is somehow important to this article? How is this useful to the goal of Wikipedia? Guettarda 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a single person editing this article with that intent. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what other explanation is there for your edit-warring to include information designed to threaten his job? No one would be dumb enough edit-war during their own RFA unless it was over something very important to them. It's obvious that you have a vested interest in the inclusion of this information. I don't know what it is, but you can't pretend to be a casual editor here. Guettarda 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

How silly to think I'd edit war with the intent to get someone fired during an RfA. I have a vested interest in this article, as all articles, reflecting what's known and what's verifiable. Whether you like it or not, a) who he works for and b) who he has served are both important parts of the story of his semi-retirement from blogging and the flap surrounding it. More to the point, the information is verifiable, notable, and meets every available standard, contrary to what's continually asserted. To not include this information is a POV issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article isn't notable as a lawyer. The information you want included is considered by him to be a threat to his employment, but isn't connected to his being notable. From WP:BLP

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Despite your proclaimed familarity with WP:BLP, you insist on including this information. Why? It isn't ignorance of policy. So what is it? Guettarda 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Considered by him, sure. Of course, as BLP, which you claim to be familiar with, states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Is the information you keep removing notable? Yes. Relevant? Yes. Well documented by reliable published sources? Yes. So it meets the criteria, so "it belongs in the article," even though it could be considered "negative" and "the subject dislikes all mention of it." If it's NOT in here, the information is still public - it's a non-issue, and our addition should not affect anything, it does no harm, as it's been widely disseminated. I'm certainly not ignorant of policy, I understand it perfectly - the information belongs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Guettarda should bow out of this debate as s/he is an interested party and fan of Daily Kos, thus cannot be unbiased in his or her deliberations. Silensor 20:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should bow out of this debate as you are an interested party and obviously an enemy of the subject, thus cannot be unbiased in your deliberations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. FeloniousMonk 20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL indeed. Silensor 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dislikes" is not the same as doing harm. BLP is clear here. Leave it out. It is not necessary for an article on the blogger, who blogged anonomously. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the information at the AfD and above. Anonymous people don't use their first names blogging, and refer to their full names when making appearances. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understand badlydrawnjeff's point, the relevant information is that he works for law firm X in Puerto Rico? What makes this notable? The fact that it's a fact? The law firm? The blogger? The clients he or the firm defends? Why would the latter be notable? Does he defend mobsters? Drug dealers? Big corporations? These may be unseemly, but it's all legal, and certainly within the confines of ethical legal practice. Why would this be any more notable than other piece of trivia for what I consider to be a pretty low-level "celebrity". I personally don't care much either way, but in this instance I think the "borderline clause" brought up by Guettarda clearly applies. --CSTAR 20:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not even borderline is the point. It's POV pushing. Why is it relevant? Because the firm works for various corporate clients, and these are the same types that Armando rails against in his blogging. That's what made this an issue, and why it made two major publications. If he worked at Greenpeace or something, it wouldn't make a difference. Instead, the "it'll harm his career" excuse is trotted out even though it's widely public knowledge. I'm not sure why this is an issue unless it's a POV situation - the wiki guidelines are extremely clear on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK let me get this straight: If you're a moderately successful blogger and have railed against spending on certain kinds of weapons systems, then if your daytime employer gets DARPA funding to support your computer science research, advertising that fact is fair game for a WP article? --CSTAR 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's become widely distributed knowledge, yes. If it hasn't been reported anywhere, of course not, and I'd definitely be on Hipocrite's and Guettarda's side on this if it wasn't reported at all. But it's hard to justify leaving it out when it's relevant to his semi-retirement, cited as part of the reason by TNR and NRO, and the information has been available prior to this "outing" flap. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the name of the law firm is relevant to his retirement. He didn't retire because he worked at that particular law firm. He retired because he didn't like being so publicly visible in a way that could threaten the relationship to his employer. If you say "it was his fault"; maybe. However, with expenditure of enough work, anybody can be outed in similar ways. Even the hypothetical guy whose employer gets darpa funding; what difference does the amount of work required to make the info public matter?

As I see it, the only thing that justifies putting it in is the fact that it's a fact ~~(or perhaps as vindictiveness)~~. I'm just pointing out that I think the borderline clause applies.--CSTAR 21:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. I think most contributors here are acting in good faith-- the motivation is "the fact that it's a fact" argument. I shouldn't have mentioned vindictiveness, although that may have been a motivation in some of the articles. I should scratch that out.--CSTAR 21:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The justification is because it's a fact and because it's descriptive of what he does in the real world and blogging world. The constant removals get very old very quickly, and reeks of POV issues, especially when people ignore basic policy and guidelines for their own agendas on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The "fact that it's a fact" is however, insufficient reason for inclusion. There are an infinite number of facts.

You seem to be saying that it's relevant to point out the verifiable fact the individual A. "rails" against corporations while working for a law firm that represents them legally? OK I don't read dKos regularly, so I don't know for a fact that he "railed" against corporations (from my reading of dKos, I do know he supported W Clark, "railed" against the US invasion of Iraq, and thought theories of electoral fraud in 2004 were on the fringe, but I don't have a complete picture of what things he actually "railed" against.) I still believe this is setting a questionable criterion publicizing non-notable facts about a relatively minor individual. non-notable, because the facts show no violation of any law or legal ethical principle, he is not running for office, he is not advocating action against corporations, he is not as best I can tell financially benefitting from any of this. Whatever principle you propose, "do no harm" is also policy which has been applied by Jimbo in broadly similar circumstances on WP. (I'll give you a specific instance offline) --CSTAR 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps it's up to those who think this causes harm to prove it, seeing as nothing should be entering this article that isn't already dissemenated elsewhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In the instance I mentioned (which I will be happy to supply you by Email) the article and all references to this individual (a relatively minor entrepreneur, with a relatively minor public presence and relatively minor publications) on various talk pages were deleted as per the individual's own request on a talk page. There were no legal threats made (as best I could tell). Many of the pages were deleted by Wales himself.--CSTAR 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether Armando wants them deleted is irrelevant to this discussion per WP:BLP. To define The New Republic and National Review as "relatively minor" is scraping the bottom, and I see nothing in Jimbo's contribution history or deletion logs showing that he's as much as seen this article. Obviously, if the Foundation decides otherwise, then it'll be dealt with right now, but I see nothing convincing any caused harm here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The individual in question has testified before congress. Congress is not relatively minor either. Testifying before congress might be. --CSTAR 19:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Per your request, I won't divulge the information you gave me, but the difference was that this person's article went through an AfD, and the consensus was to delete. If that occurs with this article, then there's not much else to say about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It actually went through several AfD's. It was only finally deleted when the individual in question requested its deletion (requested in a verifiable manner). Note also that at least one talk page was blanked (at least one year) before the final AfD by Wales. Actually, I (mildly) complained to Wales on that action, seeing it as a possible form of censorship.--CSTAR 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

well, i'm saying that, regardless of what Jimbo did (and he's in charge, but he really shouldn't have), it still went through the community, and people still disagreed with it. If the consensus is that the article goes, that's one issue, but it doesn't mean we have to censor ourselves in the meantime. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've listed this conflict at RfC with the desire to have more than one or two people respond and give independent input. I would hope that people would abide with what other uninvolved parties might have to say on the matter, as I will. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to your request for comment as it violates the requirement of neutral presentation--Armandoatdailykos 05:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct link here. ~ trialsanderrors 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminological queries

There are some points in the article that are mysterious to me. I am not familiar with the Daily Kos web-site.

Are the columnists there called "front-page diarists", or was that term invented for this article? If the latter, it should be clarified. I am led to understand from the Daily Kos article that users can write "diaries", which are akin to personal blogs, but I am confused as to what a front page diary is. Is a "front page diarist" one whose diary entries are automatically featured on the front page?
The reference to Mr. Moulistas' "book writing hiatus" is unclear to the uninitiated. What precisely is meant by it? Did Mr. Moulistas leave the Daily Kos site on a sabbatical when writing his book (Which book, by the way, Crashing the Gates? It should be referenced if so.) leaving Armando in charge, or was he (Markos) still associated with the site?

Thanks. –Dicty (T/C) 01:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

His TPMCafe profile refers to him as contributing editor, signaling a different kind of involvement. As for the rest, your speculation is as good as mine. ~ trialsanderrors 01:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Signalling a different kind of involvement? Sheesh. This passes for rigorous review? Since you have no idea what you are talking abut why not say nothing.--Armandoatdailykos 10:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Editor signals a different kind of involvement, yes, as the terms are used differently in journalistic practice. If you checked the edit history you will note that I haven't tried to edit the TPM language in, as it doesn't meet my criteria for inclusion. You might also want to tone down your language, as this is not Daily Kos where you can berate other posters. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 16:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dicty, front-page diarists are the four or five members that Kos selects each year to be regular contributors. There are certain days e.g. weekends or when he's out of town when they have unrestricted access to the front page; at other times he promotes them himself. Anyone else has to get their diary "noticed" by others -- via the vote function, diary rescue, etc. -- before they have a chance to be promoted. (This includes politicians like Jimmy Carter or Nancy Pelosi.) It's very like a contributing editor position, but that is the term of art at DK. --Dhartung | Talk 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EDITING NOTE

I just made significant edits to the article, assuuming the piece will not be deleted and that reference to my full name will be included.

I leave the reference to my name.

I link to discussions of my outing by NRO which discusses in detail the underlying issues although the crucial and initial role of Wikipedia is not mentioned. I refrain from mentioning Wikipedia's role in this affair in deference to the project.

I believe the piece now is as fair as it can be given the insistence on including my name. I have removed the salacious, gossipy links (which are clearly inappropriate for an encyclopedoa entry) and instead included James Joyner's balanced account, which came after extensive communications with Steven Spruiell and myself on the issue. It is utterly superior to the TNR link, which discusses Yearly Kos in the main, and me only in passing. Joyner's article is about me and my outing.--Armandoatdailykos 11:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I will also remind you that it's generally not a good thing to edit your own entry, per WP:AUTO. We certainly can't stop you, but there's still stuff missing. "Salacious, gossipy links?" Did someone place you in a hotel room with Wonkette when I wasn't looking? d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken on WP:AUTO; was the snide comment necessary? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think we were all humorless here, but maybe so. If I were making a snide comment, however, I'm not sure it wouldn't be. To my knowledge, there has not been any "salacious, gossipy links" in this article at any point in recent time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

On my editss - point NOT taken.

"While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies or to remove inaccurate or unsourced material."

I corrected significant inaccuracies and edited the piece to reflect the alleged rationale for the article and inclusion of my name and my withdrawal from blogging. The links to TNR do not discuss the issue of my outing and is inaccurate in many respects about it.

James Joyner, a conservative blogger, who spoke to both me and NRO, and who does not agree with me on the issue, wrote about the issue of me and my outing, conflicts of interest, etc.

No reasonable person can doubt it is the superior link. Frankly, it would be absurd to argue otherwise UNLESS your desire was to have anrticle that discussed the GOSSIP of my circumstances rather than the substance of what occurred in sober rational fashion.--Armandoatdailykos 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Position of Armando's full name in the article

I strongly dislike the way the current article references Armando's full name in a conspiratorial closing remark. Given how well confirmed it is, it should be in the opening sentence and I will move it back there unless there are any objections. –Dicty (T/C) 13:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather, I should say if there are any objections, please revert. I'll make this change now. –Dicty (T/C) 13:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I STRONGLY object. I find it hard to understand how you can make this comment given my desire that my name be excluded in toto.

Armando the Blogger, the subject of this piece, is NOT notable because of my real name. I think including my name is frankly, an affront, but it seems that Wikipedia does not abide by its own guidelines.

What is your basis for making this edit? Because it is confirmed is a reason for putting it in the opening sentence? Why? What kind of logic is that?

I am reverting.--Armandoatdailykos 15:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I did noy see any change.--Armandoatdailykos 15:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat ironically, to not make that change would be in violation of guidelines. It's your point of view that you're not notable because of the events surrounding you as well as your blogging, and we adhere to a neutral point of view here. Furthermore, again, there's a guideline involving writing about yourself that you might be interested in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, I would be very interested to see the guideline that you think supports your assertion.

As to my writing about myself, again you need to better familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines. They permit subjects to correct inaccurate and unfairly presented information. That is exactly what I did.

With due respect Jeff, this is now the fourth or fifth time you have misstated Wikipedia guidelines regarding this article. On each occasion, you have misstated the Wikipedia guidelines to my detriment.

At this point, you are NOT a neutral observer, if for no other reason, I have embarrassed you in this discussion. I am the subject of this article so my input should at least be heard.

Do you not think that recusal by you at this point would be advisable? You are clearly now acting as a partisan against me and my wishes. You simply are not a neutral observer.--Armandoatdailykos 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And Jeff, you may want to refamiliarize yourself with the definition of autobiography. This is NOT one. Or rather, if it is, then the article should be deleted because I do not want it published.--Armandoatdailykos 16:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And nothing presented has been a) incorrect, or b) unfairly presented. You may dislike the material that's there, but it's not unfairly presented or in error. If some of it is, we're still waiting for the evidence. I have yet to misstate any guidelines, although many have here during this discussion to the detriment of the article and to WP's guidelines.

As for your request that I recuse myself as I'm "not a neutral observer," nonsense. I'm as neutral an observer as you, Hipocrite, and anyone else coming in here, and I await any further input from third parties via the RfC to work this out if need be. I certainly won't be bullied around by you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, if you believe Hipocrite should recuse himself then make your argument. As a partisan against me, it is for you to advocate for such action. I am arging that you should recuse because of your patent bias against me. For example, the errors were myriad. And yet you say there were none. Your errors on Wiki guidelines have been numerous in this discussion as well.

I don't think ANYONE should recuse themselves. If there WERE errors, then please, point them out so we can keep them out of what i hope will become a stable version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But to provide one example of your error here - the article reported that I am a regular commenter on numerous media outlets on politics. This is false in all particulars. Rather than argue the particualrs with persons like you, I edited the article to make it accurate by stating WITH SPECIFICITY every public appearance I made. I also specified the places where Armando the Blogger was identified as Armando Llorens with ABSOLUTE specificity. I find it remarkable disingenuous and par for the course of this whole charade that after falling ovr yourself insisting how clear it was that I had identified myself publically you NOW object to my editing the article to specifiy EXACTLY when this occurred and when it did not. You object to precision, accuracy and specificity in the article.

Funny, it seems like we agree on this. I allege you've been identified publically numerous times, and you provide specific examples. Sounds like good teamwork, certainly more than I've gotten elsewhere thus far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is frankly, what I expect from you.--Armandoatdailykos 16:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you and I know eachother so well, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has been nominated for deletion. Either revert to the version that was up for deletion and which did NOT mention my full name at all, or leave it as is.--Armandoatdailykos 20:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Is there a reason that we cannot courtesy blank this talk page? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we should? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's the talk page of a redirect and includes information which the subject would prefer were not available in a highly-google ranked site like Wikipedia. There's nothing left to discuss here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has alledged that "talk pages should not be blanked" in an edit summary. This is not correct. I have asked for adminstrative intervention, AGAIN, to clear out this talk page. This is honestly beyond reprehensible at this point.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd think that the closing admin would have blanked/deleted this page if that were the case, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Anyway, here's one alternative

Archive Guettarda 15:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike talk pages of deleted articles, talk pages of redirects are generally kept, AFAIK, e.g. to discuss the validity of the redirect (though WP:DRV would be the appropriate forum for that, at least for the moment, as it's the result of an AfD and its interpretation). Try miscellany for deletion if you want it deleted, as I don't believe that the AfD supports permanent blanking/deletion of this talk page. Armandoatdailykos just reverted blanking, however, which seems to contradict the argument that we should do it for his sake. [5] --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not even know what blanking is. I have been going through the site removing as much as possible any references to my real name. Currently user Thumbelina is in a revert war at the daily kos page reinserting my full name, contravening the whole purpose of the RfD. I don;t know what your level is at Wikipedia Admin, but you guys have a big problem here. One day someone is going to be hurt by the malicious se of Wikipedia and is going to sue it. You folks better make some efforts to tighten up your ship.--Armandoatdailykos 04:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Armandoatdailykos, the purpose of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is the decision to delete or retain an article for a wide variety of reasons. It is not tantamount to a ruling that specific information in that article does not belong on Wikipedia elsewhere, so please do not represent it as such. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung:

A review of the discussion shows any fairminded person that the discussion and decision impacted precisely the issues you wish to reopen. For whatever reason, you chose not to participate in that discussion. It appears you want a do-over. to wit, you are not happy with the decisions made. I suggest we submit this all to the Foundation once and for all so that we need not have this pointless wrangling never end. It was over but you chose to reopen it. Fine. Lt's go to the fnal arbiters. No more "consenus" nonsnese. Who makes the final calls here?--Armandoatdailykos 01:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll proposal

I have posted a proposal for a straw poll to reach consensus on these issues at Talk:Daily Kos#Straw_poll_proposal. Please comment there as we try to craft a poll that will help us do so. --Dhartung | Talk 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason for a straw poll. Your proposal makes a mockery of what has just transpired. I think if you are unhappy with the result, let us have this submitted to the Foundation. Forget your straw poll and let's just go to your appeal of what has transpired.--Armandoatdailykos 01:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The straw poll is independent of the AfD result, as the information would be in Daily Kos, rather than in this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)