Talk:Daily Kos/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Armando Issues

That section of the article really needs to be cleaned up. I have no issue with the content, but as of right now, it is a personal narrative, which is highly relevant, but isn't quite encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyduva (talk • contribs)

There was some discussion of this before, and it's a controversial subject. I'm staying out of the regular page itself, because as a Kossack, I know too much about the nature of this battle, and do not feel I could be NPOV. From what I can tell, the individual who started this stuff was either an individual banned from Kos for spreading Armando's information in retaliation for posting a diary that used certain dubious sources (the whole Jason Leopold-Truthout-Fitzgerald-Karl Rove thing had highlighted the problems with using dubious sources, and this individual's diary, which made the recommended list, used even more dubious sources that were based on completely inaccurate findings and events. Armando responded to that, and the individual responded by finding and posting Armando's information. After he was banned for doing so, it seems that the individual came over here and posted the information. After this, someone (the individual?) alerted a blogger over at NRO, who posted it. The story itself is a result of one individual's malicious actions at anger over being banned. There was actually a discussion of this mess before, where I questioned what criticism there had been. All of that, along with the individual's talk pages, have been blanked by the person in question. The BLP issues are still being resolved, and need to be resolved, because the purpose of these edits was of malicious intent. Jlove1982 16:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be inappropriate to reveal Armando's identity on this page because (1) he wishes to remain anonymous, and (2) his personal info is not encyclopedic in an article about this web site. That said, I think it's important to mention him, and mention the controversy. I believe the current version ([1]) handles that quite well. I also think that the additional "Critics point to" sentence would be inappropriate, because it doesn't source what critics say this. Sarah crane 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

- Considering the, Sarah's edits, in my mind, are quite acceptable. Armando is notable enough to be mentioned in the way DarkSyde or others are in the page, but not his personal information. The criticism part is not appropriate for the reasons you mentioned, in the lack of sourcing into who these critics are or if they exist beyond the first person. Jlove1982 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your current article is clearly false and unverified. It reads:

"Deriving from incidents of his own self-identification during appearances on NPR and other outlets"

This is FALSE. I did NOT self identify. You have NO evidence of this. As the person who knows, I am the only possible source.

"his name and other details were published in venues including publications of Stanford University, this wiki, and the conservative National Review."

This is false. There was ONE Stanford online publication, for a legal conference in April 2005. It has been a dor mant site for over a year. It led to no one knowing or publishing the information. It did NOT list my clients or provde a link to my firm. It is a dormant untrafficked link that no one would see UNLESS they were looking to out me.

This WIKI was used by a malicious troll to post completely irrelevant information and now that malicious act is used to justify the disseminaion?

"As a lawyer, Armando is concerned that ethical issues would arise if he were to continue blogging while representing nationally-known companies including Wal-Mart"

This is completely fabricated. I never wrote that and I do not believe it.

Finally, if I am notable, surely it is not SOLELY for being outed. If this is supposed to be my daily kos obituary, the obituary write needs to be fired. I am notable mmostly for being a jerk. Even the most nota ble aspect of this occurence is not covered - the malicious outing of me by a troll and by NationalReview.

This article is simply not even close to being worthy.

The article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

Sorry. I don't know how to use your system and am only concerned with mentions of me. Full disclosure, I think and thought for a very lon g time that this is just the type of thing Wikipedia can not do well and what will cause you problems forever. You need to avoid these subjects, particularly as they are really of no importance in the big picture.

Armando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

- Being one of the most prominent bloggers on one of the most prominent political blog sites is notable, I would think. Blogs had a big impact on the 2004 election and will likely have a growing impact on future political events, don't you think? Current events always get more attention here, but I am sure our editors can add more information of past activities, where perhaps an Armando diary entry broke a major story in the past. Any suggestions? NoSeptember 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm relatively unfamiliar with the system here, but can anybody demand that his entry be fashioned a certain way? If Charles Manson wished to have his entry focus exclusively on his association with the Beach Boys, would you have to follow his wishes? Responsible parties here are being bullied by this loser and his attempt to become a martyr by karping about his "outing," which he effectuated himself over a year ago. If this guy wants to whitewash history he should do it on his own time (or, it seems, WalMart's) and not on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.127.230 (talk • contribs)

NOTE TO ALL EDITORS: The initial entry made on this controversial topic was reviewed by two wiki administrators, deemed to meet wiki standards of being from reputable sources including NPR, and was allowed to remain up on wikipedia. Since that time a National Review printed an article and took note of the revert war on wiki over the issue. This matter has now been sent to the wiki foundation for review -- PLEASE NO MORE EDITS until they decide how to proceed. This is a very controversial and emotional issue for all involved and its best to give this some time and let cooler heads review matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaSnail (talk • contribs)

From Armando: As the insulting editor's comment provided just above clearly indicates, this article is not posted on Wiki due to anything notable, but rather as a continuing vendetta against me. The clear evidence is presented by that comment. The smear is what they want.

And let's be clear, the National Review noted nothing. Persons with a vendetta against me have been shopping this non-story for two weeks. National Review noted nothing. Persons with an axe to grind, possibly this editor, sent this to the National Review, which only took interest when it was struck with, in its own words, "Kos fever."

Is it not notable that before this outing smear campaign commenced there had never ever been any interest to post an article about me or my personal situation in this Wiki, or ANYWHERE for that matter?

You'll excuse me but what might make for a notable article is one discussing thw use of Wiki to carry out personal grudges.

I submit that the editor's comment above makes it clear that Wikipedia should delete ALL references to me. Otherwise it will be ave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

NOTE TO ALL EDITORS: The initial entry made on this controversial topic was reviewed by two wiki administrators, deemed to meet wiki standards, and was allowed to remain up on wikipedia. Since that time, National Review printed an article and took note of the revert war over the issue. This matter has now been sent to the wiki foundation for review -- PLEASE: NO MORE EDITS -- until they decide how to proceed. This is a very controversial and emotional issue for all involved and its best to give this some time and let cooler heads review the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaSnail (talk • contribs)

How do we know it's being reviewed by the foundation? And who are you? (You didn't sign.) The foundation can protect the page if they think it's important, but the page isn't protected, so your call for no more edits seems to be just you opinion. Sarah crane 20:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why revert back to the current version? Accurate info re: Stanford, NPR, etc. has been left off. Maybe next we should have a Neil Armstrong entry that doesn't mention he walked on the moon. It's a shame that you're letting this Armando guy dicate what's allowed to be said about him. If that's the rule, then I'm sure there are more than a few folks who'd like a crack at writing their own histories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.127.230 (talk • contribs)

There's still the issue of the malicious intent of these edits. Neil Armstrong's moon visit was a public event. Armando's personal life and work is not. Armando the blogger is notable to the dKos community, but his actions outside of that are not, in particular his clients. The intent of making these edits was to discredit Armando in the dKos community (which backfired), and to bring about the sort of contention that was brought about as a result. Anything involving National Review occurred as a result of actions taken here as a result of the actions of someone who used certain edits for their own purpose. Therefore, the controversy is notable, but his personal life is not. Jlove1982 22:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jlove, this is patently absurd. I recognize your allegiance to this fellow as a "Kossack" (your term above, not mine) but this is not an Armando Llorens-Sar testimonial website. Of all six billion people on earth, I fail to see why this one should have the power to write his own history on this website. This controversy resulted in the number one search on Technorati, and thus has become a public event. To the Wikipedia community at large, this is a test of your credibility. This project was started precisely to remove the writing of history from the hands of a few powerful editors. If you place this power squarely in the hands of the people who are written about, you've actually taken a step backwards from the Encyclopedia Brittanica days. And to Armando himself below, you state that "The current version is unacceptable to me." In short, tough luck. Surely there are thousands who feel their representation on this site is subpar. If you're so certain you've been wronged, why not let the facts be discussed openly and allow readers to make up their own minds? How very illiberal of you.

Actually, it's not absurd. I have stated my own status as a member of the Daily Kos community and of this one, which is why I refuse to edit on the page itself unless it's something non-controversial (you'll see I made an edit to add Harry Reid after Harry Reid posted on Kos... as Reid did post on Kos, this is not controversial in any way). I believe in the nonpartisanship of this project. At the same time, the edits made in the beginning and in the aftermath were not made to do so. The edits were not notable initially, and they only became notable because they were posted here. The individual spreading the information has a vendetta with Armando because of a horribly sourced article and a banishment. Armando did not dissemnate his information (save for a few pages that until recently, one would have to be looking incredibly hard through Google to find). That, last I checked, is original research. So that's my issue. The controversy should be acknowledged, as that has become a public event because of NRO and Technorati. However, Armando's work and clients, beyond a mention that he happens to be a lawyer in Puerto Rico (as it is mentioned at Swords Crossed), should not be. The edits were made to cause controversy, and nothing more. Finally, I'm not saying that Armando should have the right to dictate what's here. If any of us did, that would be a problem. But the edits themselves were based on original research. The controversy is one thing; the edits themselves are another. Jlove1982 22:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Armando did not dissemnate his information (save for a few pages that until recently, one would have to be looking incredibly hard through Google to find)." At least you admit that he "outed" himself. You might claim the "outings" were hard to find, but you nor he can plausibly deny that the original information--regardless of how obscure--came from Armando himself. And I'll note as a logical conclusion that the information couldn't have been that hard to find, because someone found it. Finally, I dispute on your implication that only "non-controversial" information can be included on Wikipedia. The proper way to proceed is to reference the controversy and provide all facts related to it, not to censor it.

Can someone explain to me why personal information for Bill is allowed here, but the Armando information is not? What kind of dog Bill has can't possibly affect his status as a contributor. The only difference looks to be that Bill doesn't mind his info being here, and Armando does, in which case I was not aware Wikipedia instituted a new policy of unilateral self-authorization of entries. I'll bet there are plenty of facts George Bush and Bill Clinton and O.J. Simpson would like to strike from their entries as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.127.230 (talk • contribs)

Bill's information does not reveal his personal identity. It's part of the personality that makes Cheers and Jeers so. Armando's is designed to discredit him in the community, using nonnotable information found through original research that only became notable because of its placement on this site. The only reason it is notable is that the edits made here were picked up by National Review's Media Blog as the result of an email. So, in effect, it's letting malicious edits turn into self-perpetuating notability The edits are the notability themselves; not what they say. In fact, while the edits are notable, what they say is not. "Outing" an individual goes who does not want to be outed (and until recently, you had to dig a great deal to out Armando) goes against everything in the blogosphere on both sides of the political spectrum. If Bill was outed in this same way, I would be here defending his right to privacy. It only became notable because of the edits made. Armando the blogger is notable; Armando the lawyer is not. Jlove1982 14:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version is unacceptable to me. As jlove stated, the whole issue of the malicious intent and the dormant and temporary nature of the Stanford webpafe is NOT mentioned. If Stanford deletes the page will the reference be deleted? This is truly ridiculous. Can soneone inform me if this is the last version and has it been approved by the final arbiter? I need to know this in order to determine my course of action here. sarah Crane's comment is important. Who made the last edit? Can I reedit now?-Armando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

Armando, it is highly recommended that you do not edit the article yourself, per Wikipedia's autobiography guidelines. You are welcome to bring concerns here to the talk page, but try to be brief, specific, and avoid personal attacks. Editors here may not agree 100% with your concerns, but please assume their good faith with respect to Wikipedia guidelines and neutral point of view policy. --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung - this is the same advice I gave Armando, except I would note that WP:AGF does not mean ignore bad actions, like, for instance, the disruptive edit warring, violations of WP:POINT and other various actions that anonymous or red-name editors have engaged in. Participants here must read and abide by WP:LIVING. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

With specific attention paid to the section entitled "Critics - Malicious editing" which reads "Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but I don't think we can assume that the Foundation will agree that verifiable and relevant information can be kept out of the article. This is a particular problem with persons who wish to remain pseudonymous, because their pseudonymity can become part of the story, and thus notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from a stupid blog slapfest, how does disclosing the real name of Armando (Blogger) have a "clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability," beyond mentioning that there was a blog slapfest about the real name of Armando (Blogger) that led to him quitting? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. If you want to argue with someone, do that with someone who has made the specific arguments that bug you. --Dhartung | Talk 22:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth, I remember hearing Armando on NPR some time ago and I thought I remembered them introducing him by his full name and not just "armando". I just double-checked and found that the show was Morning Edition, they said his full name, that he's an attorney, writes for Daily Kos, ect. I would imagine that a national show such as Morning Edition would have a pretty big audience. CountCheerio (user has no contributions aside from this talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

Thanks. Note that we're not unaware of the NPR issue, we're undecided (as a group) how to handle it. Please sign comments on talk pages, using four tildes, so we know who's commenting. --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I accept the truce for a few days, even though the wrong version of the article is frozen. However, — if any revisions are deleted without explicit action from ArbComm or the Foundation, the deal is off, as far as I'm concerned. I also think that Hipocrite has misstated the issue. His real name is relevant to the issue of why he (claims to have) quit the blog. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PLEASE: No More Edits Pending Wiki Review

There was a wiki article made under Armando's full name and contained the controversial information (which was the one referenced in the National Review article). If you review that history, you will find that wiki administrator Guettarda edited the original article, but left in the controversial material. Over the next two weeks Guettarda and another wiki administrator, Duncharris, reverted back to the Guettarda edit several times after attempts were made to delete the article. Then, because of complaints, Guettarda took down the article and requested that no one make any more edits or additions until the wiki foundation has an opportunity review the matter. It is my understanding that this usually only takes a few days -- so let's let the foundation do their job

It is 10:38 EST. The current version is acceptable to me and no further changes should occur.

I hope the person who is posting the "No More Edits" admonition follows his own advice. We will see if he does. I predict he will not.

-Armando —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandoatdailykos (talk • contribs)

I've advised AlphaSnail to request protection for this page, rather than revert war. It is also incorrect to state that the page is under the review of the Foundation; if so, the WP:OFFICE procedure would be followed. Nobody editing this article, so far as I know, speaks for the Foundation. --Dhartung | Talk 02:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that wiki admin Guettarda had asked the foundation to look into this, but didn't want to freeze the whole page over just one small section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaSnail (talk • contribs)

Then Guettarda should come and tell us that. You should not speak on behalf of him or the foundation. It's far better for you to seek consensus on this matter, as a fellow editor, than to argue from authority you don't have; trust me. If consensus does not work, there are administrative procedures available which may be pursued transparently. --Dhartung | Talk 15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On that note, I fully endorse the current version, and apologize to Dhartung for assuming he was arguing for the inclusion of the name. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Having gotten involved in the dispute, I can't speak as an uninvolved party. I don't know what went on behind the scenes, if anything. If consensus can't be reached, then some form of mediation should be tried (including page protection, if that's needed). I lack the appearance of neutrality here, and I don't think I should be the one to ask for informal mediation (though I recommend against the MedCab, since most of the people there are inexperienced - we need someone experienced to sort this one out). Guettarda 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we agreed that we're in a Wikipedia:Truce state, then? That at least lets us all take a deep breath. My personal thinking is that the content of this article depends on the outcome of the deletion proposal. If the article survives, it will be very difficult to argue that the section here should remain coy. If the article does not survive, then we have three options -- inclusion of the identity issue (which would present similar problems to the AFD), nothing on the identity issue, or roughly what we have now which is an outside pointer. We could try to reach consensus at that point, or seek out WP:RFC as a first step. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not Content For Review. If that article survives, I will move it to the appropriate title (Armando (blogger)) and rewrite it for encyclopedic content (#REDIRECT Daily Kos). Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Do you also propose to move Markos Moulitsas Zúniga to Kos (blogger)? Simon Dodd 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That policy has no application here; YOU raised the point that you were planning on moving the content. I was simply replying to your point; there is no good reason for the change you advocate.Simon Dodd 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"It may be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they object to." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, Hipocrite, he was clearly stated his point as analogy. A violation of WP:POINT would be actually moving the article (or the example here where someone deleted the Bill in Portland Maine material). Simon was merely asking if you were serious. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Whether he was serious, and if so, why, I'd add - questions that Hipocrite is thusfar quite artfully avoiding answering. Simon Dodd 01:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP reads "Malicious editing: Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Such has not been demonstrated with the inclusion of the name of Armando (Blogger), or the client list of a not-notable lawyer. Actual malice, on the other hand, has been demonstrated in spades. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems possible that there has been actual malice; however the real name (or at least the real identity) of the blogger is relevant to the reason he (claims to have) quit the blog. It should be noted that Wiki review was apparently requested on June 14 -- allowing one week for review seems reasonable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should get this all settled in mediation or, preferably, by the foundation itself asap. I think, in the meantime, the page should be frozen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaSnail (talk • contribs)

The Revert Wars start again. Wikipedia is outed in the New York Times today. DELETE this diary ---- Armando

[edit] Application of WP:BLP

Before anyone goes ahead and edits the section on Armando off of it's truce state, please be certain to follow the rules explained in WP:BLP - specifically, two sections "Non-public figures" ("editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used. In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm.") and "Malicious editing" ("If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.")

I do not believe the full name of Armando is relevent to his notability, nor is his client list, or who he works for. That his name was revealed is notable (and mentioned). Perhaps that his client list was revealed, and that some believed there were conflicts of interest (if such can be found from a non-primary source, which I do not believe can be done yet). To endanger a man's liveleyhood is doing harm, and the rule of thumb is do no harm. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not convinced that printing his name here will do any harm, but we should err on the side of caution. The only notable thing is that his name was revealed; the name itself adds nothing to the article. The conflicts of interest were alleged by the National Review and can be mentioned without printing the names of his clients. Also, there also needs to be a clarification of when his name was first revealed and how it got to the National Review. Maximusveritas 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Maximusvertias's first sentence above, but the fact that he is a lawyer and the problem may relate to "outing" the identity of his clients (also, without naming them) is relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, this is an article about Daily Kos and the subject at hand no longer writes for Daily Kos and has left public life in general as a political commentator. His departure from Daily Kos should fundamentally change about how we view the content of this entry. With this change in the dynamic, I think this section should be short and not explore all the many controversial issues that have bandied about. Plus, I think if it is kept short and vague there will be fewer lightening rods that will create future revert wars. I would propose this (which is very similar to what is up now):

Armando was a front-page diarist at DailyKos that took a prominent role during Moulitsas' book hiatus in 2005 and was well respected for his foreign policy and legal analysis. He also had his own political blogging website, Swords Crossed, and was a guest political commentator in a wide variety of media outlets, including The Majority Report and Talking Points Memo Cafe. After his offline identity and details of his legal career were made widely known by a National Review Online article, he announced his departure from Daily Kos in June 2006, citing loss of anonymity.--AlphaSnail 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems to cover everything relevant that I remember from the (A L-S) article before it was deleted. I'd like to see it again to be sure, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It fails to mention that Armando willingly submitted the info for public consumption on several occasions, among them for a conference at Stanford University and during an NPR radio appearance. Without this information any reference to the controversy is utterly incomplete and will owe to a caving to his biased wishes. If there's some objection to including it, at the very least the reference to the NRO "outing" (absurd in that he "outed" himself some time earlier) should include a hyperlink to the actual NRO blog entry in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.11.246 (talk • contribs)

I was cognizant of this concern when writing it and that's why I chose the words "made widely known" in relation to the NRO article. The main thing is that I think it should be very short and if we start qualifying everything its going to become too long. --AlphaSnail 01:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I boldly made this the live version - however, I have POV concerns with "well respected for his foreign policy and legal analysis," and would like more input/rewording on that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Either "well respected on the site for his..." or just "known for his posts on foreign policy and the law" or something like that? -- Superdosh 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed it from "well respected" to "well known." Also, since mention of National Review is apparently inviting further exploration of that article in question, I took out the reference to that article. --AlphaSnail 14:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he (in real life) is a lawyer is relevant, as he (as a blogger) is "known for ... legal analysis". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

good point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that those who hate me have lost the Deletion review they will start to edit my description here. I think it isimportant to note who those persons are and I think they should be banned from your editing and admin process.--Armandoatdailykos 17:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The result of that debate was to MERGE. That means the info is kept, not deleted. Thumbelina 17:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. The result was a redirect. The article no loner exists. To wit, it was deleted.--Armandoatdailykos 22:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Lost the Deletion review"? I was unaware that AfD was a competition. By the way, I didn't "hate" you when I first encountered the AfD (indeed, was blissfully unaware of your existence), but your actions in that AfD and Talk:Armando (blogger) has made me recalibrate my opinion. –Dicty (T/C) 18:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please post your full name and your employer. I will then harass them. If you can remain level headed after such, we'll discuss your requirement that people remain level headed when such happens to them. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[There was a comment here to make a point. It is no longer germane to the discussion and can be found in the history.]
— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is reflective of the fact that you never hace understood what this was about - a vindictive and malicious vendetta against me. It was precisely a competition. It is a significant problem for wikipedia that such "competitions" have to occur. Until Wikipedia wakes up from the nonsensical attitude you exhibit its reputation will continue to go down.--Armandoatdailykos 22:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not buy your interpretation of the events, but this has gone on long enough. Feel free to have the last word. Just, don't insert your last word arbitrarily in the page so that the flow of conversation is broken. Help:Talk page#Formatting has hints on how to format your responses. –Dicty (T/C) 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I could give a rat's behind of what you think. The Wiki Admin resolved this issue. This has been hashed out. You support rehashing it all again here? That's your idea of putting it behind us?--Armandoatdailykos 04:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Armandoatdailykos, please be reminded that unless you are speaking of Jimbo Wales or Danny, and I do not believe you are, there is no one person with the authority to "resolve" an issue permanently. Please remain civil and understand that Wikipedia operates by consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Armando has given a lot of specifics about himself in his posts. If you type into Google "Armando Perto Rico attorney", you immediately get the names of a few Armando's from Puerto Rico who are lawyers.

When you Google the first, you come immediately to the January 2005 archives of Majority Report identifying Armando as a guest-blogger on DailyKos. A bit further down in the Google results is a post on tacitus.org from September 2005, referring to Armando as a "solid Deaniac". And the next result after that is a Speaker List from the Bay Area Technology Conference April 2005 which identifies Armando as a Guest Blogger on DailyKos, mentions the name of his law firm, and details his legal education.

Further Google searches on "Armando " and the name of his law firm, provide yet more information about him. None of this takes amazing Google skills or more than about two minutes of time.

In short, Armando's identity was put "out" there by Armando himself at least 18 months ago. He may not have widely advertised his actual name on this site, but he also wasn't going to any trouble to keep it a secret, either. Indeed, he was freely divulging his identity in other contexts, when it suited him.

Armando now says there is an ethical problem created by his name being put out there, and posts a "Good-bye cruel world" suicide diary here on DailyKos. If is actually the case that the divulgence of his name causes professional/ethical problems for him, his firm, or his clients, he might have thought of that 18 months (or longer) ago, when he started to put his name out himself. But since he doesn't mention what those ethical problems are, one is entitled to doubt it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thumbelina (talk • contribs) 2006-07-03 20:34:57 (UTC)

This issue has been fully hashed in the Rfd on this. The Admin decided to redirect and NOT include theinformation about my name. You continue to revert when this has been resolved. I'll play dumb and not question your motives. But stop including my full name.--Armandoatdailykos 04:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll proposal

Thanks everyone for continuing to observe civility and faith in other editors during this contentious period. It is my impression that there is a provisional consensus on the DK page to endorse the current Armando section. Most of the contrary edits have come from editors who have not participated in Talk. Some of the editors on the Armando article, however, do have different opinions. I think that it's important that we reach consensus on what the final form of the section will be, now that the deletion review has closed for the separate Armando article. See also discussion at Talk:Armando (blogger). My proposal is that we run three separate straw poll questions stated in the following manner for "support" or "oppose" responses by individual editors. It is my determination that these are issues with potentially separate resolutions, and that by breaking it down we are more likely to reach a consensus on each individually.

First question: The real name of Armando should be included. (Support/Oppose)
Second question: The link to the NR blog "outing" Armando should be included. (Support/Oppose)
Third question: Specific information about Armando's employer and clientele should be included. (Support/Oppose)

Note: This is not an actual survey. It is a proposed wording. Offer comments on the form, wording, or number of questions. It is probably not helpful to state your position at this time.

A straw poll is not a vote, but an effort to weigh editorial positions and seek consensus. The effort to seek consensus by straw poll is an attempt to avoid a more protracted resolution via, for example, the arbitration committee. The relevant policies should be reviewed by all editors: verifiability, citation, reliable sources, biography, and particularly biographies of living persons. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

However this ends up getting done, the inclusion of those things do not violate any of the relevant policies. At the very least, the "outing" information should absolutely be included, and while I felt the other information was relevant to Armando's article, community consensus was overwhelmingly clear that he doesn't need his own article, so I feel no real huge reason to fight that battle here as no one other than the involved parties at Armando's article seemed to care. Armando has appeared under his real name with a Kos association a number of times, and plenty of references can be seen at the history of his article, so the issue as to whether they fall within the necessary policies shouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please confine your comments at this time to the form of the straw poll. Thanks for your cooperation. --Dhartung | Talk 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to have a straw poll when all the info isn't out there, so now it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This straw poll proposal is problematic in the extreme. This whole process repeats what has just occurred. It is troubling me to see it pop up again here.

Moreover, questions 2 and 3 are simply outrageous. If the "outing" is to be discussed, then it should be fully discussed. And I wrote extensively on the subject giving the full chronology. By asking about on aticle instead of the whole situation Dhartung is not properly stating the issue in any respect.

Here is a survey question - Should Wikipedia be the vehicle for malicious articles designed to make a non-notable person notable? Becasue that is EXACTLY what happened. dhartung would have it that the outing saga began with NRO, It did not. It began with the malicious abuse of Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia prepeared to take full responsibility for its neglectful system? I Dhartung prepared for that straw poll?

Questions 2 and 3 are poorly presented, misleading and just not acceptable.

Finally, what it the precedent for the continued reopening of these questions? What is the purpose? Why is this occurring?

Is this something only the Fondation can fully resolve? Is that what is to be gleaned here?--Armandoatdailykos 01:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Armandoatdailykos, I fully understand that a) you are new to Wikipedia and b) that your concern is this matter and this matter alone. I ask you, nevertheless, to understand that Wikipedia operates by consensus, and that depends on a mutual good-faith assumption. I did not think you would be happy with my proposal, but if there are no other opinions forthcoming, I am willing to accept that the editors of this article are in consensus about the present wording, without any further discussion. I don't think that solves things for you in the long run, which a permanent consensus could have, but it's the best that any of us, as individual editors, can offer: trying to work toward a solution. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by permanent consensus? Is what happened before not a permanant consensus by Wikpedia standards? Do you honestly believe there is something more to say about this that has not already been said?

It seems clear to me that it is disrespect for the exisitng consensus that must be driving your desire to push this further. I suggest that if you want to do this, let's just go to the final arbiter and, with due respect, cut through the crap.

Because I will appeal a decision to include that information. LEt's cut to the chase if we must.--Armandoatdailykos 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I have received only negative or off-topic responses, and we now have an open request for mediation, the straw poll is withdrawn. --Dhartung | Talk 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting away policy

We cannot vote away policy. I think it's fairly clear that Armando considers the information to be potnetially damaging to him. Consequently, as per WP:BLP, it should not be in Wikipedia. There is no compelling reason to include the information. Even if he didn't consider it harmful, its inclusion would be marginal. So there are three options - Armando can take this to Danny, we can take it to the arbcomm, or people can stop acting like stubborn teenagers and just drop the matter. Shall we vote on this? Guettarda 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No one's voting away policy. To use a term I've seen elsewhere, there's a lot of handwaving about how information X, Y, or Z violates BLP, but no one has yet been able to demonstrate how, given the easy, reliable, third party sourcing. Community consensus is that he doesn't deserve his own article, so the only question that remains is how much information is necessary to make this section of this article encyclopedic. Certainly, at the very least, a discussion of the outing is in order. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that. WP:BLP is clear. Various people have quoted the applicable section. You acknowledged the policy in your RFA, but chose to ignore it on this matter. Guettarda 03:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean that no one has indicated how those situations were applicable in this instance. Mostly because, as it's been beaten to death thus far, it's not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What part of policy says that we should include information that is harmful to the subject, while also being at best marginally relevant to the topic? How do you interpret "do no harm" as compatible with this? Guettarda 15:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well-sourced, widely-disseminated information is not harmful to the subject. On 5 July, or 25 June for that matter, information published in a variety of well-known and well-regarded magazines, publicized on NPR, and since then distributed widely across the blogosphere is not harmful to the subject. If we were talking about adding this information 6 months ago, when the knowledge of such things was marginal at best, we'd be in agreement on this issue. With the amount of attention it has recieved since then, however, it's no longer a danger. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you prepared to bet your career on it? If you are wrong, will you promise to work only minimum wage jobs for the rest of your life? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If I were speaking as someone who's advertised his employment position in the past, and had his employment published in numerous reptable areas, I wouldn't be complaining that a Wikipedia entry was replicating the informaiton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, are you trying to say that you are in a better position to judge the harmfulness of this information than is Armando? Are you trying to say that you know as a fact that his reaction to the "outing" was unnecessary? You have spoken to his clients and his bosses? Can you provide some evidence of these conversations? If not, please stop talking nonsense. Guettarda 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Armando is significantly closer to the situation than we are, and that it very well could be clouding his judgement. He's rightfully angry that the situation may have BEGAN on Wikipedia, but it's long PAST Wikipedia at this point. We're no longer talking about material that exists in hearsay or unreliable sourcing, we're talking about information widely available from reliable third party sources. For any anger over a Wikipedia entry that simply repeats what's already known by hundreds of thousands of people borders on the absurd. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting spin, but you haven't answered my question. You assert there is no problem here. You fail to present information to support your position, such as your communications with his clients and bosses. Please provide some evidence to support your assertion. Guettarda 16:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That would, of course, be impossible to do on many levels, both logistically and as a matter of reliable sourcing. The fact simply remains that information published in a well-known, highly-circulated magazine being replicated here is not going to cause any harm, period. WP:BLP considers that sort of information to be useful when it comes to biographies of living people. Policy is clear, so your opposition continues to be puzzling on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Information which endangers a person's livelihood, but which isn't germane to the article shouldn't be in the article. Policy is clear - do no harm. You have stated before that you understand this. If you don't have the proof mentioned about, I can only interpret your position as malicious. Guettarda 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The information no longer endangers anything by being in this article. Since we're waiting on mediation, I see no reason to run around in this circle anymore - as I said below, I'll abide by what makes sense in the mediation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly my intent was to achieve consensus on the interpretation of policy in this matter, rather than making changes to policy or building support for any violation. To that end, I have no desire to proceed with a straw poll if the consensus already exists that the present text is the appropriate one. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the question of whether material is "derogatory" cannot be left to the subject of the article, nor can the question of whether information which might disturb the subject's privacy is relevant to the subject's notability and/or available from WP:RS. In this case, in addition, the specific form of the "outing" in conference information and notable magazine's blogs might rationally be considered self-publication, and hence relevant to the claims that he was "outed" rather than revealing his own information, and then regretting it. That being said ... I don't think his name is notable; I certainly don't think his employer or client's are relevant, and I'm open to whether the identity of the source of his "outing" (not Wikipedia, but the university's conference announcement and the magazine's blog, and possibly his other blog) should be listed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the magazine blog refrences wikipedia as the primary source of it's information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think people need to realise that the Foundation can be sued, and that a substantial finding against the Foundation would likely make Wiki go bye-bye. Is it really worthwhile, then, to maliciously endanger someone's livelihood and destroy Wikipedia in the process? •Jim62sch• 20:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drop the matter because the article is acceptable as it is, and bad cases make bad policy

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
8bitJake 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Herostratus 01:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drop the matter after we waste Danny's time

[edit] Drop the matter after a decision from Arbcomm

Take it up with the arbitration committee rather than harassing other well intentioned editors. That goes for everyone. Silensor 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drop the matter after we waste Arbcomm's time

Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drop the matter now because we aren't really as stubborn as we are acting

Guettarda 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk 02:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Superdosh 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
•Jim62sch• 08:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Include the personal details to some extent

[edit] More discussion

Let's be clear that the above poll, the AFD and everything else shows strong consensus not to reveal personal information of a not notable blogger. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The AfD merely showed a consensus that an article on Armando alone was unnecessary. This poll (which, I'll note, does not reflect the opinions of all editors here, nor offer the correct options to reflect the opinions of many editors here) is not complete in any way. I'll note that you *still* have yet to demonstrate "harm" or where the BLP violations are, and instead continue to edit war as opposed to making a legitimate case for your position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I assumed that you were arguing to include the information. I guess only User:TDC, 05:41, 20 June 2006 and User:Ashley Pomeroy do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like more than that from the edit summaries, not that this straw poll was ever set up to get an honest accounting to begin with. Do you ever plan on justifying your position? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to beat the dead horse again. Walk away, already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think the horse is dead, then by all means choose not to get involved any further. Meanwhile, the rest of us who are interested in an accurate, encyclopedic article can continue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Finally, there comes a time when it is clear that the continuation of an argument is pointless. The other person almost always gives clues that they want to discontinue the conversation at this point. Pay attention to these clues and then simply agree to disagree, no matter how illogical they are being. No matter how long you persist, you won't "win" and the person will feel harassed, even if you are calm and reasonable." Kjkolb 11:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, as I said, by all means, choose not to get involved any further. Leave it to those of us who do care. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So that is 10 editors that have voted AGAINST Badlydrawnjeff. --8bitJake 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Jeff needs to get over what for all intents and purposes appears to be an obsession with a semi-celebrity. I wonder how Jeff would feel if he were in Armando's shoes? Did Jeff even understand the meaning of Kjkolb's post? Does Jeff really think that people will "choose not to get involved any further" so that he may once again cause harm? Sad. •Jim62sch• 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A View on the “Armando” issue from a long time lurker

There are many here that would view as one of Armando’s personal privacy being violated by the disclosure of his name but it would seem to me that this is nothing more than an issue of what meets WP:V and WP:RS. The above arguments focus around whether or not the information was introduced in a malicious way to discredit Armando, but that is simply par for the course in the world and for Wikipedia as well. Many Wikipedia articles contain information of a personal nature that is damaging to the subject, but it is still included in the article. The Andrew Sullivan article and his “bare backing” add (ala Michael Musto, and more recently, the article on Crystal Gail Mangum both reveal damaging information on the subject as well as well as what could easily be considered malicious rumor mongering on the part of those who produce it.

Why use Armando’s screen name when his real name is now a matter of public record? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it really the case that Wikipedia has had, and then deleted, a piece of innocuous, verifiable, publicly-available information, in order to satisfy a person's whim? Because that's what it looks like to me. This Armando character deserves no leniency whatsoever; if he is to be a public figure, he is to be a public figure. If these people want to swim with sharks, they had better grease themselves. He cannot hide behind a fake name. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the inclusion of whatever is verifiable via third party, like Slate or TNR is fair game in this context. He lost his anonymity the instant he became a well know and well read contributor to one of the most widely read and influential blogs on the net. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems rather strange to me that Armando has disclosed his name on multiple occassions in the past, and now wants to put the genie back in the bottle so to speak with Wikipedia. RFerreira 23:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you must violate policy

If you must violate policy by including private info of a not-notable blogger, please do not use salacious links to non-RS blogs or primary sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No policy has been violated in the inclusion of said information. If you have issues with individual sources, then please note which ones are not good enough so we can replace them. Do not invoke policy falsely in your edit summaries in order to revert in the future, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of a link to "Outside the Beltway" is a not-accetable blog. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we can easily fix that. I thought I had clicked the link to the National Review, perhaps I did not. Why didn't you fix the link as opposed to reverting wholesale, as you take issue with one small aspect of my additions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you keep posting that, yet still continue to war over it. If you want to take it to a mediation session, I'll be glad to participate. If not, then please leave it to those of us who want to be involved. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because you are missing the point. •Jim62sch• 21:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

10 editors have voted AGAINST Badlydrawnjeff in this matter. Yet he will not drop this.--8bitJake 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Only 8, and many have chosen to not take part in the flawed straw poll. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of order. The straw poll was a proposal for a straw poll, and if you were unhappy with it, you were welcome to make suggestions on improving. Instead, you chose to argue the issue. Since I got no input, and now RFM is involved, the straw poll is withdrawn. It was never open for voting. --Dhartung | Talk 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

People that don't vote don't count in the vote. That is basic political science.--8bitJake 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I haven't voted is because as the saying goes, "polls are evil", and I honestly did not fully agree with any of the choices presented. That, and two editors here which need not be named have been bullying those who do not agree with their skewed interpretation of a guideline. Since I do not believe this matter is a "waste of time", I've slightly amended one of the options that is closest to what I believe should happen next, and if that change is reverted then please remove me from this vote all together. Silensor 16:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFM

I have filied a request for meditiation regarding the ongoing issues regarding WP:BLP at WP:RFM. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And, for the record, I make a vow right now to abide by the results of the mediation in this case, regardless as to whether it results in what I prefer to see. I hope the other folks battling over this can make the same promise. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I was ready to withdraw the straw poll as it was. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To today's edit-warring parties, please include yourselves in the mediation session. It's the only way this is going to be resolved to anyone's liking. There's no consensus to add OR remove the information, so we're just spinning our wheels until a mediator steps in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to get myself involved in the edit war, but perhaps a temporary WP:RFP is in order for this page? Aside from the Armando edit war, the page hasn't been updated in over a week and could do with a cooling down period until the mediation can take place. --Bobblehead 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Already requested it before you left this comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Must have crossed paths. I checked RFP before I made the comment. *laugh* --Bobblehead 18:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that any of the editors involved on the include side of this edit war are in any way interested in improving the encyclopedia as opposed to winning their blogslapfest? Provide diffs. Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This question does not deserve any sort of reasonable answer. Completely inappropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Because Thumbalina and Bubba Ditto have demonstrated they are are keeping track of the talk page, right, through their substantial discussions here, right? I mean, they're clearly interested in improving the encyclopedia. I woudn't DARE impugn their motives or methods! Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please. You've been warned before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can get them to comment on this talk page, without contacting them outside of this talk page, on the substantive issue I will issue a complete and abject apology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumbelina's left a couple comments on this talk page. I don't know anything about Bubba, nor should it matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

Armando's asked that we not include his name in any article. WP:BLP calls for a presumption in favor of privacy which says "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy." If Armando does not want his name to be included in this article, then guideline says that is what we should do, and anyone insisting on including is flouting the guideline and the subject's wishes. I for one will continue to remove any content that publishes private information that the subject has asked us to not publish. FeloniousMonk 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

Second that. The statement has been made on several edit summaries that the information is verified: I can source that Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center cloned a fully functional, rabbit penis but that doesn't mean it belongs in the Penis article (See "March of Science" on News of the Weird, Macon.com, Fri Jul 7)

BLP takes precedence over "its true!". Evading policy and calling it a "content dispute" or "censorship" is the type of action I expect to see from blatant trolls, not the editors involved on this page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. This isn't a WP:BLP issue but a simple content issue. Tossing BLP out there is wrong, but this is a content dispute and that's why we're attempting mediation. You should consider joining in. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, three things:

"The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies"

"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."

"The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves."

I'll say it again - WP:BLP is not the issue here, and what Armando wants isn't really relevant. I highly suggest getting involved in the mediation, as we're at an impasse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the link FM kindly has posted to the relevant bit of the policy: presumption in favor of privacy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Except he's a public figure, whether he wants to be or not. It's kind of misleading to use a lead sentence as the basis for defining policy while ignoring the specific points for public figures. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're intentionally trying to be Dense, yes? This is really not a difficult concept. If you saw Sean Penn in a restaurant eating dinner, would you walk over and harrass him? •Jim62sch• 21:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If Sean Penn told you that his visit to a Tibetian Monastery was an invasion of his privacy after it was published via Reuters, would you accept that? Of course not. This is, fortunately or unfortunately, no different. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He publishes stuff on the internet. So do you Jeff. Does that make you a "public figure" and your privacy is void? Does that make me a public figure? He specifically asked for his personal information to NOT be included and I think that common decency compels us to do the right thing and honor his request.--8bitJake 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to a point, yes. In terms of "basic privacy," sure, I've done nothing to protect my name and address, to the point of publicising it, and that's that. I've been interviewed three separate times for three separate subjects in the past, I can't just go and take those back and say it never happened and it can't be discussed. If, next week, Mother Jones decides to do some expose on right-wing Wikipedians and tosses my name and employer out there, I have no right to stop it from being broadcast elsewhere, never mind posting it in a Wikipedia entry. Common decency is all well and good, and I have no interest in publicising information about Armando that isn't already in the public eye. But let's be realistic - his leaving the blog became newsworthy, and it's lax of us not to recognize that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So, ultimately the question is whether or not a blogger is a public figure, correct? If so, is that something MedCom can mediate an agreement between the two warring factions? BLP is pretty clear on how to handle public vs. non-public figures, include info from reputable sources if they are Public, don't include info, even if from reputable sources, if they are non-public. --Bobblehead 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, the question is how public is a person such as Armando, who did not hide his identity in association with his blogging activities, and who's identity was further publicized by multiple, non-trivial outlets. I'd hope that MedCom can help come to some agreement, and I hope that the editors involved in this are willing to abide by it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm also seeing another issue. The definition of what a 'Public figure' is versus how public a person is.. While they use the same word, they are definitely two entirely different things. The availability of information about someone is not what makes them a Public Figure. There are certain legal requirements that must be met before said person is deemed a Public Figure (requirements I'm not familiar enough to know with any certainty). The availability of the information also doesn't seem to be the threshhold for WP:BLP, but rather if the person meets the legal requirements of a Public Figure or if inclusion of such information would do harm to the person. Armando seems to think having his information out there would be harmful, so that leaves the 'Is he a Public Figure?' requirement. --Bobblehead 22:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting argument. I can accept that argument (even if I disagree with it), but to do so we still have to look at BLP in that case: "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)." His outing is still relevant to his nobility, as is his name. In fact, you could argue that he only really became notable thanks to the outing information. In other words, I still think policy covers this in either scenario. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But basically you believe that the personal information should be included since you disagree with his politics and he specifically does not want it in the article. You could always ask Bob Novak to publish it.--8bitJake 21:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. I believe it should be included here because it's newsworthy and the story is encyclopedic. My personal opinion on Armando's politics, which i know very little about outside of his posting on Daily Kos, a blog I don't read, have nothing to do with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy sidetrack

So Jeff you wouldn't mind me posting your name and where you live around here would you?--8bitJake 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly public knowledge, and I'm not sure how germane it is. I don't go around hiding it, though, so it wouldn't make a difference if you did or not - anyone who wants to know the information can find it without too much effort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

removed innapropriate comment that violated others privacy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC) --8bitJake 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC) This didn't violate my privacy, let the record show. I didn't catch this in my revert, and it's too far gone at this point anyway. If you're curious, check the history. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The data isn't fake, although I haven't updated the phone number in particular. I'm unlikely to, since my primary line is a cell phone and I don't want to waste minutes on nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"I don't want to waste minutes on nonsense." Can I quote you on that?--8bitJake 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. If you want your phone number that you pay minutes for exposed to scammers and spammers, that's your business, I'll pass. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pay phones only cost $.50 FYI. I for one do care about privacy rights on the internet and that is why I am a card carrying EFF member. --8bitJake 18:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. I hope it works out, I, meanwhile, know I'm responsible for the level of privacy I expect. Either way, this has veered OT, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This is quite on topic. Radical right wing groups like violent Anti-Choice groups and Neo-Nazis (No Jeff I am not calling you a Nazi I am talking about actual Nazis) have used the threat of posting personal information of people they disagree with online and encouraging their followers to go and harass or threaten them. Michelle Malkin went as far to drive Denice Denton, the chancellor of UC Santa Cruz to commit suicide. Armondo does not want rightwing harassment and threats. --8bitJake 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This thread is really close to being Godwinized. Please, let's focus more closely on the facts of this particular case. Jonathunder 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

8bitJake, you might want to review WP:AGF. --18.252.6.136 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by my belief that just because Armondo has posted stuff on a blog his personal privacy is not null and void. Especially since he asked Wikipedia directly about it.--8bitJake 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy issue?

What is the privacy issue here? Armando knows full well that his name has been published my multiple major media sources, because he provided that name to them in the first place. This smells like a smear campaign to me. Silensor 18:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just not accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't leave us hanging here Hipocrite. Elucidate. How did NPR and other sources come to publish his name, months before this Wikipedia wheel war came to be? Silensor 18:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He's asked us specifically not to publish his name, just because others have published it beforehand does not mean Wikipedia should after he's asked us specifically not to. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about double standards. So what, are we applying WP:BLP based upon the likeability of a subject now? Silensor 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Which part of lawsuit are you not comprehending? •Jim62sch• 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Never alledged damages from publishing his name. Goes by his real name online in multiple other venues and made no active attempts to cover it up. Also, do you want Armando to turn into Daniel Brandt 2? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Llorens never made an attempt to cover up his name either until it arrived at Wikipedia. What's your point? Silensor 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

He never had to because it was never released untill it arrived at Wikipedia. Did you miss the timeline here? We outed him first. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please post your timeline so that I may correct it. He has gone on record by his full name tying himself to Daily Kos many moons prior to this Wikipedia business. Please stop trying to distort the facts. Silensor 18:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might provide your own timeline. Just make sure it follows WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 2006-07-07 17:26:09 (UTC)

Here are the results of some googling. The timeline itself is not meant to be encyclopedic content, but to help people on this talk page if they really want it for reference. So I don't think it needs to follow WP:RS strictly. I am including offsite links to make the timeline more verifiable. If the URLs violate some wikipedia policy, then I am sorry, and please feel free to remove them while retaining the text if appropriate!

Timeline of online references to real name and/or private info of the blogger in question:

2005 January 6 - Blog of Air America's Majority Report reveals name of blogger
2005 April - List of speakers at Stanford reveals name of blogger and law firm
2005 October 8 - Comment on Daily Kos by 'goblue72' claims to reveal some of the firm's clients
2005 October 28 - NPR's Morning Edition reveals name of blogger (in audio)
2006 May 23 - Comment on Truth Out forums by 'ShaggyDA' reveals name of blogger
2006 May 26 - Wikipedia entry created by 'Paka33' reveals blogger's name and name of law firm.
2006 May 29 - Wikipedia entry blanked by user 'KosNation' (presumably due to BLP issues).
2006 June 7 - Info appears in NRO Mediablog by Stephen Spruiell. References Wikipedia.

--18.252.6.136 03:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

This revert-waring is way too much. I can't even count how many times it was reverted just today. I've protected the page, on the wrong version, of course. Please work this out somehow. Jonathunder 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We're waiting on mediation, and hopefully it will stay protected until mediation is finished. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can one of the admins in this debate please tag the page {{protected}}? Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now tagged it properly and listed it on protected pages. Thank you for the reminder. Jonathunder 19:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WHY WASTE TIME ON MEDIATION?

Jeff does not like the consensus reached. So consensus is not the standard here, DESPITE what I was told before by dhartung. Let's go staright to the Foundation. I will certainly fight any use of my full name. Jeff seems hellbent on fighting this till the end.

Why waste time? Let's go to Wikipedia's final arbiter and then see what happens.--70.45.23.77 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus in the AfD, if that's what you're referring to. Consensus cannot be imposed from above. A sysop decided to defuse the sprawling AfD battle with a redirect and protection, but it was obviously futile, as the subsequent edit warring here proved. Why "waste time" on mediation? Because mediation is an essential step in the Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. The final authority in Wikipedia, the ArbCom, will generally not hear a case that hasn't gone through mediation. Furthermore, User:Badlydrawnjeff has indicated[2] on this page that he will abide by the MedCom decision, a promise that I note no one else has echoed. You may wish to read more closely. Finally, and to repeat a request I have made several times before, please follow process. In particular, unless you want to become a named party of the Mediation, you should not be editing the request for mediation, and you should definitely not be leaving comments where it is stated in bold that comments are not appropriate[3]. (I have reverted that edit[4].) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what it means to say one will abide by a MedCom decision. The MedCom seeks to find solutions that are acceptable to all parties. So it's pretty much a given that "[a person] will abide by a compromise that [said person] find(s) acceptable". Guettarda 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In the event that the solutions aren't acceptable to all parties, I'm perfectly willing to accept what the neutral mediation has to say on the matter, that's what I'm getting at. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that as a comment on your comment, but rather on Kaustuv's mention that "only you had said...". I'll happily follow the process wherever it goes. I am interested in acting in the interest of the project. I understand that there is a need to balance two opposing forces here. Quite frankly, I would rather see the arbcomm rule on this because this isn't a dispute between editors, it's a fundamental question of what Wikipedia is and how Wikipedia works. Finding a solution that is acceptable to you, me, Hip, Arthur and Silensor doesn't really solve the problem unless it is also acceptable to Armando, Bubba ditto, Thumbelina, etc. That said, having never gone through formal mediation, I don't know what to expect from it. If Essjay or someone else with his level of skill chooses to take the case, I am hopeful. If it ends up like anything I've seen at the MedCab, on the other hand, it will just be a painful waste of time. Guettarda 15:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you read the provided link, you will see that I was quoting Jeff, and he has explained what he meant by "abide". As regards the promise to "abide", it should be hardly confusing what I meant by "no one else has echoed it". If you are worried about the opinions of Armando, Bubba ditto and Thumbelina, you should have named them as parties of the mediation. Now, I am inclined to agree with you that this case should be looked at by the ArbCom, and it may get there yet, but I disagree on the gravity and scope of the problem. We are well aware what Wikipedia is (an encyclopedia) and how it works (by consensus). The question of whether WP:BLP should be interpreted to disallow publicly available information from Wikipedia because the subject wishes to leave it out is, in my opinion, a question for WP:VPP or a relevant talk page such as WP talk:LIVING. The community could have built consensus there and WP:BLP could have been suitably amended or clarified to handle this present conflict. Instead, what has happened is an all out edit brawl, something Wikipedia explicitly warns editors not to engage in. Wikipedia is not at fault here: a handful of Wikipedians are. If mediation fails and this case goes to the ArbCom, I will bring the issue of editorial conduct up. In particular, I will ask the ArbCom whether editors should feel empowered to ignore policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and important guidelines such as WP:POINT, as has happened several times in the edit war and on this talk page, in order to police what they see as violations of other guidelines such as WP:BLP. This is my final comment on this page until the end of the mediation. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 07:33, July 9, 2006

[edit] Unprotecting

Edit warring doesn't really justify page protection for extended periods, and there hasn't been much discussion on the issue. Accordingly I'm lifting protection; there are more fine-grained ways of dealing with edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The lack of discussion is due to the awaiting mediation on the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that a lack of edit warring will accrue from the same circumstance. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel section

There's a good deal of POV going on there to begin with, but using a controversial diary that was even labeled by some as a "troll diary" is not encyclopedic. It's designed to reflect one's specific view. The rest of it is a whole other story, but the last line and citation, and using that to reflect the community as a whole, is not encyclopedic, and is definitely POVJlove1982 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I had deleted the last entry which was the most eregregious NPOV and unencyclopedic entry of the lot (which was quickly reverted by someone else), but I agree - there has been no widespread "controversy" over Daily Kos postings on Israel. I saw the citations, but that would be like equating a few MediaMatters posts on Bill O'Reilly as worthy of inclusion in a "controversy" section on him. Controversy requires some widespread outrage, not select advocacy groups searching out material they object to. Further, all the objectionable postings that are made are severely disputed by a wide range of characters on Daily Kos (many of whom are themselves Jewish). I would find it hard to generalize any viewpoint on Israel as being held widely on DK. That's the key here - just because, say, a KKK member posts some diary on daily kos doesn't make it representative of the community unless it's clear from the recommends and comments that the ideas have widespread support there.

Definitely picking and choosing a few controversial or extreme statements found there is not valid from an encyclopedia point of view. Shall the Wiki entry on Wikipedia itself include a dumping ground for objectionable anti-Israel or anti-semetic statements made by any editor here? Unless there is evidence of some widespread view that is widely controversial, we must question its inclusion here. If one wants to find a whole wack of crazy and zany diaries, just check out the ones tagged troll diary.--FNV 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the first version (which I revised, taking a neutral position on its inclusion) tried to claim one of the statements as Moulitsas's himself on CNN. That was either terribly misunderstanding the cited material, or malicious. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The section is absolutely not at odds with the type of matter included in the articles for many GOP senators and congressmen. There should be no double standard. There have been several VERY controversial statements made by Kos contributors, which have drawn significant attention on the internet. They warrent inclusion. Trilemma 16:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of subject matter that does not meet wikipedia's content guidelines in other articles is not justification for inclusion of subject matter in this article. Rather, it is an indication that the information should be removed from the other articles. --Bobblehead 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how controversial statements that have attracted significant online attention do not meet wikipedia's content guidelines. What specific guideline does it not meet? Trilemma 17:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversies can and should be included in articles as long as they meet Wikipedia's three content guidelines of Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. In the case of the Israel section the removing editors felt that the two blogs linked were not Reliable sources and thus failed to meet the verifiability guideline and that without the sources the remaining information was original research.--Bobblehead 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, that's a specious comparison. Senators and Congressmen officially represent thousands and thousands of people in the legislature of a superpower, and as such their opinions can have consequences and are almost automatically notable. The fact that on a given day you can find on a website which allows thousands of non-notable persons to publish their non-notable opinions one or two which are ZOMG "controversial" is just silly. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Trilemma's comment - can you explain what you mean about Congressmen? I'm not sure where this analogy comes from. This article is about an online community - including this information in the main article is a little bit like putting Karmafist's manifesto in an article about Wikipedia and trying to imply that this is how Jimbo feels. But quite frankly this is a secondary concern. People will complain about material posted in diaries on dKos. That doesn't make a controversy. Many people complaining about something might make a controversy. But how many is "many"? Actually, that isn't for us to say. We can't compile a list of complaining blogs. That would be original research. On the other hand, if a reliable source comments on such a controversy, we could include it - then the decision would be whether or not its notable. If we have reliable sources we can debate notability. Right now, the debate appears to be about neither. Guettarda 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In regards to differentiating figures, we're still talking about public figures in the realm of American politics. I'll give some examples of what I was referring to:

The Rick Santorum article includes a comment Rick Santorum made about marriage here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Marriage_as_homeland_security But gives no background as to criticism of that individual comment.

The Jeff Sessions article contains Sessions' post-Hurricane Katrina manuverings, but again, no link or reference to significant criticism of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions#Controversies

The Ted Stevens article contains criticism of Stevens' energy policy position and post Hurricane Katrina statements without any link to significant criticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens#Energy

Sam Brownback's article contains criticism of Brownback without any link to significant criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Brownback#Controversy

As does the Jim Thune article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Thune which mentions Jeff Gannon without any inclusion of relevance to Thune, and any independent significant criticism of his same sex marriage views.

Now, I found all those by only checking roughly half of all the GOP senators. That's not even getting into the House members. Why is there a higher standard of inclusion for a hyperbolic blog than members of the Senate?

I think that most of the listings above don't violate wikipedia policy, and deserve to be included. So does the statements made on DailyKos. There's an understood acceptance of inclusion of generally considered controversial speech on wikipedia. Siding with the President of Iran and musing about the destruction of Israel certainly falls into this category.Trilemma 23:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not about standards of inclusion, and as was stated, the comparisons you're bringing up may or may not conform to WP:RS (without looking at each individually I don't know). But an individual diarist and what s/he says on DK is not inherently notable. Your analogy is flawed, because your argument is flawed. This is not about whether criticism is "OK" for inclusion, it's about whether that criticism is notable. There are, what, tens of thousnads of DK diaries, and tens of millions of blogs -- is every disagreement between those nodes notable? It surely isn't important, but it might receive major media attention, in which case its notability is significantly easier to demonstrate. --Dhartung | Talk 23:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, you are talking about notable political figures, this article is about an online community. I don't see how you can equate the two. The postings of non-notable diarists in such a vast community is about as notable as what gets posted on user pages in Wikipedia. There's a world of difference between this and what a Senator says. In addition, even for material about notable people like senators, WP:RS still applies. It definitely applies here. Guettarda 01:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

DailyKos is known to more Americans than some US senators and many congressmen ;) Kos is among the five most known blogs, and their musing about the destruction of Israel and siding with the president of Iran can not be considered anything short of significant. As for "reliable sources", Kos' paranoid listing of "troll blogs" is insignificant. Kos considers anyone not in his camp of leftists to be unreliable. I linked to three blogs and I'm sure plenty more covered the event. Trilemma 15:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. You seem to not understand how things work at Daily Kos. Considering that these musings that you speak of were done by non-notable individuals, it does not represent the whole of the community, just as any other blog on the community would not represent the whole community. Once members have been on the site for one week, they can post a diary. They can post on anything they want to, though if the diary calls for terrible things or is against the guidelines of the community, it gets ripped to shreds by the members. Furthermore, the "troll blog" listing you speak of is not done by Markos himself. Markos has nothing to do with the labeling of specific blogs. And it isn't paranoid. Users that have, through the Scoop blog program, received enough positive mojo for a long enough time have trusted user status, which goes with it the ability to change the labels on the blog to either add other categories that could be relevant, or to warn readers that the ideas within do not represent the community or are only designed to cause controversy. One of the blogs you linked to was labeled as such because of the questions of what the blogger was saying. To group everyone in saying that they all support the destruction of Israel because of one blog you viewed is absolutely incorrect. Jlove1982 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, you are also missing another important point. You said "I linked to three blogs and I'm sure plenty more covered the event". Blogs do not, in general, meet the requirements of being reliable sources. Guettarda 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trilemma, please try not to let your prejudices show ("his camp of leftists" ... Kos has repeatedly stated that he is partisan, not ideological, and there are numerous examples which prove this). You are continually trying to conflate "something posted on Daily Kos" with "something posted by Kos", because you know that there is a difference of notability and you would prefer the latter, but they are not the same thing. Finally, do not forget that in your initial posting you actually tried to claim without any proof whatsoever that Kos himself had spoken a phrase on CNN, when it was in fact an unknown diarist on writing the website. I don't think I'm alone in choosing to view you as operating in bad faith, and judging your arguments accordingly. --Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is on the blog DailyKos, not just Kos himself, and thus when I reference Kos, I mean to reference the entire crew, not just the man himself, whether the syntax expresses that or not. In regards to the CNN comment, that was a mistake on my part, which I admit.

I must seriously question why you are so eager to defend Kos and yet do not question the articles I listed. There is a pervasive left wing bias on wikipedia and this illustrates it. Trilemma 18:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about "pervasive left-wing bias", but I am not editing the articles you mentioned. If they have a problem with criticisms that fail to me WP:RS, fix them. Everyone has a political POV - we try to write NPOV, sometimes we succeed, sometimes we fail. But this discussion isn't about POV, it's about policy. Blogs are (generally) not reliable sources. And when trying to generalise a story out of several disparate blog posts you need to be careful that you are not crafting a new generalisation which would violate WP:NOR. Guettarda 18:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"I must question why you are so eager to defend Kos"? Markos Moulitsas has done nothing, and you have provided no citations that he has. Don't make this so easy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition to many of the above people pointing out that what individual diarists say, especially when those diaries receive little attention (less than 50 comments, not ever on the recommended list) or are explicitly tagged as "Troll Diary" or some such dismissive tag, means they are not representative of Daily Kos - I want to add that I am not aware of any "significant" controversy over how Daily Kos talks about Israel or Jews. I can see how some groups have taken issue with specific postings, but show me the controversy blowing up in a significant way - did CNN cover it? The Washington Post? This section was removed rightly because it was just a list of possibly objectionable things said about Israel or Jews on Daily Kos. I doubt the Wiki page on the New York Times gets updated every time they print a letter to the editor slamming Israel. Let's be real about what constitutes a well-covered controversy. Also, this section ignored the many supporters of Israel (many of them Jewish) on Daily Kos - which to say it ignores the substantive and lively debate that goes on about Israel. That's a violation of NPOV. --FNV 04:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said, anon. I invite you to register. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I had neglected to sign in. I am registered. Fixed, thanks --FNV 04:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost

Offered without comment: Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up, from Wikipedia Signpost--Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armando Redux

Okay, so mediation fell apart due to a wikibreak combined with Hipocrite exercising his "right to vanish" combined with the mediator. Around the same time, an administrator's noticeboard opened up in regards to WP:BLP issues. I brought up the issue there, and, essentially, two conclusions came to be.

Adding the information would not be a BLP violation.
There may be question about how encyclopedic the information is.

So, given those two conclusions, I bring it here. Any opposition to adding the information above, or should it be left out? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how having his personal information in the article actually adds anything to the article. Also, the absence of the personal information doesn't harm the article.--Bobblehead 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So that's the explanation. I was by choice agnostic about the outcome (I could see the merit of both arguments) and this six-vs.-half-a-dozen result at BLP/N sort of confirms that. As it is, I've become more hawkish about BLP since June and I agree with devonshire now: You should also consider whether we as Wikipedians should be aggregating personal data and publishing it in one place. I do not think this adds anything, and I do believe it causes harm, and I do believe that mere public political commentary is not justification for including personal details, broadly, as we don't want to be part of a chilling effect. (In particular, the issue of Armando's clients looks like innuendo of a conflict of interest rather than a demonstrated conflict of interest.)

Rather than rehash the Armando "issue", though, I would like to repropose a wholesale refactoring of the contributors section. I believe that each contributor listed should have, at most, a line devoted to them. This bit about Bill in Portland Maine's cats, for example, or the exhaustive detail about the Scotty Show, are "So what?" for me. So let's trim them all down to reasonable size.--Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to add fuel to a fire, but considering that Armando's name is easily found via Google, would it not be appropriate to at least include that information in the Armando section of contributor's to DailyKos? Nobody says there needs to be an entry for him (considering that other than being a blog contributor he would probably qualify as non-notable) but an encyclopedia should contain known knowledge about a person. Jfiling 03:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on my comments above, I don't see how changing the opening of the Armando section from "Armando" to "Armando Llorens-Sar" is: A) non-encyclopedic, B) inflammatory, C) invasive of privacy, or D) opening Wikipedia up to a lawsuit. Certainly there has to be a compromise, and I don't see how this can't work. I do agree that an article on Llorens-Sar is non-encyclopedic due to my reasons above, and anything reagrding his work and/or client list is inflammatory and invasive. Jfiling 03:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to offer an encyclopedic need for inclusion. Under the BLP, there is a presumption in favor of privacy. For non-public figures, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. --Dhartung | Talk 15:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see how the BLP applies, since I'm not proposing doing a biography of Armando, merely adding completely encyclopedic information to the DKos article. If Armando is notable enough to have a section detailing the outing controversy, and the information is available with a simple google search, it is the opposite of encyclopedic to not include the relevant information in the article. Actually, even if the BLP does apply, it clearly states "In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability." The fact that he is notable because he was outed is an argument in favor of inclusion, not against. I know this issue has been hashed over before, so if it has been determined that in this instance the BLP would apply in the case I'm proposing I'd appreciate a link so I can at least learn from this situation. I think I can come up with counter-examples to show that Wikipedia has included the names of non-notable people when informative in articles if needed. Jfiling 21:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, from the other side of the political spectrum, I found at least two articles (Killian documents being one) which mentions the identity of "Buckhead", as well as work he has done. Is there some difference in the two cases? I believe both should be identified if known, but the Buckhead mentions actually have far more inflammatory information than what I'm proposing for Armando. Jfiling 21:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Buckhead did something notable and his name ended up being widely reported in the media (if I'm not mistaken he was even interviewed on TV). Armando has merely exercised his right of free speech, and someone else has taken it upon themselves to out him, no doubt specifically to silence him. I don't like Wikipedia participating in that. Had Armando been involved (as more than a commentator!) in a notable event then his identity would have individual notability. But I don't think someone else publishing the name automatically confers notability on the event, and I'm wary of Wikipedia being drawn into such processes.

Ultimately, as you can see by the content of this talk page, the compromise was arrived at because it prevented a permanent edit war. I would especially advise taking that into consideration. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've looked through this page a number of times, and am unable to find any "compromise" that has been arrived at. At best there is a detente, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you do your research (as I did before my comment that you responded to), "Buckhead" was outed in exactly the same manner as Armando. Further, I can find no mention of Buckhead appearing on television, not that I have done an exhaustive search. Even further, Armando was actually outed long before the current scandal, when he appeared publicly at a Stanford Law School conference in 2005[5]. His entry on that page says "Armando Llorens is a Guest Blogger for dailykos.com. He is an attorney who specializes in Intellectual Property and Media issues with the Puerto Rico firm McConnell Valdés. Mr. Llorens recieved his B.A. from Brown University and his J.D. from Columbia." I would answer your claim of notability (as you claim for "Buckhead") by stating that he participated in this conference precisely because of his notability as a blogger on Daily Kos. Jfiling 00:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What newsworthy events has Armando been associated with, other than his own outing? More to the point, are you determined to force this issue regardless of the wikitruce? If so, why? --Dhartung | Talk 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you aren't going to actually address a single point I've made, except to obfuscate and misdirect, and since I have no desire to "force this issue regardless of the wikitruce" (whatever that means) I'll leave this matter alone. I still think this should be taken up by whoever makes policy for Wikipedia, so that in the future there will be no question about the proper course to take in matters like this. Jfiling 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this so important to you? I mean really. Who cares? Jasper23 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because either this is an encyclopedia that includes relevant, widely available information, or it is not. I don't have any political axe to grind, in case that was your unasked question, as I find conservatives and liberals equally wrong-headed, to put it civilly. I've enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia, but I don't think the project will survive if it allows itself to become anything less than "balanced, neutral and encyclopedic, containing notable verifiable knowledge" (from Wikipedia:about). Maybe for me this is a test case, not that I'm going to lose faith in the project, but there needs to be an actual policy to deal with this type of situation before anyone who doesn't want their available name entered into the Wikipedia can have it removed. Jfiling 22:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this project will die if an someones personal information is not included. I agree completely. There are few matters less pressing and few pages less important than this. Keep up the good fight!Jasper23