Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:43, 6 July 2006

BiPM/Scotty Show

Question: Are these sections really necessary? It seems like mini-communities within the site really aren't very encyclopedic, since someone browsing this article won't have any interest in knowing about the minicommunities (and anyone who is likely would already be posting on dKos). I suppose BiPM is significant due to his frontpage Cheers and Jeers posts, but the Scotty Show really seems irrelevant. I've been reading dKos daily for three or four years now, but not as a regular in the community, so my perspective on the community may be a little different than the rest of the contributors to this page. Virogtheconq 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Truthfulness/fact checking

Does anyone know DailyKos' record for upholding truthfulness and accuracy in the articles that it blogs? This seems like an important big issue as blogs are not typically held to the same standards as conventional sources of journalism.--153.104.27.107 21:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Financial contributions

The passage about contributions to Democratic candidates, all of whom lost, is a little confusing. Obviously, Daily Kos readers would have made contributions to many candidates, some of whom won. I gather that this refers to contributions made through the DK website. Can someone elaborate on the mechanism -- who identified the candidates, and how contributions were tabulated to count toward the total given in the article? If it seems like too much detail for the article, can we just link to something that explains it and gives the dollar total? JamesMLane 20:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Markos selected a group of candidates whom he singled out for special attention from the community at dKos; those are the candidates being referred to in this article. dKos readers used a variety of different methods to ensure that their contributions could be tracked back to dKos; the simplest of which was to make their contributions for $x.01, rather than for $x (other web sites picked other odd change amounts to allow their donations to be similarly tracked). In addition, there were some donation aggregation web sites which allowed web sites to set up "accounts" to receive donations which would then be forwarded appropriately.

While it is true that all of the dKos candidates lost, it is also true that all of them were expected to lose: Markos was deliberately selecting candidates who were not receiving significant other support; candidates who were expected to win — or even be competitive — were, by and large, already being funded by the DNC, DCCC, and other national and regional organizations. The dKos candidates were the manifestation of his belief that every seat should be contested, even the ones which were not expected to be competitive. As such, he considered the campaign successful in that it forced several Republican incumbents to spend time and money defending "safe" seats that they had never had to defend before: For instance, between Tom DeLay in Texas and Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado, he points out that the dKos seed money tied up well over ten times as much GOP money in return, and kept two of the GOP's most prolific fundraisers back home campaigning in their own districts for several weeks each, rather than roaming the country raising money for other candidates, like they had in past elections. For that matter, at least two of his candidates came exceptionally close to winning what would have been significant upsets, so it's not like the races in question were all pointless blowouts. --Ray Radlein 11:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article could include at least a summary of some of these points, appropriately attributed to Kos with a hyperlink to something on his website in which he says so. Is that possible? JamesMLane 11:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Right about the time I was 5,000 words into my "brief" reply, it occurred to me that I could have saved myself a lot of typing by simply going to dKos and grabbing his post-mortem on the whole thing.

Needless to say, I then went to dKos and spent a few minutes rooting around to find the controversial post that was supposedly deleted, and forgot all about the other reason I might want to go there. :-)

BTW, I noticed your comment in the edit history of the main page, and, FWIW, dKos does allow right-wing (or any other wing) users to register and comment freely. On the other hand, the site does feature a user-moderated ratings system (a la Slashdot, sort of) which can moderate trollish posts into invisibility; so politeness would probably be an especially important requirement for any individuals who were so inclined. --Ray Radlein 11:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this is very true. Also, there've been recommended diaries by Republicans, albeit contentious ones. Mcsweet

Oh yeah, they just LOVE republicans at DailyKos. Kind of like the love they receive right here at Wik!

I noticed that virtually every section, even those dealing in controversy, always end with a paragraph that makes DailyKos look good or vindicates them in some way. This is in stark contrast to virtually every paragraph in the Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson etc etc articles where each section ends with an attack on the subject or a quote of theirs to make them sound like a nut.

I guess this is all just a coincidence, huh???

Big Daddy 13:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Connection with Dean Campaign

from Zephyr Teachout aka Zonkette, the former online organizer for the Howard Dean campaign.

On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients.

While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal.

Kos did make a disclosure about being hired as consultants for the Dean campaign in June of 2003, but what is interesting is what the Dean campaign thought it was getting by hiring Kos, compared to what Kos thought.

On his blog, Kos claimed that he was providing "techinical" advice to Dean: "But for the record, I will not discuss my role within the Dean campaign, other than to say it's technical, not message or strategy." However, the Dean campaign flatly contradicted this, by saying that they paid Kos as a political (i.e. a message) consultant. Being a "technical" consultant implies that he acted as a webmaster/designer, not a policy wonk.

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce "Kos"? Is it kohs (like "flows") or kawhs (like "floss")?

"flows" is close, but he seems to say it more like "dose" - confusingly, he used to say in his FAQ that it's pronounced like "rose", but apparently he just has a weird way of saying "rose", because i've seen him say the name on TV and radio a number of times, and it basically sounds like "dose". I should put this in the article, huh Mcsweet

If one considers that the name 'Kos' is what Marcos' squadmates called him in the service, it would be clearer that the pronounciation is indeed more like 'dose', the second syllable in his name. The 's' is not drawn out, as it would be in 'flows'. Stymnus

The Daily Kos Logo

The article should be updated to reflect the new version of the Daily Kos logo. It changed about a week ago from what is pictured in the article.

Rather than obsess over the logo, I think a little content-check is in order. The dust-up over the mercenaries was HUGE...even amongs democrats. As it stands, this section is missing the essence of the outrage that was expressed against Kos.

I'd like to see the article include this piece:

"The campaign manager for Democratic Congressman Martin Frost wrote a scathing rebuke on Frost's behalf "As a former Army Reserves member, spouse of an Army General on active duty and an American, Martin finds these words extremely irresponsible and highly offensive. ...There is no place for these disgusting remarks in this nation's discussion on foreign policy" ."

Big Daddy 13:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Street Prophets

I added information about a new community within dKos, AFAIK, the first such sub-community, and it was deleted as "linkspam". I find this incomprehensible - you could argue that it wasn't important enough (yet) to be in the article, but "linkspam"? Weird. Guettarda 23:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I could find nothing on that website that indicated it was an official DailyKos affiliate. It's a site that hasn't been up for a month yet, so how it is important enough to be in an encyclopedia? If I'm wrong in thinking it's not official, apologies, but it looked to me to be some guy's commentary on DailyKos rather than by (or sanctioned by), and so I removed it.

It's Misplaced Pages. Things get edited out sometimes, and sometimes they get put back in when the edit is proved to be wrong. Calm down. Beginning 18:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It's significant because it is an expansion of the largest politican web community into a new area. As for "nothing on the website", how about the "about" button?

Who's behind the site? Markos Moulitsas provides the technical and administrative muscle; pastordan is solely responsible for site content.

And, btw - calling someone a spammer is a pretty serious allegation. Guettarda 18:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but you're an admin and haven't seen anyone use the term "link spam" on Misplaced Pages before?

You're right, I didn't see it before. Your issue should be with their website not being accessible for users with visual impairment, not me being unable to "see" it.  ;)

It's over. The info's back in there now. Life moves on. Beginning 19:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Allegations of Non-Patriotism

Can someone provide some citations for this section - as it stands it seems overly vague and fluffy. Guettarda 20:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Do those links help any? I think they give a fair overview of the patriotism/non-patriotism debate.

• The Dean Barnett/National Review post, while a decent source, does not document accusations of "lack of patriotism" - he is critical of leftwing bloggers, but does the citation does not support the statement made
• The LGF post and the Iowahawk post aren't really appropriate sources either - there is no way to say whether this is representative of how dKos is viewed by rightwingers. To support a statement like this you need some sort of analysis of the data - a quote from someone who has studied the phenomenon.
• The Armando posting again cannot be taken as a representative view of Kossacks - it's one person's view (albeit, arguably the most prominent member after Markos himself).

To make generalisations we need a source. The data is out there for someone to study the perception of patriotism by rightwingers, but we can't look around and say it is so. Generalisations need to be based on representative samples - but we can't do that study ourselves (as that would be original research). A statement like that needs a source who has actually done the research and published it somewhere. We can't just look at a couple sites and say "x is the case". Guettarda 21:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wording in Fallujah controversy

Unless the four people killed in Fallujah had been found guilty of some crime, the word "executed" is inappropriate. Andjam 12:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the overused phrase "gangland style execution"? I'd say "execution" is commonly used for intentional, merciless killing. I'm not say that it's the perfect word here, but I don't think it's inappropriate either. Guettarda 13:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be used a lot, but it does not neccessarily make it appropriate. Andjam 14:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone has reverted security contractor to mercenary. Unless that wikipedian, or Moulitsas or the people who killed the four people wish to prove that they were mercenaries rather than security contractors, the four people should be called security contractors or alleged mercenaries. Andjam 14:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Security contractor" is newspeak. They are ex-soldiers, hired to fight. The plain English word is mercenary. Guettarda 14:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Would a bouncer at your local nightclub be called a mercenary in your dictionary? Some of them are ex-soldiers, and they are hired to fight. Andjam 15:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you live, but around here, as far as I know, bouncers don't carry automatic weapons, do not regularly engage in gunbattles...and are not hired to use lethal force. I'm sorry if the word "fight" was ambiguous to you. If you don't realise that the war in Iraq is a little different to the situation outside your local bar, maybe you should refrain from editing topics you know so little about. Guettarda 15:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Andjam 11:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

More to the point, "security contractor" is an in-group, non-neutral phrase. It's no more appropriate in an encyclopaedia than 1337. What English word or phrase, accessible to an ordinary person who is not a newsjunkie, better describes the people who were killed? We are writing an international encyclopaedia here, not an in-group chat. Guettarda 16:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I felt that it'd be more neutral than "mercenary". But you're right, it's a bit of a neologism. Maybe if I come up with something better, I'll mention it here. Would you have any objections if I changed "executed" to "killed"? I'm not saying that the use of "executed" is evil incarnate, I merely think "killed" would be better. Andjam 11:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What about calling them Blackwater USA employees in the non-quotation bit? Andjam 13:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

If anyone still wants to have "mercenary" outside of quotations, can they discuss it here please? Andjam 12:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Lay off the POV-pushing. We write in English, not political talking points and newspeak. Guettarda 15:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The word "mercenary" does not imply people who are themeselves contracted to protect other contractors who are hired to build things or perform some service in a dangerous area. Whom are they "waging war" against? If they are attacked or threatened they fight back in self defense. I seriously doubt those four Blackwater men were interested in engaging anything other than a paycheck and a safe return home. Kos himself said it all: They were mercenaries; so fuck them. By the way, I'd like to compare the military records of those four men with Kos's oft-mentioned military service. Did Kos ever fight in combat? He never clarifies that unless asked to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.218.19 (talk • contribs) November 8, 2005.

So are you saying that, in order to be a mercenary someone has to fight for the love of it and not for the pay? As I said before, we use English, not newspeak. (And as to the last part of it, Markos mentions many times that he does not have combat experience; like the entire paragraph, the final sentace seems to bear little relationship with reality. Guettarda 06:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

How’s about “security guard”. TDC 19:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Security guards with a carte blache to kill? Security guards who are paid several times as much as soldiers? You must live in a fun neighbourhood. Guettarda 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Blackwater page does not describes them as "mercenaries", first of all. The pay is irrelevant as well. Military personel have a legal obligation to do what they are told, Blackwater folk don’t, and accordingly have to be paid much more to do so. As far as I know, the "mercenaries" in Iraq, are not participating in military operations, only security work, i.e. they don’t look for fights, only protect themselves and their clients when forced to do so. TDC 20:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point regarding mercenaries - I hadn't thought about the distinction between combat and non-combat...though that distinction is pretty much academic in Iraq. Anyway, based on the definition at mercenary based on the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions", they do not meet the definition of mercenary. On the other hand, they are not security guards either. "Security contractor" is misleading as well, in my opinion - it's newspeak. The Misplaced Pages article is at private military contractor - would that be an acceptable (linked) term? In addition to being the term in use, it's also far clearer English, IMO. Thoughts? Guettarda 20:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a more appropriate term. TDC 20:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Politicians at Daily Kos

Should we mention a list of politicians at Daily Kos? Yesterday, John Kerry signed up and posted a diary while in the past, various Democrats such as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold have appeared. --Blue387 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, many post, most of them are not frontpaged - it would be difficult to compile a full list. But it certainly makes sense to mention some of them, and the fact that dKos is influential enough to attract them, etc. Guettarda 20:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I added some of the more prominent ones to the list like Louise Slaughter, John Conyers, and Jon Corzine. And while they haven't posted, I've found usernames registered for Hillary Clinton, Jeff Bingaman, Patrick Leahy, Byron Dorgan, and Patty Murray. I'm not sure if these are legit, but typically kos wont allow registration of a username of a politician until after he checks it out. FleetAdmiralJ 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if a third column was added, there might be more room? The Daily Kos article is not that long anyway, so I would say err on the side of inclusion of as many people as possible.

Paul Hackett

The fundraising role for Paul Hackett (running for congress in Ohio 2nd) should be brought up since it was a ground breaking on line event among liberals all over USA and also gained attention among international bloggers.

New section

I believe the following section needs to be sourced. The first line especially is non-neutral. Guettarda 02:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

While the site claims to support free speech and that Democrats support free speech this is far from the truth. The site frequently bans people from posting, even people who are popular with other kossites, if they are part of the good old boy's front page club. One such instance occurred when one member davybaby, one of the good old boy's, compared all women to Ann Coulter. When another member tri confronted him about this, they were banned from the site. Additionally, those who try to point out just how similar the Democrats and Republicans are, are also frequently banned.

I dont think this is really, supported. In a diary kos posted in April 2005 the site had 50,533 registered users, but only 623 users had been banned over the course of , I think, 17 months (so, 36 or 37 a month on average, or a tad more than one a day), which is 1.2% of users. Also, another claim of censorship is the troll rating of comments. Again, out of 2.5 million comments at the time, only 5,607 were hidden (about 0.2%). Also, I seem to recall kos saying that the vast majority of those were the system autobanning people through getting too much negative mojo by getting too many 0 (now troll) ratings FleetAdmiralJ 04:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Much as I dislike Daily Kos, I don't think that preventing people from saying things you don't want them to say on your privately owned property (in this case, a blog,) is really the same thing as censorship. He owns the blog, so he can make whatever rules he wants. - Curseman

Yearly Kos

Anyone feel this should be mentioned?

Yeah, I think it should be mentioned. --Blue387 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute "Losing candidates"

These comments are inflammatory. I’m not saying they should be completely eliminated, but definitely stated in a more neutral, less partisan manner. The source cited for this, Redstate, is a political adversary to DailyKos, and definitely should not be used or taken as a neutral source of this information. A news organization perhaps? And, I don’t feel that should be listed under controversies section, as it is not controversial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Red pepper (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, when you consider that most of the candidates in question were not mainstream candidates, that doesn't say much about the arguments. Kos selected candidates that weren't receiving the love at the level of Obama or Salazar. Mongiardo in fact only became relevant when Jim Bunning started having his issue (by the way, on a second issue, where did the debate from before on the other inflammatory section go?) Jlove1982 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, I just realized this same information is above in the entry. It's under "Campaign Fundraising". So repreating it twice doesn't work and is just designed to represent a specific POV. Jlove1982 05:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, I completely missed that too. Good call. Red pepper 09:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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 () 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages is outed in the New York Times today. DELETE this diary ---- Armando

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)

Certainly. Kaustuv Chaudhuri, and Carnegie Mellon University. –Dicty (T/C) 19:31, 3 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Is Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and b) that your concern is this matter and this matter alone. I ask you, nevertheless, to understand that Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, but it's long PAST Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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

1. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Guettarda 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. 8bitJake 15:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop the matter after we waste Danny's time

Drop the matter after we waste the Arbcomm's time

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

1. Guettarda 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
2. FeloniousMonk 02:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Superdosh 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. •Jim62sch• 08:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
5. KillerChihuahua 10:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Include the personal details to some extent

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)

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 Misplaced Pages as well. Many Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. RFerreira 23:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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

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)