Talk:Glenn Greenwald/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

OK Thats it

If people keep removing the sockpuppet stuff in any form - I dont really care what from it is in, we are just going to have to escalate this matter. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I don't know what you mean by that, but look here, this is from one of your cites:

3) But you can do that about any story. You can wield your power (or what you consider your power) irresponsibly. That’s why you love this.
It’s simply not true that we can push any story into the mainstream media. There are some stories that consume the blogosphere and never make a dent on the wider public.
4) Such as?
Take the Glenn Greenwald sock-puppet scandal. For days, this story provided endless amusement for the right half of the blogosphere. And yet obviously the story never made it onto CNN since no one in the real world has ever heard of Glenn Greenwald (except for Russ Feingold). The blogosphere is a pretty small place. [1]

This is the problem with only using blogs. <<-armon->> 07:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you are goimg to argue that these sources are blogs AND that we cannot use Greenwald as an authority on himself, then you being disingenuous ans POV pushing. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 10:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

The Wikipedia has become the 7th most popular site on the internet. It is perhaps the #1 reference site.

Nobody outside a tiny community of bloggers and Wikipedia editors even knows what "sockpuppetry" means or would even understand it if we tried to explain it to them. Imagine trying to get your mom worked up over allegations of sockpuppetry.

Glenn Greenwald is now a fairly high profile columnist because of his role at Salon. He doesn't make any secret of the fact he is liberal.

The inclusion of the "sockpuppetry allegation" section seems grossly out of place here in an encyclopedic setting. It seems irrelevant for most or all people who may seek to read the Greenwald article. It also seems highly politically motivated and really quite mean-spirited. Let's try to be reasonable adults and leave the piece out. --AStanhope 23:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I would understand your point if the text was pejorative in any way, but it isn't. It could not be more fair to him. As I note above, this is a widely discussed part of Greenwald's life and needs to be mentioned in the article. If they don't know what sock-puppetry means then they can click the hyperlink and find out. As I noted, not only are people talking about this, they are searching for it - if you type "glenn greenwald" into the google toolbar one of the four possible auto-completes is "cock-puppet". David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cock-puppet? --AStanhope 00:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

haha! David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 04:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Must be these guys. <<-armon->> 06:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a bizarre grasp of WP:BLP if you think that hanging accusations of sockpuppetry on a popular website when the accused has specifically said that such allegations are part of a defamation campaign "could not be more fair to him". A key point of BLP is so that people don't have their reputations affected by unproven smears which show up prominently in search engines thanks to Wikipedia.

I'd also like to thank Armon for his contributions here. We've previously been on opposite sides on a similar debate, so it's refreshing to have a similar opinion on this one. Chris Cunningham 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Look thumper, you and your socks need to understand BLP. Thhis was a major contorversy in the guys life,loads of people are seaching for it, and writing aout it. This is not a secret, it is public knowledge that the accusations have been made, and that he redponded to them, it was mentioned in the mainstream press and by himself. You are asking wikipedia to censor itself, to defend someone that you admire - we dont do that, because everyone is admired by someone, and if we did BLP's would become hagiographys. And yes the current text could not be more fair to him, go through hte history if you want to see some less fair texts that were there by consensus established abovw. Again, if you think you can make the text fairer, then do so, but you cannot just remove three good sources. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've highlighted your behaviour again on the admin noticeboard. Again, the argument is not that the allegations are "not notable" in a sense of being obscure, nor that they are "private" because Greenwald has not responded to them. The argument is that as a biography of a living person, any material which portrays said person in a negative light must have cast-iron foundations in accuracy. There is no such material available; there is only an allegation by Patterico, a partisan critic of Greenwald with an established reputation for seeking real-life repercussions against online personalities, that comments defending Greenwald purporting to not be from him were posted from the same IP as Greenwald's own. To my knowledge there hasn't even been any proof of this posted. It is thus totally unacceptable to leave hanging an open allegation that Greenwald anonymously defends himself on weblogs, per BLP.

Given your own lack of good faith in presuming me to be both a vandal and a puppetmaster on here, I am given to believe that it is you and not I who is acting on emotion rather than logic and research. Chris Cunningham 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You must understand that we are not making any allegation. We are merely reporting that as a matter or record allegations have been made and denied. That is source in his own words in in 2 major US publications. Please son't make this personal. Ironically, you have now violated BLP against Patterico; our opinions do not go into the article; and they do not determine what does - if we have neutral sourced material it can go in. I have never acused you of being a vandal, but you clearly have used sock-puppets, including one from your "well known work adress", to make homophobic remarks on my userpage. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 15:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is strongly against including the sockpuppetry section of the article. David Spart is a candidate for 3RR blocking. --AStanhope 16:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. A "major event in his life" ? Please. --AStanhope 16:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It's difficult to see how the sock puppet thing merits it's own section. If a a proper source is ever found, it should be under a discussion of his blogging. <<-armon->> 23:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) BTW David, I've looked myself for a RS cite of this in print or in some notable online magazine with editorial oversight (like for example, Slate (magazine)). I simply can't find any, and Michael Barone's blog, while under the "banner" of US News and World Report, is still self published. This is just not good enough to pass the hurdle of BLP. <<-armon->> 23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is rubbish, simple POV pushing and you know it. This case would even be a case where blogs use could be justified, and yet we have major publications putting themselves up for lawsuits to print this stuff. If you don't like the text, you can change it to your liking, but this is a notable event, widely discussed in blogs and beyond, and loads of people are searching for it. When they come here and find that it has be removed, they are going to think that wikipedia is censored, and they would be right. I have no ideological axe to grind here. We are not here to protect the reputations of bloggers that we admire, and yes I do admire Greenwald, but this is part of his history, I wanted to find out about it when I came here, and so will others. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 01:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Look David, the only issue is about BLP. I don't read Greenwald, I didn't even know who he was until I saw a notice on the BLP noticeboard. <<-armon->> 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no BLP issue here. This is all public information discussed in the press and by him in a public forum! BLP is posting personal details, defamatory information. All BLP is is a rule that says that negative information about a person must adhere to WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, and that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about a person should be removed". You cannot argue that this is poorly soured, or that it is POV. WP:BLP specifically notes that critics should be given a voice, and to be honest, the section is not even critcal. It is 70 words, 50 of which are a quote from Greenwald! You are abusing the principle of BLP - BLP requires a problem in ATT, NPOV, or perhaps UNDUE WEIGHT. None of these apply. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Loads of people are searching for it" is simply a fabrication. There is no such thing as the Google toolbar test. Typing my own name into the Google Toolbar shows 465,000 matches - meaningless. Here is a Google Trends chart of search volume for "Glenn Greenwald" vs "Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet."[2] There's nothing there for the sockpuppet. Here's search volume for "Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet" alone:[3] - "Not enough search volume to display." Please end this silly campaign and move on to other editing work. --AStanhope 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You misuunderstand me. Here is a google search that shows what peoeple are writing about. I was merely pointing out, that you type glenn greenwald into a google search box anywhere in the world it will offer to autocomplete that with "sock puppet". This is not the point anyway. The point is that there is no valid reason not to put this stuff in, it is NPOV, ATT and not Undue Weight, hence it cannot be BLP either. So not putting it in is censorship, which was the consensus that people reached a few months ago in a discussion before people started unilaterally deleting this. When we get 55,700 results for "glenn greenwald"+sock, I think the cat is out of the bag. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't invent criteria for including this information. --AStanhope 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? You say your are deleting due to BLP; to violate BLP there has to be a problem with NPOV ATT or undue weight. If there isn't then it is not BLP, but is acceptable and encouraged. Please explain why you think that violates BLP. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

David - do you understand what CONSENSUS means? Can you please try to play nice? The rest of us have a CONSENSUS here. Please honor our consensus. Thanks. --AStanhope 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about. Conssnsus was to keep the stuff - in a MUCH stronger form a few months ago. 3 users now want to remove it and two are reverting them. I'll ask you again: You say the 70 words you keep removing voilates BLP. Yet they are NPOV. ATT nad not undue weight. So it isnt a BLP problem. I hav made this point 4 times now, directly asking you for a responce, and four times you have failedto explain why this is a BLP problem. Wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Do you know what CONSENSUS (Artrrrrgggggghhhhh!!!!) means? It means discussing things amicably, making good arguemnets and sticking to the point. Again, Please explain why you think that this violates BLP. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 05:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

</outdent> I took the invitation one section above, and filed a report on the WP:3RR admin page. Maybe we can have a civil, non-disruptive discussion about this after cooling off for a couple of days. —GGreeneVa 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for third party input at the BLP noticeboard. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Kind Sirs. --AStanhope 22:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Other views" section

This is a bit jarring just now, and reads like an essay. Is it necessary to focus on particular comments to the point of quoting them, or can these just be referenced and summarised? This should probably just be integrated with the rest of the section. I don't really see any value in saying "not much is known about his other views" either; which "other views"? General political blogger litmus tests? Chris Cunningham 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I got bold and removed the whole "Other views" section. There was no information in it about any other views. Steve Dufour 04:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

greenwald's duplicity and use of anonymous "sock puppets" to attack his critics

Greenwald is by now famous for anonymously commenting on blogs that criticize him. His IP has been noted, he uses the same writing style and debating points (mentioning his "NYT best seller" book, that his blog has been quoted in Congress, etc. etc.). He gave a very lame defense that it was his live-in boyfriend who was commenting on dozens of blogs in his defense. This guy is a major lefty commentator, he is opinionated and influential. Evidence of his dishonesty and duplicity is relevant and important to readers weighing his credibility. The facts are fully sourced. He himself has edited this page to try to remove this subject, and has encouraged his blog readers to do so also. His denials notwithstanding (Manson denies his crimes too, does that make them fiction?).

There _was_ a very fair and balanced version left, after an acrimonious edit war and back and forth deletions and additions for weeks. Now someone has removed the entire section. Its relevant, its important, its sourced. It needs to be in there. His fans may disagree, but that's too bad, its not a glen greenwald fan club puff piece. Raphaelaarchon 12:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice use of the phrase "fair and balanced". Bonus points for the comparison to Charles Manson, a serial killer. The sources are partisan, the evidence is circumstantial, and BLP specifically advises editors to edit with care. You're openly admitting that the key reason for its inclusion is to discredit him. Please consider whether there may be a more productive way to enhance Wikipedia which doesn't involve contentious hatchet jobs on current Internet personalities. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

His dishonesty is internet based, its logical he would be criticized on the internet. And my piece does not "discredit" him, it shines light on his dishonest practices. Its valid. You want to edit out every negative fact about every person on the wiki? Greenwald's stock in trade is attacking other people in a vociferous and even vicious manner, and he often does it anonymously. He has been caught, there are facts that show he is the perpetrator, let the reader decide. I really don't see why you are so worried about your hero if the "crime" is so "venial" and if you think the evidence is so unconvincing. Let the reader decide. I believe in putting all the facts out there and letting the reader decide. You are for censorship.Raphaelaarchon 21:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's not the fact that it's "internet based", it's that it stems from people who spend most of their free time digging up (or making up) dirt on their opponents, all linking to each other and going on each others' words. And you specifically said:

Evidence of his dishonesty and duplicity is relevant and important to readers weighing his credibility.

Introducing negative commentary for the supposed benefit of others "weighing his credibility" is exactly what "discrediting" means. As for "putting all the facts out there", I hear John Kerry's article needs more evidence for "the reader to decide" if he clipped himself with a grenade blast to go home early. And the snipe about Greenwald being my "hero" is lame, I don't need to worship someone to express distaste at his being smeared by random denizens of the internets. Please wait for further response before reverting this again, given the contentious nature of the rv. Chris Cunningham 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've reverted the page several times removing the sockpuppet section. Each time it's reverted back to what it was. I'm stopping my reverts until someone else steps in and clears up the issue. Whstchy 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection request in the morning I imagine, if miraculously this goes the full night without a 3RR ban. Chris Cunningham 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I think one could be enacted now, or action taken against the vandal. Whstchy 21:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

True. However, beer takes precedence over wasting time with BLP edit wars for me these days :) Chris Cunningham 22:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Full prot requested. Let's see if we can't have a grown-up conversation about this the next time, instead of having people immediately declared to be vandals and sockpuppets. Chris Cunningham 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Greenwald is currently working on his second book, which is "an examination of Bush's presidency with an emphasis on his personality traits and beliefs that drove the presidency (along with an emphasis on how and why those personality traits have led to a presidency that has failed to historic proportions)".[7] Ironic, Greenwald seems to think personality traits are relevant. ;) Raphaelaarchon 21:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

May I know why you put that there? Whstchy 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys use a group of vandals to revert the page, fine, there are plenty of people who disagree with you and will just revert it back. You act like your opinion is the only one that counts. I read on this page dozens of posts SUPPORTING the sockpuppet inclusion. Greenwald should be treated just like anyone else, and the negative as well as positive information should be included, its valid, verifiable and relevant. One of you Greenwald fanboys who come on Wiki to sanitize his profile probably _is_ another one of his sockpuppets. Raphaelaarchon 21:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should keep a tally of exactly how many times people are accused of sockpuppetry concerning these edits. Anyway, the whole point is that Greenwald should be treated like any other personality on Wikipedia; that's the whole point of WP:BLP. If other articles present an unduly negative portrayal of people through the citing of partisan smears and ad hominem attacks, they should be edited to remove such information as well. Chris Cunningham 09:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't we make pages for criticism of people separate from the main page, or is the sock puppet thing not that (I was doing the reverts earlier because I had read that the community agreed, and took it out) Whstchy 15:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No. That was discussed earlier on, but it begs the question of whether said information belongs on Wikipedia in the first place. Frankly, I'd rather the place wasn't a billboard for people to link random blog smears on, especially given Wikipedia's prominence on search engines, and that's what WP:BLP is for. Consensus amongst the community is that criticism of public figures should be held to particularly stringent quality standards, and contentious, partisan smears don't fit the bill. Chris Cunningham 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus here has been and is that the sockpuppetry section is NOT to be included. Please honor this consensus. --AStanhope 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus my foot. The bullying, bossy and fascist behaviour of Greenwald's minions are the ones keeping a SERIOUS problem with this dishonest and underhanded blogger out of the public eye. He has exhorted his followers on his blog to police this entry, log in on different accounts if necessary, use proxies, complain to moderators, pose as extremist enemies of Greenwald to discredit his critics, in short, use every means available to sanitize this entry and keep out any negative and TRUE facts about his behaviour. Conversely, unverifiable and ridiculously flattering and glorifying stuff like 'his book sold out on amazon in 24 hours' etc. is included. Congrats for politicizing Wiki and keeping up its left wing slant and keeping up its reputation as being mostly useful for a reference for 80's video games and situation comedies, and useless on any serious subject, especially in getting to the truth about left wing extremists and their underhanded methods. I don't see this crusade for 'fairness' on article about Rush Limbaugh or George Bush. A victory for the forces of obfuscation, censorship and whitewashing, a defeat for those who seek information and truth. Typical result in these matters anytime you try to take on leftist bullies on Wiki: you will lose, and the moderators they've long controlled on Wiki will back them up. Disgusting and shameful, and adds to the pathetic and frankly laughable rep Wiki has maintained over the years. It will continue to be a punchline on The Onion and not a respected reference source as long as this kind of fascist control is maintained. Raphaelaarchon 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lying makes Baby Jesus cry.

I find it very ironic that the anonymous rant above beginning with "Consensus my foot" was written by our dear friend User:Raphaelaarchon in his guise as sockpuppet Sockpuppet:71.100.160.241. The ones who whine the loudest are always the ones breaking the rules. Sad. --AStanhope 02:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, nice try. Just because I was unable to log in, you accuse me of sockpuppetry? Obviously a mod could see my IP, and the IP of my other posts all over this page. If I wanted to present myself as someone else I would have used a proxy, not the same IP I've commented in this discussion multiple times, and I made no attempt to portray myself as someone else, as your hero greenwald does constantly, both to praise himself and to attack his critics, as well as defend his own posts, going as far as claiming that "Glen Greenwald" emailed him a defense, and he was simply reposting it. Except he did so from the same IP owned by Glen Greenwald. Then Greenwald claimed it was his live in boyfriend who posted the defense. As if his live in boyfriend had corresponded with Greenwald asking him about a post, and Greenwald had emailed him, at the same IP, and he had posted the email. Right.

And you are a hypocrite for trying to make an issue of "sockpuppetry" when on the other hand you try to discount it as meaningless. This isn't over. Eventually it will be unlocked, and the debate can begin again. You may have succeeded in suppressing debate and forcing your opinion on others, but those of us interested in truth will fight on. Raphaelaarchon 10:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that there's a fairness problem on the Rush or Bush articles, why not try and help out there instead of "balancing the situation" by introducing exactly the same flaws in other articles? I'm not responding to all the projection or bad-faith accusations because I'm better than that, but I'd like to ask Astanhope please not to make this situation worse than it already is by fighting back with more poor-faith sockpuppet allegations. Chris Cunningham 12:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I DO see bad faith, and pushback by a cadre of leftist apologists, in article after article on Wiki. When I try to add well referenced facts an entrenched group of leftists revert, edit-war and finally lock the thread. And as a sidenote, RAPHAELA is a feminine name, I'm female, not male. The pronoun is "her" not his. I'm so disgusted by this and other experiences I've had here before I registered recently (in the mistaken hope that as a registered user I'd be able to add some balance to rabid leftist slant to almost any subject) that it may be lost cause expecting fairness here.

Anytime there is a debate, no matter how many people opine on the fairness side, the radid moonbats always win because they seem to dominate the moderators positions around here. Read this discussion. There are obviously MANY people who believe the sockpuppet allegations, which are in fact evidence of dishonesty and distortion of facts, should be included in the record of this hatemongering, dishonest and influential blogger. Ever crank and charletan who comes down the pike need not be exposed, but the ones who are influential and who make grandiose claims, like greenwald, should be exposed so their loud and extremist positions can be leavened with the entire facts about their character. I can only surmise that the vociferous defense of this guy, over what some of you claim is 'trivial' accusations, is a concerted effort to defend lefty icons and smear conservative ones (look at the SBVT article in comparison). I'm disgusted by the entire affair and about to say "let the babies have their bottle". Wiki has a poor reputation among the general public, and especially those who are not leftist wingnuts, for just this reason, and will continue to do so as long as this crap continues. Shame on people like Mr. Cunningham who claim to be fighting "poor faith" and "fairness". Fairness here is a sham and decisions are based on fiat, not consensus. Raphaela (or maybe I'm Ron Ellison, one of Greenwald's aliases).

Also, I've just reviewed the entire discussion above. Mr. Cunningham's portrayal of "consensus" on this issue is, bluntly, a lie. I count over a dozen people making reasoned arguments for keeping it, compromising languange, attempts to balance the issue by including Greenwald's (lame) assertation that although it is his IP in the sockpuppet entries it was not necessarily him who made the attack posts. In almost every occasion this Astanhope guy is the one who imperiously and unilaterally deletes the paragraph in the face of many other contributors disagreeing. Eventually, through sheer obsessive deletion, he outlasts them. I'm the latest in a LONG line of people who believe this is a valid section in this bio, and I can only surmise the reason you guys are so violently against it is that you are greenwald fannies. At least admit you control sections in a dictatorial and condescending, self-serving manner rather than trying to make out that the consensus of the community agrees with your censorship and slanting of articles. In MY opinion, when there is this much sentiment to include a well-sourced, relevant passage, SOME kind of compromise can be reached, not merely deleted completely out of hand. The hypocricy and dishonesty of members like Cunningham trying to portray themselves as fair and impartial arbiters is more egregious than if he merely admitted he has an ax to grind, has the power to weild that ax and override the opinions of dozens of other members, and come off with this nauseating self-righteous "I'm better than that"- yes, its easy to be "better than that" when you egomaniacally decide control what can and can not be reported, regardless of others' opinions. A truly fair and unbiased person would find a compromise, not align with extremists like Astanhope and aid in suppressing information. Raphaelaarchon 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

perhaps your keyboard is missing a 'tilda.' (~) On mine it's at the upper left hand side, right next to the '1'. When I make a comment I use four of them like this: R. Baley 21:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

r baley, its typical of the pro-greenwald side to use sarcasm and snark instead of addressing the issue. Try reading. I am unable to log in my account. A tilde won't do much other than sign me with a tilde. Since everyone seems intent on posting snark, sarcasm, 'humor' in the form of smart-ass comments instead of personally messaging someone, I'll follow your example. Wikipedia truly is all of the negative tropes popularly attributed to Wikipedia, as this thread proves. Worthless, trivial, biased, controlled by a small clique of idealogues who seek to slant the coverage to their political propaganda on any serious or substatial subject. Its pretty good for 80's vid games or pop bands though. Raphaelaarchon 23:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Raphaela has made substantial accusations about Mr. Greenwald, particulary that he has had his readers come here and delete sections. As a daily reader of Mr. Greenwald's blog from its inception, I can say that is a lie and I would like Rapahela to prove that statement or retract it. SouthieFLSouthieFL 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Baley, you are wrong. My submission is fully sourced. Anyone reading the facts can see this is an EGREGIOUS act of dishonesty and fraud. Greenwald's stock in trade is his reputation as a commentator, this is relevant to anyone considering his opinions. I'm going to continue to include this FAIR and evenhanded posting. I tried just putting in a short synopsis, with Greenwald's denial, and was flamed for not sourcing it. This is fully sourced. This needs to be in the article and I'm going to continue to see that it is included. Raphaelaarchon

Five reverts tonight alone, dude! Nice work! --AStanhope 02:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You have done 3 yourself, and 2 colluding with Baley. With no discussion you delete over an hours hard work and sourcing. That's unacceptable. Also, I am not a "dude", the form of address is improper in any case. This isn't a chat board.

Protection

This page has been protected due to egregious violations of our biographies of living persons policy. Under no, and I mean absolutely no, circumstances, may negative information about a living person be "sourced" to a blog. I will leave the page protected for a couple of days to ensure that this is seen, and hopefully when unprotected those editing will choose to respect this. Violators of the biographies of living persons policy are subject to blocks without warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That should settle things definitively here. Are you paying attention Raphaelaarchon/71.100.1.7? --AStanhope 05:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Raphaelaarchon/71.100.1.7 for 24 hours for sockpuppetry and 3RR violations. -- ChrisO 07:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Number one, notwithstanding your sarcastic and libelous accusation that I used a 'sockpuppet', I signed my username to my post, very openly. Unlike Glenn Greenwald, I did not falsely represent myself to be someone else. I was unable to log onto my account, but I signed my account name. I did not use multiple or false accounts to edit the page. I did not use proxies or other IP addresses. I used my own, and I signed my name. Exactly how is that using a 'sockpuppet'. You have forced me to use a different IP here, but I still do not misrepresent myself as someone else (unlike Glenn Greewald).

Secondly, I see you did not ban astanhope, although he violated the same law. So much for fairness from wiki mods, but that's only to be expected. You are neither just nor fair, you have an agenda, and its obvious and you hew to it in all things.

Lastly, 'that which is not just is not law'. The moderators here are left-wing stooges. That is why any negative rumor or unproven fact about any Republican is allowed to stay on the site, while any factual and sourced negative information about radical leftwingers, e.g. Greenwald, is suppressed. I will not kowtow to your fascist censorship. When the lock is lifted, I'll reinsert the information. In the meantime. I'll insert it into other related articles that the Greenwald Goon Squad do not moniter on an hourly basis. You have lived up to your reputation that wikipedia is leftwing, biased, slanted, seditious, unfair, inaccurate, incomplete and rubbish. I, and others, however, will strive to remedy that. You have too much power sirs, and you must be schooled that tyranny and injustice will not be allowed to stand on the intranet tubes. Ban my account, block IPs, it will avail you nothing. Justice will take the day.

I bid you good day. Raphaelaarchon.

You're missing the point here, Ralph. --AStanhope 08:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Raphaela, I hesitate to write this in fear of escalating this situation, but the accusatory comments need to stop. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, and I'm not going to go into my own political leanings (others might guess), but I submit to you and anyone else that might be following this, that my standards (with regard to BLP) concerning inclusion (anywhere on this wiki) are fairly consistant (for instance, my edits on Ann Coulter's article: concerning (1) libel [4] [5] and (2) undue weight. For myself, I have seen these BLP standards ultimately enforced throughout wikipedia and will work with others through consensus to keep it that way (on any article, for any person, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum). I hope your editing experiences will be more enjoyable in the future, but this particular course you've set out on is not fun for anybody. Have an excellent day and happy editing. R. Baley 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Just can't talk to some people. R. Baley 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Raphaela isn't going to be doing any more editing any time soon. She's been repeatedly using sockpuppets and open proxy servers (now all indefinitely blocked) to post here and edit this and other articles, contributing nothing but BLP violations and angry rants. We can do without this sort of behaviour. -- ChrisO 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wow - that last message of hers [6] sure was something else! --AStanhope 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually made me smile. R. Baley 04:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, Raphaela is at least exposing open proxies for me to block, so that's a positive outcome. I have to say, if she's typical of Greenwald's political opponents he doesn't have anything to worry about... -- ChrisO 09:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Greenwald listed at BLP noticeboard

Just wanted to let everybody know that Greenwald had been listed at the BLP noticeboard here. R. Baley 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was part of the discussion several months ago when we talked out all this sockpuppet business, I think we came up with very good compromises and even AStanhope was in agreement with our compromises. Then, looking at the discussion, RBaley came in and by himself decided to delete all our compromise. This has been reported in major, accepted media. On the Barone page there is a blogger reference under "Barone critisism". Why is this different? I am not as belligerent or confrontational as some here but I think Chris0, RBaley and even AStanhope now that he has some allies are all acting very independently and putting their opinions above a hard-worked compromise. I am very disappointed at the outcome of this and I state that I have no political axe to grind I just want articles to be as complete and accurate as possible. I feel this should be a discussion, not an absolute "because I say so" that I see here going on, on BOTH sides. Chris0, this is reported by major media, its an important story. Can't some accommodation be made that fairly mentions the (I believe) over-whelming evidence this took place, and also include Greenwald's denials? The very angry person above has one valid point: there are several other people in the sockpuppet thread mentioned by name and some of them deny it. You only removing Greenwald makes it seem like this angry abusive person is correct. I cannot see your motivation myself, you profess its because of BLP but you enforce it unevenly, and now it even seems like you have such an antagonism for this Raphaela person that you reflexively delete his stuff regardless of merit. You are a moderator and you need to be above this. I'm also disliking the gloating and personal stuff the pro-greenwald side is doing above. This is not correct usage of this discussion board. And I am trying to address a problem, not adding to problem, at least I hope I am. I don't think you guys are necessarily pro-Greenwald, but it kind of appears so, and I think you are using BLP incorrectly and using it to further your own argument, and selectively. Can we please revisit this issue without the acrimony? Also, can't you block this person's computer instead of IP so this doesn't go on nightly? 68.84.254.176 03:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC) former member kcooper

That other pages are of poor quality doesn't mean this one should be. Editors are not required under any circumstances to assign their time based on the wishes of others. I don't see that you're bringing any new arguments to the table, the current position has been discussed to death in good faith and the recent defensiveness against Raphaelaarchon's edits is warranted in light of her continued abuse of the system. If you want to discuss this then go ahead and add something new instead of passing commentary on the character of other editors while professing to be trying to be civil. Chris Cunningham 08:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many claims in the above comment (by 68.84.254.176) that I would like to address, but for now I will focus on the first one as it concerns me:

"Then, looking at the discussion, RBaley came in and by himself decided to delete all our compromise."

Reply: Not True. My participation has been completely out in the open. A look through the contribution history shows that my first contribution to this article on Feb 3, 2007 was to delete an external link that made the accusation (note that the article didn't include the sockpuppetry section at all). The text of the accusation was replaced that same day by user GunnarRene. I reverted him on the grounds that this was an accusation (in the edit summary). This stood until Feb. 19 with a revert by Cypherpunk. People reverted back and forth and then on Feb 25 user Thumperward removed the section (diff here). This edit stood again for almost 20 days, until on March 16, an anon user reverted and I undid his edit that same day. I made one other edit on March 16 and didn't revert again until March 29.

So to start off you have miscaharacterized my involvment in stating "by himself decided to delete all our compromise." Untrue and not off to a good start (4 reverts in 1 and a half months). (I would also like to note that it was at this point I received my first sock puppet accusation (also false), with more (accusations and insults) to come. I've got more comments if necessary, but I don't think this is improving the article even a little. R. Baley 08:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not get personal. The remarks I made were about the gloating of you three, which should have been directly messaged, not put on this discussion. For a Moderator to post this way is not good and sets a bad example. Also you did delete the Greenwald info on a page because you claim it was blog sourced while you left another link that was blog sourced but to a left wing blog. These are just truths if you think that's a personal attack I am sorry you feel that way but I'm expressing my thought that the articles we're talking about are being hurt by partisanship and this personal fighting on both sides. It looks like a flamewar in a forum and the ones with the Mod on their side win. You should be more objective and less defensive and vengeful against this user who made you mad, I think you're letting that hurt your judgment and hurt the article we're talking about and others too. I think you are using double standards and letting those who agree with you get away with things and posting things. I saw on the history AStanhope guilty of 3RR and no sanctions on him, but the poster who reverted 3 times in response to him was banned? Then, why delete her rant and leave that mess responding to it by your friends there? It just doesn't make sense to me? Now am I going to find myself banned for raising questions about this disparity? I could bother to quote the links above where AStanhope and others agree on a wording for the sockpuppet section and all was ok but you are not open to discussion it seems and now accuse me of bad faith and personal attacks when that is not at all my point. 68.84.254.176 05:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If a user is blocked for a violation, as Raphaelaarchon was, he or she has no right to evade that block. Block evasion is an offence in its own right (see WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks) and anything posted by a blocked user may be reverted as an unauthorised edit. Raphaelaarchon was then banned permanently for repeatedly violating the block and using insecure proxy servers to bypass it - not only a blockable offence but a crime, in many jurisdictions. And that's on top of repeatedly violating WP:BLP, which, I will remind you, provides that "Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption." That is what has happened in this case. -- ChrisO 06:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)