Talk:Glenn Greenwald

Kickoff

I noticed the bit about sockpuppetry got added, then cut. I imagine it will be brought back. So let's kick off a discussion page and figure out if that bit is encyclopedic or not. I will say if it deserves inclusion the section was too long - there is a wiki page on sock puppetry so no need for an explanation of the accusation. --FNV 04:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the cut also took out the section on Greenwald's blog, which was reinstated and removed again. (In fact, since the same IP took out the blog section twice, it would be reasonable to assume it was the intent of the editor, and the sockpuppetry bit was collateral damage, not the other way around.) In either case, I think if the blog section is in, the sockpuppet allegations need to be in as well, but if it is out, then the sockpuppetry is moot. --The Monster 05:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FNV that there's no need to explain sock puppetry in detail in this article, and I've trimmed it slightly. I've also

• restored all the recently deleted stuff, and
• convert most of the in-line links to <ref> format,

but I had some problems, as discussed below. CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree a brief explanation of what sock puppetry is should suffice.

Also, I agree that mentioning the sockpuppetry accusations is appropriate. If people have an issue with how the section is worded or sourced (and this is a bio of a living person, so caution is particularly appropriate) then the best approach is to edit not delete the section. Crust 13:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush followers "not conservatives"

Note that GG bases this statement on the Bushies big-government tendencies. (Actually, there is considerable anger amongst the conservative base over the big-spending ways of the current Administration and (even more so) Congress. Bush's first veto elicited a wave of wishes that he'd started vetoing spending bills long, long ago.) I think we should clarify this. Maybe something like:

Indeed, he contends that recent spending increases prove that "Bush followers are not conservatives".

I'm sure one of us can come up with something better than that. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to differ with you on that one, CWC. Bush's spending is one of GG's reasons for not viewing Bush or his followers as conservatives, but not his only or even principal reason. The biggest reason is surely the Bush admin's theory of executive power (and how they have used it), which GG views as profoundly unconservative. Crust 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hale's appeal re law licence

We have two links for details of Hale's failed attempts to get an Illinois law licence.

1. http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/NewsHeadlines/hale_complaint.htm is "Dated: June 27, 2001" (and apparently written by GG, BTW). It's an appeal to the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinios, Eastern Division.
2. http://www.state.il.us/court/PressRel/1999/102999.htm is a Press Release from (take a deep breath) "the Committee on Character and Fitness" of "the Board of Admissions to the Bar" which administers the bar admission process on behalf of the Illinois Supreme Court. The committee rejected Hale's initial application on December 16 1998 and rejected his first appeal on June 30, 1999. Hale appealed to the Illinois supreme court on July 29, 1999; this press release announces that the Committee will oppose that appeal.

For one thing, we seem to have these links in the wrong chronological order. For another, I don't know how to cite those links. Help, please? CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Bush administration

This section looks a lot like a blog - Wikipedia is not a blog - maybe a link to his blog would be best.

Thanks for saying something on Talk, but really the reason why there is an article about GG is because of his blog. If you don't think it is encyclopedic to summarize some of his views, mention his book, etc. do you really think it is encyclopedic to mention the sock puppetry allegations? Crust 15:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Heralded?

I've removed the following paragraph

This investigation by Greenwald was also heralded as a new advance in the importance of blogs in the national discourse. [1]

because anonymous off-topic comments on a blog posting are a long way short of Wikipedia's standards. Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Crust 13:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Feingold speech link

Does anyone have a working link for that Russ Feingold speech which mentioned GG's blog? The fednews.com one we have at the moment is subscriber-only. Neither the internal search at feingold.senate.gov for "greenwald" nor googling for "site:feingold.senate.gov greenwald" found anything. Surely there must be a better link for that speech! Thanks in advance, CWC(talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, on a quick google search I can't find a free transcript either. If you go to Greenwald's post[2] that was quoted and scroll down to the updates, you can find various links to video of this. Crust 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

I've just requested "semi-protection" of this article, because the speed at which anonymous and inexperienced editors keep deleting and restoring bits is too great for my tired old brain.

Hint: that "<references />" bit is actually quite important. Also, we probably should have at least one link to GG's blog ... just sayin', ya know. (Thanks to User:Crust on that one.)

Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. Wikipedia is a wonderful source of information, but we do not claim to be authoritative*, so errors do not have to be fixed immediately. Discussing things on "talk" pages like this one may seem boring and frustrating, but long experience shows that it produces better articles and less wikistress for everyone involved.

*Some people treat Wikipedia as gospel. If you know anyone with this problem, please educate them.

Have a nice weekend! CWC(talk) 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Crust 14:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The semi-protection request was denied. (Memo to self: steer clear of articles with real edit wars!) Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

68.127.37.172: I reverted your changes back. That last bit about "damaging his credibility" is POV, and the very last bit about how right wing bloggers use some mocking term "a glenn full of sock puppets" is unencyclopedic and not relevant to an article about Greenwald unless that term hits levels of other names turned into terms like "Quisling" or perhaps "Borked" in contemporary parlance. Also, if you want to change "right wing bloggers" to some more general term you'll need some references to non-right wing blogs carrying this charge against Greenwald.

I'm satisfied as a fan of Greenwald to leave a mention in here on this accusation (it shouldn't be a heading though), but as a living person biography we must not let criticism overwhelm the article. The reader can follow the reference link on the charges to investigate for themselves.--FNV 20:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As a non-fan of Greenwald I was satisfied to leave the sockpuppetry section as edited by SarekOfVulcan, even though I didn't think it fully captured how low Greenwald had sunk. Some people insist on completely deleting the whole issue and that's the reason I went back to my original. Regarding deleting "right-wing bloggers", is characterizing those bloggers as right-wing any less POV than saying sock-puppeting is "damaging his credibility"? 68.127.37.172

They're substantively different. "Right wing bloggers" is descriptive and only pejorative to a small class of politically extreme people. "damaging his credibility" is necessarily pejoritive. Besides, to my knowledge they are right wing bloggers, so why be afraid to say so? If we're going to allow the opinions and accusations of bloggers in an encycopedia article, it should be clear they themselves have some bias.--FNV 15:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Being pejorative has nothing to do with it. From your point of view Glenn Reynolds is a "right wing blogger", he describes himself as a libertarian [3]. It all depends on one's point of view. As for damaging Greenwald's credibility, don't you think that blog posts like this [4] or this [5] make clear that Greenwald's credibility has suffered?Classical liberal 18:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The two blogs cited are pretty clearly right-wing bloggers (in that they are bloggers and are right-wing). Saying it damaged his credibility is a lot more POV (as well thinking that something should do something is different than it actually happening). Patrick Frey (who writes Patterico), for example, self-identifies as that term [6]. What about rightist or right-of-centre if right-wing is seen as perjorative? Makgraf 03:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I put "right of center" in instead of "right-wing" and dropped the question of damaging his credibility completely. Can we get SouthieFL to stop trying to drop the whole issue down the memory hole?Classical liberal 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) I suggest using "Controversy and Criticism" as a heading instead of "Alleged Sock-Puppetry". After all, there is bound to be more controversy, and more criticism ;-). In fact, that heading appears in lots of Wikipedia articles about people.

I also think it's a pity that we no longer describe the alleged puppetry as a venial sin (ie., a minor failing). Compared to death threats from Larry Johnson and the disturbed (and disturbing) of Deb Frisch, this is small potatoes and should be kept in proportion. OTOH, I say we should reinstate the link to Patterico's summary post here.

Oh, and I would also like to rant about #&(*@%^#*^ bloggers like Greenwald and Patterico who use software that assigns humungously long URLs to blog posts. Hmm ... Greenwald and Patterico are both lawyers! it's a lawyer thing! the lawyers are doing it to annoy the rest of us! (goes off mumbling ...)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi CWC. "Controversy and Criticism" sounds fine to me, though we might as well wait until someone writes up a second controversy. The link to the summary is back in. I'm fine with including the Instapundit quote that this is a "venial sin" (i.e. a minor matter), which is mildly notable since Instapundit has frequently tangled with Greenwald (or vice versa). I wouldn't give too much weight to Instapundit's quote being mild compared to Frisch or Misha on other matters; I doubt it would take much work to find some shall we say colorful characterization of GG based on this controversy. Crust 13:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Other contributors

I think it's worth noting that Greenwald has guest bloggers at times. Other prominent blog pages, as that of Daily Kos note the front page contributors - and none of Greenwald's other contributors are in a position to warrant their own wiki pages as far as I know.

I also put back in the references tag so those little numbers go somewhere again.--FNV 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Homosexual Unions

The intro claims that Greenwalds' parter cannot live in the U.S. because the U.S. does not recognize homesexual unions. Does Greenwald in fact have a legally recognized homosexual union that the U.S. is not recognizing?

Brazil allows a legal homosexual union from abroad to be used for immigration purposes, but does not grant them, so does he have one, and from where?

United States immigration law does not recognize homosexual unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.189.5.201 (talk • contribs) 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have one, but if the USA recognised them he could get one so that he and his boyfriend could live in the USA. Since it doesn't, he can't, and that's relevant. Zsero 05:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, do you have a source of his non-union status?

Alleged Sock Puppetry Moved to Here

I removed the Alleged Sock Puppetry section and am placing it here. I realize that there has been some discussion about this already. This is an encyclopedia - not an electronic lynch mob. First, the vast majority of readers do not/cannot/will not understand what "sock puppetry" is. Second, the accusation - even if true - is so far below the threshold of what is legitimate to write about a current person's life.

Here is what was removed:

== Alleged sock puppetry ==

In July 2006, several right-of-center bloggers argued[7] [8] that comments praising Greenwald on multiple blogs under multiple names were in fact posted by Greenwald himself on the grounds that they came from two IP addresses also used by Greenwald. They also argued that the posts displayed similar writing style and content, for instance citing Greenwald's credentials. Greenwald denied the charge, stating "I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging." A few conservative bloggers[9][10] accepted Greenwald's denial and argued instead that Greenwald's partner had posted the comments. Some who initially felt the evidence of sock-puppetry was insufficient later recanted [11] after seeing further evidence and analysis[12].

There is no need to return it. --AStanhope 11:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the comments that say "Consensus is to keep" -- it was never sufficiently discussed here. I don't see any particular point in having it there, I just didn't argue with the people who did see the point.--SarekOfVulcan 02:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, was I ever able to read?--SarekOfVulcan 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion under "Kickoff" and "Sockpuppetry" above shows a consensus to keep (though it can always be discussed more). As to your comments.

1. If the majority of people "do not" understand what sockpuppetry it, than where better than an encylopedia to educate them (and there is an entry on it). I highly doubt that most people "cannot" understand this, after all one person posting under multiple names isn't that complicated.

2. Could you please explain why it is not legitimate to write this. The issue are allegations about public behaviour on the internet (far more personal issues than this are on, for example, Andrew Sullivan's page. Makgraf 02:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about alleged behavior that even after reading the article on sockpuppetry 95% of readers won't understand. It is indeed alleged: Greenwald himself denies it. The only way to make it proven would be to post server logs and to educate readers on how Apache and TCP/IP work... Let's not lose perspective of what is real, what is important and what this encyclopedia is all about. --AStanhope 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. The paragraph is called "Alleged Sock Puppetry". It does say that these are allegations and that Greenwald denies it. I don't know where the 95% statistic comes from, but it seems wrong. Makgraf 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I for one do not agree with keeping this text as it stands. (1) This version is too long, violating the "undue weight" part of the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy. (2) This version makes no mention of the fact that both Instapundit[13] and "Patterico" described the alleged sock-puppetry as merely a "venial sin". (Also, there is no link to Sockpuppet (internet).) Cheers, CWC(talk) 02:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Given Instapundit and Patterico's obvious partisan bias against Glenn (in the interest of full disclosure, I've become a regular reader and commentor there), I'm not sure that the account really deserves attention. In fact, in light of other conservative bloggers' established record of doctoring photos for the purposes of ridicule (For example, Ace of Spades HQ[14]), I would be as suspicious of their "evidence" as they are of evidence of Israeli atrocities in Lebanon. It's very easy to photoshop images like this, and I reiterate that these people have an obvious bias against Glenn. If this section must stay, it should note that right-wing bloggers have a history of doctoring photos for the purposes of ridicule of figures they don't like. Eric 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric, I think you've misunderstood what CWC is saying. Yes, Instapundit dislikes Greenwald (not surprising as Instapundit has been several times the subject of vigorous criticism from Greenwald). CWC knows that. I think CWC's point is that even despite this, Instapundit thinks that the sockpuppetry even if true is only a minor matter. Crust 13:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the points I was trying to make. My main point is that I strongly prefer the article with the currently-disputed text removed than with it present, because that text gives far too much weight to this minor matter, so I wish people would stop pasting it back in. Cheers, CWC(talk) 15:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with CWC. This paragraph is too long, at least relative to the length of the article, giving this matter undue weight. Crust 15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I understood his point quite well. I perhaps erred in indenting my comment so far, but I meant to address the entire issue of the alleged sockpuppetry. This appears to have become a bit of a cause célèbre in their region of the blogosphere, and given the penchant among right-wing commentators and bloggers for going to any length to discredit people they don't like, my instinct is that this is yet another example of baseless ad hominem attacks against people they disagree with. Since the consensus appears to be to hang onto some mention of it, however, I think it deserves no more than a sentence stating that he's been accused of sockpuppetry by right-wing bloggers, and that he denies it. Eric 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The current version does seems to go on too long. I don't know exactly why Instapundit would even be mentioned. It's not a story he investigated, he just linked to it after the fact. What about something like this:

In July 2006, several right-of-center bloggers argued[15] [16] that comments praising Greenwald on multiple blogs under multiple names were in fact posted by Greenwald himself on the grounds that they came from two IP addresses also used by Greenwald and displayed similar writing style and content. Greenwald denied the charge, stating "I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging.". And then maybe something about venial sins? Makgraf 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think my 95% number (not understanding "sockpuppetry") is probably accurate for Wikipedia readers as a whole. Sure, it's second nature for us as we are Wikipedians. Most Wikipedia readers either come here through search engines or are reading Wikipedia content that is mirrored elsewhere... Only a tiny percentage of Wikipedia consumers are also editors. "Sockpuppetry" doesn't even have meaning in the political blogging world by itself - it is a Wikipedia term. . . . Greenwald is notable for being an attorney who represented famous clients in constitutional matters - and he is notable for being a New York Times bestselling offer. The allegations of sockpuppetry are at BEST weakly supported and at WORST possible fabrications/misunderstandings/mistakes. We shouldn't use the Wikipedia to push information as such, particularly where there is a clear agenda involved on behalf of the accusers. --AStanhope 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is not an exlusively Wikipedian term, it is a general internet one. As such most people would either a) know what it means or b) find it very easy to understand (oh that guy's set up a fake identity to praise himself, kinda like a sockpuppet). Someone like John Lott might be notable for being a famous school but there's still a sockpuppetry section on his wikipedia article. Makgraf 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The allegations of sockpuppetry are actually pretty well supported by the facts, which some here apparently don't want to be aired. (Censorship sort of flies in the face of the whole Wikipedia ideal, don't you think?) It's a set of facts that provides some interesting insight concerning Greenwald's character and personality, issues that are always important, it would seem to me, especially for a writer of ideologically based opinions and commentary. It's also always important to show how one side or the other of political arguements have formed their views when possible.RFabian 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[[]]

I can go either way on including (or not) a section on this, but if there is a section it needs to be responsible and, frankly, most of the versions getting put in lately are not. This is particularly important in a criticism section of the biography of a living person. Some of the issues I've seen:

• This is alleged sock puppetry. I realize some editors feel that sockpuppetry is established beyond reasonable doubt, but Wikipedia shouldn't endorse that particular POV. This is not the place to get into the minutiae of this debate, but please note that even some right of center bloggers dispute the allegation, e.g. Steven Taylor of PoliBlog and Jon Henke of qando.net [17] (for John Henke, see comment #7)
• Similarly that the posts share Greenwald's writing style. This needs to be represented as a POV, not an uncontested fact. (I doubt anyone disputes that all or many of the alleged sockpuppet posts are similar to each other, but it's less clear that they are similar to Greenwald's posts on Unclaimed Territory[18].)
• Greenwald has denied the charge; there is no excuse for versions that leave this out. I think it is best to include the quote from Greenwald on this.
• The allegations are of sock puppetry on other blogs, not on GG's blog Unclaimed Territory.
• Language such as "Glenn Freaking Greenwald", etc. is unencyclopedic.

Crust 18:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I really believe that this section fails to meet most standards we would generally apply to encyclopedic material here in the Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not it is true (we can't prove whether or not it is true) it doesn't really add to his biography. --AStanhope 18:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

By point

• "First, the vast majority of readers do not/cannot/will not understand what "sock puppetry" is." They will, see arguments above.
• "Second, the accusation - even if true - is so far below the threshold of what is legitimate to write about a current person's life." It should be as little as possible, as it's a minor point (as the accusers also admit), see the this version for example. Greenwald did confirm some of the evidence used in the accusation, but denied actually writing those things himself.
• alleged - he did answer, and confirmed the IP address evidence.
• writing style - this was the first thing I removed, as it's all up to interpretation and POV unless we get more sources that note it.
• other blogs, not Unclaimed Territory - true. I don't get why somebody confused the two issues/items.
  

--GunnarRene 21:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

GunnarRene, I'm sure you think that anime cartoon you added is very funny, but if you want to be taken seriously, that's not going to help your case. Crust 15:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK then. Since you don't like cartoons, here's an illustration from a mainspace article.--GunnarRene 16:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Incident logged

In accordance with current Wikipedia practice, I've reported this edit here. I hope people agree with this action.
(BTW, has anyone been able to rearrange those words into something meaningful? ;-]) Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand. --AStanhope 04:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my silly way of saying I've listed that silly edit on the Wikipedia page where we record edits with silly edit summaries. But I was almost serious when I asked if anyone has any idea what "History Puppets are Known Controversy Part of" means. Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'm not entirely sure how to handle this, but something needs to be done about the fact that if one simply enters "Greenwald" in a Wikipedia search, you get the "Grünwald (disambiguation)" page, which, not surprisingly, doesn't contain a link to the Glenn Greenwald page (nor should it, IMO). I would imagine that the solution is to have a separate "Greenwald (disambiguation)" page, which would include, among other things, a link to the Glenn Greenwald entry and to the "Grünwald (disambiguation)" page. However, I'm enough of a newb not to want to go down this path without suggesting it first.--BenA 16:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just figured out that there are Greenwalds listed on the Grünwald (disambiguation) page. So I'm just adding Glenn Greenwald to it. That was simple!--BenA 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Just a friendly reminder to the malicious editors who have been posting lies in this article: This behavior is not allowed and will not be tolerated. Wikipedia standards prohibit the use of these pages for the promotion of ideological agendas, especially when based on lies and disinformation. 66.188.6.131 06:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes made 30-Sep-2006

I promised myself I'd steer clear of this article, except maybe for the occasional obvious revert. But today I did one of those obvious reverts and was dismayed to discover just what a mess this article was in. So I've edited the article, hacking out lots and lots of stuff about the alleged sock puppetry. There are still far too many External Links about sock-puppetry, but I did reduce the coverage of this issue in the main text. Since that text will probably be bloated beyond belief within a few days, here's a copy:

== Controversy and Criticism ==

Greenwald has been accused of posting pseudonymous comments praising himself on conservative blogs.[19] Sock puppetry of this kind is a minor offense in the blogosphere.[20] Greenwald confirmed that these posts were made from his household, but denied any suggestion that he wrote them himself.[21]

Please note: my version sucks. All I'm claiming is that it sucks less than what was there when I started. Please make further improvements.

I've requested WP:SEMIprotection for the article. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And semi-protection has been granted! Thank you, Glen S, for doing that, and for warning 71.122.102.23 (talk · contribs). Glen's last edit summary was "reverted back to the version not in total breach of WP:BLP" (emphasis added), so let's edit the article into full conformance with all Wikipedia's policies. (Having written that call to action, I'm now going to run away and hope someone else does all the work.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes - thank you for the sprotect. Let's leave it on for awhile. --AStanhope 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• I will second that: Thank you for protecting the article. Personally, I think the sockpuppetry allegations should be removed entirely, because they are unproven, and Greenwald's explanation is reasonable. The people who have made these charges are clearly motivated by a political agenda to discredit and harm Greenwald. Anybody can accuse anyone of anything; therefore, the standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia should be proof, not the mere existence of allegations. 66.188.6.131 19:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should just be removed. For one, a careful reading of Greenwald's post indicates that he did not confirm that any particular post was made from his household. He simply explained how IP addresses work, and indicated that another person or persons left comments on other blogs, without indicating which comments or where. Meanwhile, he asserted that all comments he made were under his own name.

Secondly, it's a trivial incident, as Glenn Reynolds notes. I don't believe it's ever been mentioned outside the echo chamber of the blogosphere, and even on blogs discussion of this episode has basically stopped. I found no mentions of it on Technorati in the past month. The article should discuss the actual major criticisms of Greenwald, whatever those are, not an ephemeral dustup that has no conclusive outcome. --Michael Snow 05:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reynolds quote

About that Reynolds quote. I've left in in, but let me just comment that Reynolds' view that sockpuppetry is a minor offense is his POV. Not everyone would agree. For instance, Lee Siegel (of "blogofascist" fame) was fired by The New Republic for sockpuppetry and John Lott is widely seen as discredited in no small part for his sockpuppetry. Then again, maybe Reynolds would argue that sockpuppetry in and of itself is a minor offense, but those two examples have other aggravating factors. Due to Reynolds' brevity it is impossible to say exactly what his view is. Anyway, my point isn't really about Reynolds here: it's just that any version that includes this quote should note it as a specific viewpoint, not necessarily generally accepted. Crust 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reynolds is talking about the circumstances of this particular case, I would say. Note that the claim, whatever its merits, is simply that Greenwald used different names in leaving comments on various blogs. I haven't seen any argument that he used multiple identities on any single site to make it look like more than one person was participating. The Siegel case, or Michael Hiltzik, involved using fake identities to support themselves on their own blogs, which is very different. --Michael Snow 17:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael Snow, thanks for the response. I agree with you re what the details and significance of the allegation actually are. Whether that's what Reynolds is saying is hard to tell (read literally, I would say not). But really this is getting more into a standard criticism of Reynolds and his elliptical comments, not Greenwald.

I share your (and CWC's) wish that we move on. I am very tired of all this, especially the more aggressive versions that keep popping up that would be inappropriate even if this wasn't a biography of a living person. I feel there probably should be some mention of the sockpuppetry allegations, but no version is vastly preferrable to a bad version of this. By the way, what do you think of the recent version I created?Crust 18:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll chime in here: I think Crust's recent version is a great piece of work (especially because I did nome of that work!). Well done, Crust! And thank you. CWC(talk) 09:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CWC.  ;) We'll see how long it lasts. And thanks for earlier putting some work into this. Crust 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think it's better just to delete the Reynolds quote. After all, while he may think that (if the allegations are true) it is a minor offense, obviously other people (e.g. Ace or Patterico) no doubt think it is quite damning. So I think it's better to avoid the debate about how serious a matter the allegations are if true, and not comment on this which probably accounts for a relatively small part of the ink/pixels spilled on the story anyway. I have the sense, CWC and Michael Snow, that you disagree with me and you seem like quite reasonable folks. If either of you think it's better to put in back in, I'll respect that. Crust 13:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Patterico agrees with Insty. In his "Annotated Wuzzadem" post, he says:

Keep in mind that sock-puppetry is, as Instapundit says, a “venial sin” (as opposed to a mortal sin). Yes, there is an element of dishonesty to it. But really, it’s mostly goofy and laughable — which is why the puppets are on hand to help me make the point.

(I've quoted the whole paragraph to give the complete context.) I'd slightly prefer the article to say that this is a minor matter. Let's get another opinion before we do anything. Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My preference is for the article not to mention the episode at all, since it's a "he-said-she-said" of little significance. If the episode is mentioned, I don't particularly care whether the Reynolds quote is included or it's otherwise described as "minor", but I do care that everything stated in the article is accurate. --Michael Snow 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Writing/Works by Greenwald

Greenwald has contributed a few featured opinion articles at Salon.com, as well as guest blogging for Tim Grieve (War Room) at same website [22]. He has also contributed to articles at crooksandliars.com [23]. I'm not a regular contributer to this article but thought this could go somewhere (I'd put it in myself, but the current format doesn't seem to lend itself to this info). R. Baley 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I say be bold and put this in the article yourself. I appreciate you're bringing it up on Talk first, but these don't strike me as controversial edits, so there isn't really a need IMHO. Crust 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing sockpuppetry again

The arguments made for keeping this section fail to address WP:BLP. Failure to provide reliable sources for negative biographical information is grounds for immediate removal. Notability is irrelevant. Chris Cunningham 12:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Greenwald's blog is not a reliable source about what he himself has written? --GunnarRene 21:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an allegation made by a blog. There's no proof it was true, so now we have to include this slander because greenwald responded to it? ridiculous, I'm removing it. R. Baley 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Liberal"

Does the phrase "he is often described by critics as a liberal blogger" strike anyone else as POV? It uses 'liberal' in the sense of a criticism or slur. 70.245.163.74 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a particularly pejorative aspect to the phrasing, though it's likely that this was the original intent given Wikipedia's orc problem. Changing or removing "critics", perhaps? Chris Cunningham 09:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

This search for "glenn greenwald" "sock puppet" shows that the issue is notable.

Those with a Google toolbar will note that searching for glenn greenwald, five suggestions are provided one of which is "sock puppet". So not only are people writing about it, people are searching for it too.

There are no fundamental BLP problems here as a sections could be composed simply of quotes from Greenwald himself.

There was never any consensus for purging the material from the artice, and the article must contain the material in some form. I agree that the text must contain his denials of the matter. David Spart 11:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the allegation has been widely reported, it's whether the alleged actions have reliable sources. In this case they don't; it's essentially the word of a handful of partisan bloggers. BLP is adundantly clear on this. It's swiftboating and has no place on here. Chris Cunningham 12:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the case. He responded to the allegations himself. Thus that can certainly be included since he is reliabel source on matters concerning himself. You should not have reverted that without discussion. David Spart 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If Glenn Reynolds had said he was a cat-murderer Greenwald would probably deny it as well. Please read BLP before re-inserting obviously contentious material with potential to cause personal damage to individuals. Also try reading the page history, where you'll see it wasn't me who just reverted. Chris Cunningham 12:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively above, and no consensus was reached to remove, it is in way swift-boating - and even if it was it would still be fine to have this mentioned briefly that there has been a controversy and that some have said that he has been swift boated. EG John Kerry's article presumably mentioned that he was swift boated!

That's correct: Kerry's article says he was swift-boated. It doesn't say that "an awful lot of bloggers think he shot himself to get out of the war". Chris Cunningham 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you betray your own POV beautifully in that statement. YOU think he has been swift boated. Fine - others say he has been caught. HE claims that it is all lies. That's great and that is what the article says. I can assure you I have no opinions one way or the other - but i believe that the wiki must mention this. David Spart 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cat metaphor: Yes but if dozens of people say that he killed the cat at 11.03pm EST and used the axe that was later found in his yard, and he concedes that it was indeed his axe that killed the cat - suddenly WP:V is satisfied and wiki can (must) make note of the issue in a NPOV fashion. David Spart 12:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I shall happily and enthusiastically eat crow if the claim that Greenwald posed under different user names to defend himself is found at some point to actually be true. For the time being, I'm not interested in having yet another argument about whether or not smears on blogs are notable based on how many hits they get on Google, and shall remove them on sight per BLP. My own point of view is irrelevant so long as it isn't refected in subjective edits of the article which impart it on the reader. Chris Cunningham 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The line I added to the article does not say whether it is true or not - indeed as you well know that has nothing to do with what gets added to wikipedia. Have multiple allegations been made? Yes. Has Greenwald denied the allegations? Yes. Should the article describe this sequence of verifiable events? Yes. It is immaterial whether or not you believe them or not - wikipedia is not a court of law, and we cannot judge what occurred. We merely record the events, that is the basis of NPOV. So whether or not you "eat crow" or not does not interest us. If you are not willing to have the argument then you have no right to remove the material. I (and many others above) dispute your interpretation of BLP which means you need to build consensus first - saying you wont debate is insufficient. David Spart 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, puppetry again! Not reliably sourced. violates BLP. My favorite part of BLP is "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion." R. Baley 06:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Er look it is not poorly sourced. If you think that you can add a source tag not delete outright. How would you phrase the issue better. It is just not good enough. There are 3 good sourced for 15 words! If you could explain why you are not happy with the line feel free to say so. David Spart 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Right OK. Chekcing your contributions I see that this is just another sockpuppet of User:Thumperward. This is getting daft. David Spart 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a damn what you check. If you think I'm a sock puppet you need to report me. This strikes me as ironic on so many levels. R. Baley 06:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet accusation is poorly sourced because it's only sourced to blogs. As for it being "swiftboating", OK, that's hyperbole, but if there hasn't been any reporting of the issue in non self-published sources, it's likely a non notable little blog-war sideshow. <<-armon->> 02:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the mainstream press a few times. But even with only the blogs (some major blogs writen by notables by the way) and his own reaction there is plenty. I fully agree that prominence must be given to his reaction though. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well can you show us some cites from the mainstream press? <<-armon->> 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there was this mention in Townhall which got me interested in this in the first place [24]. There is also this from Michael Barone in the US News and World Report - [25]. There is probably more if I looked. But the blogs and his denial are sufficient anyhow. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I know next to nothing about Greenwald and just stumbled upon this discussion, but based upon what I've read, I encourage David Spart to read Wikipedia's attribution policy due to your assertion that blogs are reliable sources. Only in very, very rare circumstances are they considered reliable sources (which you can read about there). The US News and World Report you linked is also a blog. WP:BLP (which you should also read, as it covers this situation word-for-word under the "Reliable sources" section) is non-negotiable policy, and lacking any reliable sources that I can see, it simply cannot be in the article at this time. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A significant event that occurs within the blogosphere is a perfectly good reason to cite blogs (carefully and in a NPOV fashion) and the fact that the article is published online under the title "blog" does not in any way detract from the fact the it was writen by a massive name in a major publication. And anyway "Reliable sources" are not even the issue here - these are primary sources. We are merely saying x said this, y said that z denied it. Thats all. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry — TownHall: partisan source. Michael Barone: opinion columnist, and not someone who even characterizes himself as an objective journalist. Me: reverting section again, as per WP:BLP. —GGreeneVa 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Look this is nonsence. Partisan source? Almost all sources are partisan. Are you objective? I have no political axe to grind here, but the situtiion must be noted for all the reasons I set out above. If you think that there is a BLP problem the way it is writen then I invite you to change it to your satisfaction but not to remove it. That just wont do. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 16:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources being partisan is not the point. The point is that the cites are all blogs and due to WP:BLP you can't include negative information which hasn't appeared in published reliable sources. <<-armon->> 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the new sources I added are not blogs - they are very very reliable sources. Indeed if you dont like it try to reword it to your satisfaction - using only his denial - which is perfectly possible. I asume that he is a reliable source. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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. [26]

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."[27] There's nothing there for the sockpuppet. Here's search volume for "Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet" alone:[28] - "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 [29] [30] 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 [31] 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