Talk:Adrian Lamo/Archive 1

Legal woes

It would be nice to know if he is incarcerated or was he released on OR? Since he is sentenced in June 2004, I guess this will be moot soon. -- manchineel

Apart from time spent in custody for processing, he was not incarcerated. He was released on $250,000 bond, and has since been sentenced to house arrest and probation. Hope this helps :) --Adrian 16:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What legal ramifications could Lamo face for saying he was a journalist and ordained minister to Manning?

Nothing from criminal side. These discussions in IM are not contractual and fully covered by the first amendment. The only potential court problem would be a civil case. But given that Manning has been convicted under the espionage act it would be unlikely that he could win a civil suit against the person who turned him in to the FBI under false pretext. Essentially there exists no legal entity that can be created which forces a person to be silent about potential violation of the law by a citizen. There is also no legal instrument imposing duties on journalists or ministers. Rober1236jua (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, can we please make a Project Vigilance article that links Lamo into as a "volunteer" worker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.177.44 (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I started a Project Vigilant page, you guys can help edit it and link it to this page. Ares san (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Ares san

What legal ramifications could Lamo face for claiming he was a journalist and a minister? None. Exactly what law did he break in making such claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

Lamo's thoughts are largely unpublished but have been shared with a small group of researchers in related areas. Privately held works attribute both his easy entry into highly secured networks and his involvement in other, less public phenomena to an amalgamation of separate, unique events and situations at points and times reachable only by an abandonment of any effort to identify patterns related to them.

Ok... who added this? and... more importantly... what does it mean? I believe this should be wikified.

• Lamo's Thoughts -> Lamo's Techniques
• Privately held works -> Privately held manuscripts
• etc...

That's assuming my understanding is correct

Manuscripts? Where'd that come from? I don't remember writing any manuscripts on this =x

Adrian Lamo 10:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A.C. Edit

• Added info regarding his techniques, added attribution link to wired
• Removed part of a ridiculously long and incomprihensible sentence: ...to an collection of separate, unique events and situations at points and times reachable only by an abandonment of any effort to identify patterns related to them.
• Removed ;'s on links (not std Wikipedia)
• Request: Someone crop, rotate the image as requested. (see talk page on image)
• Request: Someone please edit the language. It still contains philosophical/eccentric wording. (Tip: Don't Drink and Edit =)

If I drink and edit, post something on the net, then have it be referenced on Wikipedia, does it become canon enough to keep 'cos I said it and it's verifiable? :)

To be fair, I can't really complain about the choice of language. A lot of what I've said publically is pretty opaque. It's *meant* to be. Clarity is not a goal that should be achieved at the expense of accuracy. I am not network news; I'm not broadcasting to the lowest common denominator. I did what I did, now I do what I do.

Which isn't to say I don't deeply appreciate each and every constructive edit made to this article. Thank you, for helping to make this little corner of Wikipedia more readable :)

Adrian Lamo 16:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Birthday

• Request: This might be a minor detail but most biographies in wikipedia provide us with the exact date of birth of the subject. I would like to know the birthday :D Viruswitch 11:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

For obvious privacy reasons and the identity fraud proliferation, I suggest to leave the issue alone. --Irpen 01:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that is relevant at all if the date is already published online, unless you can point out a specific threat that would be made manifest by the addition of this information (more so than for those other living people whose birthdays appear on Wikipedia)... has Mr Lamo's arch-nemesis sworn to steal his identity if he could just discover his date of birth? If it isn't already available online, well, that is a different matter. NicM 08:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

I don't know whether it is available online and the reason why I don't know is that I didn't care to check because I am not interested in the exact DOB of A. L. Anyone is welcome to dig out the date, if it is already available, and post it here, citing a source. It is a different matter to pressure a subject of the article to reveal the date himself. It is his business whether he wants to answer a personal question. --Irpen 19:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm all about helping Wikipedia in random ways, but I like my birthday nebulous, and it's not available online anywhere, to the very best of my knowledge. So even if I confirmed it, I couldn't cite sources :)

User:Adrian/zap 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

- It was just a question, in fact I wanted to know what Adrian's Zodiac Sign is. He replied in my userpage that he doesnt want to publish that and the matter is settled. Maybe I should have just deleted the question when I got a reply (I still can :D hehe). Making a big fuss out of nothing :P. Viruswitch 10:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The fuss wasn't entirely in re. your question, Viruswitch :) There was a brief spree of vandalism to the main article involving my birthday. (It's not February 30th ;x)

I'll e-mail you my sign, though :) User:Adrian/zap 23:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

- Whoops, I was not aware of that! Thanks for the email :). I am very very happy to know! :) Viruswitch 08:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Just doing a google and on the first page I found a month (not a date though). Just noting :\ — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I had found that too but was not sure whether the site was worthy of reliance.Viruswitch 13:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You might call me a paranoiac, but I'm not the only one ...  :) User:Adrian/zap 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As for "it's not available online anywhere", I couldn't help but notice that on your myspace profile an acquaintance left a message saying "have a wonderful birthday today" on February 20th. ;-) --SedatedRX 08:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pfft. Since when have we used Myspace as a reference? --maru (talk) contribs 14:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It may not be The New York Times (no pun intended) but I'd presume this person knows A.L. reasonably well.--SedatedRX 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

MySpace is not generally accepted as a credible source, and only friends of mine quoted in the media are citable in re. Adrian Lamo. The office of Adrian Lamo thanks you for your interest in Adrian Lamo :P

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This article (which is already a source on the main page) says that his birthday is a "few days before April 16." Bender2k14 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Conversely, how do we know that he was born in 1981? That's an unreferenced fact. thatha (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. All very dodgy on Mr. Lamo's part - if that *is* his *real* name 0_o

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Adrian, why do you want to keep your birthday "nebulous" but have no problem revealing your social security number (in Hackers Wanted)? Bender2k14 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What on Earth taught you to expect life to be consistent?

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

His birthdate is 20 Feb 1981, and added a source from the subject. ♥GlamRock♥ 00:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Damage?

I am confused about the "damage" Adrian supposedly caused by breaking into these networks. What was it? (Not to be POV, but this is the discussion page, and from what I have read, he seems well intentioned and to have done a lot of good.) Armedblowfish 05:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the searches that he did in the NYTimes cost them money. Bender2k14 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds a little unlikely to me, and likely to be the same species of specious reasoning that folks like the RIAA use to estimate damages from piracy; institutional subscriptions to proprietary databases like LexisNexis are usually flat-rates based on the number of people given access / simultaneous connections. Lamo's intrusion wouldn't change the prices paid. --Gwern (contribs) 18:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This article and this article (both of which are in the "References" section in the main article) talk about how LexisNexis is pay-per-use and what Lamo cost the NYTimes by using it. Like the RIAA, their initial damage claim was grossly exaggerated. Bender2k14 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Those don't show the damage conclusively. The first article is only about the plea deal, which as you point out, bears little connection to reality. The second article vaguely describes Lexis-Nexis as 'the pay-per-use search tool' (as opposed to what, the pay-to-not-use?), but backtracks later by mentioning that the NYT does not 'pay retail' and pointing out that Lamo could have bought an unlimited use account for just $1500. If unlimited is that cheap, and the NYT does not pay retail... --Gwern (contribs) 18:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Snitching?

WP:FORUM This is not a forum to discuss your opinion of the subject of the article. I have removed contributions which do not relate to the content of the page.Martinlc (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is he called a rat and a snitch at the beginning?, i dont know if anyone noticed that before but i think he's being hated a little here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.107.254 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the part that is very disturbing to me. Wikipedia says that you should not have controversial information about living people but then many of the people do it. You are going to have precisely define what controversial means. You already have a statement that MySpace wasn't acceptable as an information source. Is a journalist who is not held highly in esteem by his peers also subject for removal as a source along with the statements credited to them. You are going to have to come up with clear defined guidelines on what is controversial or your credibility will suffer. For years the Encyclopedia Britannica cleimed that Philo Farnsworth wasn't the inventor of television when he was, citing RCA who had a competing interest as the source of the information. RCA's engineer was credited as the inventor of TV. hhhobbit (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Making "DNA controversy" longer

NicM, since you thought the stuff about the history of the federal government required DNA sampling and the ACLU's opposition to it was irrelevant, I was wondering if you had any suggestions for making that more than a 1-paragraph section? Armedblowfish 00:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really, no. We'll have to see how events pan out. A neutral summary of the issue and its relevence to the case may be appropriate (are the ACLU even involved aside from making a couple of comments?) although I think such a summary would be much better in Combined DNA Index System or ACLU or elsewhere. It would be nice to know what Adrian Lamo's religious objections are but it seems to be somewhat vague. I'd like to see a quote from the other side too, we have one from his lawyer, one from the govt would be nice too. NicM 09:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

Wikinews

So I'm writing an article to be released for the May 30 hearing. See here. So far, it's just a story preparation that is basically just from here / Wired, but I intend to interview Adrian. Anyways, as I'm not used to this, help/advice would be appreciated. Also, I don't know how to go about getting an interview/quotes from the other side, but if anyone else could, that would be great (for the sake of NPOV). Armedblowfish 00:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I think we need to check the categories: Lamo's from California and Massachusetts? Isn't it just Massachusetts? --maru (talk) contribs 03:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The dual categorization is accurate. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For what reason? The dual categorisation is confusing, so unless you have a good reason we can explain in the article I think we should eliminate one of them. NicM 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

If you're concerned about categories, you may want to look into "Living People" -- I was in a car accident (as a passenger) in early May of '06, and the first EMT that checked me after I crawled (upwards, out of a nose-down smoking vehicle) couldn't find a pulse :P

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand how you can be from both places at once- the location where one was born is a rather binary proposition. Unless parts of you were borne to two different women (one in Massachusetts and t'other in California), and then in a mockery of God's creation, stitched together into a monstrous chimera to trouble the Earth, it would seem nigh impossible. --maru (talk) contribs 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "from" necessarily means "born in". If you spend a large amount of your life in any given place, you may eventually consider yourself "from" that place. Armedblowfish 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally one is only "from" one place. Not always the place you were born, sometimes the place you spent most of your life, live currently, grew up: different people have different definitions, but it is still only once place. NicM 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC).

If one is raised in a place, or lives in a place, or is a Hoosier etc. that's fine, but one is not from that place- where one is from is generally understood in these categories as birthplaces. Perhaps we can scrap the California one, since he was born in Massachusetts as I recall. --maru (talk) contribs 23:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Last name confusion?

This guy's last name really can't be Lamo, can it? Imagine the everyday confusing insults the guy recieves, like "Hey, Lamo!" or "Lamewad, get over here". I dunno, my mind registers this as unpossible, however Wikipedia tells me this is true. However, my condolescences and sympathy goes out to the friends and family of Lamo for this sincere and confusing tragedy.--Mofomojo 12:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now now. Perhaps everyone simply tactfully pronounces it "Lamb-o" instead of "Lame-o"? --maru (talk) contribs 02:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just pronounced Lamo, like lmao ... anyway, anytime I think of his last name, I picture him laughing his ass off. --Cyde↔Weys 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's pronounced with an "ah" sound. But it could easily be made fun of. The Ungovernable Force 04:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Middle name?

What is Adrian's middle name? I know it starts with A.

The "A" doesn't stand for anything. It's just an A.

( a lie, but a plausible lie ... )

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-02-05 07:26Z

Adrian At at Wikipedia

Who wrote this stuff? Seems like plain self-promotion to me.

If you want to know, go look at the article history. It is laid out in exhaustive detail there. -- Gwern (contribs) 05:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia wrote it and "anyone" can edit.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.78.121 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 

And if someone doesn't like to edit self-promotional material???

Then they can go elsewhere, and edit some other material. Volunteer service here. Fork or leave, as the saying goes. --Gwern (contribs) 22:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that writing your own article at Wikipedia is entirely consistent with Lamo's slimy behavior regarding Wikileaks whistleblower. 200.142.114.24 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal Homepage

The link to the personal homepage "Just Breath" is functioning but the site seems to have disappeared. :/ I wanted to read that lovecraft story again... What happened?

http://resist.ca/~adrian/

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com as a source for this article

This article uses salon.com as a reference. A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. SeeTalk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_WikipediaAndries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AALib pic

I see no point in including this image.

It's a cute, Free image that dovetails with his computer links. I see no point in not including this image. --Gwern (contribs) 23:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, can I add a picture of a cute bunny as well? The "leet" image of Lamo is an absurd, pathetic attempt at Wikipedia stylishness. The point in excluding the image is to minimize the article content to that which informs, and avoid useless fluff. This is an encyclopedia, not "fun happy information website." Maybe once you Wikipedians learn to author a reference work as a reference work you'll understand this. Otherwise we'll continue to see articles with superfluous opinions and lame hipster bullshit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.178.23 (talk • contribs).

Heh. NicM 01:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

Go add it to the bunny page. Bunny has no pictures, which is too bad.

As for the rest of your rant... Tell you what, call me when people actually start using 'real' encyclopedias which don't have 'superfluous opinions and lame hipster bullshit'. In the meantime, you and the other 10 people who read Encyclopedia Britannica can revel in its lack of any pictures in its Adrian Lamo article. What's that, you say? It doesn't have one? And it covers almost nothing relevant these days. Oh. Huh. --Gwern (contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dating

The dating on this article seems to be bundled dates, so I changed all the dates back to american formating. Warrush

So long as date prefs are wikilinked, it doesn't matter whether they are 1 July or July 1. NicM 01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

Img size

Image:Duty.gif is pathetically small, anyone able to find a larger version? NicM 01:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No larger version is available (or likely to be forthcoming) without scanning an extant copy of the magazine (I don't have one) or asking SF Weekly directly (I'd rather not do this myself).

I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-09-20 02:33Z

"Infamous"?

The first sentence of the article describes Lamo as an "infamous" former grey-hat hacker, etc. I'm a little surprised that this wording has persisted so long. Not only is it more judgmental than I'd expect from an encyclopedia (it's not a very neutral term, after all), but it could even be considered libelous when applied to the biography of a living person, as in this case. But I'm hesitant to remove it since it has persisted so long; I couldn't look through more than a fraction of the history, but there may be cases in the past where it's been removed and re-added, so I thought I'd better ask first. -- CWesling (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's at least somewhat fair - for all the positive coverage, there was still plenty of condemnatory commentary. And remember, Lamo edits Wikipedia and has previously commented on this article; so far as I know, he's never objected to it. --Gwern (contribs) 05:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think many readers see this and interpret in the canonical sense. In modern parlance, it's simply a way of saying "someone well-known whom we might call famous, except we don't want our kids to grow up like him."

That said, my failure to remove or alter something that might be prejudicial or otherwise negative doesn't imply my endorsement of it. I do ensure that none of my edits to this article involve discretionary POV issues.

If a better word comes along, grand. But I agree with Gwern that the wide variety of opinions out there make using any less opaque word improbable for now.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2008-02-15 19:56Z

I disagree that it's opaque. To me, it reads that Lamo is some sort of a high-profile hacker, but actually he's little more than a small-time attention seeker who managed to get a lot of coverage through a single outlet. --94.171.77.82 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality/Married?

NNDB says Adrian has gotten married as of last year, can anyone (Adrian?) verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zythe (talk • contribs) 2008-04-22T08:04:59

There is an entry currently mentioned under Miscellaneous which mentions Adrian Lamo was appointed to a LGBT group and this page is categorized under LGBT studies. This doesn't include much context making it difficult to rephrase and put elsewhere such as into the section marked "Personal Life". Perhaps Adrian's sexuality is worth mentioning in this context or perhaps it is part of a strong belief in LGBT civil rights or reaching out to alienated young people, but as it stands the point seems unexplained. Can anyone provide more context, or should it be removed? -- Horkana (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he did have a "This user identifies as bisexual" on his Wikipedia userpage at one point but removed it January 4, 2007. His blog says he married Lauren in September 2007. I wouldn't guess there are many men named Lauren although I have seen a couple. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, and is addressed here. Blogs of notable individuals are (last I checked) valid sources within their respective bailwicks, so this seems like the easiest way to settle the question. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The IMDB profile of Lauren Lamo states they are "separated". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedouinali (talk • contribs) 03:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Religious Affiliation (if any)?

The article references religious beliefs. If his affiliation or the belief system he follows is known, it may be an interesting addition. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He told Bradley Manning he was an ordained minister... Bedouinali (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

A june 2010 wired report about Adrien Lamo & wikileaks : http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ (but I can't tell wether it is an intersting event or not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.198.134.28 (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely significant. Added to the article as a single sentence, thought it could probably have its own section. NW (Talk) 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It should! Probably presages the death of Wikileaks if people are not going to respect the anonymity of its contributors.Jatrius (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the Wikipedia article has already written itself, this guy is toast. Before you lynch him, and his reputation, realize the first, and only report, states, "he boasted to a former computer hacker of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents".

The article subject's motivation is unknown at this time. Having specific knowledge of someone "leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents" (and the real world Life & Death ramifications) may make this more complex than the headlines make it appear in this initial report. ::Perhaps we should allow our Reliable Sources to do the reporting, our role is different...99.141.254.167 (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks statement: http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/15624063923 --93.221.229.189 (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Actual report says, "When Manning told Lamo that he leaked a quarter-million classified embassy cables, Lamo contacted the Army...

“I wouldn’t have done this if lives weren’t in danger,” says Lamo, who discussed the details with Wired.com following Manning’s arrest. “He was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air.”

"Lamo has contributed funds to Wikileaks in the past, and says he agonized over the decision to expose Manning — he says he’s frequently contacted by hackers who want to talk about their adventures, and he has never considered reporting anyone before. The supposed diplomatic cable leak, however, made him believe Manning’s actions were genuinely dangerous to U.S. national security."

We should not be writing this as if it revolved around the one Baghdad airstrike. It gives undue weight to a peripheral element, albeit tabloid focus, of a much larger event. Remember that it's an encyclopedia.99.141.254.167 (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Add this regarding what RS report was the investigation focus:

"The Bureau was particularly interested in information that Manning gave Lamo about an apparently-sensitive military cybersecurity matter, Lamo said.

That seemed to be the least interesting information to Manning, however. What seemed to excite him most in his chats was his supposed leaking of the embassy cables. He anticipated returning to the states after his early discharge, and watching from the sidelines as his action bared the secret history of U.S. diplomacy around the world.

“Everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed,” Manning wrote. “It’s open diplomacy. World-wide anarchy in CSV format. It’s Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It’s beautiful, and horrifying.”" .99.141.254.167 (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the German media link, necessary? Seems out of place in the English wiki. Not trying to be Western-centric, but perhaps it should be replaced to redirect to at least a translation of the page. 68.33.1.184 (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have understood it, Adrian was recently released from jail and was still under supervision when he got in contact with Manning, who told Lamo about the leaks over an unencrypted chat. Would Lamo not have told the police, and they found out about the chat log, or if Manning would have gotten caught on his own and the police found out he had been in contact with Lamo, he would probably go back to jail for hiding evidence of criminal activity. The WBAI radio show Off the Hook summed it up "Just never brag about leaking this kind of information to anybody". So far I don't think Lamo has commented on the situation of his own, so I don't know how true it is, but this situation does not sound implausible to me, and if it's true, Lamo might not have made a good decision, but it's hard to see it ending in any other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.235.70 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lamo was protected under journalistic-source immunity. He should have reported the crime, yes, but he didn't need to reveal his source, especially since his source was no longer a threat (discharged). Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What was I charged with / on supervision for? Curious, — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Beeing a traitor? Ah sorry - that one is outstanding... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.223.197 (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for some missing facts

I recently added a paragraph to the "Film and television" and section about Lamo's involvement in five of The Screen Savers episodes. However, there were five facts that I could not find that would be good to know. In four of the five references to videos, I could not find the titles of TSS episodes. All of TTS episodes (with titles) are here but unfortunately, they do not have have dates. The IMDB page for TSS has a "full" episode list, but I feel like they are missing (at least) one episode.

The episode that I feel they are missing is the other fact that I am requesting. What was the air date for the on-site interview that lamo did at TSS? It was recorded after this wired article (about his hack of Cingular) that was published on May 29, 2003 because they talk about it. It was also recorded before an episode that aired on September 5, 2003 because the episode from that day includes clips from the episode in question. Given that it must have been recorded and aired in 2003, it must have happened before July 11, 2003 because this page about the episode in question speaks of July 11 as being less than a week away and the air date for another episode. I think that IMDB may be missing an episode because they do not have an episode airing within a week before July 11, 2003.

Bender2k14 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Maybe Kevin Mitnick and Kevin Poulsen should be asked if they want to be on the same photo with Adrian Lamo. I guess his credits in the scene are gone after the wikileaks thing. --93.221.253.229 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(sourced) Domestic Violence

It's important to note that Adrian Lamo allegedly used a stun gun to "control" an ex-girlfriend of his. See reference "jkahn04". Said ex-girlfriend had a restraining order against him. This information is very relevant as it attests to his many mental health issues. Bedouinali (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Adrian Lamo has been vandalizing this article, removing any reference to his documented history of domestic abuse against his girlfriend, involving the use of a stun gun and a restraining order against him. This is all documented in the reference named "jkahn04". Bedouinali (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Lamo disputes the factuality of that documentation, and your activity hasn't precisely been neutral in that regard—putting the stun gun mention in the lead; putting an image of a stun gun; these definitely are providing undue prominence on that incident which is a tangential point in a single source, one which Mr. Lamo disputes. That is a very weak basis for inclusion in the article at all. I've removed it from the lead, because that was over the top for a summary of his biography here.

With all due respect, I find it hard to assume good faith on your part; your attitude towards him seems uniformly negative. Remember that Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy requires us to merely state facts and repeat allegations without taking a side. Mr. Lamo's involvement in Wikipedia has not been, as far as I've yet seen (with admittedly limited observation) has not been of a vandalistic nature; he is concerned that the article is misrepresenting him, and that is a valid concern that is also enshrined in our important biographies of living persons policy. I will take action as necessary to help ensure that this article follows our policies.

Now, to be fair: can you substantiate the claims made in the WIRED article from any other source? Can you identify any point of policy which Mr. Lamo has clearly breached? I'm open to your "side" of the story, as it were, but I don't see sufficient evidence at this point to support the arguments you're making, as I understand them. Would you please explain your points more concretely? Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources saying anything like "WIRED is not a Reliable Source" nor "multiple RSs are required". --Gwern (contribs) 06:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be OK to include this somewhere else in the article, as long as it is not in the lead. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that what Bedouinali has been inserting into the article is concerning stun guns etc. is an extrapolation (that's putting it conservatively) of what it is written in the source provided. CIreland (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Gwern, I'm not arguing either of those statements. I'm arguing that, where there is a suggestion from the subject that an otherwise reliable source is wrong, where it is not supported by other reliable sources, it be doubted from our editorial point of view. In either case, it's totally inappropriate to put it in the lead, to put an image of a stun gun, etc., and the fact that some of the related points only occur in one reliable source (to my knowledge) only underscores that—multiple reliable sources are a good indication of the prominence of the fact with relation to the subject, and that indication is not present here. Don't get me wrong: if other sources can be provided, if it's found to be in fact more prominent to the subject than I currently believe, I agree that it would be fair to give it prominence in the article. But when it's a single reliable source whose accuracy is contested by the subject, giving it prominence is highly questionable. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 16:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I encourage participants in this thread to review this note on my "official" blog. As the blog of a notable subject, it's citable and usable for article purposes. This also formalizes my statement of serious misrepresentations by Wired in that article.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If Wired lied about you having a restraining order, then you should sue them for libel. Until then, you need to give us some other reason to doubt the claim made by Wired, other than your word. Gregcaletta (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I really don't. They didn't. When it comes to public figures, it's only libel if it's malicious and they know it's false, as any media law course teaches. So all there is, is my word - and a decade of being a reliable source to probably dozens of media outlets - and Wired's reliance on a single anonymous source.

Fortunately, Wikipedia operates on policy and consensus, not single-user fiat. I have faith in that policy-based process and that consensus. Until then, feel free to seek evidence that I was subject to any restraining order. You won't, because I wasn't.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Lamo, Wired is a reliable source. We are not here to do investigative journalism on their behalf. If their article is incorrect, either have them print a retraction (a standard journalistic practice, you would know if you were one), or sue them for libel. Until then, the reference remains. Bedouinali (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wired is considered a reliable source in eight other citations on this article. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• undent* You and your sock/meatpuppets are not a consensus. I could remove the reference now under BLP, and have you be on the wrong end of the WP:3RR stick when you inevitably reinserted it. As it is, out of judiciousness and to avoid WP:COI, I'll seek administrative review ... again.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppets? Wut? Adrian Lamo (1) is not exactly a consensus either. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think placing Lamo's dispute alongside the claim by Wired is a good compromise. Gregcaletta (talk)

Agreed Dirtyfilthy (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the obvious solution; it's not important enough to go in the lead. --Gwern (contribs) 10:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lamo, would you consider adding that you have never disputed the abuse of your ex-girlfriend inappropriate? Indolering (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

He has disputed it, see the above discussion. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Drug Abuse

I just added information regarding Adrian Lamo's admissions to prescription drug abuse. Watch for his inevitable vandalism... Bedouinali (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Project Vigilant

What about this? http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/08/01/stealthy-government-contractor-monitors-u-s-internet-providers-says-it-employed-wikileaks-informant/ Sounds very scary... --93.221.223.197 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Project Vigilant Is a Publicity Stunt ? IQinn (talk)

for what it is worth, Uber did indeed make such statements in a press conference at defcon 18. However, the kindest summary I have heard of Project Vigilant is that it is "mostly aspirational." The many comments on the taosecurity link above are well worth examining, and in my opinion thoroughly debunk the group.Elinruby (talk) 02:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect source

Source 5 for the sentence, Lamo was appointed to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning Youth Task Force by San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano redirects to source 4. Upon brief research, I couldn't find the correct source. Can someone correct this and appropriately validate the statement with the correct source, and if not, state that a citation is needed in the meantime until an appropriate source is found. WizzyKid (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I just noticed that... it needs to be fixed... Maybe it was an accidental change... I'll check the history and see if the ref ever pointed elsewhere. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Since this has still not been corrected, I have gone ahead and stated that a citation is needed. Every search I carry out on this just leads to duplicates of his wiki page, which is making me believe this may be false information. If in another couple of months no source can still be found, I'd say this sentence should be removed. Lamo himself has never publicly stated anything about it from what I can tell either. WizzyKid (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

incorrect term ha??Err

What the hack? Hackneyed on lorking in garbage dumpsters ... all the stories (Yutube) oF Lamo loom as lame PR crafted deception of putting confident in ranks to penetrate society ongoing long before denouncing. This blog[1] (if his: links, pix, time, place, name match) show the level of computer expertise to possibly snatching AOL kids to 'helping' them recover they passwords. [2] [3]. This art has to be fixwd.

Contradictory statement anyone can see as Lamo telling about bloody hands in CNN but this tale is contradictory.

CNN: Why did you basically turn on this guy

Lamo: why did i do it to simply put.2:07 The chairman of joint chief has been said...

The president of Afghanistan expressed his outrage.. i believe it has been vindicated in past couple of days..

Hey but Lamo was allegedly cheated with BM about collateral murder video.

Why? The 'blood ' was PR-ed by FFS after after Afghan War Diary released July 25, 2010. BM was in solitary confinement already a month. Did he chat with him from military prison? Not. Until reversal of time happened somewhere in summer 2010 everybody will see that Lamo misrepresent truth in this video. Some note should be added to Adrian Lamo which is blocked. Do seeing this contradiction amount to "original research"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Glorialarubia, 30 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} For this matter, there has been a fatwa thrown agaist his life by muslim hackers.

Glorialarubia (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Restraining order research?

The bit about the restraining order is a bit embarrassing: either Lamo was served with one or he wasn't, just putting the two "facts" next to each other is a good compromise, but it should be temporary. If there was such an order, it would be recorded in courts minutes and documented in the justice adminsitration, wouldn't it? How does one go about researching that kind of stuff in the US? In which city was this? -- TheAnarcat (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many cases that have been taken out of the public domain due to their nature with closed court hearings. Either the point needs to be cooroborated by court records or removed. The "evidence" as given by Wired would be deemed hearsay in a court of law and be disallowed. Wikipedia needs to remove unverifiable statements as pointed out on their Biography of Living Persons page. The page even mentions recently deceased people are also to be afforded that same measure of protection. This is not a forum for opinions without proof. hhhobbit (talk)

Small reorganise

I've WP:BOLDed a few changes to improve flow, so the article should have a better structure. I've also removed a bunch of blog-like ramblings and unnecessary information. Feel free to check the diffs and let me know if I've removed anything important. --Ms7821 (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, can anyone (User:Adrian, perhaps?) provide any reliable evidence that he's a journalist? I can't find anything he's authored, and it looks like the closest he gets is through Kevin Poulsen. --Ms7821 (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I came here wondering the same thing - if he is a journalist, the article ought to mention his work. At present, it doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.60.220 (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the mentions of him being a journalist under WP:VERIFY Dirtyfilthy (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, I'm going to assume your huge revert was an accident. Fixed, please discuss here if you think it has merit. Ms7821 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not an accident. The user who I reverted is not allowed to edit on Wikipedia; their changes are to be removed, irrespective of the merits, and rebuilt. This is a very unusual case, a long story, and not to be discussed in public. Sadly, we don't have any central public page that indicates ArbCom's decision on this matter, so anyone who doubts this needs to email WP:ARBCOM, WP:Functionaries-en, or myself. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. Ms7821 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bigger reorganise

It seems to me that this article is far larger than appropriate for a guy who's done very little significant work. There's a lot of incidental information, and a vast number of references. For one thing, I'd like to reduce the number of citations of Poulsen (13 of his articles are referenced, and they're known to be chummy) and get rid of all the background and repetitive refs. I also think it would make sense to merge the "References" section into "Notes".

Also, "Lamo was appointed to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning Youth Task Force by San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano. In his spare time, he now donates his time and expertise to Voluntary Legal Services of Northern California, a Sacramento-based nonprofit organization providing assistance to indigent and low-income clients involved in civil litigation." Can anyone explain the purpose of this except for gossip? Ms7821 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's pretty heavy on sourcing to Poulson. But how can we fix that without sacrificing content? I'm not sure what your standard is for "significant work", but I tend to believe that legitimate mainstream sources reporting on Adrian Lamo should form the basis of the article. What is in the news generally belongs to the bio. I'm concerned with the assertion that Poulson and Lamo are "chummy", because this has been an element of Glenn Greenwald's attack pieces on Lamo, which have garnered much media attention; "chummy" is not a neutral assertion, because Lamo seems to have disputed it.

Seems like a good idea to dump the "In his spare time" line. However, Lamo's involvement in LGBTQ issues is noteworthy, particularly in the context of some media speculation regarding his relationship with Bradley Manning. It can be sourced beyond that single statement, and I've considered expanding on that, because of the speculation about the importance of Lamo's (real or apparent) sexuality in his discussions with Manning.

I hope we can find the right way to reorganize without turning revisionist; I think that what was significant before the Manning case remains significant now, so I'm wary of major cuts. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be some difference between Lamo's claims to the media and what is in the chat logs. [BoingBoing], is this worth including (previously there was a line about some claims not being in verified chat logs)? Also, I feel that the Greenwald claims of a Poulsen relationship is probably worth a mention (but attributed as Greenwald's position) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think each of those issues is worth including. DBaba (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a go when I get some time - a bit too busy at the moment. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Felony conviction?

While Lamo plead guilty and received a 6 month home detention, what info do we have that says he is a convicted felon? Felonies are crimes which have a certain definition. Sometimes convictions are classified as a misdemeanor or a felony. I ask because some editors want to describe him as a "convicted felon" in other articles. This article could use a clarification. --S. Rich (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I do not believe that the classification of Lamo's conviction as a felony is open to debate (in the context of its being defined in the U.S. criminal justice system). While you reference the 6-mos home detention sentence, it doesn't matter what sentence is actually imposed - the difference (w/ a misdemeanor) is based on the max theoretical punishment that the Court *COULD* have imposed. Nevertheless, I am interested to hear arguments to the contrary.Joep01 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the matter appears settled. That is, the references provided say he plead to one felony count, so with a WP:RS in hand my concern/question is resolved.--S. Rich (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As I expressed directly in our polite, civil correspondence, I noted your edit to the article and the fact that you did not delete the felony-reference in the sub-section, and am satisfied to the degree that I don't intend to contest it. Unfortunately (for the felon or their advocate) the reality is that in our (US) society, the fact that he is a convicted felon is something that will impact many aspects of his life to the degree that one could reasonably argue that it merits being included in the intro. Loss of voting rights, loss of access to security clearance (or gov't employment in general), having to disclose the conviction if asked by any prospective employer, etc...are all examples of the impact of the conviction. I can understand, however, someone countering that, while a felon, Lamo's purpose in life (or endeavours or mission in life or what he spends his waking hours doing) is something very different, and that the way he defines himself proactively (assuming congruence w/ how the public would define him) is what should be noted in the intro, and the felony conviction referenced in a sub-section. However, if he was an unrepentant professional criminal, things would be different and the "convicted felon" descriptor would be appropriate in the intro.Joep01 (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Causality in opening paragraph

I don't believe it's a violation of NPOV to state that Manning was arrested as a direct result of Lamo informing on him to the State, since this is in fact what occured, as reported in any one of hundreds of articles. My problem is that in an effort to sound "balanced," the execrable passive-voice makes it sound as if there may be doubt as to whether Manning was imprisoned and tortured as a result of Lamo's actions. There is not. Lamo snitched, which caused Manning to be imprisoned. It's not like we need to leave it to the reader to decide whether these two things may be connected; the connection is there, factual, and amply reported upon by reliable sources. SmashTheState (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite reverting your change, I am sympathetic to what you are saying. However, it is likely that Manning was at the very least unwise, and it is definitely a breach of WP:NPOV to say "betraying", when notifying authorities of suspected illegal activity is normally known as "reporting". If a journalist wrote an article under their name, they could describe what happened and say it was a betrayal—that would clearly be the author's opinion, and a very defensible phrase. However, there is no "author" here, and text really does have to be neutral, so "reported to federal authorities" is appropriate. Readers can form their own judgment of any ethical considerations without an editorial voice in the article encouraging them in a particular direction. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a widely-held mistaken belief that passive voice makes something objective. We can only blame generations of overly-zealous highschool teachers. The passive voice not only doesn't make anything objective, it actually serves the opposite function, to obscure the actors. In the Foucauldian model, power relations are defined by actors being acted upon to reduce or enhance the choices available. Passive voice robs the reader of the ability to discern the proper context for who or what is acting upon whom. In this case, leaving aside who is right or wrong, we have one actor (Lamo) acting upon another (Manning). The direction of action is clear; no one is disputing that it was Lamo who reported Manning, and that Manning was arrested as a direct result of this. I don't think it's a violation of NPOV to make it clear in the article that the arrest was a direct result of Lamo's action. SmashTheState (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So what text are you proposing? Are you saying that the established text of "Manning, who was arrested after Lamo reported to federal authorities..." is incorrect? Misleading? How would your proposed text assist the reader? Johnuniq (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion has been reverted twice, so I'm open to any rewording which makes it clear that it wasn't just coincidence connecting Lamo snitching and Manning being subsequently imprisoned and tortured. SmashTheState (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

recent DBaba changes

I'm assuming that fellating Lamo isn't part of the goal of this article, so the latest changes are less than perfect in terms of balance. I would also like to stress once again that Bradley Manning has not been convicted of any crime, and implications that he has committed a crime are a gross violation of WP:BLP unless and until there has been a conviction. Furthermore, it is very clear that he was arrested as a direct result of Lamo informing on him to the secret police. This is borne out by hundreds of news articles. To state, as DBaba does, that he was arrested for a criminal activity is a violation of WP:BLP unless and until he has been convicted of doing so in a court of law. SmashTheState (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the 'secret police'. I find that your language is outrageous and offensive, but you are nonetheless oddly charming. I will restate, again in compliance with BLP: Manning was arrested for his apparent criminal activity. I will leave it to you to look up the word 'apparent'. DBaba (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with DBaba's changes and the fact that he took the time to properly and adequatly situate my contribution regarding Lamo's psychopath-like manipulation of donating to Wikileaks after-the-fact in order to make himself look less like the tool that he is, makes me think that even if DBaba did insert POV into the situation, it would have to be in the other directionTalonxpool (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

torture

If I'm a reliable source and I say, "Dealing with certain individuals on Wikipedia is so degrading it could even amount to torture", you cannot then claim that dealing with certain individuals on Wikipedia is torture. This is an opinion that needs to be attributed, and even the opinion does not go so far as to unequivocally state that it is torture. The word 'torture' is in quotation marks in the citation because the cited source absolutely does not assert that that is the case.

Your phrase about 'US government claims' doesn't add anything, except for perhaps something ideological about how the US government is not to be trusted in its assertions. I am absolutely not vouching for US claims or implying anything about them, I am just saying what Lamo reported. A report needn't be true or false.

You are violating BLP in a persistent way, SmashTheState. You are making claims that are not backed by sources to attack a living person. Your repeated assertion that Lamo 'caused' the incident is also not factual or cited, and serves only to take a shot at a living person. Knock it off. DBaba (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

(1) Please remain civil. You may have a personal relationship with the subject, or have personal reasons for supporting him, but taking personal offence on his behalf isn't useful to improvement of the article. (2) You keep conflating my changes with those of someone else. The use of the word "caused" appears to be the major source of your dudgeon, and I didn't make that change. You keep reverting all changes wholesale -- including changes made for reasons purely of style -- rather than picking out the ones which are bothering you. (3) We have no proof that the documents are "sensitive" or that Bradley Manning is responsible for anything at all, since there has been no legal action. You complain about BLP, but accepting claims about Bradley Manning's guilt in the matter of a serious criminal offence are an extremely serious BLP policy violation. Until the claims of Lamo and the US government have been established in a court of law, we CANNOT use the word-of-God to state their claims are true. As for the torture citation, if you read the article (and many others also easily obtainable), you will see that it's the newspaper which chose to put "torture" in quotation marks, not the experts they consulted. We are not interested in the editorial opinion of the newspaper, but rather the opinion of the experts whom the newspaper has consulted -- who clearly states that Manning's treatment amounts to torture. -- SmashTheState (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture update

I suggest this one, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/AdcAmz6CAAAIsGm.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.180.173 (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

POV concerns

I have some concerns about the neutrality of this article. In particular, I believe that there has been a pattern of editing intended to emphasize negative biographical material that may be either non-notable or lacking credible supporting sources, on the part of various users unhappy with my role in the Wikileaks kerfuffle.

Obviously, I am not an unbiased observer, so I felt it would be best to bring the issue to the community for discussion.

In the "Personal" section

"During this period, in 2001, he overdosed on prescription amphetamines.[7][12]

The description of the overdose is accurate, but I question why this one specific event, which bears no real relevance to the aspects of my life which may be considered notable, is afforded line-item status. I do try to assume good faith, but it's fairly evident that some editors have pushed negative content regarding my life because they disagree with my actions, not because it's relevant to the article.

In a 2004 interview with Wired, an ex-girlfriend of Lamo's described him as "very controlling," stating, "He carried a stun gun, which he used on me." According to the same article, a court issued a restraining order against Lamo.[12] Lamo disputed the accuracy of the article and wrote, "I have never been subject to a restraining order in my life".[13]"

The Wired article citing an "ex-girlfriend" uses an anonymous source. It's not clear who it is, and the events they describe are not factual. This is best evidenced by the alleged restraing order - those are public records, and many, many people have tried to locate it. They couldn't because it's not real. That, to a reasonable observer, should undermine the credibility of that section. It's a hell of an accusation to make on the strength of an anonymous source whose factual claims are unsubstantiated.

Regarding the clarification on the Wired article, I did not set out to mislead anyone. The discrepancy is the result of lack of communication with my family on the matter, as from my perspective events had happened as I described. Because of the very personal nature of that chain of events (while I am a public figure, my parents are not), I've largely left the matter alone up to now.

In the section "Greenwald, Lamo, Wired magazine":

Glenn Greenwald has made numerous allegations which are not properly supported. This article quotes him as describing me as a "serial liar", but there's nothing to back that up - at most, he has pointed at ways my views and positions have changed between 2010 and 2013 - I don't feel an evolving understanding of a situation is dishonest - quite the opposite.

If this section is to be kept, I feel it should make specific allegations, not just generally claim that I'm dishonest. That's not something I can defend, because without specifics there's nothing *to* defend, just Greenwald's opinion. Attacks on any subject's character should be factual and cite sources, not merely imply that someone's been dishonest wihtout pointing to specific incidences of dishonesty. Particularly, statements like "Greenwald is skeptical" don't seem appropriate - while he is a notable figure, my supporters aren't pushing my views regarding him in his article. That would be inappropriate, even if a notable figure having an opinion about another notable figure is somehow itself notable.

I address some of Greenwald's inaccuracies and suspicious sourcing in a 2010 piece I wrote regarding his earliest reporting, available via Cryptome.

Policy perspective

The most applicable biographical policy issue seems to be that regarding public figures. In particular:

"John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe were divorced."

While I'm a fairly experienced editor, I've been away for some time, so other policy perspectives which I may not be familiar with could apply. Input in this area is welcome.

I appreciate the time anyone may take to read this and provide feedback. A copy of this post is available at my blog in case any part of it needs to be cited in-article from an external source.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the "serial liar" quote as it adds absolutely nothing to the article. I'm interested in other contributors' thoughts on the relevance of the stun gun, restraining order and prescription drugs sections. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

These facts are relevant facts, facts that are not disputed. Include. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion an overdose is a very significant event and should be kept especially as he admits it's true. The fact that Wired published the interview with the ex-girlfriend is, I think, significant and the section is balanced by his own comments rebutting the claims so I think it's fine but it might be good to note that the source was anonymous. It seems odd that there's a large section devoted to Greenwald. If his comments are notable at all then I would think a single sentence in the Wikileaks section along the lines of "Lamo's role in the Manning case drew the ire of Glenn Greenwald, of Salon Magazine, who suggested Lamo had lied to Manning by turning him in" would suffice. Nerwal (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning

It seems we have a tag-team trying to rewrite history here, as well. I think I'm at 3 reverts here; I'd appreciate it if someone could fix this to conform to what the sources say. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not rewriting history. We are fixing the article to conform to Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY guidelines as they pertain to transgender people (in this case, former Private Manning). This is something that has happened in hundreds of articles before and is a standard practice on Wikipedia. What is your specific objection to this practice being followed in this particular case? This seems like a clear-cut case to me, but I'm interested to hear your point-of-view. Rebecca (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My point of view is policies trump guidelines and the changes you're making are blatantly false. The debate over what Manning should be called is taking place at the talk page of his or her article. That Lamo reported Bradley Manning is a documented fact and not the subject of any legitimate debate. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not blatantly false to refer to someone who identifies as a female as "her" in a Wikipedia article (one of the things you were originally reverting). That is a standard application of MOS:IDENTITY that is followed in pretty much every single article I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and the pronoun "her" gets used for such people regardless of how they may have been described in the past. The same goes for "servicewoman" instead of "serviceman." We should, at least, use a gender neutral term like "soldier" if you are dissatisfied with "servicewoman." Now, I'll admit that the issue of Manning's name is more of a grey area because she was exclusively known as "Bradley Manning" at the time of these events, and that is still her legal name. However, it is also common practice on Wikipedia to retroactively use a transgender subject's current name for past events. See the articles on Laura Jane Grace and Lana Wachowski for examples. In any event, I would like to offer a compromise for the time being. May I edit your insertion of "serviceman" to "soldier" if I agree to leave the name of that soldier as "Bradley Manning" in the lead? (although perhaps we should include a note in the lead that Manning is also known as Chelsea Manning to make clear who this "Chelsea Manning" is who crops up later in the article.) Rebecca (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning)" is fine. At least it's correct (sort of). I really don't care what he or she winds up being called. I do care about rewriting history to imply that he or she was never "Bradley Manning". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad we could come to a compromise. I know on another page you called me a "POV-pusher," and I'll admit I do have a keen interest (and my own personal opinions) about this particular topic. But I also value Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm doing my best to apply them accurately as I see them pertaining to these topics surrounding former Private Manning--in the hopes that we can have as high a quality encyclopedia as possible. So I appreciate you working with me on this and being willing to listen to my point of view. Rebecca (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I used the plural, so I was hardly referring to you alone. It's quite refreshing as well as rare to hear someone declare their POV openly. It's always nice to arrive at a version that both editors find satisfactory, if not perfect. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think this individual is still "Private Manning". He or she was demoted from PFC, but retains the rank of private, as far as I know. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, good to know. I knew she had been dishonorably discharged from the Army, and I guess I thought that meant she was no longer a private, but it appears I'm mistaken. Thank you for the correction. Rebecca (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Joefromrandb , what do you dislike about "U.S. soldier Chelsea Manning (then known as "Bradley Manning")" ? It follows MOS:IDENTITY better than the inadequate compromise you two came up with. And it doesn't "rewrite history" in any way; rather, it explicitly calls out the fact that she used to be known as Bradley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.19.74 (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Pathetic

Sorry but this entire article, and much of the talk section, are proof of the obsessive, navel-gazing, puerile, narcissistic internet culture for which we can thank jerks such as lame-o and other geeky people who ought to have grown up but refuse to do so. the internet surely is among the worst things ever to befall any civilization, with its smoke and mirrors, its endless self-obsession, and its avoidance of real life, tough decisions and adult responsibilities. by perseverating over absolutely unnecessary aspects of lame-o's life you are wasting so much time and talent(I will give you all the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise) that you should be applying to the very real, consequential and controversial problems that all of us face. get a life. this article should be six sentences long, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.40.164 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

/sign though ironically the — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.88.230 (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Birthdate

Anyone know of any reliable sources that reference Lamo's birthdate? The only ones I can find are this WP article & its many mirrored versions, NNDB, IMDB and a bunch of other unreliable user-edited sources. Laval (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Occupation

Most sources identify him as simply a "computer security consultant", which has been noted by many as more of a self-description. His status as a "threat analyst" is basically only on his Facebook/Twitter/LinkedIn. I've never seen him referred to as such in any legitimate/verifiable media. Laval (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edit. Please see Wikipedia guidelines for self-published sources (such as blogs, social media, etc) when such sources relate strictly to factual, NPOV information regarding an article about the writer:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ..."

If you have doubts or uncertainties about this topic, please feel free to consult another editor or post your concern on the BLP noticeboard.

Regards, — Adrian Lamo ·· 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I DO have doubts about this topic. WP:BLP says it's only okay to include citations from self-published sources if "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" and i have serious doubts of the authenticity of this. As such I have altered the page to "self-described analyst". Feel free to add a better citation. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The Adrian Lamo who post on wikipedia (and does not edit the main page because of the COI as the subject of the page) is the same Adrian Lamo who has the blog. Your doubt seems to imply that someone would create a pseudonymous editor account and website for the sole purpose of labelling the real peroson as a threat analyst here. Martinlc (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh i don't doubt it's the same adrian lamo, I just doubt that he's authentically a threat analyst. He's also described himself as a "journalist" without any evidence of publication, so If there's any third party source for his employment that doesn't come from his blog, feel free to cite it. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Lamo used to talk a lot about being bisexual and used this as a coercive way of getting Manning to trust him. This is not mentioned in this article or even recent media articles, so I assume Lamo no longer identifies as bi or LGBTQ? Laval (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What a bizarre assertion. Sexual orientation/identity isn't a subscription-based service - you don't have to renew it or lose it.

I'd already corrected the relevant category, but really couldn't not comment on how strange this notion is.

— Adrian Lamo ·· 18:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Manning Mention

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Changed names - the reference to Manning should be his rank and name at the time (i.e. Pfc. Bradley Manning). wikilinking to Chelsea Manning is preferred. Otherwise, if we ignore the MoS, we have a number of possible names at the time and currently. Chat name: bradass87, alter ego: Brianna Manning, at the time name: Bradley Manning, current name: Chelsea Manning. The MoS designates the "at the time" name for articles not about the subject. Wikilink to Chelsea is proper, not referring to past tense using "Chelsea" is not and why we have an MoS.--DHeyward (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Quora content

Removing mentions of participation on Quora and other sites is a misinterpretation of WP:RS. That applies to content that the article relies on, not material which it mentions that is biographically relevant to the subject*.

Further, even if parts of the article were to be predicated on Quora content (or other material written by the subject), this would be acceptable under WP:BLP provided that such parts were uncontroversial and made no claims about anyone other than the article subject.

Please review this answer[4], written by a Wikipedia admin, for more context.

In the absence of a clearly articulated policy to the contrary, I will be restoring the content in question after allowing a reasonable period for reply. If you have additional non-policy issues with this, please take them up at the admin noticeboard. Thank you for your interest in this article, and in improving Wikipedia.

• - Disclosure: In case it's not clear to other readers, I am the subject. I've edited my article in the past, but limited myself to factual, NPOV changes. I also didn't add the "social media" section in question, or the Quora link in the links section.

— Adrian Lamo ·· 17:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't care about your participation on Quora or other Services; be it Twitter or anything else. It is not important, not notable and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. You are free to use alternative outlets or your linked Web site should you wish to engage in self-promotion. A contributor's ramblings on external platforms also mean nothing -- also doesn't say what you present it as saying: Quora may be used as self-published primary sources per WP:V, not that we can spam-up articles with every possible social media platform associated with their subject. Rationale has already been explained to you: WP:ELNO, WP:COI; please do not restore the content as there is not consensus. -- dsprc ^[talk] 18:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Claim of being minister

Lamo described himself to Manning as (his words) "journalist and a minister" but I can't find any seminary attendance discussed here or elsewhere in his background. Unless he acquired credentials from Universal Life Church or similar. knoodelhed (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adrian Lamo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100918011521/http://pax.vox.com/library/post/citability-is-important.html to http://pax.vox.com/library/post/citability-is-important.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Adrian Lamo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Trivia section should be incorporated into main text. Badbilltucker 20:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Within the Wired magazine citation titled "Ex-Hacker Adrian Lamo Institutionalized for Asperger's", it is stated that "When Lamo was finally discharged to his parents’ house on May 7, he left the hospital with a new diagnosis. At 29 years old Lamo learned he has Asperger’s Disorder." As such, he was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome (AS), not Autism Spectrum Disorder or a Pervasive Developmental Disorder (other than AS). Wikipedia.org enjoys two related categories; WP "Category:People with Asperger syndrome" and WP "Category:People on the autism spectrum". If a WP subject was diagnosed with AS, the subject would be correctly categorized within WP "Category:People with Asperger syndrome". Categorizing the subject within WP "Category:People on the autism spectrum" as well would be redundant and overcategorization, and should be avoided.2001:558:6008:3B:39D3:6322:7F0B:D324 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Adrian Lamo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130107165111/http://www.wired.com:80/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/03/50811?currentPage=all to http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/03/50811?currentPage=all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130107165111/http://www.wired.com:80/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/03/50811?currentPage=all to http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/03/50811?currentPage=all
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203012838/http://adrian.lamo.org/ to http://adrian.lamo.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)