Talk:Carl DeMaio/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New allegations of inappropriate sexuality

A controversy has arisen with counter allegations by DeMaio and a recently terminated staffer. CFredkin carefully cherry picked the cited CNN article so it appears that DeMaio's accuser was at fault. In fact, a fair reading of the article would lead the reader to believe that it was DeMaio who was more likely to be lying. There is also no independent support for DeMaio's allegation of the alleged victim's responsibility for vandalism at the campaign office, and the police have done nothing about the case for four months since it's been reported. Here's an excerpt of the CNN article, but I would suggest reading the entire piece.

This is not the first time DeMaio has been accused of sexually inappropriate behavior. Last year, a fellow city councilman, Ben Hueso, said he twice caught DeMaio masturbating in a semi-private city hall restroom accessible only to city officials.

The Democrat declined an interview request, but councilwoman Marti Emerald said she learned about the 2009 incident immediately after Hueso witnessed it. On the way to the women's room, she said she literally bumped into Huseo as he exited the men's room across the hall. "He was furious; he looked like something serious had just happened," Emerald said. "He said DeMaio was in there (masturbating). And I said do you want to grab a police officer and have him arrested? Because this is a violation of the (city) code. He said no, but he was pretty upset." It's a claim DeMaio denied — even saying he took a polygraph test to support his denial, but he declined to provide the results to CNN. "This lie crossed the line. It's so gross. It's so untrue. It's so humiliating that it demands a response," DeMaio said last year. Bosnich also took an independent lie detector test to support his allegations, a copy of which Bosnich's attorney provided to CNN. The report said Bosnich's answers were "truthful" and found "no deception."

"It corroborated my account of being sexually harassed by Carl DeMaio," Bosnich said.

So, I believe my edit of CFredkin's remarks to be objective. Activist (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The most salient issue in DeMaio's current campaign is the allegation of sexual harassment. Ignoring it would be like ignoring former San Diego Mayor and Congressman Bob Filner's chronic harassment, that cost him his position, or Arnold Schwatzenegger's similar behavior. CFredkin excerpted facts from the source that he or she posted that were clearly intended to remove those allegations from any understandable context leaving only unconvincing denials or counter allegations from DeMaio. I restored those contextual elements of the story as below. I've highlighted the text that CFredkin removed with his altered text further below:

In October, the former campaign policy director to DeMaio's campaign charged DeMaio with sexual harassment, saying that DeMaio masturbated in front of him. Although DeMaio denied the allegation and claimed that it was made after the director had been terminated for plagiarism and subsequently vandalized a campaign office, the alleged victim passed a lie detector test and similar previous, credible and corroborated claims about DeMaio's behavior had been made in recent years.

CFredkin's version of the text, which I have undone, follows:

In October, the former campaign policy director to DeMaio's campaign charged DeMaio with sexual harassment, saying that DeMaio masturbated in front of him. DeMaio denied the allegation and claimed that it was made after the director had been terminated for plagiarism and subsequently vandalized a campaign office. The alleged victim passed a lie detector test.

Now the source story from CNN absolutely supports the edits I'd made. DeMaio was accused of publicly masturbating in the "restroom incident" (see discussion near the top of this page), which behavior was immediately communicated by the upset observer in 2009 to a female colleague, but details were not released publicly for some time. The terminated campaign policy director, who is also gay, accused DeMaio of persistent sexual harassment and denied the charges of both plagiarism and vandalism. He passed and released the results of a lie detector test about his version of the allegations. DeMaio claimed he took a lie detector test, but would not release the result. The terminated employee also claimed that he had been offered another county Republican political job when DeMaio had his involvement with the congressional campaign ended, but he turned it down. The allegation of vandalism was reported to police months ago, but no action was taken against anyone. DeMaio's recounting of the story has changed substantially and regularly. I can't imagine that any trier of facts, just given those contained in the CNN story, a source CFredkin provided, could come to a different conclusion. I assume, that despite the efforts of supporters such as John Boehner, that DeMaio's campaign at this point is kaput. The San Diego public understands that "no means no," no matter what the sexual preference of those involved, and they are sick of such behavior being displayed by their representatives. Wikipedia readers should not be deprived of those critical elements of the campaign narrative. Activist (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made the section more neutral, removing loaded language like "however" and "credible". I also provided separate sourcing for the earlier incident - what was deleted from the article earlier this year as an old/irrelevant story, but is now relevant again. Let's not get into an edit war over this, please. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin has added a lot more information about the earlier incident. I think it should be removed, for two reasons. One, I think it's TMI - undue weight. A single sentence for each of the two allegations - accuser said this; DeMaio denied it - should enough weight for these charges. Second, CFredkin's additions seem to have been cherry picked to make Hueso's case sound weaker, while ignoring the confirmation by a female City Council member that Hueso told her about the incident at the time. I intend to delete the two inconclusive sentences about Tony Young, although I suppose we can let stand the (somewhat exaggerated) claim that Hueso was a "political opponent". I will delete those two added sentences about Tony Young later today unless someone can come up with a valid reason for keeping them. I'm discussing it here first rather than simply reverting, and requesting others to do the same. --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought the "political opponent" phrase should definitely go, since it isn't attributed and makes the accusations appear to be false in an effort to smear said "opponent". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The first source states that DeMaio and Hueso had "sharp disagreements on many issues". The second source refers to them as "political opponents" in the first paragraph.CFredkin (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I read this as consensus/permission to delete the two sentences but keep "political opponent". Thank you all for discussing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

They were definitely political opponents, with little if any collegiality between them, I gather. (corrected signature) Activist (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

About the sentence "saying that DeMaio masturbated in front of him": According to the CNN source (which at this point appears to be the primary source for all other reporting), he didn't just say that, he also said that Demaio "grabbed his crotch", "massaging his neck", "groping him", "inappropriate touching". To me those are serious enough allegations - the accusation of actually touching or handling him sexually, not just masturbating in front of him - to include in the sentence in some way. Such as "saying that DeMaio touched him inappropriately and masturbated in front of him" or "saying that DeMaio groped him and masturbated in front of him". Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the radio interview, place on line by San Diego City Beat, preceded the CNN interview by many months. It was recorded on June 2, 2014. (corrected signature) Activist (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Are there other reliable sources other than CNN, which is just left of center in their political reporting IMHO? These are serious allegations, and per WP:BLP, we should have multiple reliable sources (preferably not biased sources) to verify these allegations. Furthermore, we should emphasis that these are allegations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no verification that it happened; this is a matter of he-said-he-said, just allegations, each person calling the other a liar. CNN had the previous aide's interview, so to this point they seem to be the only outlet that has his version of "he said." And so that is what CNN verifies: the fact that he said it. That will probably change as other news outlets start digging and both sides give out more interviews and information. However, I think we should not follow the story blow-by-blow, but let it remain as a little 2-sentence item unless it really becomes a big mainstream deal. I think the fact that these are just allegations is clear enough; DeMaio's denial is right there in the same sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing "left of center about CNN." I must admit that for its first 25 years I only watched Challenger disaster coverage from the home of friends. Left? Think Robert Novak, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Mona Charen. I was in Atlanta in hospital waiting room when first news of the Murrah building bombing aired. The announcer said that "Arab terrorists were seen in the neighborhood." I was appalled. I said that it was the second anniversary of Waco, that a white supremacist was to be put to death that night for the murder of an Arkansas State trooper, and I'd be very careful to jump to such a stupid and irresponsible conclusion and asked if CNN had spotted those "terrorists" riding camels or wearing burnooses. Those in the waiting room agreed with me. As far as DeMaio's denials, they seem to me to be as transparent as "I did not have sex with that woman." I should note that I have a life and have been away from the computer for hours, but per CFredkin's taunt, and before MelanieN's advice, I referred the matter to a noticeboard for the first time in my eight years on Wikipedia. I neglected to include one editor in the above discussion, but did include CFredkin, MelanieN and Champaign_Supernova on my posting to the Noticeboard. I've got to leave for another two hours, but will return to follow up immediately afterward. (corrected signature) Activist (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

ChampaignSupernova reverted my provision of the URL for the 27 minute interview with talk show host Matt Slater on conservative San Diego radio. I listened to the interview twice, made three pages of notes. I provided numerous citations in the 2014 section of the article in response to comments made by other editors for additional sourcing. This has become perhaps the most important issue in the campaign, and to ignore it or to treat it in a cavalier fashion would be a discredit to Wikipedia. It is as important a political issue in this congressional district as Bill Clinton's extreme indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky were nationally. I would suggest that anyone who is uncomfortable with my revert, please listen to the audio, provided by San Diego City Beat, the largest circulation paper perhaps in the city, outside of the U-T San Diego (the former San Diego Union Tribune). DeMaio's current accuser expressed his concern for the integrity of the party. I would add that John Boehner's previously scheduled appearance at the DeMaio fundraiser last week was reported as "poorly attended," in local media, leading a disinterested observer to conclude that this DeMaio campaign is effectively over. Activist (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

If anyone would like it, I would be happy to provide the time at which any particular issue or occurrence was discussed in Slater's interview with Bosnich, so that an editor would not have to sit through the entire audio recording. Just make the request. Also, Bosnich reported that he and even his mother have been besieged with emails attacking him, which Bosnich believes have originated with DeMaio's "open relationship" partner, Jonathan. Bosnich's voiced a legitimate concern that DeMaio's unrestrained sexual improprieties will discredit the party just as Filner discredited Democrats. (corrected signature) Activist (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe it would be undue to include links to interviews with his accuser with accusations that are as yet unsubstantiated.CFredkin (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not unsubstantiated at all. I provided the actual audio URL for the extensive and probing interview that Bosnich did with a conservative talk station in San Diego, extremely convincing in my estimation, and there have been many references to him providing details such as email documentation, names of parties who were witnesses to behavior, etc. Bosnich compares DeMaio to Anthony Weiner as well. He is clearly a loyal and dedicated Republican who is concerned about the reputation of his party and his disillusionment is palpable. I recognize that you seem to have a job to do, noting a couple of weeks ago that you had done some 3,700 posts almost entirely to high profile and competitive political races, with a few issue posts sprinkled in between. At one point I think you made 17 edits in two hours. I'd be happy to review your record in far greater depth, if that's what you choose. I expect I could unearth a likely campaign client list. I'd be willing to bet that you're salaried, hourly or being paid per post, given your history, and also that you've used sock puppets. On the other hand, I don't see anything like the same sort of evidence that other editors posting on many of the pages that you have edited, such as ChampaignSupernova or MelanieN, have a similar role. It is my strong opinion that you are the poster child for editorial conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. I challenge you to tell us whom your employer is. I also note that you challenged my edits to a what is actually a very "he said, she said" situation on the Bruce Braley article and talk page, defending your edits regarding an extremely picayune issue in that race. I also went, at both your urging and by random request directed to me by Wikipedia, that I visit the Joni Ernst article, where you had made 47 edits as of a week or two ago, and found it to be apparently NPOV. (corrected signature) Activist (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Similar content has already been discussed above and removed for being undue.CFredkin (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I would urge any good faith editors, to consider carefully, individually, each of the deletions that CFredkin has made, to evaluate the propriety or impropriety of those edits, to forestall the possibility that you might be drawn into an edit war in the absence of such consideration. For instance, start with CFredkin's removal of any mention of the of the June 2nd interview, replacing it with his or her sanitized digest of the single source that you or others have requested as to the need for additional sourcing to make a determination about legitimacy. You will come to the conclusion, I'm guessing, that indeed CFredkin is actually carefully scouring from Wikipedia or calling into question any and all negative, well documented facts regarding his or her employer's possible clients. There is no question that CFredkin is an accomplished editor. However, "good faith" seems to be foreign to him or her. Activist (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult to keep track of what's going on here because of the length of this exchange, but a few points:

• Activist, if you have legitimate concerns about the conduct of CFredkin, you should pursue them in the appropriate form. This talk page is not the place to do it. You should go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. On this talk page, let's focus on the content at hand.
• Let's all seek to build consensus here and take a breather from making edits to the article until we've achieved a workable consensus.
• A variety of allegations have surfaced in regards to DeMaio. We need to tread lately since these are allegations, and they are being hurled in both directions. We need to adhere to WP:BLP and ensure any content is well-sourced per WP:RS and handled with appropriate weight per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. This is an encyclopedia article and not a campaign news source. Keeping all relevant policies in mind, can someone please craft suggested text for incorporating these new allegations into the article, and post that suggested text here so we can discuss? Champaign Supernova (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Content regarding these allegations has already been added to the article and has been under discussion for some time.CFredkin (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you,Champaign Supernova, for your calming words. Both Activist and CFredkin are in danger of a 3RR block. Activist, you are in the wrong, for adding material without consensus, and much more so for continuing to re-add it. At this point, the consensus above seems to be that the due weight for these allegations is a couple of sentences, and that we are NOT going to keep expanding the story and adding every detail that emerges. That's based on how Reliable Sources are treating the issue - at this point, they are reporting the story calmly and as he-said-he-said allegations without screaming headlines. There is no evidence that this issue will be the deciding factor in the race; if such evidence emerges we can expand our coverage then. And if that happens there will be plenty of Reliable Sources to quote, rather than a never-aired radio interview with the same accuser. Also, Activist, your comments about CFredkin's editing style, and in particular your accusation that he is employed by the politicians he write about (what, all of them??), is way out of line.

CFredkin, I also gave you a 3RR warning, even though you were enforcing what appears to be the consensus here, because you reverted the addition three times. 3RR does not allow an exception for being sure you are right, and the additional details posted here did not approach BLP problems. If Activist adds the material a fourth time, I suggest you hold off and let someone else revert it (while Activist gets reported). --MelanieN (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And to answer your question, Champaign, about suggested text for adding "new allegations": I suggest that we NOT add the stuff about the supposed non-disclosure agreement and the supposed job offer; those seem both unsustantiated and unimportant. The touching and groping allegations are not new; they were right there in the CNN report. Above I suggested (but nobody responded) that we change the current sentence "saying that DeMaio masturbated in front of him," because I think the allegations of actual inappropriate contact - sexual battery in effect - are important enough to include. At the same time I favor keeping the item to a couple of sentences. My suggestions were "saying that DeMaio touched him inappropriately and masturbated in front of him" or "saying that DeMaio groped him and masturbated in front of him". Both are directly from the CNN source; I prefer the latter. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that this is one of the most hotly contested races in the nation, I am not surprised that edit warring over this allegation is occurring. That being said this Wikipedia article should not become an article used to attack the subject, nor should every allegation be included and make it like a coat rack for the subject's political opponents. That being said, while the allegations have received coverage locally, it should be treated as an event and as such, I am curious whether it meets WP:PERSISTENCE. Regardless, it should be neutrally worded, brief, well cited, and not favor nor degenerate the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I just went to the U-T San Diego site and did a search on the name "Todd Bosnich." The U-T completely ignored this story until less than a week ago, not surprising considering their support for DeMaio. However, back on May 14th, four days before Bosnich putatively pleaded with DeMaio campaign manager Tommy Knepper to try to get Carl to control his harrassing behavior, the U-T published this LTE:

Supports DeMaio’s effort on pensions

I remember how Carl DeMaio started reports to bring the pension abuses at City Hall to public light. I’m absolutely thrilled that he intends to continue to shine a light on outrageous and wasteful spending as he heads to Congress (“DeMaio highlights 102 pensioners in Congress,” May 13). His latest effort helps expose members of Congress who are on the take at our expense by collecting full salaries and full government pensions simultaneously. Rep. Scott Peters, who is ranked the sixth-richest member of Congress, should be ashamed he made the list.

Todd Bosnich Del Mar

So, for a timeline, how's this? May 12, 2014 outed for plagiarizing a year-old Nation Journal story, right down to the color scheme and intact typos, DeMaio apologizes and says he doesn't "throw his campaign team under the bus." (The DeMaio campaign accuses Peters of double dipping, despite its awareness that Peters donates his entire pension to city libraries plus he throws in $5,000 more,, per year, and 20% of all Congresspersons take previously earned pensions when they're collecting congressional salaries. DeMaio's lampooned locally, i.e., in the San Diego Free Press, for his assertions.) http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/carl-demaio-apologizes-for-lifted-pension-report-20140512 The National Journal is not really upset over the plagiarism. http://scoopsandiego.com/news/local/demaio-called-out-for-deception-and-plagiarism/article_81d917d2-da37-11e3-bf23-0017a43b2370.html May 14th, Bosnich's LTE published by the U-T on the 15th. May 18th, Bosnich allegedly pleads with campaign manager Tommy Knepper about DeMaio's harassment. May 19th, Bosnich has email demonstrating he's still on the job. Later, May 19th, Bosnich is informed by Knepper that he's fired, but allegedly is offered and refuses a non-DeMaio campaign county party job, plus $50,000 for keeping his mouth shut. May 28, campaign office vandalized, variously reporting nothing was stolen, or gas credit cards were stolen. Despite trashed computers and a modem, the office is up and running a few hours later. (When is the police report filed, and does it mention Bosnich?) June 2nd, Bosnich interview with Slater. June 3rd, jungle primary: DeMaio finishes second with 34% or so of the vote. Four months later, CNN interview. Afterward DeMaio alleges that Bosnich was fired for plagiarism, burglary (for which the police reported right away that there were TWO suspects, nothing proven). (Bus, meet Bosnich.) U-T, after 5+ month determined silence, finally does a story, very pro-DeMaio. No police action is taken about any allegations, including harassment, as they depend on D.A. filing charges. D.A. is a long time, very close reciprocal fundraising, endorsing ally of DeMaio. Anything else editors would like to know? Activist (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM, this is not the place to advance allegations against the subject. While there are blogs, and other things about this allegation, this article is about an active politician and living person, as such WP:BLP must be taken into account. The claim about the DA has zero weight here, scoopsandiego has no zero weight here.

This needs to stop.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Activist, please take this stuff to a political blog. It has nothing to do with this encyclopedia article we are trying to write and maintain. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you on the basis that we are here to improve an article, and if an editor is knowledgeable on the article's subject, we should thank him for his efforts in providing information that can make the article better. Now, if any of the information he provided is not supported by sourced, I would agree that it needs to stop. @Activist: can you provide a list of sources supporting your chronology? If so, that would be very useful so that we can evaluate how to include in the article some of that material. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Most, if not all the info that I compiled for the chronology is already sourced on this TALK page. I can provide a source for any particular date for which you'd care to have one. I should also note, that this is not a battle for a seat between liberal and conservative candidates. Peters (and there are a fairly small number of posts on his article during his entire tenure) is considerably less liberal than mainstream Democrats, just as DeMaio is considerably less conservative than mainstream Republicans. Neither has a record that would particularly attract party partisans. If you'd like to point to one or more dates for which you would like me to provide sourcing, I'd be glad to provide them. I often went from articles linked from one source to another, and I think the San Diego Free Press might be the only source I didn't provide as I was directed to it by links to it, and from those the FP provided to that blog. I should also say that I've only become vaguely aware of DeMaio's candidacy very recently, hearing his name perhaps twice in the national news before coming to the article. Similarly, I was rather unaware of Peters' record and history. I was a lot more familiar with his predecessor Bilbray's in years past because he was a very high profile officeholder. Activist (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See WP:ATTACKPAGE, this article should not devolve into that. Adding neutrally worded, well sourced, balanced content is one thing, piling onto the subject because they are in a highly competitive race, where lots of money is spent, is entirely another.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What must be included?

"masturbated in front of him" is not enough. Groping, corroboration by the other council member, the allegation of vandalism as justification for firing -- they are all important facts. I think everything is present in the current revision except groping. Thundermaker (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That would be undue IMHO, and I would not support going into further detail into the accusation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of that is UNDUE, but the groping should be included IMO. I continue to want a sentence like "saying that DeMaio touched him inappropriately and masturbated in front of him" or "saying that DeMaio groped him and masturbated in front of him".

Somebody added a sentence that certain Republicans have not withdrawn their endorsements following the accusations. Well, duh! I think that is trivial and should be removed. In fact I will remove it (per BRD) while we discuss here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is superfluous.CFredkin (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And somebody has added it back. I don't want to remove it a second time, anyone else care to? --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with the extended language, and I don't want to be seen as edit warring, as that is what appears to be occurring. Perhaps we should go to WP:1RR, take everything to the talk page, and actually, don't add anything to the article until it has reached consensus. This page appears to becoming a battleground, which makes sense given that both parties are throwing a lot of money into this campaign, increasing its attention. And has been the case, from what I have seen during past elections, the non-liberal candidate is usually more often the target of most of the mud being slung, and edits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"New Generation"

For all the newly added negative to the subject content being pushed here, I am not seeing much positive content, or neutral content, being added. For instance what of this "new generation" tag being used about the subject, including by CNN? Should this be added? Or would that not be neutral?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the links on that page are partisan, including an endorsement editorial from the U-T, a DeMaio TV ad, and the DeMaio website itself. To me this is a political slogan which has not become a general label or recognized group. --MelanieN (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the article does not actually contain "all the newly added negative to the subject content". Thanks to a consensus here at the talk page against WP:UNDUE, the only "newly added negative content" in the article consists of a short paragraph detailing the fact that an allegation has been made and that DeMaio has denied it. --MelanieN (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

POV editing

Just thought editors should be aware that Todd Bosnich said on twitter today that he made a few edits on relevant pages with both registered and anon accounts.

Also, wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea to archive much of this page at this point Its a bit long XinJeisan (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Verrrry interesting! Because I see that last January I called out an anonymous poster for what appeared to be biased editing [1], and reminded them about the earlier negative publicity when DeMaio staffers edited Wikipedia. Although my note was to an IP, VickieJR replied, insisting they didn't work for either campaign.[2] So much for that claim - that was actually Todd Bosnich, a DeMaio campaign aide. (We're not outing him - he outed himself.) Apparently DeMaio was still trying to use his people to manipulate this article, as recently as last January. VickieJR made a couple of POV edits in January but then backed off; their only subsequent edit, in May, was a legitimate correction.

I think you are right about archiving some of the older stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just set up automatic archiving. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and then there's this! --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the allegations made by Todd Bosnich, a former campaign aide and the individual who made the sexual harassment allegations in the past (potentially sufficient significant coverage reliable sources to warrant an article on themselves), against the subject of this article, I take anything stated by the subject, or edits by the subject with a huge grain of salt, while maintaining good faith.

Personally I think it is another attempt to sling mud at the subject of this article in this highly contested election.

As for people who are employed by the campaign attempting to edit this article, the best thing I think, would be inform them of COI, revert their edit, and tell them to bring their edit suggestions here, allow non COI individuals to work with them, as they can be seen as biased SMEs, and useful for the info gleaned from them, so that any content added is not POV and is neutrally worded as policy demands (if added at all).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

At least there IS confirmation that someone using the username VickieJR made a number of pro-DeMaio, anti-Peters POV edits. So at least that part of what Bosnich tweeted appears to be the truth. As for how to handle editors who are employed by the campaign: when I suggested at the time that VickieJR might have a COI, based on their editing pattern, they flatly denied it. If someone is going to lie about their COI, we can't insist that they act like a COI editor. Although the independent press may be able to expose them, as was done here in 2011. --MelanieN (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Now That The Election Is Over...

1. @RightCowLeftCoast: I see you deleted all info about the 2014 election from the lead per recentism. An alternative approach is that wins and losses are typically the most notable elements of a politician's life, and therefore wins and losses typically deserve (brief) space in the intro. Indeed, this page had DeMaio's loss to Filner as part of the intro for a very long time (see, e.g., your old revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_DeMaio&oldid=561878574). I'm gonna take a stab at this by reverting to a combination of (a) the old Filner language from your old revision and (b) a slimmed-down bit about the recent election. If you disagree, let's see if we can get some input from others before edit warring...KFM2 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The election results aren't required in the lead, that is the percentages. In other politic ans pages, that is a separate section, cited to reliable sources, about election results including percentages and vote counts for both primary and general elections. See Dianne Feinstein#Electoral history for example.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

[RCLC, I broke up your comment to new bullets below.] Re intro, I hear you as saying that you are okay with election wins/losses in the lead (because your own example of Diane Feinstein clearly notes her 1990 gubernatorial loss in the lead), but you think the exact percentages are excessive, right? If so, I agree and I'll go ahead and make that change soon unless anyone weighs in otherwise.KFM2 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Re sexual misconduct allegations/political positions:KFM2 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why expand the content regarding sexual allegations, and remove a quote of the subject of this article? I know that the election is over, but lets not allow this article to devolve into an article that portrays a negative image of the subject; see WP:NEU.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to make it read a little better. I'll try to hit each of your points in turn:

Re: Removed quote: I think you are referring to the DeMaio quote in the Political Positions section about his opponent, right? I removed that because DeMaio's characterization of his "opponent" feels ambiguous now that the election is over and, more importantly, it doesn't seem to be doing any work in the section. If DeMaio's position on the ACA really is defined as opposition to some nebulous "opponent," then shouldn't we specify the "opponent" by name? If not, then let's just state DeMaio's view of the ACA, not his characterization of a previous opponent in a previous race.KFM2 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Expansion of Misconduct: I added the touching part for completeness because touching someone's groin is a sexual assault, which goes well beyond mere visual harassment. I added details about the third allegation to make it conform with the level of detail used for the 1st and 2nd allegations. If you have specific concerns about particular phrases, can you identify them here one-by-one and we'll fix them together?KFM2 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Undue negativity: I don't think the article is in danger of suffering from undue negativity because much of the text comes directly from the DeMaio campaigns (both 2012 and 2014). I agree with you completely that the allegations should be presented in a npov and neutral light. I note that DeMaio himself said that the allegations were notable enough to be the deciding factor of the race, so they do deserve to be presented squarely, IMO.KFM2 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I am on wiki break and can't do extensive editing, but I agree with most of KFM2's suggestions. I would also remove the Filner race percentages from the lead. Also I think "--and Navy veteran--" should be deleted, it is irrelevant except for the POV effect of strengthening the accuser's credibility. MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This soap opera goes on. Now Bosnich had a spat with him mom, misreported as him pushing a female police officer. Also, he had the missing campaign strategy book in his possession and gave it to the Peters campaign. Despite all that, from listening to the audio of the original allegations made in a recorded interview against DeMaio back in June, but never aired, I think the charges were probably legitimate, as were DeMaio's suspicion that Bosnich had something to do with the break in. However, Harper, the young vet who was obviously traumatized by DeMaio's lascivious actions, got an outstanding recommendation on his departure from the campaign, but months later, after he confirmed his allegations on the record, the campaign claimed the guy had been fired. The guy's ex-girl friend, who also worked on the campaign, said that the allegations that Bosnich had been fired for plagiarism were untrue. It has not been mentioned on this TALK page, but there was a very close political alliance between DeMaio and both the police and the district attorney, one which would lead one to believe that the D.A. was not likely to pursue charges against DeMaio, no matter how strong the evidence behind the accusations. The Hueso allegation had strong corroboration, in the person of the woman who was there right outside the restroom at the time of the City Council incident. With DeMaio's loss, I expect the country has ducked the likelihood of another Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Mark Foley, Eric Massa, type incident with an active member of congress. Activist (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I am very upset by the temerity of "Cow's" hiding of my germane comments on this page. My edit was not made to the article in question, but the facts pertinent to the subject and added material not found elsewhere in the TALK page. The edit was to expand the scope of the efforts at consensus editing of the article. Efforts at sanitizing articles in which the subjects' are conservatives or reactionaries is one thing, but censoring legitimate comments of another editor on a TALK are way over the top, in my estimation. If the scrubber wants to refer this to an administrators' page, I am quite comfortable with that and would hope other editors would address the matter here. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman 18:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:NOTFORUM, statements like

With DeMaio's loss, I expect the country has ducked the likelihood of another Larry Craig, Ed Schrock, Mark Foley, Eric Massa, type incident with an active member of congress.

has no place on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the formerly hidden comment has several original research opinions unverified by reliable sources. The opinion of editors of the subject of this article should not impact the content of the article, which appears to be what is being advocated by Activist. Therefore accusations of the "close political alliance" has no place in the article, Hueso's accusation has already been covered in the article, the opinions of the ex-girlfriend of an accuser IMHO does not have sufficient weight to be placed in this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agreed with hiding the material, since it violates the instructions at the top of the page. But if Activist insists on keeping it we can do that; the only real harm it does is to expose Activist as a POV warrior who does not understand how Wikipedia works. Now, let's ignore these comments, since they are "general discussion about the subject" rather than "discussion about improving the article ". Activist, I need to warn you that posting this kind of argumentation, even to the talk page, is disruptive in both style and content. If you persist in it, you could be reported for a possible "topic ban" from this article to prevent future disruption. MelanieN (talk),