Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision

A detail to attend to

It is important, I think, to distinguish between the abstract view that there were irregularities in 2004 and the specific view that X is an irregularity in 2004. The dispute is more accurately described as a flurry of instances of the latter issue, leading to a large scale POV problem through the aggregation of it all.

Also, while it's clear that there is no formula for NPOV issues (thank God), that does not preclude the possibility that having twice as much coverage of a minority viewpoint of an issue as coverage on the rest of the issue combined can reasonably be taken as prima facie a POV trainwreck. Phil Sandifer 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The possibility cannot be precluded, but to take that as a general principle would be exceedingly silly. Perhaps the most sensible action would be to add more verifiable coverage about the "majority" viewpoint, rather than to remove coverage of the "minority" viewpoints. That's how UFO and Global warming have both been handled, and I think the readers benefit from a full exploration in those, and many other, cases.

Or is it the case that your attempts to cover the "majority" viewpoint have been censored? If so, I'd be very happy to support its inclusion, and I'm sure an RFC on that issue would gather very wide support. Derex 01:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, and removing everything that can't be tracked to a mainstream, reliable source would be good. Phil Sandifer 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, reliable, certainly. What's mainstream? Derex 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what you said a week ago regarding information you wanted Wikipedia to include, Phil.[1] -- noosphere 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to rethink whether you really want to move this matter away from the issues surrounding these articles and into an in-depth analysis of people's desires and motivations on Wikipedia. It is my suspicion that, in fact, you do not want the debate to turn to those matters. However, if you are going to pursue ad hominem attacks on me that ignore aspects of my argument, I will go see what I can find about your general conduct. Up to you on what you want this case to be about. Phil Sandifer 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil, I am completely uninterested in your motivations. What I am interested is the apparent inconsistency in the standards you espouse. One day you're all up in arms about Wikipedia only using "mainstream sources", and decrying blogs. The next day blogs are quite acceptable, as are non-mainstream, local papers. Can you explain this discrepancy? And, while you're at it, please clarify what "ad-hominem attack" you're talking about. I see no attack period, ad-hominem or otherwise. I just want to point out the apparent discrepancy in your standards. Do you consider drawing attention to this discrepancy an attack? -- noosphere 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox

The meaning of the "Soapbox" principle proposed by Fred, is quite unclear to me.

Wikipedia is not a proper forum for extensive presentation of a viewpoint regarding a contemporary political controversy.

Are the key words here "a viewpoint regarding", meaning the controversy can be discussed but not notable views about it? Or is the key word "a", as in "a [single] viewpoint" rather than multiple viewpoints? Or does the proposal indicate that contemporary political controversies should not be covered at all, or perhaps just in a cursory, non-"extensive", fashion?

The official policy referenced, WP:SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, doesn't say anything at all about contemporary or political controversies. Rather, it directly prohibits advocacy, self-promotion, and advertising. If "presentation" is construed as "advocacy" then this makes sense, but that seems like a fine line. Certainly, "documentation" of a notable and verifiable viewpoint should be ok, or no?

It's not clear to me how neutral and verifiable coverage of a contemporary controversy, including notable viewpoints, might run afoul of WP:NOT or its Soapbox section. No criticism intended, it's just that I honestly don't understand which interpretation is intended.

— Derex, not a party to this case.

Derex 00:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "extensive presentation of a viewpoint" is ambiguous. Is there a way to express the principle so that it's more clear which situations it applies to? TheronJ 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary of knowledge?

Fred Bauder has proposed that "Wikipedia articles are a summary of generally accepted knowledge regarding a subject." I am concerned about this phrasing, since who gets to determine what "generally acceepted knowledge" is, and how are we to figure that out?

Does it mean that "most people" (meaning a majority of people) accept that knowledge? A majority of who? Americans? The world population? If either one of those were the measure then most Wikipedia articles would not exist, since most people don't of know much less accept their subject matter (say, predicate calculus, or the Polish-Soviet War, the latter of which was a featured article).

And, anyway, how are we as editors supposed to measure what the majority accepts? Are we to rely on polls of the public? If so, it should be mentioned that no such polls regarding majority opinion have been offered in respect to the content of the articles in question in this arbcom case.

Finally, I should like to make clear that by voting on which viewpoint is "generally accepted", arbcom would be making a decision about content. -- noosphere 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A related issue is what constitutes a "summary". I've found that one man's summary is another man's censorship. One strategy to keep a balance is to spin off daughter articles on specialized topics. These can provide a more detailed analysis for those interested in the details, while not interrupting the flow of the main article. This hierarchical strategy was actually suggested by arbcom in the John Kerry matter two years ago. This group of articles seems to be organized in a similar fashion. Rather than limiting an article to a summary, one should ask whether a separate daughter article could pass AFD. If not, then perhaps the details should be cut. In other words, the right reference is not detail relative to some broader article, but notability of the details themselves. A reasonable test is to actually place such an article on AFD. Derex 22:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. If the result of the AfD is to delete or merge, I'm perfectly fine with that, since it has been determined through proper process. But to decree a priori that there can't be sub-articles or that they must only exist in summary would be wrong, and a content ruling to boot. -- noosphere 22:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's Editing recommendation

I am concerned that by consolidating and summarizing the content of the articles a lot of important content will be lost. WP:NOT says, "some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc." and it encourages splitting the article up as a "natural part of growth for a topic." -- noosphere 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not to say I'm against summarizing. That is certainly a healthy thing to do. What I am against is eliminating otherwise perfectly good content. Of course, as the main article grows unweildy the detail should go in to sub-articles, and be appropriately summarized in the main article. But why delete perfectly good content from the sub-articles? -- noosphere 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, ruling on how the articles should be layed-out is a ruling on content. -- noosphere 22:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I got your summary right here:

The articles in Wikipedia are lengthy, go into great detail, and are divided into a number of sub-articles.

:-P

71.132.143.70 10:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"POV fork"

I object to referring to these articles as "POV forks". Wikipedia:Content forking says, "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy." (emphasis mine) -- noosphere 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

'in defense of the current state of the articles'

Seems an inaccurate and rather unfair choice of words. Speaking for myself, I do not defend the state of ANY Wikipedia article. I only assert that if there are problems, that they be discussed and addressed in specific, and then edited accordingly. Slapping tags and calling for bans without discussing specifics or making an effort at editing, or mediation, is not following the appropriate wiki process. The state of the article is, like everything on a wiki, always in a state of change. I do not defend this article at all from valid, specific, factually-based and informative edits. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

One editor 'supported' another

As a good friend pointed out, Fred Bauder's post that the editors 'supported' one another does indeed go directly against Individual responsibility. Is the point to somehow make the editors mutually accountable for one anothers' actions? To propose that these editors share the same 'beliefs'? Is that the purpose? I'm unclear what is being 'alleged' here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is a complete distortion of my position. I do not, as Kevin Baas is alleged to believe, that "the significance of the subject matter of the articles is sufficient to over-ride Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy". I simply do not support Kevin Baas on this. And yet that's what the characterization of my position implies. -- noosphere 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet, you continue to defend the article in its present bloated state. Fred Bauder 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I do, because Wikipedia is not paper. This is part of the WP:NOT policy, as I'm sure you know, which states "After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic" and "since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc."

Then there's Wikipedia:Content fork, which says "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure"

Furthermore, to call the article "bloated" is to make a ruling on content, which arbcom is not supposed to do.

I'm sure you know all this, and I don't need to quote policy to you. So I am confused as to why you continue to maintain that the articles should contain less content than they presently do. -- noosphere 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be a time to pause and consider the possibility that you are wrong. Recognizing this possibility and acting upon it can often prevent undesirable outcomes. Phil Sandifer 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I will consider that I am wrong when a Wikipedia policy is brought to my attention that says articles aren't allowed to get "bloated", and a policy that says that arbcom can declare by fiat which articles are "bloated" (ie. rule on content). -- noosphere 22:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, I should make clear that I support editing the article down from the current size of 80kb to the recommended size of 32k, while moving the deleted information out in to sub-articles.

However, this is not what has been recommended. What has been recommended has been the reverse: eliminating the sub-articles, and summarizing the information in the sub-articles in to the main article, which would mean deleting existing information in the main article to make room for the summaries. All in all, it would mean eliminating a lot of content.

This is, first and foremost, a content ruling on arbcom's part. Second, it goes contrary to the policies I quoted above. -- noosphere 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Noosphere's position as described in the proposed decision

The proposed decision only describes my position in regards to the article and in regards to Kevin Baas' actions. It mentions absolutely nothing on the issues I brought up regarding Philip Sandifer's behavior in the dispute and this arbcom case. Therefore the description of my position in this case is incomplete. -- noosphere 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That is because I agree with Philip Sandifer and believe his complaints are valid. He may not have been totally cool, but I see no basis for a negative sanction against him. Fred Bauder 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has been clear that you agreed with Phil regarding the articles since long before this case ever started. But sanctions or not we should be clear on what actually happened. So it would be only proper to address Phil's behavior as it has been detailed by the parties in this case on the evidence page and in the workshop. Thank you. -- noosphere 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding process

Are the parties involved in the dispute allowed to add their own proposals to this page? Or are we only allowed to add them to the workshop? -- noosphere 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Workshop. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Circumvention of process in this arbcom case?

In the instructions on this page it says, "After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here." Yet many of these proposals have never so much as been on the Workshop page, much less discussed there. So the involved parties are not being given a chance to have a threaded discussion with the arbitrators regarding these proposals.

Furthermore, some of the proposals on the Workshop, most notably the one proposal made by a party in this case (the Individual responsibility proposal) has not been moved to this page for voting. -- noosphere 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitrators decide on the process to be followed in arbitration, subject to the Arbitration Policy. Workshops were added to the process by the arbitrators last year as a means of encouraging other users to help them with the analysis of evidence and drafting the proposed decision. That is to say, it is intended primarily to help the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitrators are not required to discuss their proposals with non-arbitrators. They may decide to add proposals to this page by themselves. If you want to start a discussion about any of the proposals, you may do so here or (though this may not be ideal) on the talk page of an arbitrator. Or in email. Arbitrators may choose to respond to clarify their decisions and may alter their decisions as a result of comments or alternative proposals on the Workshop page. (Speaking with my clerk hat on here). --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. -- noosphere 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't panic

I have tried an innovative approach in this case. What the other arbitrators with make of it is not at all determined. Please make comments here for them to read about the proposed decisions. Fred Bauder 20:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to imply their minds have been made up on this case prior to hearing it. However, you certainly seem to have taken the initiative in this case. You were the only one to put proposals and comments in the workshop. Yours are the only proposals on this page. And yet you were the only arbitrator to be asked to recuse himself due to an expression of bias. So it's interesting that despite this expression of bias you are the one deciding the wording of the findings and remedies of this case. I hope the rest of the arbitrators take this in to account. -- noosphere 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am similarly very troubled that this ArbCom case is so 'innovative' in so many ways, from bypassing mediation to openly considering content matters to the creation of brand new policies, to say nothing of all this having been done by an Arbitrator who has expressed a prior bias to do exactly as is being done. I am really trying to maintain faith in the process, here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least he hasn't proposed banning us outright, yet. But it's clear that the decision is shaping up to be that if we oppose Phil gutting this article in the future we will get banned. -- noosphere 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All, I suppose, will do what they feel is right. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see if you can't work together and improve the article. It is very very long and detailed. Fred Bauder 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am (and others here) have been imploring Phil to actually work on the article (as an editor, without threatening other users with blocks, tag warring, etc.) on specifics... nothing in that regard has changed. Phil hasn't made an effort to work together at all, seeking any means other than work. And yet we're the ones here with a case brought to the ArbCom! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred, could you us tell more specifically what you would like done to improve the article? -- noosphere 20:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And could you specifically address Phil's behavior (as we've detailed on the evidence page and in the workshop) in the dispute, and during the arbcom case? -- noosphere 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think, based on the nature of your claims about my behavior, which seem more accurately described as claims about the arbcom case, the only real rulings they could offer are either to make rulings against you or to not. That is, I don't see what you've brought up here that could possibly be taken as actionable. Phil Sandifer 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the actions can be decided on we should be clear on what happened in this case. The rulings that follow should be based on the facts. If some of the findings of fact are omitted then the rulings can't be appropriate to the case. -- noosphere 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the ruling indicates that the arbitrators thus far do not agree with your judgments stemming from your understanding of the facts. These things often happen. Phil Sandifer 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So far, the ruling indicates that the arbitrators have only seen fit to vote on the findings of fact and other proposals put forth by Fred Bauder (the one arbitrator who has been asked to recuse himself because of an expressed bias), and have ignored the proposals put forth by other parties in this dispute. I hope, for Wikipedia's sake, that this does not often happen in other arbcom cases. -- noosphere 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred's innovation is to not even make a pretense that he's giving a fair hearing to all parties. Like it or lump it, Arbitrator Bauder is acting as Phil's advocate, not as a disinterested judge. This despite having been asked to recuse himself precisely because the opposing parties feared Fred couldn't or wouldn't be impartial. But, if you refuse to genuflect and call Fred's innovation "justice", he'll accuse you of not showing good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.30.242.135 (talk • contribs) .

I thank you for your comments on this case. However, you are not doing anyone any favors by airing people's dirty laundry when 1) it has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and 2) it wasn't even done on or related to Wikipedia. All this is going to do is make people angry. -- noosphere 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to Fred for any distress I caused him. Since Fred himself discussed his censure and suspension on Wikipedia when he last ran for re-election to the Arbitration Committee, and since it's part of the public record in Colorado, I figured it was public knowledge here. But Fred sees it differently, and I really am sorry I brought it up. I brought it up only because, like Fred's innovations in this case and his refusal to recuse himself, it illustrates a pattern of deviating from accepted judicial procedures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.30.242.135 (talk • contribs) .

Hm... if you were HushThis, you'd be more hysterically anti-me. And less apologetic. So either blissy2u or sgrayban. sgrayban is too anti-Fred, so I figure blissy2u. I'll put $10 on it - any takers? Phil Sandifer 06:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's Jimbo. -- noosphere 07:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What to do with the article

It should reflect the material which has been published on the subject and be reasonably brief and understandable. And as it is pretty sure Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s article is based on our article, not just be a repetition of that. Fred Bauder 21:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's 'pretty sure'. I'd call that an opinion, not at all a fact. I'll write him a letter and ask him - but I don't see a basis for such a blanket assertion. As far as brevity - it should be long enough to explain the real issues, explain the various points of view, and to be informative, explain the context in which the events happened and were/are being investigated. I agree much can be improved across the 'locus' articles in this regard. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And to say that the article is not "reasonably brief and understandable" and that Kennedy's article is not an appropriate source is to make a content judgement, isn't it?

I know I asked you for specifics, but upon further thought, I don't see how you could make any statement regarding the article itself without making a content judgement. This is supposed to be left up to the editors, isn't it?

And with a ruling that effectively ties our hands behind our backs and gives Phil free reign over the article this becomes a ruling on content. Namely, that whatever content Phil decides is best for the article is what stays. Whatever he decides is not goes. -- noosphere 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be the situation if you were banned from the article, which frankly, is the alternative. Fred Bauder 21:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A followup - would such a ban include Phil, or just his chosen targets (irrespective of the evidence they have thus far brought)? Why is banning editors with which he disagrees the next step after edit warring for Phil, but the rest of us are held to a different standard? Why is Wikipedia process (mediation, ArbCom avoiding content disputes) suddenly unnecessary when Phil (an admin) brings a concern? Why would you disregard your obvious conflict of interest, instead driving new policies to reach the end you espoused a year ago? All this is troubling - but the last statement of yours is beyond the pale. I am struggling not to hear the railroad coming. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's the threat of banning if we interfere with Phil. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful we're not getting banned outright (though at the same time I think we've done absolutely nothing to deserve banning). But that is really immaterial to whether this is effectively a content judgement or not. By giving Phil free reign on the article you're effectively supporting his POV, and yours, since you've expressed that you share it regarding the article's content deciding what content stays and what content goes. -- noosphere 21:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of me even opening my mouth?

The arbitrators apparently know my position better than I do, anyways. That makes me pretty redundant, doesn't it? Why should I say anything when other people are just going to put the word in my mouth for me anyways? I don't get this. Obviously I can't be POV, because I don't have one: the arbitrators have mine. My position is apparently theirs to define. It appears my body and my brain are completely superfluous. Kevin Baas^talk 21:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not supurflous, because there is a record of what happened here. Even though the sentences handed down to us by arbcom may not be fair, posterity will see how this case has been conducted. And, if you don't speak out, the people who read this case will assume that you either acquiesced to everything here or just didn't care. Make your position clear and let everyone, not just the arbitrators, judge what really happened and whether we deserve what we're going to get. -- noosphere 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to go play Chess in the real world. Let me know what my beliefs turn out to be in the imaginary world. Kevin Baas^talk 22:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is Kevin Baas' belief that the arbcom is double plus good. Derex 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently so. -- noosphere 22:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)'

If you ask me, the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision#Position of Kevin baas proposed finding is off base. Kevin's statement[2] is that public notability shouldn't be the standard for NPOV, expert opinion should be. I think you could probably fairly criticize Kevin for (1) concluding that "expert opinion" means the conclusions of the left-wing press or (2) AFAICT, rarely if ever trying to digest or represent the POV opposed to his own, but I don't think it's fair to say that he has said that political advocacy justifies abandoning NPOV.TheronJ 13:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What he is saying is that despite a lack of published reports, it is Wikipedia's duty to get the "truth" out. Fred Bauder 14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Fred, that's not what I'm saying. Kevin Baas^talk 14:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, Fred, but I don't agree. (Which may get us into some of the underlying problems in trying to opine on someone else's opinion, but so be it.) As I read the exchange:[3] (1) Phil argued that WP:NPOV required Wikipedia to balance the amount of coverage of the election itself with the amount of coverage of election irregularities across different articles, in some rough proportion to the viewpoint of the public as a whole; (2) Kizzle and Kevin argued that otherwise acceptable evidence of irregularities should stay without regard to the number of people in the public who thought that the election was tainted by irregularities.

I really don't see the problem with the discussion between Phil, Kizzle, and Kevin. IMHO, it was the notability debate reappearing, this time in the context of NPOV. IMHO, Phil was saying that evidence of individual irregulaties should be deleted, even if properly verifiable, because the amount of emphasis on irregularities rendered election coverage as a whole NPOV. Kevin wasn't saying that he intended to include irregularities that didn't meet WP:V, and he wasn't saying that he intended to violate the proper balance within an article. IMHO, he was just saying that he thought the standard for undue weight shouldn't be public notability, but notability within an expert community. ("[T]he metric should be, rather, if the majority of people who know the information in the article believe that the information is significant"). (Personally, I think Phil's initial premise, that NPOV requires that Wikipedia not grant undue weight between different articles about the 2004 election, isn't a good one. But that's just my opinion.).

Thanks, Fred -- I appreciate the ArbCom engaging on these issues, and wish you luck in coming to a workable and fair decision. TheronJ 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, TheronJ, that's exactly what I'm saying. Kevin Baas^talk 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd submit the dialogue in question to the record if it wasn't already presented as evidence in this case, but for the sake of reference for this discussion the dialogue in question is here, where I said the same thing in three different ways, and now TheronJ has phrased it in a fourth way. It should be pretty clear by now precisely what my beliefs are. Thanks for asking. And thanks for examining the evidence, TheronJ. Kevin Baas^talk 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And forgive me if I'm being a little ascerbic. Frankly, I'm outraged. Kevin Baas^talk 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How could Wikipedia:Article probation ever be better than mediation?

Would someone please explain to me how Wikipedia:Article probation could ever be a better solution than remand to mediation? If this passes, how many petitions for article probation are going to come in? One for every controversial article? "Bloated and propagandistic" are in the eye of the beholder, and there are plenty of people who would rather arbitrate than mediate. 71.132.141.69 08:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 2004 election "controversy" articles

The only way to effectively write articles about esoteric American political complaints and partisan controversies is to imagine this: You are in an auditorium and are the only audience member. On stage, there are two (almost always two, sometimes there may be more than two) debaters on stage and they are having it out with each other. Next to them is a "keeper of the records". That keeper's job is to determine which of the sources that the debaters want to use pass muster with the standards of reliability and notability. This leads us to the 1st problem that Kevin and Ryan have faced with these articles: By and large only left-wing partisan sources have the content which supports the edits those two have been making to these articles. So then, should our "keeper of the records" allow those sources? I'd say no except if that were to occur, then virtually none of the sources Kevin, et al, have used to advance these articles would be acceptable. So then if we embargo the partisan sites and sources, how can we report on these issues? Easily: This article has always been misframed from the beginning in that certain editors have edited 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities with the aim in mind that the allegations in the article are more than "allegations" but are actually true. It's this misframing of the entire issue that has thwarted the writing of this article. If I were to name this, I would call it Partisan controversies regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election which is exactly what it is. In this context, many left-wing (and right wing) sources would be acceptable. Now back to the illustration: We have two debaters, we have a keeper of the records. But, because the debate has been framed as partisan we will allow many partisan sources - both left and right - into the article. Lefty debater says "Bush stole the election in Ohio with Blackwell's help, see my proofs of 1,2,3,". Righty debater says "That's a crock, your sources are all a bunch of flaming radicals, gauze thin opinion and hysterical rants and your conclusions are stupid". See, that's the gist of these entire articles. They are stupid and misframed and have long been pushed by editors who hate Bush. On the other hand, it's possible to accurately write about partisan political controversies, but only if they are referred to as such. It is the misplaced zeal of some to use the articles to prove that Bush and the Republicans are "bad" and should be "impeached" that has driven these articles into the ditch. 208.65.61.27 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your summary is logically incorrect. To discuss the irregularities in an election neutrally is to intentionally not take one side or the other in that election. It's illogical to claim that any neutral discussion of these irregularities must describe the issue as 'partisan'. And your description of some of this article's editors as 'hating Bush' is the most partisan accusation possible to make - and in my case it is simply untrue. Moreover, the great preponderance of incidents (not mere allegations - these are factual, independently verified occurrances) in this particular election have been shown to favor one candidate disproportionately. While that makes consensus around a neutral description of those factual incidents much harder, it does not automatically act as a polarizing force to render fact and truth into mere partisan allegation. The distinction between allegation and fact is important and should not be callously discarded. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While it may be true that you do not hate Bush, past versions of his user page make clear that Kevin does. As to "logic", I don't get your point. The persons and groups advancing these allegations in the public are almost universally partisan advocates of one sort of another. If you can't admit that, well I guess that's why you ended up here. It's as if you are saying "but I fight fair" without recognizing that the "fight" being fought is a mudslinging contest. These allegations about 2004 election are indeed partisan-driven by those who advance them (DailyKos, RFK, Jr, etc.) Denying that truth won't change a thing. But it will make you blind to the context you need to manage this issue correctly. And the word "irregularities" (it presumes that the allegations are true in that it infers deviance from the "norm") does not belong in the title - User:SlimVirgin previously said so on the talk page about this. 208.65.61.27 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the individuals involved are 'almost universally partisan advocates of one sort or another'. This is political news so it should be no surprise that the 'individuals advancing these allegations' may come from widely varying political backgrounds and viewpoints. Using the word 'irregularities' to describe the notable and irregular occurrences discussed in the article is indeed accurate. And the discussion will only degrade into a mudslinging contest if editors allow it to. I won't. Will you? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman once wrote a great book "Free to choose". That's what makes America great. You can choose to think these articles are a great idea, wonderfully implimented and I can choose to remain unpersuaded. I suppose what matters will be what the Arbitration Committee members say. 208.65.61.27 23:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe everyone here wants to improve these articles, which makes this whole exercise a sad monument to a failure of WP:AGF. Derex 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV, "We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail." -- noosphere 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On SimonP's query about article-improvement drives

I have responded to SimonP's query about past arbcom-mandated article-improvement drives [4]. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

a brief note

Commment I have offered my services to the parties involved in this dispute, and they have so far rejected my help. However, I am still entitled to make a brief statement.

The fact is whats really going on here is censorship. The facts do speak plainly for themselves in this case, and the elections were in fact rigged. The only way the republicans can win this debate is by finding ways to limit evidence. There are two primary means they use, the first is to attack a single source as being not notable or dependable. This is usually followed by the apeal to use mainstream sources. Thats appeal ad populum, plus excluded middle, and ad hominem. The sources they request that we use are biased as they are owned and operated by republican interests. This is information control and information warring. The idea here is to invalidate a source itself. Nevermind the facts of the information which the source brings to bear. The second method is to limit the number of cites, or the size of the articles, such that the facts again don't have the space to speak for themselves. Which goes against the policy "not paper". (Where is that?) In both cases the problem is that we have pov warriors on the arbitration committee, and i don't think thats a situation that warrants sitting around over. I think its time to get mad at the injustice and abuse of it all, and to make a big noise. Let me know if you come around to my way of seeing things. Prometheuspan 17:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Prometheuspan 17:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

getting closer

getting closer to a faithfull summary of my expressed argument regarding WP:N.

the revised wording includes "view ought to be measured by the amount of support among those who know about a particular minority theory, as in the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, and not the amount of support among the general population or experts in the field." I have never refered to any "minority theory" - that is completely fabricated. I argued that the significance/notability (not to be confused w/"support") of issues/events (not "theories") is best judged by the general population of experts in the field. and let's be clear what an expert is, by definition: someone with detailed knowledge on a subject. an online dictionary defines it as "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject." Thus, for example, Mitofsky Intl. would be considered an "expert in the field" when it comes to polling data. TheronJ understands my argument pretty well. and he doesn't completely fabricate things like "minority theory".

To put it simply: Phil was arguing that "...is best judged by the general population" and i argued that the general population can't be expected to know anything about it, regardless of it's notability or lack thereof ("fractional calculus" is an example), so there was a logical flaw in his argument. i argued, on the basis of this premise, that "...is best judged by the general population of experts in the field". It's on the record. and i never mentioned anything about theories - that was completely fabricated by arbcom. Kevin Baas^talk 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a marked difference between specialist mathematics topics and major political issues, and that the standards of notability would differ accordingly. Phil Sandifer 18:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How, exactly? Topics of major political interest and controversy require careful factual coverage and analysis, given the polarizing nature of the context. Kevin's comment is valid and useful, so I'd think it unfair and frankly, an old pattern for you to simply discount Kevin's comments by pointing to his example and making a blanket comment about how there's a 'marked difference' between his example and this situation, without providing specifics to explain or justify your point of view. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. At least Phil understands what I'm saying, which is more than I can say for the arbitrators who have voted. Kevin Baas^talk 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

logical analysis of my comment at issue in findings of "fact"

And I believe "considering that the idea that there is any significant controversy or irregularity in the 2004 election is a minority viewpoint" is using the wrong metric.

Clear statement of my "belief".

it is a minority viewpoint because it was so underreported, that not a lot of ppl know about it.

undisputed statement of fact. - this is in contrast to minority viewpoint because it is not notable - this statement was made to clarify the causal-logical relationship, to show why the metric is flawed. it is a minority viewpoint because not a lot of people have a view on whether or not there was a substantial amount of irregularities and controversy because they simply don't know anything about it. it's minority knowledge, that few people have a "view" on because few people know. of those whom have knowledge and thus viewpoints, it is not in the minority. if we include the people who don't have knowledge and thus don't have viewpoints, all viewpoints are in the minority. so Phil's argument that the general population should be used as a metric instead of the general population of experts in the field reduces to absurdity in this case.

that's why we have encyclopedias.

as a resource for knowledge on notable subjects. if everyone knew about all notable subjects, there'd be no use for encycylopedias, and thus we wouldn't have them. in that we have encyclopedias, it is not safe to assume that the general population is knowledgable on all notable subjects.

the metric should be, rather, if the majority of people who know the information in the article believe that the information is significant.

the proper metric of significance is "if the majority of people who know the information in the article believe that the information is significant." That is plainly what i have "stated". Both TheronJ and Dmcdevit have rephrased this more plainly and clearly. Dmcdevit's phrasing is probably the best: "the amount of support among the general population of experts in the field.", however, Dmcdevit seems to think that with this statement i was advocating against this view.

And there is plenty of evidence of what the minority view of that populace is and what the majority view is in the three VfD's this article has gone through. However, if you still are unconvinced, I suggest listing this article on VfD. Kevin Baas^talk 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Here i was using a broader interpretation of "expert" than appears to be implied by TheronJ and Dmcdevit, basically stating that the consensus view among the sub-community that is aware of this article, overwhelmingly, is that the information in it is significant. Kevin Baas^talk 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)