Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision

message: 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)
replies: text: "Soapbox" applies specifically to persons making solo or very small non due weight arguments, not factual reports regarding facts
generated by factual groups. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soapbox 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Generally accepted" means excluding minority viewpoints,
obviously, which is NOT what the npov policy states.
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Summary of knowledge? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fred Bauder's Editing recommendation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I got your summary right here: 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "POV fork" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'in defense of the current state of the articles' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Irrelevant, an omission by way of bias and predjudice. Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant, you should still follow
process, remember, you are supposed to be neutral, not take sides,
and that includes not dismissing evidence, allowing evidence to be heard, not disallowing evidence to be heard, no mischaracterization and straw man arguments, etc. 
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Noosphere's position as described in the proposed decision 

message: 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)
replies: text: Workshop. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding process 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: In fact, many non-partisan and scholarly resources share the opinion that election was rigged, this is a red herring, a straw man,
fallacious set theory, and excluded middle. In fact, anybody who looks at the evidence without predjudice would be forced to conclude the elections were rigged, and the evidence itself is persuasive enough that even some republican sources have commented on it.
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Again, a characterization not based in fact. This is not partisan mud slinging, any real review of the factual evidence shows that the elections were rigged. Since the elections were in fact rigged, bringing attention to that fact is not mud slinging, its patriotic civil duty on the first hand, and informational and factual
duty in terms of Wikipedia on the other.
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Of course they will attempt to turn this into mudslinging, thats all they can do in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding 2004 election "controversy" articles 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  a brief note 

message: 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 Baastalk 18:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Whatever.  At least Phil understands what I'm saying, which is more than I can say for the arbitrators who have voted. Kevin Baastalk 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Deja vous, eh Ryan?  -- noosphere 02:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  getting closer 

message: :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 Baastalk 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Baastalk 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  logical analysis of my comment at issue in findings of "fact" 

message: The three main reasons Phil cited for his continued re-introduction of the npov tag (for which Fred and dmcdevit both provided a link in their respective versions of the finding) were 'undue weight', 'original research' and 'notability'. It's important to make clear what the actual basis of Phil's insistence on the tag was, before declaring that the editors who reverted his insistent tagging (within 3RR) were exhibiting 'staggering bad faith' and being counterproductive.
I believe the last two reasons Phil gave (WP:OR and Notability) have been pretty much shown as groundless  - examples of WP:OR can (and really should) be dealt with through editing (and specific examples, as I've insisted throughout are woefully absent from Phil's evidence), and the issue of notability has been discussed here and in the article's talk space in detail, with the clear record of hundreds of media cites and stories, both before, during and after the determination of the election, covering all sorts of viewpoints.
That leaves the first reason Phil offered, 'undue weight'. I wanted to weigh the article so I took the text and removed all the 'references' links on down. The resulting page size was 72k. 
For an article of this complexity, requiring citations and varying arguments to be provided, 72k of content (including extensive inline cites) and the remainder as links and references does not seem at all 'obese' to me, certainly not to justify Phil's 'wait, pounce, tag, and RfAr' strategy. If the issue underlying the undue weight complaint is that the total volume of content in the Wikipedia between the general '04 election article and all the controversy-related articles is somehow unacceptably disproportionate, I'll point you back to the notability assessment - we've got a lot of varying opinion, interpretation and evidence under dispute by everyone from Senators and Congressmen to media figures, writers and activists. And the content can always be improved, distilled and culled - by editors who edit, not by ArbCom or it's (un)duly appointed editors.
I contend that ArbCom taking the step of assigning an arbitrary assessment of a 'ceiling' after which content must be 'sheared' (as Fred himself said), or banning a group of editors who have demonstrated a focus on factual accuracy and inclusiveness of perspective is patently inappropriate for an article of this complexity and potential volatility of perspective.
Without notability, undue weight or original research concerns, what rationale was there for Phil's "i won't edit but I will tag war' approach? Was reverting back his changes within the 3RR counterproductive? These issues were raised and discussed at the time as well. I implore the ArbCom to address issues of conduct - not content, and to act accordingly on the evidence. Thank you. Last, I'd like to be confident the ArbCom will at least consider this message. Is this talk page, or the evidence talk page, the right place for this? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Valid evidence/justification for the proffered NPOV tag?

message: The "Opinions on current affairs" principle states "personal opinions on current affairs are not acceptable content for a Wikipedia article".  Though we all know you're referring to the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, that's not at all clear in the phrasing of that principle.
I suggest instead, "personal opinions not substantiated by citations from reliable sources are not acceptable content for a Wikipedia article".
That way the personal opinions of me and Phil can be excluded, while the personal opinions of George Bush and John Kerry can be included, as long as they're properly cited.  -- noosphere 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Opinions on current affairs" principle 

message: I formally disavow myself from the opinions and approaches employed thus far by User:Prometheuspan. After attempting to gain each of our individual support and failing, he has taken it upon himself to paint this dialogue around allegations of fraud and rigging. That is not my POV. I believe Prometheuspan is likely an intentional disruptor - and I want to make clear that he in no way speaks for, nor represents, the point of view (nor the editing history) of this editor. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, with the exception that I do not believe that Prometheuspan is likely an intentional disruptor. Kevin Baastalk 00:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: and Prometheuspan is talking about content and partisianship, the first of which belongs on the article talk page, the second which doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia. Kevin Baastalk 01:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by RyanFreisling re: editor's recent comments

message: this is clearly a basic topic, so let's organize any future discussion on this in a single thread. Kevin Baastalk 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arbitrators' rule: content or behavior 

message: i have already stated that i am not advocating any theory, or basing any decisions off of points of view regarding theory, but presenting the opinon of experts (those knowledgeable on a subject, per dictionary definition), whatever it happens to be, and have never stated the contrary. can any arbitrator provide evidence to refute this (not that it's the arbitrators responsibility to provide evidence - that would be beyond their power) Kevin Baastalk 01:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  theory vs. knowledge 

message: I, for one, would like to ask Phil to in turn ask the Arbcom to clarify that Phil may not use the adminstrators' "Article Probation" power to ban other editors from the disputed articles.  I, like Phil as he writes above, can't imagine how doing so could ever not be a clear conflict of interest, so it shouldn't be a problem to get this stated up-front.
Otherwise, there is clearly going to be a chilling effect. I think a lot of people who would like to be making some substantial edits to those articles as the subject has come up in the news media again, but who have held off on doing so (such as myself -- I have made exactly zero edits to all of the articles since December, 2005, dispite my keen interest in the subjects) will continue to refrain from trying to contribute to the disputed articles if they think they might get banned for getting into an edit war with a dispute participant.
I'm not saying that anything underhanded is going on here -- I doubt the arbitrator who proposed the revised remedy in question even considered Phil as an administrator who might be banning other editors for edit warring, but I'm just saying that needs to be made explicit before the decision can possibly be seen as just.  If the arbitrators and Phil expect us in the peanut gallery to actually try to help work the kinks of of the articles, they owe us this freedom from the chilling effect. 71.132.129.79 09:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Phil 

message: *I am submitting this recent event:  as new evidence in this case, and as it involved a user not a party to this case, namely, User:Guettarda, I ask that he be made a party of this dispute, as one of the users allegedly "trying to own the article". Kevin Baastalk 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New evidence / new party to dispute 

message: I am concerned about the finding about Kevin's supposed opinion. Why haven't the ArbCom members discussed it with Kevin directly? It seems unbelievable that so many would conclude his opinion without discussing it with him (for example, on the case's 'Workshop' page or various talk pages). Why has there been so little response from anyone on the ArbCom (except Fred) to the questions raised? Why has no one discussed it with him? Why has no one in ArbCom discussed these issues with the individuals involved in order to learn the motives first-hand? What is gained by excluding the first-hand participation of those accused here in discussion, as the process is otherwise designed? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for the ArbCom

message: Theresa wrote: 
Thank you, Theresa, for considering what my stated beliefs and positions are when voting on what my stated beliefs and positions are.  I share her belief that Kevin Baas does not believe he is opposing current NPOV policy, and, frankly, I consider myself an "expert" on the subject of Kevin Baas' beliefs.
I would like to answer Theresa's rhetorical question:
She asked "In what way is an expert in the field different from those who know about a particular minority theory?".   (I don't know why or how "theories" came into this.  I don't recall ever discussing them.)  An expert in a given field should, by definition, have "detailed knowledge" about the subject, and for them to "know about a particular minority theory" falls under this scope.  One cannot expect every expert to know every particular theory, but if they are, for instance, an expert on evolution, they should know, at least, the theory of evolution.  Experts on statistics should know statistics, etc.
The articles in question ("locus of the dispute") deal with many different topics, and thus experts in many different fields are included.  Each expert included is an expert in a field that directly pertains to the 2004 election controversy and irregularities.  Thus, for example, statistical experts are not expected to "know about a particular minority theory", they are expected to know statistics, and where they have, as experts, applied their statistical expertise to a matter related to the controversy/irregularites, well, I would argue that that's noteworthy.
Now again, I don't know how the whole "theory" thing came into play here, but different experts included in the article certainly have a range of "theories".  For instance, Edison/Mitofsky has a "theory" that bush voters were reluctant to be polled in the exit polls, thus skewing the exit poll results. (technically this is a hypothesis, but for the sake of argument we'll use the term "theory").  i don't particularly know whether this is a minority or a majority theory, but given that Edison/Mitofsky is an expert in the field of exit polling and the report on exit polls that they released directly pertains to the controversy/irregularities, I would argue that it's noteworthy.
And Theresa's right: I don't believe this in any way contradicts current NPOV policy. Kevin Baastalk 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you, Theresa