This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
1)
1)
1)
1) Because this is a content dispute mainly about the quality and quantity of sources, and because mediation has not yet been attempted, this case should be referred to mediation.
1)
1)
1)
1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. ( Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)
2) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
3) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others in the lack of evidence to the contrary.
4) Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. - Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
5) Information used in articles, especially those whose content is contested, should be verified by reference to a reliable and scholarly source, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
6) There is a special burden imposed on those who choose to edit hotly contested articles. Extra effort must be made to be courteous, communicate adequately with other users, and use reliable sources. Those who are unable to function productively in that context may be banned from such editing.
7) Users who engaged in aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.
8) Individual editors are responsible only for their own actions. Accordingly, the accusations and evidence presented should pertain to specific individuals.
9) As self-published documents blogs are generally not considered verifiable sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_online_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources.
10) After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. Since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) The locus of this dispute is the article 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its sub-articles:
2) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, Florida
Comment by others:
3) About half of the links in Timeline of the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities are now dead.
4) Many of the accusations Phil Sandifer has made in this arbcom case have not been supported with diffs, so they can not be substantiated. Those diffs that Phil Sandifer has provided often do not support what he has alleged.
5) Philip Sandifer has misrepresented the actions of the other parties involved in this dispute.
6) When Philip Sandifer has cited Wikipedia policies to support his positions, he has misinterpreted those policies. In particular, WP:NPOV and WP:V.
7) Philip Sandifer has accused [2] the other parties in this case of applying the very same editing standards he has advocated himself. [3] He claims that this is unacceptable for the accused parties, but acceptable for himself. He has declined to explain this discrepancy. [4]
8) The majority of Phil Sandifer's accusations concern a content dispute.
9) Despite Philip Sandifer's promise [5], he has never demonstrated that other steps in the dispute resolution process have been tried in this dispute.
10) It is the stated belief of Kevin Baas that: [6]
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
In the "Intimidation" section of Tbeatty's evidence, he claims that RyanFreisling tried to "get administrative sanctions placed on Phil for a Speedy Keep". This is preposterous. In fact, if you read the very section Tbeatty cites it is clear that what Ryan is objecting to is not Phil's vote of speedy keep, but his administering and deleting the AfD itself: "it's my understanding that one general rule-of-thumb is that admins should not delete or otherwise 'administer' pages on which they have contributed substantively as editors... I'd like to get the response of some admins (from a policy perspective, not a 'Phil under attack' perspective) to whether such activity in essence amounts to unfair or excessive use of an admin's powers during the course of their routine editing of Wikipedia."
Tbeatty's second accusation is even more ridiculous: "In Cabal fashion, the group has tried to get Fred Bauder to recuse himself." The fact that the three of us agree that Fred Bauder has expressed bias against the article is evidence that we're acting as a cabal? Then any three editors who agree on anything must be a cabal. Or is what makes us a cabal in Tbeatty's eyes the substance of what we agree on (that we think an editor who has expressed bias against the article should recuse himself) ? Is it Tbeatty's charge that only cabals are capable of requesting the recusal of an arbitrator who has expressed bias? Both these charges are completely specious. -- noosph e re 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
As has been submitted in to evidence, Phil Sandifer has characterized the article as "the paranoid ravings of the blogosphere," and "paranoid blog droppings," and "waste products of a month of blogging." In fact, per the summary of the references in this article (also submitted in to evidence), there are only 6 blogs and 2 personal websites used as sources. So 8 out of a total of 138 references, or 5%. Compare that to 26 mainstream media references like the BBC, the New York Times, and even FOX News stories.
This blog source count also contradicts Tbeatty's claim on the evidence page that "a lot of [the article's] sources are blogs". This is plainly false, unless you consider 5% "a lot".
Counting the less well-known media sources like Wired News and CNET, and local media sources, there are a total of 71 media references in the article, a full 11 times the number of blogs referenced in the article. Of the handful of blogs and personal websites that are used as references, I myself have recently advocated the deletion of four of them, per Wikipedia policy. [12] [13] So hopefully soon we'll have even fewer of them.
There are 21 primary references, which are fully admissible under Wikipedia policy. This brings the total number of acceptible references in this article up to 92, or 62% of the total.
Apart from the handful of blogs and personal websites which I've already mentioned, there are 35 (or 25% of the total) references from political groups such as the Democratic party, the ACLU, NAACP, and voting rights groups. Some of these groups have strong views regarding the issues in this article. The NAACP, for example, is concerned with the disenfranchisement of minorities that they claim occured during the 2004 election. However, according to WP:RS, "political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source." Furthermore, "that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party." And by no stretch of the imagination can any of the sources in this group of references be compared with Stormfront or the British Socialist Workers Party, or any other extremists for that matter.
Finally, there's the issue of Phil complaining some of the sources in this article were local (of which there are 12, or only 9% of the total number of references). As has been submitted in to evidence, Phil claims that "Unless the story got picked up nationally or widely reported, one-off local news stories do not provide acceptable levels of reliability." However, there is nothing in WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:CITE to support this claim. We are not quoting tabloids, after all. But even in the case of tabloids, WP:V says, "Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun...""
I hope this analysis of the sources in this article clearly demonstrates that Phil's allegations against the reliability of the sources in this article are utterly baseless. They are neither supported by policy nor by the sources that were actually used in the article. -- noosph e re 04:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
In Phil Sandifer's opening statement to this arbcom case, and as quoted on the evidence page, and in the talk page on the article itself, Phil has repeatedly claimed that this article violates the "undue weight" provision of WP:NPOV.
Phil bases his claim on the assertion that "the article is grotesquely long compared with the coverage of more mainstream aspects of the election" [14]
However, contrary to Phil's interpretation, WP:NPOV emphasizes that Wikipedia is not paper, and that even "tiny-minority views [could] receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them"
This article is specifically devoted to the controversies surrounding the 2004 US Presidential election, and that's what it covers.
That non-controversial aspects of the 2004 elections (which are covered in other articles) may, in some people's eyes, be more significant is no reason to delete or trim the article on controversial aspects of the election.
Nothing in WP:NPOV even addresses the relative significance of one article to another. And if size of "more significant" articles were to be used as a measure of how large to make any given article, then the articles on WW2 or Vietnam, should be much smaller than the article on War in general. Articles on the 2004 US Presidential Elections should be much smaller than the article on US Presidential elections in general, which should in turn be smaller than the article on US politics in general, and that one should be smaller still than the article on global politics. Obviously this is not only impractical but undesirable if the goal is to make a useful encyclopedia.
When I'm researching a given topic on Wikipedia, more information (when it's well organized) is more useful than less information. If I am a researcher who wants to know what the controversies surrounding the 2004 US Presidential election were, I'd appreciate a wealth of information, as long as it's well sourced, which this article is. So why delete it or trim it if in doing so we rob researchers of information regarding the controversies surrounding this election, if that's what reasearchers would read this article for in the first place? -- noosph e re 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
As evidence for, "petty rules-lawyering, displaying an active unwillingness to consider the spirit behind rules, or to take any policies or guidelines that offer advice under advisement," Phil sites the following diff: [20] and describes it as "Noosphere cites the fact that use of blogs is only discouraged to be evidence for using them"
This is a complete distortion of what I said, in the diff cited above, regarding blogs; which was 1 - we don't have to rely on our personal opinions regarding whether we can use them, 2 - cited the relevant policy, 3 - said blog are "generally not acceptable, but there are exceptions", and 4 - I wanted Phil to specify what he was talking about instead of making generalizations.
Where in that does Phil get that I said because the use of blogs is discouraged then we must use them?
Yes the use of blogs is generally discouraged, but there are also exceptions the policy specifically provides for. So to describe the policy, as Phil does, as consisting solely of "use of blogs is only discouraged" is a distortion of the policy, which does not only discourage blogs, but allows them in certain cases. And it is a distortion of what I said, since I specifically mentioned the exception itself.
Second, as for this being evidence of "petty rules-lawyering, displaying an active unwillingness to consider the spirit behind rules, or to take any policies or guidelines that offer advice under advisement," what this accusation amounts to is Phil's wish that there weren't any exceptions written in to that policy.
It's not like there's the "spirit" of the policy, which is the part of the policy that Phil likes in the present situation (that using blogs as sources is discouraged), and then there are those pesky parts of the policy which go against the "spirit" of the policy. Instead, the policy is one, including the parts Phil doesn't like. This particular policy is written and accepted with the realization that not all blogs can be painted with a broad brush, and that some of them are in fact acceptable as sources.
If Phil doesn't like that then the proper place to argue it is the policy's talk page, where he can try to get that exception to the policy removed so that it's more in line with his POV regarding its "spirit". Until then shrugging off parts of policies he doesn't like with accusations of "petty rules lawyering" and vague invocations of "spirit" is not going to cut it. -- noosph e re 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In his evidence section Phil alleges (emphasis mine):
"Noosphere, Ryan, and Kevin have all refused to engage the most basic point regarding the election articles: That our coverage of "controversies" in the 2004 election doubles that of mainstream views regarding the election. [21] [22] The closest thing to a response to this that has ever been given is Noosphere's citation of the rule that tiny minority views can be covered in depth on articles about those views, but this does not seem relevant, since the articles in question purport to be about the election, not the blogosphere."
In fact, this point has been addressed numerous times. First, I have pointed out that "I see nothing in any Wikipedia policy that addresses how other articles have to be written based on the content of a different article.," and have asked him to please point out such a policy if it exists. [23]
When Phil claimed WP:NPOV justified his assertions, I first asked him to tell us which part of NPOV he was talking about, [24] and then which part of the article he claimed violated this policy. [25] Phil responded merely by repeating his accusation, " the discussion of irregularities was wildly out of proportion to the discussion of the mainstream viewpoint". [26] (These diffs have been submitted in to evidence)
I also Phil's point, in detail, on this workshop page, under the heading "The "undue weight" accusation".
Kevin also engaged this issue again and again. (See evidence page)
However, I should note that first, the opinions other editors expressed on this matter in their discussions with Phil do not necessarily reflect my own. Second, it should be noted that throughout half the interactions regarding this issue Phil informed me that he was ignoring me (as documented in the evidence), so I chose to let others reply to much of the subsequent points Phil made.
So to claim we didn't engage him on this point is doubly disengenuous. First, we clearly did, on many occasions. And second, it takes quite some nerve on Phil's part to bring up an arbcom case claiming I did not engage his "most basic point" when I'd been told by him that he'd ignore everything I say. -- noosph e re 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
On the evidence page, Phil has claimed that (emphasis mine), "When asked about the notability or credibility of sources, or when faced with objections to the article in general, Ryan, Kevin, and Noosphere have all insisted that whomever raises an objection must also do the work to fix it, [27] [28], and that only those who have done research into a topic are qualified to ask questions about sources that it is not obvious are good [29]"
And, in his opening statement to this arbcom case Phil said (emphasis mine), "the expectation on the part of other editors – most egregiously Ryan and Noosphere – is that those who object to the article must fix it themselves instead of adding dispute tags [30]"
However, the diffs only cite Kevin's and Ryan's statements. I'll let Kevin and Ryan speak for themselves, but as far as my involvement in this part of the dispute goes, in my opening statement I have already challenged Phil to substantiate his allegation against me. Please let it be noted that he has been unable to do so. This is further evidence that Phil makes spurious, unsubstantiated allegations. -- noosph e re 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
On the evidence page Phil claims, "Somehow, the fact that I have complained bitterly about the poor quality of these articles in the past, and the fact that I nominated several of them for deletion over a year ago means that I am a POV-pusher whose opinion should be discounted."
Please note that this claim is not supported with any diffs. It also does not specify who among the involved parties he's accusing. All of us? A select few? Just one? -- noosph e re 00:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Now Phil has added "(See their statements and evidence in this arbcom case for examples of this)". Please note that he has still not provided any diffs. So this is still an unsubstantiated allegation.
This arbcom case has grown rather large, so it's not easy to find what you're referring to. I just searched through the opening statements and the only people there who are using the term "POV" or "POV pusher" in reference to others or their actions is Phil and Tbeatty. Phil has also done so in regards to Kevin Baas. [31] Which is all quite ironic, considering Phil's above complaint.
Furthermore, Phil has still not deigned to specify who he's making the accusations against. I take it that by using the term "their" he is accusing every editor involved in this case. In which case, I hope he can come up with the diffs to substantiate that accusation. -- noosph e re 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Phil has, on occasion, conflated the actions of the various parties involved in this dispute, as in the second (bolded) sentence here quoted from the evidence:
Phil doesn't specify who, in that bolded sentence, he is making this accusation against. From context one might infer that he's talking about both Ryan and myself. But it could also be interpreted as referring to Kevin as well, since he is one of the parties in the dispute. Looking at the references, the first two (in the bolded sentence) are of Ryan's edit, while the last reference is one of mine. Yet the sentence makes it sound like everything mentioned in it was done by the subject of the sentence (who, since it's ambiguous, might be all of the accused editors as a whole, or at least in collusion).
After I made the above comment Phil has admitted that he has "not made particular effort to segregate their actions out" [36] Phil justifies his actions by saying the article represents a "deep systemic failure", though presumably it's not the system but the three editors he's brought this case against that he thinks have failed. Otherwise he would have tried to change the system, such as the parts of WP:V he doesn't like.
Phil admits as much in the rest of the cited diff, and asserts that Ryan, Kevin, and I share "culpability" for the article. I freely admit that we share responsibility (and praise) for that article, as do all the other editors who've contributed to it. However, this arbcom case is not judging the article, but the editors' actions.
When Kevin or Ryan do something, I am not responsible for their actions. Likewise, they are not responsible for my actions, or for one another's. Thus, Phil's accusations and the evidence he provides for them should specifically cite the editor responsible.
I suggest this be made explicit in a principle affirmed in this arbcom decision: that individual editors are responsible only for their own actions, and the accusations and evidence in an arbcom case should cite specific individuals and the specific actions they are accused of.
As I have detailed in the evidence and analysis I have presented, Phil has repeatedly made vague, unsubstantiated accusations in the course of the dispute. I trust arbcom will not permit Phil to do the same in this arbcom case by lumping the actions of three seperate editors as if they were one person. If that's what Phil wants I suggest he present the evidence of a checkuser. -- noosph e re 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In the "Original Research" section of Phil's evidence presentation, he has complained that "only 26 [of the article's sources] come from mainstream press". I assume he doesn't have any problems with those sources themselves and move on to discuss the rest.
First, I will point out that though those were the only mainstream press sources, those weren't the only mainstream sources in the article. Mitofsky, (as I'm sure Phil, Arkon, and Tbeatty will be eager to tell you) is a mainstream source. But they're not media, so I have them listed (twice) in the "Primary Sources" section. There are other mainstream sources in that section, such as the Library of Congress. So were we to go by Phil's count we would be missing all the other mainstream sources in the article. However, mainstream sources are not really the issue. The issue, according to Wikipedia policy, is reliable sources.
If Phil will grant that all the Mainstream Media section sources are in fact reliable sources, I will add to that every source in the Primary Sources section (since they're reliable for information about themselves, per policy) to make a total of at least 26 + 21 = 47 non-controversial, reliable sources.
I've addressed the rest of the sources in the " Analysis of references" section of this workshop page, so I won't repeat it here.
However, I want to point out that these sources should not be evaluated in isolation. WP:RS advises cross-checking with other, independent sources. This article has done that, in that many of its claims are cited by multiple sources. I'll refer to these multiple-source citations as "source clusters". Here are a few examples of the first three source clusters in the article:
10,11,12 - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (classified as a Local Source), U.S. House of Representatives (Political Group), and the Associated Press (Mainstream Media)
14,15,16 - EWeek (non-mainstream media), Associated Press (Mainstream Media), The Washington Times (Mainstream Media)
21,22,23 - Washington Post (Mainstream Media), blackboxvoting.org (Political Group), EE Times (non-mainstream media)
Notice that source 10, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is a local source, but it's backed up by two independent sources, one of which is a mainsteram media source.
Likewise, EWeek (source 14) is backed up by two mainstream media sources.
And the blackboxvoting.org (source 22) is backed up by two other sources, one of which is a mainstream media source.
These are far from the only examples. I counted 24 such source clusters in the article, each of which consists of between two and six sources, with a mean and median of three sources. In all, the source clusters account for 72 (or 56%) of the 138 references in the article. -- noosph e re 06:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.
1)
1)
1)
1) Because this is a content dispute mainly about the quality and quantity of sources, and because mediation has not yet been attempted, this case should be referred to mediation.
1)
1)
1)
1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. ( Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)
2) A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
3) Editors are expected to be cooperative with other users and to assume good faith on the part of others in the lack of evidence to the contrary.
4) Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. - Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
5) Information used in articles, especially those whose content is contested, should be verified by reference to a reliable and scholarly source, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
6) There is a special burden imposed on those who choose to edit hotly contested articles. Extra effort must be made to be courteous, communicate adequately with other users, and use reliable sources. Those who are unable to function productively in that context may be banned from such editing.
7) Users who engaged in aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.
8) Individual editors are responsible only for their own actions. Accordingly, the accusations and evidence presented should pertain to specific individuals.
9) As self-published documents blogs are generally not considered verifiable sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_online_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources.
10) After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. Since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc.
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed principle}
1) The locus of this dispute is the article 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its sub-articles:
2) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, Florida
Comment by others:
3) About half of the links in Timeline of the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities are now dead.
4) Many of the accusations Phil Sandifer has made in this arbcom case have not been supported with diffs, so they can not be substantiated. Those diffs that Phil Sandifer has provided often do not support what he has alleged.
5) Philip Sandifer has misrepresented the actions of the other parties involved in this dispute.
6) When Philip Sandifer has cited Wikipedia policies to support his positions, he has misinterpreted those policies. In particular, WP:NPOV and WP:V.
7) Philip Sandifer has accused [2] the other parties in this case of applying the very same editing standards he has advocated himself. [3] He claims that this is unacceptable for the accused parties, but acceptable for himself. He has declined to explain this discrepancy. [4]
8) The majority of Phil Sandifer's accusations concern a content dispute.
9) Despite Philip Sandifer's promise [5], he has never demonstrated that other steps in the dispute resolution process have been tried in this dispute.
10) It is the stated belief of Kevin Baas that: [6]
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
In the "Intimidation" section of Tbeatty's evidence, he claims that RyanFreisling tried to "get administrative sanctions placed on Phil for a Speedy Keep". This is preposterous. In fact, if you read the very section Tbeatty cites it is clear that what Ryan is objecting to is not Phil's vote of speedy keep, but his administering and deleting the AfD itself: "it's my understanding that one general rule-of-thumb is that admins should not delete or otherwise 'administer' pages on which they have contributed substantively as editors... I'd like to get the response of some admins (from a policy perspective, not a 'Phil under attack' perspective) to whether such activity in essence amounts to unfair or excessive use of an admin's powers during the course of their routine editing of Wikipedia."
Tbeatty's second accusation is even more ridiculous: "In Cabal fashion, the group has tried to get Fred Bauder to recuse himself." The fact that the three of us agree that Fred Bauder has expressed bias against the article is evidence that we're acting as a cabal? Then any three editors who agree on anything must be a cabal. Or is what makes us a cabal in Tbeatty's eyes the substance of what we agree on (that we think an editor who has expressed bias against the article should recuse himself) ? Is it Tbeatty's charge that only cabals are capable of requesting the recusal of an arbitrator who has expressed bias? Both these charges are completely specious. -- noosph e re 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
As has been submitted in to evidence, Phil Sandifer has characterized the article as "the paranoid ravings of the blogosphere," and "paranoid blog droppings," and "waste products of a month of blogging." In fact, per the summary of the references in this article (also submitted in to evidence), there are only 6 blogs and 2 personal websites used as sources. So 8 out of a total of 138 references, or 5%. Compare that to 26 mainstream media references like the BBC, the New York Times, and even FOX News stories.
This blog source count also contradicts Tbeatty's claim on the evidence page that "a lot of [the article's] sources are blogs". This is plainly false, unless you consider 5% "a lot".
Counting the less well-known media sources like Wired News and CNET, and local media sources, there are a total of 71 media references in the article, a full 11 times the number of blogs referenced in the article. Of the handful of blogs and personal websites that are used as references, I myself have recently advocated the deletion of four of them, per Wikipedia policy. [12] [13] So hopefully soon we'll have even fewer of them.
There are 21 primary references, which are fully admissible under Wikipedia policy. This brings the total number of acceptible references in this article up to 92, or 62% of the total.
Apart from the handful of blogs and personal websites which I've already mentioned, there are 35 (or 25% of the total) references from political groups such as the Democratic party, the ACLU, NAACP, and voting rights groups. Some of these groups have strong views regarding the issues in this article. The NAACP, for example, is concerned with the disenfranchisement of minorities that they claim occured during the 2004 election. However, according to WP:RS, "political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source." Furthermore, "that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party." And by no stretch of the imagination can any of the sources in this group of references be compared with Stormfront or the British Socialist Workers Party, or any other extremists for that matter.
Finally, there's the issue of Phil complaining some of the sources in this article were local (of which there are 12, or only 9% of the total number of references). As has been submitted in to evidence, Phil claims that "Unless the story got picked up nationally or widely reported, one-off local news stories do not provide acceptable levels of reliability." However, there is nothing in WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:CITE to support this claim. We are not quoting tabloids, after all. But even in the case of tabloids, WP:V says, "Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun...""
I hope this analysis of the sources in this article clearly demonstrates that Phil's allegations against the reliability of the sources in this article are utterly baseless. They are neither supported by policy nor by the sources that were actually used in the article. -- noosph e re 04:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
In Phil Sandifer's opening statement to this arbcom case, and as quoted on the evidence page, and in the talk page on the article itself, Phil has repeatedly claimed that this article violates the "undue weight" provision of WP:NPOV.
Phil bases his claim on the assertion that "the article is grotesquely long compared with the coverage of more mainstream aspects of the election" [14]
However, contrary to Phil's interpretation, WP:NPOV emphasizes that Wikipedia is not paper, and that even "tiny-minority views [could] receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them"
This article is specifically devoted to the controversies surrounding the 2004 US Presidential election, and that's what it covers.
That non-controversial aspects of the 2004 elections (which are covered in other articles) may, in some people's eyes, be more significant is no reason to delete or trim the article on controversial aspects of the election.
Nothing in WP:NPOV even addresses the relative significance of one article to another. And if size of "more significant" articles were to be used as a measure of how large to make any given article, then the articles on WW2 or Vietnam, should be much smaller than the article on War in general. Articles on the 2004 US Presidential Elections should be much smaller than the article on US Presidential elections in general, which should in turn be smaller than the article on US politics in general, and that one should be smaller still than the article on global politics. Obviously this is not only impractical but undesirable if the goal is to make a useful encyclopedia.
When I'm researching a given topic on Wikipedia, more information (when it's well organized) is more useful than less information. If I am a researcher who wants to know what the controversies surrounding the 2004 US Presidential election were, I'd appreciate a wealth of information, as long as it's well sourced, which this article is. So why delete it or trim it if in doing so we rob researchers of information regarding the controversies surrounding this election, if that's what reasearchers would read this article for in the first place? -- noosph e re 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
As evidence for, "petty rules-lawyering, displaying an active unwillingness to consider the spirit behind rules, or to take any policies or guidelines that offer advice under advisement," Phil sites the following diff: [20] and describes it as "Noosphere cites the fact that use of blogs is only discouraged to be evidence for using them"
This is a complete distortion of what I said, in the diff cited above, regarding blogs; which was 1 - we don't have to rely on our personal opinions regarding whether we can use them, 2 - cited the relevant policy, 3 - said blog are "generally not acceptable, but there are exceptions", and 4 - I wanted Phil to specify what he was talking about instead of making generalizations.
Where in that does Phil get that I said because the use of blogs is discouraged then we must use them?
Yes the use of blogs is generally discouraged, but there are also exceptions the policy specifically provides for. So to describe the policy, as Phil does, as consisting solely of "use of blogs is only discouraged" is a distortion of the policy, which does not only discourage blogs, but allows them in certain cases. And it is a distortion of what I said, since I specifically mentioned the exception itself.
Second, as for this being evidence of "petty rules-lawyering, displaying an active unwillingness to consider the spirit behind rules, or to take any policies or guidelines that offer advice under advisement," what this accusation amounts to is Phil's wish that there weren't any exceptions written in to that policy.
It's not like there's the "spirit" of the policy, which is the part of the policy that Phil likes in the present situation (that using blogs as sources is discouraged), and then there are those pesky parts of the policy which go against the "spirit" of the policy. Instead, the policy is one, including the parts Phil doesn't like. This particular policy is written and accepted with the realization that not all blogs can be painted with a broad brush, and that some of them are in fact acceptable as sources.
If Phil doesn't like that then the proper place to argue it is the policy's talk page, where he can try to get that exception to the policy removed so that it's more in line with his POV regarding its "spirit". Until then shrugging off parts of policies he doesn't like with accusations of "petty rules lawyering" and vague invocations of "spirit" is not going to cut it. -- noosph e re 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In his evidence section Phil alleges (emphasis mine):
"Noosphere, Ryan, and Kevin have all refused to engage the most basic point regarding the election articles: That our coverage of "controversies" in the 2004 election doubles that of mainstream views regarding the election. [21] [22] The closest thing to a response to this that has ever been given is Noosphere's citation of the rule that tiny minority views can be covered in depth on articles about those views, but this does not seem relevant, since the articles in question purport to be about the election, not the blogosphere."
In fact, this point has been addressed numerous times. First, I have pointed out that "I see nothing in any Wikipedia policy that addresses how other articles have to be written based on the content of a different article.," and have asked him to please point out such a policy if it exists. [23]
When Phil claimed WP:NPOV justified his assertions, I first asked him to tell us which part of NPOV he was talking about, [24] and then which part of the article he claimed violated this policy. [25] Phil responded merely by repeating his accusation, " the discussion of irregularities was wildly out of proportion to the discussion of the mainstream viewpoint". [26] (These diffs have been submitted in to evidence)
I also Phil's point, in detail, on this workshop page, under the heading "The "undue weight" accusation".
Kevin also engaged this issue again and again. (See evidence page)
However, I should note that first, the opinions other editors expressed on this matter in their discussions with Phil do not necessarily reflect my own. Second, it should be noted that throughout half the interactions regarding this issue Phil informed me that he was ignoring me (as documented in the evidence), so I chose to let others reply to much of the subsequent points Phil made.
So to claim we didn't engage him on this point is doubly disengenuous. First, we clearly did, on many occasions. And second, it takes quite some nerve on Phil's part to bring up an arbcom case claiming I did not engage his "most basic point" when I'd been told by him that he'd ignore everything I say. -- noosph e re 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
On the evidence page, Phil has claimed that (emphasis mine), "When asked about the notability or credibility of sources, or when faced with objections to the article in general, Ryan, Kevin, and Noosphere have all insisted that whomever raises an objection must also do the work to fix it, [27] [28], and that only those who have done research into a topic are qualified to ask questions about sources that it is not obvious are good [29]"
And, in his opening statement to this arbcom case Phil said (emphasis mine), "the expectation on the part of other editors – most egregiously Ryan and Noosphere – is that those who object to the article must fix it themselves instead of adding dispute tags [30]"
However, the diffs only cite Kevin's and Ryan's statements. I'll let Kevin and Ryan speak for themselves, but as far as my involvement in this part of the dispute goes, in my opening statement I have already challenged Phil to substantiate his allegation against me. Please let it be noted that he has been unable to do so. This is further evidence that Phil makes spurious, unsubstantiated allegations. -- noosph e re 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
On the evidence page Phil claims, "Somehow, the fact that I have complained bitterly about the poor quality of these articles in the past, and the fact that I nominated several of them for deletion over a year ago means that I am a POV-pusher whose opinion should be discounted."
Please note that this claim is not supported with any diffs. It also does not specify who among the involved parties he's accusing. All of us? A select few? Just one? -- noosph e re 00:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Now Phil has added "(See their statements and evidence in this arbcom case for examples of this)". Please note that he has still not provided any diffs. So this is still an unsubstantiated allegation.
This arbcom case has grown rather large, so it's not easy to find what you're referring to. I just searched through the opening statements and the only people there who are using the term "POV" or "POV pusher" in reference to others or their actions is Phil and Tbeatty. Phil has also done so in regards to Kevin Baas. [31] Which is all quite ironic, considering Phil's above complaint.
Furthermore, Phil has still not deigned to specify who he's making the accusations against. I take it that by using the term "their" he is accusing every editor involved in this case. In which case, I hope he can come up with the diffs to substantiate that accusation. -- noosph e re 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Phil has, on occasion, conflated the actions of the various parties involved in this dispute, as in the second (bolded) sentence here quoted from the evidence:
Phil doesn't specify who, in that bolded sentence, he is making this accusation against. From context one might infer that he's talking about both Ryan and myself. But it could also be interpreted as referring to Kevin as well, since he is one of the parties in the dispute. Looking at the references, the first two (in the bolded sentence) are of Ryan's edit, while the last reference is one of mine. Yet the sentence makes it sound like everything mentioned in it was done by the subject of the sentence (who, since it's ambiguous, might be all of the accused editors as a whole, or at least in collusion).
After I made the above comment Phil has admitted that he has "not made particular effort to segregate their actions out" [36] Phil justifies his actions by saying the article represents a "deep systemic failure", though presumably it's not the system but the three editors he's brought this case against that he thinks have failed. Otherwise he would have tried to change the system, such as the parts of WP:V he doesn't like.
Phil admits as much in the rest of the cited diff, and asserts that Ryan, Kevin, and I share "culpability" for the article. I freely admit that we share responsibility (and praise) for that article, as do all the other editors who've contributed to it. However, this arbcom case is not judging the article, but the editors' actions.
When Kevin or Ryan do something, I am not responsible for their actions. Likewise, they are not responsible for my actions, or for one another's. Thus, Phil's accusations and the evidence he provides for them should specifically cite the editor responsible.
I suggest this be made explicit in a principle affirmed in this arbcom decision: that individual editors are responsible only for their own actions, and the accusations and evidence in an arbcom case should cite specific individuals and the specific actions they are accused of.
As I have detailed in the evidence and analysis I have presented, Phil has repeatedly made vague, unsubstantiated accusations in the course of the dispute. I trust arbcom will not permit Phil to do the same in this arbcom case by lumping the actions of three seperate editors as if they were one person. If that's what Phil wants I suggest he present the evidence of a checkuser. -- noosph e re 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In the "Original Research" section of Phil's evidence presentation, he has complained that "only 26 [of the article's sources] come from mainstream press". I assume he doesn't have any problems with those sources themselves and move on to discuss the rest.
First, I will point out that though those were the only mainstream press sources, those weren't the only mainstream sources in the article. Mitofsky, (as I'm sure Phil, Arkon, and Tbeatty will be eager to tell you) is a mainstream source. But they're not media, so I have them listed (twice) in the "Primary Sources" section. There are other mainstream sources in that section, such as the Library of Congress. So were we to go by Phil's count we would be missing all the other mainstream sources in the article. However, mainstream sources are not really the issue. The issue, according to Wikipedia policy, is reliable sources.
If Phil will grant that all the Mainstream Media section sources are in fact reliable sources, I will add to that every source in the Primary Sources section (since they're reliable for information about themselves, per policy) to make a total of at least 26 + 21 = 47 non-controversial, reliable sources.
I've addressed the rest of the sources in the " Analysis of references" section of this workshop page, so I won't repeat it here.
However, I want to point out that these sources should not be evaluated in isolation. WP:RS advises cross-checking with other, independent sources. This article has done that, in that many of its claims are cited by multiple sources. I'll refer to these multiple-source citations as "source clusters". Here are a few examples of the first three source clusters in the article:
10,11,12 - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (classified as a Local Source), U.S. House of Representatives (Political Group), and the Associated Press (Mainstream Media)
14,15,16 - EWeek (non-mainstream media), Associated Press (Mainstream Media), The Washington Times (Mainstream Media)
21,22,23 - Washington Post (Mainstream Media), blackboxvoting.org (Political Group), EE Times (non-mainstream media)
Notice that source 10, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is a local source, but it's backed up by two independent sources, one of which is a mainsteram media source.
Likewise, EWeek (source 14) is backed up by two mainstream media sources.
And the blackboxvoting.org (source 22) is backed up by two other sources, one of which is a mainstream media source.
These are far from the only examples. I counted 24 such source clusters in the article, each of which consists of between two and six sources, with a mean and median of three sources. In all, the source clusters account for 72 (or 56%) of the 138 references in the article. -- noosph e re 06:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)