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)
to make its case, not an excuse for censorship. Prometheuspan 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The meaning of the "Soapbox" principle proposed by Fred, is quite unclear to me.
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)
generated by factual groups. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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)
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. -- noosph e re 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
obviously, which is NOT what the npov policy states. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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)
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." -- noosph e re 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? -- noosph e re 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, ruling on how the articles should be layed-out is a ruling on content. -- noosph e re 22:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The articles in Wikipedia are lengthy, go into great detail, and are divided into a number of sub-articles.
71.132.143.70 10:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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) -- noosph e re 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
However, its clear that is not your argument, and it is clear that they generated that argument out of thin air. There ought to be a way to end games like that immediately; a straw man argument IS A FORM OF ATTACK. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
add up to the obvious; that the elections were rigged. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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. -- noosph e re 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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. -- noosph e re 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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? -- noosph e re 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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. -- noosph e re 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
"innovative" looks suspiciously more like pov warrior arbiter making new rules to support his pov. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
That obvious a straw man ought to be grounds to impeach this arbitration process and force recusal of this arbiter. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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)
as an arbiter. A judges job is not to mischaracterize (or to characterize at all) a persons opinion or position. THATS WHAT THEY DO for themsselves, and it is why we have "Witness" protocols. It is wikipedias duty to give a fair hearing to the actual facts of a minority opinion which does still have due weight, as according to the npov policy, which as you know states that EACH pov should be given its fair shake. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
duty in terms of Wikipedia on the other. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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)
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." -- noosph e re 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have responded to SimonP's query about past arbcom-mandated article-improvement drives [4]. -- Tony Sidaway 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
With respect (and yes, a fair amount of concern about the process to date), I've been reading closely and a number of the proposals have some very 'pliable' wording.
I've got an important question for the ArbCom regarding one of Fred's proposed remedies, which reads:'
Besides the now-familiar observation of the blatant content nature of this requirement, by 'counterproductive', do I infer that the editors targeted in this case could potentially be banned if they don't edit the page enough, or edit enough to meet ArbCom's approval?' I'd like clarification from the ArbCom on this specific question, as this could be interpreted as "if after a certain time in the opinion of a few Arbitrators the article hasn't been improved enough, the editors brought here by Phil will be banned."
If so, isn't requiring the editors targetted by Phil's RfAr to edit 'the precise antithesis of Phil's assertion that he himself (paraphrased) doesn't have to actually try to fix the problems he finds? And yet the same inaction would suffice enough for Phil's targets to be banned from the article? I understand the intervention against disruption - but what about a difference of opinion or simple inattention? These could all be interpreted as reason for banning under this proposal. Please provide your insight into this question at your convenience. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
for instance. It is known that people were again unjustly kicked off of voter rolls for being black and democrat, it is known that in fact Gore won the election and it is known that in fact the reason Bush is in the office is because the Supreme court apointed him. It is in fact known that in fact the elections were rigged, and any and all claims to the contrary are either ignorant, and based in ignorance, or povv warring, and based in intentional attempts at propaganda. The elections were in fact rigged, any to the contrary is lies and propaganda. Prometheuspan 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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 [5] - 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)
As a followup. I must point this out - a response by Fred to a comment on the Wiki-en mailing list in the thread Snowspinner/Phil introduced called 'So what are we going to do about this' [6]:
All this resistance is claimed to have taken place. All this bad faith and obstruction and ownership. All this POV is alleged and beliefs are literally placed in the minds of the editors targeted by Phil and Fred. And yet, those accused here (whom Fred called bullies a year ago) have never been brought to mediation, nor RfC, nor blocked for 3RR (AFAIK), nor NPA, nor even incivility... and the accusers have never participated in good faith in the article space around specifics. I must add that I include Fred as an accuser in this case, not a neutral party, on the basis of his prior his attack posts on the mailing list, his flat refusal to self-recuse, his initial framing of the 'findings' and 'proposals' as decidedly condemnatory of the targets and exculpatory of Phil, and most shockingly, his 'innovations' to the ArbCom process (and expansion of ArbCom powers to include content decisions), cooked up fresh for this case.
It makes me ask - is Phil's claim, based largely in 'undue weight' really substantive enough to warrant this RfAr? Is Fred's opinion and the resultant 'innovations' really the non-biased solution? Why is ArbCom in this dialogue around content to this extent, and with the POV that has been expressed to date regarding restricting information and condemning editors beliefs? Why did Phil bring this to Fred as he was instructed, instead of attempting mediation or making other good faith attempts at editing? Phil has never provided the evidence he promised, nor edited in good faith without threats and revert warring. This is simply not about an npov tag. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A few more thoughts about the current decision, offered as (hopefully) helpful feedback.
As usual, I don't have any real solutions - I'm just thinking out loud. (I do think a lot more specificity about what is wrong with the current versions from the ArbCom perspective would be helpful, as well as a lot more specificity about what might get editors banned from the pages). Still, these are the problems I see with the proposal as currently written. Thanks to everyone for their efforts, and I wish you luck in coming up with a workable remedy. TheronJ 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
are on the table because the facts proove that in fact the elections were rigged. So they load the game by making it impossible to present the facts. If anything, there should be more articles and more detail. The only reason to not allow the facts to speak for themselves is to spin the truth by act of censorship/omission. Prometheuspan 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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. -- noosph e re 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
think about it. Kevin Baas talk 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There a lots of things which are true, but do not constitute knowledge for the purposes of Wikipedia. For Wikipedia purposes only published information is considered. Something which is not published cannot be considered. Something about which little is published can be included but only as a minority viewpoint. Fred Bauder 21:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Apparently all opinions expressed by me here are totally my own. However, all opinions expressed by me here are also factual, and, "Intentional disruptor" is simply not true, As all of the statements made by me are specific to the discussion, not "disruptive". In order to be "disruptive" I'd have to be too long, inflammatory, uncogent, irrelevant, or off topic. Prometheuspan 20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
this is clearly a basic topic, so let's organize any future discussion on this in a single thread. Kevin Baas talk 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
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 Baas talk 01:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Bob Herbert, columnist for the NYTimes, wrote about the irregularities in Ohio in Monday's edition:
The political POV of the Arbitration Committee (be they Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Whig) should NOT determine this article's content, word count, or any other content issue. As I have maintained consistently, in the interests of Wikipedia, the content issues surrounding these articles can (and should) be addressed by good-faith editing - not the personal preferences of Arbitrators. I know it's not easy, but ArbCom should step away from this issue entirely and allow actual editors to conduct the discussions and/or mediations necessary. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The only passing remedy is, in essence, "Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research."
Is admin and dispute participant Phil S. going to be allowed to use this power to ban others for edit warring with him? 71.132.132.15 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Theresa wrote:
“ | In what way is an expert in the field different from those who know about a particular minority theory? I don't think Kevin Baas believes he is opposing current NPOPV policy. | ” |
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 Baas talk 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears arbcom is moving to close without deigning to respond to the many questions and concerns Ryan, Kevin, and myself have raised (not to mention the uninvolved parties who've voiced their concerns along the way).
I do hope that whoever looks over the record of this case in the future takes the time to read through this talk page, the evidence and workshop pages for themselves, as the arbcom decision simply did not even attempt to address most of what this case was about, nor to clarify what their own rulings mean. -- noosph e re 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
to make its case, not an excuse for censorship. Prometheuspan 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The meaning of the "Soapbox" principle proposed by Fred, is quite unclear to me.
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)
generated by factual groups. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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)
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. -- noosph e re 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
obviously, which is NOT what the npov policy states. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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)
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." -- noosph e re 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? -- noosph e re 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, ruling on how the articles should be layed-out is a ruling on content. -- noosph e re 22:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The articles in Wikipedia are lengthy, go into great detail, and are divided into a number of sub-articles.
71.132.143.70 10:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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) -- noosph e re 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
However, its clear that is not your argument, and it is clear that they generated that argument out of thin air. There ought to be a way to end games like that immediately; a straw man argument IS A FORM OF ATTACK. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
add up to the obvious; that the elections were rigged. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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. -- noosph e re 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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. -- noosph e re 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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? -- noosph e re 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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. -- noosph e re 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
"innovative" looks suspiciously more like pov warrior arbiter making new rules to support his pov. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
That obvious a straw man ought to be grounds to impeach this arbitration process and force recusal of this arbiter. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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)
as an arbiter. A judges job is not to mischaracterize (or to characterize at all) a persons opinion or position. THATS WHAT THEY DO for themsselves, and it is why we have "Witness" protocols. It is wikipedias duty to give a fair hearing to the actual facts of a minority opinion which does still have due weight, as according to the npov policy, which as you know states that EACH pov should be given its fair shake. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
duty in terms of Wikipedia on the other. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 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)
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." -- noosph e re 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have responded to SimonP's query about past arbcom-mandated article-improvement drives [4]. -- Tony Sidaway 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
With respect (and yes, a fair amount of concern about the process to date), I've been reading closely and a number of the proposals have some very 'pliable' wording.
I've got an important question for the ArbCom regarding one of Fred's proposed remedies, which reads:'
Besides the now-familiar observation of the blatant content nature of this requirement, by 'counterproductive', do I infer that the editors targeted in this case could potentially be banned if they don't edit the page enough, or edit enough to meet ArbCom's approval?' I'd like clarification from the ArbCom on this specific question, as this could be interpreted as "if after a certain time in the opinion of a few Arbitrators the article hasn't been improved enough, the editors brought here by Phil will be banned."
If so, isn't requiring the editors targetted by Phil's RfAr to edit 'the precise antithesis of Phil's assertion that he himself (paraphrased) doesn't have to actually try to fix the problems he finds? And yet the same inaction would suffice enough for Phil's targets to be banned from the article? I understand the intervention against disruption - but what about a difference of opinion or simple inattention? These could all be interpreted as reason for banning under this proposal. Please provide your insight into this question at your convenience. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
for instance. It is known that people were again unjustly kicked off of voter rolls for being black and democrat, it is known that in fact Gore won the election and it is known that in fact the reason Bush is in the office is because the Supreme court apointed him. It is in fact known that in fact the elections were rigged, and any and all claims to the contrary are either ignorant, and based in ignorance, or povv warring, and based in intentional attempts at propaganda. The elections were in fact rigged, any to the contrary is lies and propaganda. Prometheuspan 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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 [5] - 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)
As a followup. I must point this out - a response by Fred to a comment on the Wiki-en mailing list in the thread Snowspinner/Phil introduced called 'So what are we going to do about this' [6]:
All this resistance is claimed to have taken place. All this bad faith and obstruction and ownership. All this POV is alleged and beliefs are literally placed in the minds of the editors targeted by Phil and Fred. And yet, those accused here (whom Fred called bullies a year ago) have never been brought to mediation, nor RfC, nor blocked for 3RR (AFAIK), nor NPA, nor even incivility... and the accusers have never participated in good faith in the article space around specifics. I must add that I include Fred as an accuser in this case, not a neutral party, on the basis of his prior his attack posts on the mailing list, his flat refusal to self-recuse, his initial framing of the 'findings' and 'proposals' as decidedly condemnatory of the targets and exculpatory of Phil, and most shockingly, his 'innovations' to the ArbCom process (and expansion of ArbCom powers to include content decisions), cooked up fresh for this case.
It makes me ask - is Phil's claim, based largely in 'undue weight' really substantive enough to warrant this RfAr? Is Fred's opinion and the resultant 'innovations' really the non-biased solution? Why is ArbCom in this dialogue around content to this extent, and with the POV that has been expressed to date regarding restricting information and condemning editors beliefs? Why did Phil bring this to Fred as he was instructed, instead of attempting mediation or making other good faith attempts at editing? Phil has never provided the evidence he promised, nor edited in good faith without threats and revert warring. This is simply not about an npov tag. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A few more thoughts about the current decision, offered as (hopefully) helpful feedback.
As usual, I don't have any real solutions - I'm just thinking out loud. (I do think a lot more specificity about what is wrong with the current versions from the ArbCom perspective would be helpful, as well as a lot more specificity about what might get editors banned from the pages). Still, these are the problems I see with the proposal as currently written. Thanks to everyone for their efforts, and I wish you luck in coming up with a workable remedy. TheronJ 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
are on the table because the facts proove that in fact the elections were rigged. So they load the game by making it impossible to present the facts. If anything, there should be more articles and more detail. The only reason to not allow the facts to speak for themselves is to spin the truth by act of censorship/omission. Prometheuspan 19:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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. -- noosph e re 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
think about it. Kevin Baas talk 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There a lots of things which are true, but do not constitute knowledge for the purposes of Wikipedia. For Wikipedia purposes only published information is considered. Something which is not published cannot be considered. Something about which little is published can be included but only as a minority viewpoint. Fred Bauder 21:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Apparently all opinions expressed by me here are totally my own. However, all opinions expressed by me here are also factual, and, "Intentional disruptor" is simply not true, As all of the statements made by me are specific to the discussion, not "disruptive". In order to be "disruptive" I'd have to be too long, inflammatory, uncogent, irrelevant, or off topic. Prometheuspan 20:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
this is clearly a basic topic, so let's organize any future discussion on this in a single thread. Kevin Baas talk 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
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 Baas talk 01:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Bob Herbert, columnist for the NYTimes, wrote about the irregularities in Ohio in Monday's edition:
The political POV of the Arbitration Committee (be they Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Whig) should NOT determine this article's content, word count, or any other content issue. As I have maintained consistently, in the interests of Wikipedia, the content issues surrounding these articles can (and should) be addressed by good-faith editing - not the personal preferences of Arbitrators. I know it's not easy, but ArbCom should step away from this issue entirely and allow actual editors to conduct the discussions and/or mediations necessary. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The only passing remedy is, in essence, "Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research."
Is admin and dispute participant Phil S. going to be allowed to use this power to ban others for edit warring with him? 71.132.132.15 10:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Theresa wrote:
“ | In what way is an expert in the field different from those who know about a particular minority theory? I don't think Kevin Baas believes he is opposing current NPOPV policy. | ” |
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 Baas talk 17:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It appears arbcom is moving to close without deigning to respond to the many questions and concerns Ryan, Kevin, and myself have raised (not to mention the uninvolved parties who've voiced their concerns along the way).
I do hope that whoever looks over the record of this case in the future takes the time to read through this talk page, the evidence and workshop pages for themselves, as the arbcom decision simply did not even attempt to address most of what this case was about, nor to clarify what their own rulings mean. -- noosph e re 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)