Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Workshop

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Mediation needs to be tried before arbitration should proceed

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. There's no question about this. This case should be refered to a mediator. If the person who brought the case is unwilling to do so, then the arbitrators should. Kevin Baas^talk 21:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It is not at all clear that complaining party Phil Sandifer has acted in good faith when he implied that mediation had already been tried. 71.132.151.14 08:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From Lyndon LaRouche 2, passed 7-0, February 2005. --Tony Sidaway 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Holding a strong POV does not necessarily imply POV-pushing edits

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From Lyndon LaRouche 2, passed 6-0, February 2005. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This form was adopted 9-0 in Tony Sidaway, March, 2006. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adopted 7-0 in FuelWagon v. Ed Poor, December, 2005. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability and sources

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adopted 10-0 in Zeq, March, 2006. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing controversial articles

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adopted 10-0 in KDRGibby, February, 2006. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

7) Users who engaged in aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Always a good one to consider in these situations. FloNight ^talk 16:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Individual responsibility

8) Individual editors are responsible only for their own actions. Accordingly, the accusations and evidence presented should pertain to specific individuals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes Fred Bauder 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per the Phil Sandifer's lumping together of three of the involved editors section of the evidence analysis on this workshop page. -- noosphere 22:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Use of blogs

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

However, I find little wrong with this example [1]. It seems quite insightful and sophisticated. Fred Bauder 21:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As I detailed in the Analysis of references section of this Workshop, there are only a handful of blog sources in this article. So this is hardly an issue. Furthermore, as I detailed in the Phil Sandifer's "Rules-lawyering" claim section of this Workshop, though blogs are generally not considered verifiable sources, Wikipedia policy does allow for exceptions. -- noosphere 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That blogs are self-published do indeed invite us to carefully evaluate the reputation and notability of the source. However, I do not believe blogs, especially those who have attained a large readership and have been quoted by mainstream media sources, should be placed in the same category as to warrant a strict interpretation of the the above guideline proposed by Fred Bauder. I think he recognizes this fact, as MysteryPollster, while being a blog, is probably the most respected polling site on the Internet. I hope that from this example, he extends the possibility for other blogs of like notability and reputation to be included and not dismissed prima facie because of their status as blogs. --kizzle 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not paper

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From WP:NOT. -- noosphere 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is the article 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its sub-articles:

• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression
• 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
• 2004 U.S. presidential election recounts and legal challenges
• Moss v. Bush
• Timeline of the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
• 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
• 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See main page and evidence pages. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In particular, the locus of the dispute is the quality and quantity of the sources cited in the articles; as Phil put it on WikiEN-l last October:

"The articles are scrupulously referenced. The problem is that the references are the paranoid rantings of a bunch of bloggers and activist groups that no mainstream sources considered worth refuting."

In reality, the way the articles have played out, there are a half dozen blog sources left, and about a dozen political group sources, and none of them state irregularities much worse than the several dozen other mainstream, "less well known" (e.g., CNET and Wired News), and primary sources. I think the dispute and the obvious resentment it has engendered between the parties is much larger than it should be.

So, what happens with these kinds of disputes is that the parties get mad at each other, because they try to stay within the rules, but they are human and their POV seeps through. So, they keep calling each other on infractions, and in the process the articles improve immensely into what would otherwise be amazing works of scholarship. But the parties can't see the improvement through their blind rage which makes them think that the article is still biased against them. It's not rational at all; it's just personal animosity. Read the articles! It seems like 80% of the statements are ballanced with alternating support/opposition paragraphs, and 95% of anything nontrivial is sourced. The remaining "low quality" sources are stuff that made my local newspaper back in October-January 2004-5.

The only behavior problems here are a failure to take a chill-pill, or sufficient deep breaths, and failure to go find a mediator who can slash the few remaining questionable sources. And, sadly, Phil's implication that mediation had already been tried. 71.132.151.14 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion

2) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, Florida

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed (really just a note for further use) Fred Bauder 13:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dead links

3) About half of the links in Timeline of the 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities are now dead.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just something I noticed. Fred Bauder 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I just took a look at the article (I've not touched it in ages) and indeed, lots of these links have 'gone stale'. What is the correct course of action when links to articles on news sites (as many of these links seem to be) like 'The Columbus Dispatch', or 'Yahoo news', etc., go dead? Is it acceptable to post to links of excerpts? Must those articles now be considered 'a thing of the past' and no longer valid sources, or can a simple citation of the paper/news agency and the publication date suffice? Thanks for your thoughts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume the links were once good and if the information is to be retained the source should also be retained. But not as a link, just as a reference. Fred Bauder 12:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

On this, I think I I agree with you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick look and 3 of the first 8 or so links come up with the articles 'not found'. However, each of them does appear to be a valid, published article so I was gonna do a deeper search. I didn't review the whole thing and I think my prior comment was presumptive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I find what Fred Bauder reports to be very surprising. Unless the links have changed between now and a week ago I don't think that they're dead at all. About a week ago I converted about 3/4 to 4/5 of the article to use the cite-web and cite-news templates (and Kevin Baas did the rest), and every single link I converted was live. So it's impossible that they're dead now, unless the links changed (which I didn't see happening in my watchlist) or the articles were made unavailable in the last week, which is unlikely. But I'll check the references again and get back to you. Ooops! You're talking about the Timeline article. I thought you were talking about the main article. I haven't looked at the Timeline article in ages either. And, in fact, I lamented the risk of links going stale in the future, back in 2004. So I'm not surprised that many of them are now dead. The main article's links, however, should be quite live. And the main article is the real focus of this arbcom case. You'll notice, for example, that Phil actually never even mentions anything about the other articles except that he thinks there're too many of them. But yes, the stale links should be removed or updated, imo. -- noosphere 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've found getting through the obstructionism on one of the election articles to be, in practice, about the most I can pull off at once. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Philip Sandifer has not adequately supported his allegations

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Philip Sandifer misrepresents the actions of the other parties in this case

5) Philip Sandifer has misrepresented the actions of the other parties involved in this dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Philip Sandifer has misinterpreted Wikipedia policy

6) When Philip Sandifer has cited Wikipedia policies to support his positions, he has misinterpreted those policies. In particular, WP:NPOV and WP:V.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Philips Sandifer has advocated inconsistent editing standards

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]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Phil Sandifer has brought a content dispute to arbcom

8) The majority of Phil Sandifer's accusations concern a content dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Other steps in dispute resolution have not been tried

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Position of Kevin Baas

10) It is the stated belief of Kevin Baas that: [6]

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

Clear statement of my "belief".

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

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

that's why we have encyclopedias.

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

noosphere's evidence analysis

---

Tbeatty's "Intimidation" claims

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. -- noosphere 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So I am not sure what remedy Ryan was looking for if it wasn't administrative sanction? Did he disagree that it was a bad faith nomination? If so, he could propose the article for deletion himself. Bad faith AfD nominations are deleted per policy, not because it was Phil. But in fact, Ryan agreed with the action. He believed it was a bad faith nomination. He just didn't like who administered the speedy keep and tried to use process to bring sanctions. Forunately, it didn't work. --Tbeatty 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Bad faith AfD nominations are deleted per policy"? Could you quote me that policy, please? Stifle described the deletion as "suboptimal, but not wrong,"[7] and AmiDaniel admitted the nomination did not violate the only policy that was mentioned as justification: WP:CSD G5.[8] So I'll be curious to hear which policy you're referring to.

It's on the AfD policy page. Bad Faith nominations that result in a speedy keep and the banning of the user have their logs deleted. --Tbeatty 03:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you link to that policy and quote the section you're talking about? I looked at WP:AFD, WP:DP, WP:DPR, and WP:SK, and the only parts of these policies that I could find that even remotely resembles what you just said was a part of WP:SK, which says:

"An article can be speedily kept ONLY if... 5.the nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the article is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with {{db-ban}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution."

If this is what you're talking about, it's simply not relevant, as the nominator was not banned when he made the nomination.[9]

And besides, even if there is such a policy, the fact is that RF was asking about policy regarding the administration and deletion of pages the administrator in question had himself edited. And all of this is getting rather far away from your original contention, which was that RF was seeking retribution for a speedy keep. Again, this is plainly false. -- noosphere 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the issue RyanFreisling raised on the ANI wasn't whether deleting a bad faith AfD was wrong (much less wanting Phil banned "for a Speedy Keep", which was your contention on this evidence page) but Phil's administering and deleting a page in which he's involved as an editor. Which is something quite different.

Phil deleted teh AfD discussion of a bad faith nomination that resulted in the user being banned. My contention is that Ryan was looking for a sanction since he put it on the page requesting adminstrative action, not the undelete page. Please show me that he requested undelete instead of sanctions. --Tbeatty 03:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed that RF was seeking an undelete. I'll let him speak for his motivations himself. My question is whether you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that RF was seeking retribution for Phil's vote of speedy keep (especially since you admit that RF had himself also voted speedy keep on that nomination). -- noosphere 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As we know, admins can ban users. But if they're involved in a personal dispute with a user then banning that user by that admin is frowned upon, even if the ban is otherwise justified. So this was a question for clarification of policy along those lines, not as seeking some kind of retribution for a speedy keep, which was what you contended on the evidence page. This is clearly false. -- noosphere 06:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Phil wasn't involved in any dispute with the user that was banned.

I wasn't implying he was. I said RF was seeking for a policy clarification along those lines, namely, to once again quote RF himself, "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." In both cases the administrator is involved. In the earlier scenario I described there is a personal dispute with the user, in this case the adminstrator is involved in editing the page in question. So what is the policy in this case? That's what RF wanted to know. -- noosphere 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A cabal is a group of editors who work in harmony to advance their own agenda at the expense of the project. This "cabal" has worked over 18 months (longer than any other editors who contribute to this article) to thwart any attempt to bring NPOV to the article and they continue to use process (over content or substance) to stop other editors from contributing. I would hold you to your own standard if you actually believed it: all three of the editors have expressed bias for the article, yet you don't recuse yourselves from editing it. Why do you assume bad faith in Fred yet you believe you are acting in good faith with same biases? The answer is that there was a process avenue to stop the other editors from contributing, including Fred. Whether it's 3RR threats or sanctions against Phil or other procedural threats, the outcome is the same: 3 editors of the same POV working to stifle the work and effort of other editors in order to advance their POV. --Tbeatty 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute. In fact one of RyanFreisling's main gripes was that Phil wasn't contributing, and that he was just whining. And I don't assume bad faith on Fred's part. He has demonstrated bias by his statements. If he had not made that statement I'd have not had any reason to suspect he was biassed regarding the subject of this case and the editors involved in it.

But once an arbitrator demonstrates bias in a case that you're involved with then what is the reasonable thing to do? Is it to keep quiet? Or is it to ask for the arbitrator's recusal? How is asking for the recusal of an arbitrator that's expressed bias evidence of being part of the cabal, that's what I'd like to know. You think that if we let that slide that would mean we weren't part of a cabal? That's simply preposterous. Any editors would have done the same.

And talk about stifling work... the demand that this article be deleted would certainly stifle work on it. Yet that's precisely what Phil has demanded.[10] Banning editors who've contributed more to this article than all of you put together is certainly stifling and intimidating and would stop these editors from contributing. Yet that's what you yourself have advocated.[11] And Arkon and Merecat have consistenly supported the both of you. So which is the cabal here? -- noosphere 06:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And by your standard, you have demonstrated bias by voting keep. By taking issue with what Fred said, by your standard, you have deomnstrated bias. Either your standard of bias is preposterous, or you should recuse yourself from editing the article. --Tbeatty 03:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course I have a bias towards my own position in this case since I'm one of the participants. But I'm not acting as an arbitrator! If I was an arbitrator and one of the participants (or had expressed bias in any other way) I'd recuse myself. Wouldn't you? -- noosphere 04:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is silly -- Ryan was clearly trying to get a record of the third deletion nomination because he thought it worth recording, and Phil squashed it because he didn't think it was worth recording. Everything else is just people who have become too emotionally involved in the article overreacting. You guys should have gone to mediation instead of arbitration. 71.132.151.14 07:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of references

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. -- noosphere 04:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Over a year of petty squabling over source quality has produced a far better-sourced article than at least 95% of any selection of random articles. It's funny that so many articles which make it to arbitration because of an argument that they were improperly or insufficiently sourced -- which was maybe true for this article a full year ago -- are actually very good, with inline citations for essentially every nontrivial claim. Other editors can only dream of achieving this kind of sourcing. Someone tell me why CNET and Wired News aren't mainstream, again. There are maybe a handful of sources which might improve the article if they were purged. But look for all the arbitrators to line up behind Fred accusing those who have been adding sources as "POV pushers" (or whatever fancy word gets used this week) while those who have been deleting sources get off scott-free even with their admitted 3RR violations. Blech! 71.132.151.14 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer's "undue weight" accusation

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? -- noosphere 06:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would be relevent if the article in question were Extreme minority views of the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Phil Sandifer 07:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is about those controversies that exist, not the controversies that Phil Sandifer wished would exist. -- noosphere 15:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If the reported allegations were extreme minority views then why did most of them get front-page play in major newspapers when they were being investigated or adjudicated in court? The more I read this the more I think the POV pushers are the ones who want the article to go away. Conspiracy theories about the Knights Templar or whatever occult group de-jure get unfettered articles, as do every aspect of the "paranormal" that you can imagine -- often with "NPOV" meaning that strong disclaimers like "Essentially all scientists believe ESP claims are fiction." being quickly watered down to stuff like "Scientists consider ESP controversial." But there's too much stuff on investigations of vote-stacking for the U.S. Presidential race so we should slash the article because it is too long? 71.132.151.14 07:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer's "evidence"

• Please let it be noted that much of what Phil Sandifer has submitted as evidence is nothing of the sort. They are allegations and generalizations, not backed up with diffs.

For example, Phil claims "Ryan and most especially Noosphere have engaged in 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," but provides no diffs to support any of these allegations. (Diff now provided, but only for me, not Ryan)

Another example, "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." Again, no diffs.

Yet another example, "When questions were raised about the quality of sources, the claim "the source is notable" was frequently made with no effort to find any reputable, mainstream source that asserted the notability of the source/perspective. This is classic original research." No diffs yet again.

• Second, it should be noted that Phil Sandifer frequently lumps together Kevin, Ryan and myself when the diffs he provides only show the involvement of one or two of us.

For example, he says "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. [15] [16]" But the diffs only show my involvement.

Another example: "Ryan, Kevin, and Noosphere have all insisted that whomever raises an objection must also do the work to fix it, [17] [18]" But the diffs only show Ryan's involvement.

Yet another example: "Ryan, Kevin, and Noosphere have all insisted... that only those who have done research into a topic are qualified to ask questions about sources that it is not obvious are good [19]" But the diff only shows Kevin's involvement.

• I will address the substance of these allegations in another response. Here I just want to illustrate that Phil continues to make sweeping generalizations and allegations either without attempting to substantiate them at all, or by only attempting to substantiate them in part. -- noosphere 16:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm done editing the evidence, I think - I have faith that the arbcom is not going to be interested in the extreme pedantry displayed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Sandifer (talk • contribs)

Can we at least keep the arbcom case civil? -- noosphere 23:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Phil Sandifer's "Rules-lawyering" claim

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. -- noosphere 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"Rules lawering" == they are following the rules but when I complain they tell me that they are following the rules so I'll complain about that, too. If not, why not? The remaining blogs cited in the articles don't include anything more damning than what's in the mainstream and primary source refs. As far as I'm concerned, the article would be better off without them, and needs more varied stuff like reportage of the controversies from local media, but that doesn't always stay permalinked for free, whereas blogs generally do. I'm ambivalent about this one. 71.132.151.14 07:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Only 6 out of 138 references are blogs, 8 if we include personal web pages, and I myself have been advocating getting rid of four of them. So blogs not a big issue for this article. They're hardly worth mentioning. -- noosphere 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like when you said, "they are following the rules but when I complain they tell me that they are following the rules so I'll complain about that, too," you probably intended that to be in quotes (in Phil's voice). Sorry, don't mean to be a grammar-nazi, but you probably don't want that sentence to be misinterpreted as being in your voice, right?  :) Ooops... I just noticed the equals signs, so it is clearer that you meant that sentence as a definition of what Phil meant by "rules lawyering". Thanks for your comments, by the way. It is a sad commentary on the system that you have to remain anonymous. -- noosphere 07:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer's "most basic point"

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. -- noosphere 23:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am disheartened to see this piece of rules-lawyering repeated. I will simply restate what I have said before - the excessive and uncritical coverage of viewpoints so minor as to have no responses is a violation of NPOV, as has been shown repeatedly, most notably in the Lyndon LaRouche case. Phil Sandifer 23:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That you disagree with my interpretation of WP:NPOV is quite a different claim than the one I am addressing here, which is your claim that we "all refused to engage [your] most basic point". As this evidence demonstrates, we did engage it. -- noosphere 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To deny the existence of policy that plainly does exist is not engagement. Phil Sandifer 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I never deinied that WP:NPOV, if that's the policy you're referring, to existed. I did disagree with you on your interpretation of it, however. Disagreement is not the same as lack of engagement. -- noosphere 15:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Phil Sandifer's "Refusal to work collaboratively" claim

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. -- noosphere 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Phil Sandifer's "Assumptions of Widespread Bad Faith" claim

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? -- noosphere 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. -- noosphere 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Phil Sandifer's lumping together of three of the involved editors

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:

"Ryan and most especially Noosphere have engaged in 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. [32] (In which Noosphere cites the fact that use of blogs is only discouraged to be evidence for using them) This is coupled with a refusal to acknowledge the validity of general complaints, [33] [34] instead trying to force discussions into as specific a context as possible. [35]

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. -- noosphere 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Phil Sandifer's "mainstream media" claim

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. -- noosphere 06:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

"Unless the story got picked up nationally or widely reported, one-off local news stories do not provide acceptable levels of reliability." [37] I wonder about that one. Fred Bauder 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I addressed that claim in the Analysis of references section above. -- noosphere 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just a note, I have attempted to contact User:Phil Sandifer in order to send him my archive of mainstream news reports on the irregularities in Ohio, but I have not received a reply nor any indication by Phil that he is interested in viewing evidence on the matter that is taken from respectable print sources rather than internet sites, of which he criticizes heavily on the elections irregularities pages. --kizzle 21:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not see this e-mail. Perhaps it got spam filtered? In any case, I would be interested in seeing this - can you send it to snowspinner at gmail dot com? Phil Sandifer 22:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just sent it now :) --kizzle 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)