Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence

Missing evidence

Sometime between 07:02:21 and 07:22:45 on May 4th, 2005, a vandal posted personal information on this article, so the article was deleted and recreated by Pepsidrinka and Freakofnurture. Unfortunately, the history of some of the legitimate edits that were made during this time appear to be lost, including an edit I made at 07:19. The content of the edit is still on the article's talk page, however. Since I need to use what I said as evidence, I am quoting it here. -- noosphere 19:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, if you have a problem with a specific citation just point it out, and give us a specific reason why. Saying that every source in an article this size is faulty for some amorphous reason is completely non-productive.

The burden of proof is indeed on the person making the claim, as Voice of All points out. This is due to WP:V. But let's see what that policy actually says on the matter: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." There are references for every claim in that article. If you think otherwise it's you who have to tell us which specific claim is being made where (quote the article please) and show us that it has no references. Then the burden of proof (to provide references) will be with the person wishing for that unsourced part of the article to remain. So far you haven't quoted or referred to any specific part of the article. So I'm asking, where's the beef?

If you accuse the whole article of being unsourced, well, all I can say is that there're plenty of sources in that article, so it's patently false. If you claim sources are not reputable you have to provide some specifics as well. Then we'll address those and come to consensus. Otherwise, this entire discussion is completely useless. -- noosphere 07:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tony Sidaway

If either of you has rebuttal evidence, please make sure it goes to the evidence page as well as (preferably instead of) here. There is also a section in the workshop for detailed analysis of evidence. --Tony Sidaway 17:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to leave the evidence on the evidence page. Here I have only cited and quoted the evidence on the evidence page. If you think some of what I said belongs on the evidence page, please let me know. Also, would you prefer that the analysis I put on this talk page and the ensuing discussion be moved to the workshop? -- noosphere 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now moved my evidence analysis and the ensuing discussions to the workshop, per what I take to be your suggestion. -- noosphere 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I am new at this I would like to once again ask if the workshop is the proper place for the analysis originally posted here? Is what's on that page going to be taken in to account in the decision making process, or are the arbitrators only going to read what's on the evidence page? Thank you. -- noosphere 07:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Refusal to work collaboratively"

... sounds a lot like "I told someone with whom I disagreed to change what they wrote, and they told me to do it myself." 71.132.151.14 06:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to Ryan's quotation

Since I was quoted, let me chime in my two cents a little further. (I'm not confident enough in my opinion to put it on the main page, but here it is.)

1. I'll stand behind my statements about Ryan. I've run into her on a bunch of pages, and I've never seen her act in anything other than the utmost good faith. I rarely agree with her POV on the underlying issues, but she's always had a great committment to ensuring that the encylopedia has accurate and verifiable information. She's always willing to engage discussions, and I think she's a great asset to Wikipedia.
2. I have no reason to believe that Phil is acting in anything other than good faith either. I sympathize with his feelings about those pages (I'm not sure if I agree, but I sympathize). So I'd hate to see this devolve into "Is Ryan or Phil a bad person," and I'm pretty sure it won't.

I also have a bunch of comments about this RFA on a whole, which, on reflection, I've moved to the main talk page.TheronJ 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomorrow's Rolling Stone

Related to the question of the requirement for fair coverage and the 'currency' of the controversy, there's word on the blogs today of an article written by Bobby Kennedy, Jr. in the upcoming Rolling Stone magazine, called 'Was the 2004 Election Stolen'. [1]

Soon the article will be posted live and we can read the article for ourselves and link directly, etc. In the meantime, here's the link to the blog post on BradBlog.[2] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the main article link again [3]. The online companion to the magazine article has been posted online here: [4], [5], [6]

The article -- headlined on the cover as "Did Bush Steal the 2004 Election?: How 350,000 Votes Disappeared in Ohio" -- has been several months in development and will contend that a concerted effort was undertaken by high-level Republican officials to steal the Election in Ohio -- and thus the country -- in 2004.

Howard Dean: "I'm not confident that the election in Ohio was fairly decided."

U.S. Congressman from Ohio, Rep. Dennis Kucinich: "The secretary of state is supposed to administer elections – not throw them."

Pollster Lou Harris of the Harris Poll -- described in the piece as "the father of modern day political polling" -- says: "Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen."

John Kerry: "Can I draw a conclusion that they played tough games and clearly had intent to reduce the level of our vote? Yes, absolutely. Can I tell you to a certainty that it made the difference in the election? I can't. There's no way for me to do that. If I could have done that, then obviously I would have found some legal recourse."

..."Kennedy adds "the best evidence says the Republicans succeeded" in their plan.

Excerpts of the not-yet-released article can also apparently be seen at Cliff Arnebeck's site, 'Ohio Honest Elections Campaign' [7]:

“Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush – and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush’s victory as nut cases in “tinfoil hats,” while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as “conspiracy theories,” and the New York Times declared that “there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.”

Update: ”The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush’s victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency.”

“After carefully examining the evidence, I’ve become convinced that the president’s party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004.”

“A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 – more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.”

“Indeed, the extent of the GOP’s effort to rig the vote shocked even the most experienced observers of American elections. “Ohio was as dirty an election as America has ever seen,” Lou Harris, the father of modern political polling, told me. “You look at the turnout and votes in individual precincts, compared to the historic patterns in those counties, and you can tell where the discrepancies are. They stand out like a sore thumb.”

I believe the existence of the article itself (to say nothing of its premise) now stands as yet another clear example of evidence that this topic requires (and has received) mainstream media attention, requires detailed explanation that is sometimes technical in nature, is frequently marked by derision of those investigating the incidents, and must properly differentiate fact from allegation while accurately reporting the viewpoints of the multiple involved parties. As these appear to me to be exclusively content-related issues, I'm not sure how ArbCom is to be involved in this process (if at all). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is wonderful. I hope that articles such as this will be used to reference this article, instead of the current referencing. Which is, after all, and always has been the nexus of the dispute. Phil Sandifer 22:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you'll be putting your complaint on hold then, to see if the new references make your case moot, no? Derex 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely - unless Ryan is saying that now that this Rolling Stone article is going to lead her to rip out all the bad references. Phil Sandifer 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, are you saying that the references you list this diff are the essence ("nexus" as you say) of your complaint? If that's what all this fuss is about, why not just post an RFC to get other editors to take a look and judge whether those references are ok? Or whether better ones are available — maybe someone out there has Lexis. Or, kizzle noted he has a bunch of articles compiled that could be used. Derex 00:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment by uninvolved user PurplePlatypus (moved to talk)

The Rolling Stone has just posted a lengthy article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (with over 200 citations, largely to reputable news sources, and some of the rest to government sources) on this very subject. If there is still a claim being made that the problems with the 2004 US election have not been published in notable media, both the article itself and (especially) the extensive references it cites should pretty much put the kibosh on it. Maybe it wasn't as widely reported as the problems in 2000, but that certainly doesn't mean it isn't notable. PurplePlatypus 08:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That article by Kennedy is discussed in detail at Talk:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and the general consensus is that Kennedy's work is slipshod, his sourcing is deficient and it's a low quality essay, which is not persuasive. Kennedy likely purloined his material from 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and that goes to show that this article is trash and should be deleted. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 04:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

None of this is evidence, it should be moved to talk. Which I'm doing now. Wombdsw, that's pretty close to the most bizarre "logic" I've seen around here; and that's saying a lot. Didn't look like a detailed discussion, or a consensus, either. Derex 04:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please beware of WP:NPA → Wombdpsw - @ ← 04:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of it. Personal attack means attacking a person, such as when I intemperately called Rex an idiot. The above was not a personal attack. I suppose it was more of a logical attack.Derex 17:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wombdpsw, even if that's true (not quite ready to characterize it as a consensus), the conclusions you're trying to argue for don't follow. In fact, the main point I was trying to make - that the article, by its very existence, is evidence (glances pointedly at Derex) of notability - is quickly agreed upon by two of the main disputants in the discussion you pointed to. PurplePlatypus 04:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well that makes some sense. Certainly didn't leap out at me, but I now see why you put it there. I'll stick it back for you, with apologies. The rest of the conversation should stay here though.

Thanks and no problem. I hope my parenthetical note came across in the semi-humourous way it was intended to, and not as the angry bluster I later realized it could be read as. I realize that it wasn't as clear as it might have been (that applies to both my original submission and the parenthetical comment) and that, not having checked the sourcing in the RS article as well as I might have, my wording did come on a bit strong. PurplePlatypus 04:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wombdpsw, I don't know where you get the idea that there's any kind of consensus regarding Kennedy's article on the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities talk page. If you think it's a low quality essay, fine. You're entitled to your opinion. However, the essay is from Rolling Stone, which is a mainstream source. And one of the main reasons this arbcom case was brought up was because Phil claimed that the election controversies were conspiracies invented by the blogosphere. Well, this is yet another mainstream source proving him wrong. So if you have a problem with the article itself I suggest you send a letter to Rolling Stone, because what matters for this arbcom case is that it's a mainstream source, not what you happen to think of it. -- noosphere 07:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the both of you should leave edits made to the evidence page by other users fully unmolested. There is great latitude allowed those who wish to offer evidence and personally, I feel that Kennedy's slipshod work is indeed evidence that crummy wiki articles are a source of problems both here and in the real world. In fact, if you guys remove my evidence again, that will be evidence agaisnt you both that you are interfering in my efforts to add evidence. And please avoid personal attacks. Calling another editor's logic "bizarre" is an obvious violation of - WP:NPA → Wombdpsw - @ ← 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you understand ad hominem correctly. Derex would have been guilty of committing a personal attack if he attacked you rather than your argument. But, attacking your argument is exactly what he was doing by calling your logic "bizarre". That's not a personal attack, that's an attack on your argument, which is entirely warranted. --kizzle 05:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything which can be reasonably described as an 'attack' is certainly going to be uncivil and ought to be avoided. As to 'bizarre' applying to the logic but in no way reflecting on the person whose logic it was... I think that's a clearly false position. If you tell a painter his painting is terrible it isn't simply a comment on the artwork. Any comment on things done by someone inherently contains some degree of comment on the person. That being said, 'bizarre' isn't the most heinous of descriptors... 'stupid logic', 'infantile logic', 'insane logic', et cetera would be 'personal attacks'. 'Bizarre logic' is merely impolite. --CBDunkerson 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

CBDunkerson, I have reviewed WP:NPA yet again, and sadly I find no basis in it supporting a complaint about your heinous personal attacks upon the truth of my position and upon my politeness ;) Derex 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, the word "bizarre" was used to describe the logic, not the person. It's syntax and not up for debate. Artwork is a far cry from logic, btw, as the latter is encouraged to be questioned, whereas the former is meant to be appreciated. --kizzle 21:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Both of you"? I have removed nothing from the evidence page at any time and, in point of fact, am not even 100% sure I know what you're talking about. (If you're referring to the removal of your threaded comment from the Evidence page - and I'm not sure you are - I suggest you read the rules for posting evidence at the top of the page; the only one who has violated them in any clear-cut way that I can see is you.)

As for calling your logic "bizarre" (not that I personally have done so), it seems to me that's (at least potentially) within the realm of fair comment on the content as opposed to the person. Far too many people on Wikipedia seem to think disagreeing with them in any but the most mealy-mouthed possible way constitutes a personal attack, to the point where I personally think excessively thin skins are among the biggest problems with the project. PurplePlatypus 05:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note that User:Wombdpsw has just been confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Merecat/Rex, a disruptive, indef-blocked editor (with a history of editing the articles in question in this dispute). -- noosphere 23:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)