Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Election/Proposed decision

A detail to attend to

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)

If so, then it should be incumbent upon the majority viewpoint

to make its case, not an excuse for censorship. Prometheuspan 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The possibility cannot be precluded, but to take that as a general principle would be exceedingly silly. Perhaps the most sensible action would be to add more verifiable coverage about the "majority" viewpoint, rather than to remove coverage of the "minority" viewpoints. That's how UFO and Global warming have both been handled, and I think the readers benefit from a full exploration in those, and many other, cases.

Or is it the case that your attempts to cover the "majority" viewpoint have been censored? If so, I'd be very happy to support its inclusion, and I'm sure an RFC on that issue would gather very wide support. Derex 01:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, and removing everything that can't be tracked to a mainstream, reliable source would be good. Phil Sandifer 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, so in other words, we should only be allowed to use republican owned and operated media sources.

Prometheuspan 19:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, reliable, certainly. What's mainstream? Derex 02:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what you said a week ago regarding information you wanted Wikipedia to include, Phil.[1] -- noosphere 21:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to rethink whether you really want to move this matter away from the issues surrounding these articles and into an in-depth analysis of people's desires and motivations on Wikipedia. It is my suspicion that, in fact, you do not want the debate to turn to those matters. However, if you are going to pursue ad hominem attacks on me that ignore aspects of my argument, I will go see what I can find about your general conduct. Up to you on what you want this case to be about. Phil Sandifer 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil, I am completely uninterested in your motivations. What I am interested is the apparent inconsistency in the standards you espouse. One day you're all up in arms about Wikipedia only using "mainstream sources", and decrying blogs. The next day blogs are quite acceptable, as are non-mainstream, local papers. Can you explain this discrepancy? And, while you're at it, please clarify what "ad-hominem attack" you're talking about. I see no attack period, ad-hominem or otherwise. I just want to point out the apparent discrepancy in your standards. Do you consider drawing attention to this discrepancy an attack? -- noosphere 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox

The meaning of the "Soapbox" principle proposed by Fred, is quite unclear to me.

Wikipedia is not a proper forum for extensive presentation of a viewpoint regarding a contemporary political controversy.

Are the key words here "a viewpoint regarding", meaning the controversy can be discussed but not notable views about it? Or is the key word "a", as in "a [single] viewpoint" rather than multiple viewpoints? Or does the proposal indicate that contemporary political controversies should not be covered at all, or perhaps just in a cursory, non-"extensive", fashion?

The official policy referenced, WP:SOAP#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, doesn't say anything at all about contemporary or political controversies. Rather, it directly prohibits advocacy, self-promotion, and advertising. If "presentation" is construed as "advocacy" then this makes sense, but that seems like a fine line. Certainly, "documentation" of a notable and verifiable viewpoint should be ok, or no?

It's not clear to me how neutral and verifiable coverage of a contemporary controversy, including notable viewpoints, might run afoul of WP:NOT or its Soapbox section. No criticism intended, it's just that I honestly don't understand which interpretation is intended.

— Derex, not a party to this case.

Derex 00:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Soapbox" applies specifically to persons making solo or very small non due weight arguments, not factual reports regarding facts

generated by factual groups. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Summary of knowledge?

Fred Bauder has proposed that "Wikipedia articles are a summary of generally accepted knowledge regarding a subject." I am concerned about this phrasing, since who gets to determine what "generally acceepted knowledge" is, and how are we to figure that out?

Does it mean that "most people" (meaning a majority of people) accept that knowledge? A majority of who? Americans? The world population? If either one of those were the measure then most Wikipedia articles would not exist, since most people don't of know much less accept their subject matter (say, predicate calculus, or the Polish-Soviet War, the latter of which was a featured article).

And, anyway, how are we as editors supposed to measure what the majority accepts? Are we to rely on polls of the public? If so, it should be mentioned that no such polls regarding majority opinion have been offered in respect to the content of the articles in question in this arbcom case.

Finally, I should like to make clear that by voting on which viewpoint is "generally accepted", arbcom would be making a decision about content. -- noosphere 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Generally accepted" means excluding minority viewpoints,

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)

Yes, exactly. If the result of the AfD is to delete or merge, I'm perfectly fine with that, since it has been determined through proper process. But to decree a priori that there can't be sub-articles or that they must only exist in summary would be wrong, and a content ruling to boot. -- noosphere 22:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's Editing recommendation

I am concerned that by consolidating and summarizing the content of the articles a lot of important content will be lost. WP:NOT says, "some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, and since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc." and it encourages splitting the article up as a "natural part of growth for a topic." -- noosphere 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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? -- noosphere 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, ruling on how the articles should be layed-out is a ruling on content. -- noosphere 22:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I got your summary right here:

The articles in Wikipedia are lengthy, go into great detail, and are divided into a number of sub-articles.

:-P

71.132.143.70 10:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"POV fork"

I object to referring to these articles as "POV forks". Wikipedia:Content forking says, "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy." (emphasis mine) -- noosphere 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

'in defense of the current state of the articles'

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)

One editor 'supported' another

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)

I agree. This is a complete distortion of my position. I do not, as Kevin Baas is alleged to believe, that "the significance of the subject matter of the articles is sufficient to over-ride Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy". I simply do not support Kevin Baas on this. And yet that's what the characterization of my position implies. -- noosphere 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The position created is a straw man argument; it is a classical case of a straw man argument, and the point of it is to make an argument that is easy to shoot down via the rules.

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)

Yet, you continue to defend the article in its present bloated state. Fred Bauder 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to your characterization, and if there was a judge i would ask that your comment be stricken on the grounds that it is predudicial. The articles are factual, they are written about a phenomenon that is factual, and the only reason people like you have to call them bloated is to limit the evidence so that the facts don't

add up to the obvious; that the elections were rigged. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I do, because Wikipedia is not paper. This is part of the WP:NOT policy, as I'm sure you know, which states "After a point, splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic" and "since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments, include many more relevant links, be more timely, etc."

Then there's Wikipedia:Content fork, which says "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure"

Furthermore, to call the article "bloated" is to make a ruling on content, which arbcom is not supposed to do.

I'm sure you know all this, and I don't need to quote policy to you. So I am confused as to why you continue to maintain that the articles should contain less content than they presently do. -- noosphere 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This might be a time to pause and consider the possibility that you are wrong. Recognizing this possibility and acting upon it can often prevent undesirable outcomes. Phil Sandifer 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as we are having thoughtful soul searching, You folks should try the same.

Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I will consider that I am wrong when a Wikipedia policy is brought to my attention that says articles aren't allowed to get "bloated", and a policy that says that arbcom can declare by fiat which articles are "bloated" (ie. rule on content). -- noosphere 22:51, 4 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. -- noosphere 23:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Noosphere's position as described in the proposed decision

The proposed decision only describes my position in regards to the article and in regards to Kevin Baas' actions. It mentions absolutely nothing on the issues I brought up regarding Philip Sandifer's behavior in the dispute and this arbcom case. Therefore the description of my position in this case is incomplete. -- noosphere 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That is because I agree with Philip Sandifer and believe his complaints are valid. He may not have been totally cool, but I see no basis for a negative sanction against him. Fred Bauder 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant, an omission by way of bias and predjudice. Whether or not you agree with him is irrelevant, you should still follow

process, remember, you are supposed to be neutral, not take sides, and that includes not dismissing evidence, allowing evidence to be heard, not disallowing evidence to be heard, no mischaracterization and straw man arguments, etc. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it has been clear that you agreed with Phil regarding the articles since long before this case ever started. But sanctions or not we should be clear on what actually happened. So it would be only proper to address Phil's behavior as it has been detailed by the parties in this case on the evidence page and in the workshop. Thank you. -- noosphere 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding process

Are the parties involved in the dispute allowed to add their own proposals to this page? Or are we only allowed to add them to the workshop? -- noosphere 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Workshop. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Circumvention of process in this arbcom case?

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. -- noosphere 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitrators decide on the process to be followed in arbitration, subject to the Arbitration Policy. Workshops were added to the process by the arbitrators last year as a means of encouraging other users to help them with the analysis of evidence and drafting the proposed decision. That is to say, it is intended primarily to help the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitrators are not required to discuss their proposals with non-arbitrators. They may decide to add proposals to this page by themselves. If you want to start a discussion about any of the proposals, you may do so here or (though this may not be ideal) on the talk page of an arbitrator. Or in email. Arbitrators may choose to respond to clarify their decisions and may alter their decisions as a result of comments or alternative proposals on the Workshop page. (Speaking with my clerk hat on here). --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. -- noosphere 20:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't panic

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)

Whos panicking? We are just noticing that what you are calling

"innovative" looks suspiciously more like pov warrior arbiter making new rules to support his pov. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to imply their minds have been made up on this case prior to hearing it. However, you certainly seem to have taken the initiative in this case. You were the only one to put proposals and comments in the workshop. Yours are the only proposals on this page. And yet you were the only arbitrator to be asked to recuse himself due to an expression of bias. So it's interesting that despite this expression of bias you are the one deciding the wording of the findings and remedies of this case. I hope the rest of the arbitrators take this in to account. -- noosphere 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am similarly very troubled that this ArbCom case is so 'innovative' in so many ways, from bypassing mediation to openly considering content matters to the creation of brand new policies, to say nothing of all this having been done by an Arbitrator who has expressed a prior bias to do exactly as is being done. I am really trying to maintain faith in the process, here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least he hasn't proposed banning us outright, yet. But it's clear that the decision is shaping up to be that if we oppose Phil gutting this article in the future we will get banned. -- noosphere 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All, I suppose, will do what they feel is right. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see if you can't work together and improve the article. It is very very long and detailed. Fred Bauder 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, the primary complaint; detail. The only rational or logical rason for this complaint, esp given the povs involved? Limiting evidence so that the facts are not allowed to show the truth. Censorship, omission for purposes of propaganda.

Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I am (and others here) have been imploring Phil to actually work on the article (as an editor, without threatening other users with blocks, tag warring, etc.) on specifics... nothing in that regard has changed. Phil hasn't made an effort to work together at all, seeking any means other than work. And yet we're the ones here with a case brought to the ArbCom! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred, could you us tell more specifically what you would like done to improve the article? -- noosphere 20:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And could you specifically address Phil's behavior (as we've detailed on the evidence page and in the workshop) in the dispute, and during the arbcom case? -- noosphere 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think, based on the nature of your claims about my behavior, which seem more accurately described as claims about the arbcom case, the only real rulings they could offer are either to make rulings against you or to not. That is, I don't see what you've brought up here that could possibly be taken as actionable. Phil Sandifer 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Before the actions can be decided on we should be clear on what happened in this case. The rulings that follow should be based on the facts. If some of the findings of fact are omitted then the rulings can't be appropriate to the case. -- noosphere 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the ruling indicates that the arbitrators thus far do not agree with your judgments stemming from your understanding of the facts. These things often happen. Phil Sandifer 22:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So far, the ruling indicates that the arbitrators have only seen fit to vote on the findings of fact and other proposals put forth by Fred Bauder (the one arbitrator who has been asked to recuse himself because of an expressed bias), and have ignored the proposals put forth by other parties in this dispute. I hope, for Wikipedia's sake, that this does not often happen in other arbcom cases. -- noosphere 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred's innovation is to not even make a pretense that he's giving a fair hearing to all parties. Like it or lump it, Arbitrator Bauder is acting as Phil's advocate, not as a disinterested judge. This despite having been asked to recuse himself precisely because the opposing parties feared Fred couldn't or wouldn't be impartial. But, if you refuse to genuflect and call Fred's innovation "justice", he'll accuse you of not showing good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.30.242.135 (talk • contribs) .

I thank you for your comments on this case. However, you are not doing anyone any favors by airing people's dirty laundry when 1) it has absolutely nothing to do with this case, and 2) it wasn't even done on or related to Wikipedia. All this is going to do is make people angry. -- noosphere 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.

Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize to Fred for any distress I caused him. Since Fred himself discussed his censure and suspension on Wikipedia when he last ran for re-election to the Arbitration Committee, and since it's part of the public record in Colorado, I figured it was public knowledge here. But Fred sees it differently, and I really am sorry I brought it up. I brought it up only because, like Fred's innovations in this case and his refusal to recuse himself, it illustrates a pattern of deviating from accepted judicial procedures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.30.242.135 (talk • contribs) .

Hm... if you were HushThis, you'd be more hysterically anti-me. And less apologetic. So either blissy2u or sgrayban. sgrayban is too anti-Fred, so I figure blissy2u. I'll put $10 on it - any takers? Phil Sandifer 06:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's Jimbo. -- noosphere 07:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What to do with the article

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)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that's 'pretty sure'. I'd call that an opinion, not at all a fact. I'll write him a letter and ask him - but I don't see a basis for such a blanket assertion. As far as brevity - it should be long enough to explain the real issues, explain the various points of view, and to be informative, explain the context in which the events happened and were/are being investigated. I agree much can be improved across the 'locus' articles in this regard. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And to say that the article is not "reasonably brief and understandable" and that Kennedy's article is not an appropriate source is to make a content judgement, isn't it?

I know I asked you for specifics, but upon further thought, I don't see how you could make any statement regarding the article itself without making a content judgement. This is supposed to be left up to the editors, isn't it?

And with a ruling that effectively ties our hands behind our backs and gives Phil free reign over the article this becomes a ruling on content. Namely, that whatever content Phil decides is best for the article is what stays. Whatever he decides is not goes. -- noosphere 21:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be the situation if you were banned from the article, which frankly, is the alternative. Fred Bauder 21:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A followup - would such a ban include Phil, or just his chosen targets (irrespective of the evidence they have thus far brought)? Why is banning editors with which he disagrees the next step after edit warring for Phil, but the rest of us are held to a different standard? Why is Wikipedia process (mediation, ArbCom avoiding content disputes) suddenly unnecessary when Phil (an admin) brings a concern? Why would you disregard your obvious conflict of interest, instead driving new policies to reach the end you espoused a year ago? All this is troubling - but the last statement of yours is beyond the pale. I am struggling not to hear the railroad coming. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's the threat of banning if we interfere with Phil. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful we're not getting banned outright (though at the same time I think we've done absolutely nothing to deserve banning). But that is really immaterial to whether this is effectively a content judgement or not. By giving Phil free reign on the article you're effectively supporting his POV, and yours, since you've expressed that you share it regarding the article's content deciding what content stays and what content goes. -- noosphere 21:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of me even opening my mouth?

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)

Yes, its criminal the things that they are getting away with.

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)

It's not supurflous, because there is a record of what happened here. Even though the sentences handed down to us by arbcom may not be fair, posterity will see how this case has been conducted. And, if you don't speak out, the people who read this case will assume that you either acquiesced to everything here or just didn't care. Make your position clear and let everyone, not just the arbitrators, judge what really happened and whether we deserve what we're going to get. -- noosphere 21:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to go play Chess in the real world. Let me know what my beliefs turn out to be in the imaginary world. Kevin Baas^talk 22:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is Kevin Baas' belief that the arbcom is double plus good. Derex 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently so. -- noosphere 22:17, 4 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)

What he is saying is that despite a lack of published reports, it is Wikipedia's duty to get the "truth" out. Fred Bauder 14:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of reports, and plenty of published reports. Again a straw man argument, again, ought to be grounds to impeach you

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)

No, Fred, that's not what I'm saying. Kevin Baas^talk 14:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, Fred, but I don't agree. (Which may get us into some of the underlying problems in trying to opine on someone else's opinion, but so be it.) As I read the exchange:[3] (1) Phil argued that WP:NPOV required Wikipedia to balance the amount of coverage of the election itself with the amount of coverage of election irregularities across different articles, in some rough proportion to the viewpoint of the public as a whole; (2) Kizzle and Kevin argued that otherwise acceptable evidence of irregularities should stay without regard to the number of people in the public who thought that the election was tainted by irregularities.

I really don't see the problem with the discussion between Phil, Kizzle, and Kevin. IMHO, it was the notability debate reappearing, this time in the context of NPOV. IMHO, Phil was saying that evidence of individual irregulaties should be deleted, even if properly verifiable, because the amount of emphasis on irregularities rendered election coverage as a whole NPOV. Kevin wasn't saying that he intended to include irregularities that didn't meet WP:V, and he wasn't saying that he intended to violate the proper balance within an article. IMHO, he was just saying that he thought the standard for undue weight shouldn't be public notability, but notability within an expert community. ("[T]he metric should be, rather, if the majority of people who know the information in the article believe that the information is significant"). (Personally, I think Phil's initial premise, that NPOV requires that Wikipedia not grant undue weight between different articles about the 2004 election, isn't a good one. But that's just my opinion.).

Thanks, Fred -- I appreciate the ArbCom engaging on these issues, and wish you luck in coming to a workable and fair decision. TheronJ 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, TheronJ, that's exactly what I'm saying. Kevin Baas^talk 21:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd submit the dialogue in question to the record if it wasn't already presented as evidence in this case, but for the sake of reference for this discussion the dialogue in question is here, where I said the same thing in three different ways, and now TheronJ has phrased it in a fourth way. It should be pretty clear by now precisely what my beliefs are. Thanks for asking. And thanks for examining the evidence, TheronJ. Kevin Baas^talk 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And forgive me if I'm being a little ascerbic. Frankly, I'm outraged. Kevin Baas^talk 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You ought to be, those kind of straw man arguments from an "arbiter" would end a real trial as a mistrial.

Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

Regarding 2004 election "controversy" articles

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)

In fact, many non-partisan and scholarly resources share the opinion that election was rigged, this is a red herring, a straw man,

fallacious set theory, and excluded middle. In fact, anybody who looks at the evidence without predjudice would be forced to conclude the elections were rigged, and the evidence itself is persuasive enough that even some republican sources have commented on it. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your summary is logically incorrect. To discuss the irregularities in an election neutrally is to intentionally not take one side or the other in that election. It's illogical to claim that any neutral discussion of these irregularities must describe the issue as 'partisan'. And your description of some of this article's editors as 'hating Bush' is the most partisan accusation possible to make - and in my case it is simply untrue. Moreover, the great preponderance of incidents (not mere allegations - these are factual, independently verified occurrances) in this particular election have been shown to favor one candidate disproportionately. While that makes consensus around a neutral description of those factual incidents much harder, it does not automatically act as a polarizing force to render fact and truth into mere partisan allegation. The distinction between allegation and fact is important and should not be callously discarded. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Again, a characterization not based in fact. This is not partisan mud slinging, any real review of the factual evidence shows that the elections were rigged. Since the elections were in fact rigged, bringing attention to that fact is not mud slinging, its patriotic civil duty on the first hand, and informational and factual

duty in terms of Wikipedia on the other. Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the individuals involved are 'almost universally partisan advocates of one sort or another'. This is political news so it should be no surprise that the 'individuals advancing these allegations' may come from widely varying political backgrounds and viewpoints. Using the word 'irregularities' to describe the notable and irregular occurrences discussed in the article is indeed accurate. And the discussion will only degrade into a mudslinging contest if editors allow it to. I won't. Will you? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they will attempt to turn this into mudslinging, thats all they can do in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Prometheuspan 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I believe everyone here wants to improve these articles, which makes this whole exercise a sad monument to a failure of WP:AGF. Derex 23:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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." -- noosphere 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On SimonP's query about article-improvement drives

I have responded to SimonP's query about past arbcom-mandated article-improvement drives [4]. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

a brief note

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

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)

I think there is a marked difference between specialist mathematics topics and major political issues, and that the standards of notability would differ accordingly. Phil Sandifer 18:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How, exactly? Topics of major political interest and controversy require careful factual coverage and analysis, given the polarizing nature of the context. Kevin's comment is valid and useful, so I'd think it unfair and frankly, an old pattern for you to simply discount Kevin's comments by pointing to his example and making a blanket comment about how there's a 'marked difference' between his example and this situation, without providing specifics to explain or justify your point of view. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. At least Phil understands what I'm saying, which is more than I can say for the arbitrators who have voted. Kevin Baas^talk 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

logical analysis of my comment at issue in findings of "fact"

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)

Ban editors for NOT editing?

Please note - I placed (and removed) a troll warning here. I removed it after the anon agreed to relent this (imho) 'tangential' discussion. I am ready to discuss it if this action was seen as incorrect. Thank you and apologies for any inconvenience. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 8 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:'

If the articles are not substantially improved by continued editing the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive.

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)

This comment by User:TheronJ addressed to Ryan at User talk:RyanFreisling clearly shows what the problem is with these articles. It's editors like Ryan, Theron and Kevin who want to use these articles to "collect all the data points of [2004] election irregularities". This is indeed POV pushing by undue weight and Phil was 100% correct to bring this Arb case. The very fact that Ryan did not strongly denounce TheronJ's comment shows that she has an utter lack of perspective on this topic. Wiki editors are not grand-jurors tasked with the job of scrutinizing certain controversies to the 'nth degree so as to find evidence of Republican malfeasance. However, they way some edit these articles, makes it clear that this is precisely what is going on here - some Wiki editors have assigned themselves the role of grand inquisitor. Ryan your non-rebuke of Theron's comments speaks volumes about what you are thinking here. 208.65.61.27 05:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have completely lost me. Why would I denounce Theron's comments? I agree with them! I don't view the article as a 'clearinghouse' or 'dumping ground' for facts. His suggestions were great and I told him so. You are not answering my question, you are seeking to attack me. I await ArbCom's answer to my question and hopefully you will not pollute this dialogue with misinterpretations. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You should denounce Theron's comment because the article itself as premised is biased - it seeks to aggregate web and media commentary about "irregular". If even 1/2 as much effort went into aggregating information which shows the utter "regularity" of the 2004 election, then it would be clear that there is no issue here except that which partisan editors want to make. The 2004 election was not stolen and the error/problem rate in 2004 was no worse than in any other year. You should denounce Theron's comment as that comment makes clear that his inquiry (and by your silence, yours) has been only to find malfeasance, not regular feasance. This is nothing more than hysteria muckraking and it is indeed POV by undue weight. And the fact that you declare you agree with TheronJ's comment should be entered as evidence against you in this case. In all respects it is utterly wrong to use a wiki article to "collect all the data points of [2004] election irregularities" and the fact that you can't see that proves that you are blind to your NPOV duties. You should quit editing these articles. You are making it hard for the rest of us. 208.65.61.27 05:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is known that diebold machines and other machines were hackable, known that the methods to hack them were posted on the internet, known that where used those machines had very different results than predicted by polls, exit polls, etc, known that in fact assorted voting place tactics were used to make it extremely difficult to vote; like voting in a war zone; in ohio,

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)

I agree that is absolutely, positively wrong to use a wiki article to collect all the data points of [2004] election irregularities. You commit a logical fallacy by requiring I denounce any comment or interpetation I might disagree with. By the way, I have to ask since this is the Google open proxy - is this Rex? And by 'the rest of us' do you mean all of your sockpuppets? Just curious. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not Rex, it's community banned User:Thewolfstar. Bishonen | talk 11:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

I am not a sockpuppet and I don't want to be thought of as one, so this will be my last comment here. Frankly, if you knew how many times I've agreed with you in the past, you'd be surprised. But on this issue, you are just wrong. And if you agree that Theron's suggestion was wrong, why didn't you rebuke him? I'll read your answer, but I won't reply. Sorry if I upset you, most of the time I think you are right, but not this time 208.65.61.27 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I'll let the arbitrators speak for themselves, but my own view is that us touching this article is the last thing they want. They don't want us to act as slaves to work the article in to their vision of what it should be. They just want us to stand out of the way of Phil and his cohorts, and when we do edit to defer to them. But, given Phil's impressive contributions to this article I could see how you could have thought that they'd want us to do Phil's work for him.

My own concern with the proposal is that instead of spelling out in black and white what penalties they intend to deliver and what specific actions they claim we've made to deserve those penalties, they're basically delegating the power to punish us to people who can dole out the punishments in a very informal manner, without any specific record of why they're doing it. Basically, what happens to us will be at the discretion of whatever admins we'll be handed to. All they have to do is claim our edits are "counterproductive" and we're out. -- noosphere 05:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Arbitrators, any insight for us on this important and potentially troubling scenario? Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have cohorts? Whoa. Phil Sandifer 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So whatever became of the familiars? --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, is a distaste for addressing these issues so prevalent in your minds that you believe we're deserving of this kind of dismissive banter without a substantive response? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's more a distaste for noosphere saying things that are offensive and untrue. Phil Sandifer 23:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in his mouth but that was the one thing he said bordering on uncivil (perhaps he should have said 'editors with whom Phil agrees') and the only thing you chose to respond to. To me it seems similar to the ArbCom looking at the case and basing a remedy on one episode of your npov tag and the subsequent reverting... a situation of a clear disagreement (not capricious, 'bad faith' reverting). A comment, or an action taken as its own does not invalidate the underlying (and unaddressed) argument or context - unless you've got a point you're looking to ram through by cherry-picking evidence. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm sick of the assumption as to what my political POV is. Phil Sandifer 23:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I made absolutely no such assumption. I'm sick of you completely reframing the facts into nonsensical accusations like that. When I said 'agree with you' I meant those that agree with your complaints (your SPECIFIC complaints), not your political POV. When I say 'Point', I meant as in what I have seen (ever since my first statement in this horrid RfAr) as a long and damaging exercise in WP:POINT on your part. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's even mentioning your political POV? I for one couldn't care less what your opinions on politics are. -- noosphere 23:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil was offended by my using the word "cohort"? Well, maybe he'd like to bring an arbcom case against me and get me banned for incivility. Or maybe he'd like to actually like to specifically address the rest of what we were saying? Judging by his past behavior I find the latter unlikely. But I hope arbcom does not remain mute on these issues. -- noosphere 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Valid evidence/justification for the proffered NPOV tag?

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)

Recusal, innovation and attacks on editors rather than edits to content

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]:

On Oct 17, 2005, at 7:56 PM, Carbonite wrote:

I wish you the best of luck with trying to improve these articles, but I hope you're up for a challenge. The amount of resistance to even the smallest change in these articles is simply staggering. I can't even imagine what would happen if they were speedied. Fire and brimstone instantly comes to mind.

Exactly, but are we all going to be bullied by POV warriors? - Fred

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)

No. This is about some of the worst articles on Wikipedia - but that's a perspective you fail to even entertain, despite the fact that, in the very mailing list thread you're citing, a staggering number of some of the most respected and long-standing Wikipedians suggest that the articles are drek. But instead of entertaining the possibility that the articles are bad - not that they shouldn't exist, something that, contrary to noosphere's endless insistances, nobody is claiming - but that they are just badly written disasters that should be wiped clean and started over.

But you're utterly unwilling to respond to that kind of statement. You want to try to force engagement on a line by line basis, when the correct course of action is to recognize that the articles took a wrong turn a year and a half ago, and need to, in their current forms, be abandoned. But this viewpoint, in your rhetoric, gets reduced to "refusing to engage in specifics." This is rather like responding to someone who says that your house is on fire by asking them to focus on the fact that the water is boiling. Phil Sandifer 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion these are FAR from 'some of the worst articles on Wikipedia'... and you DID call for a VfD. You DID want these articles eradicated. And you've called the idea that there were irregularities an 'extreme minority view', the exact words to exclude it as valid content in Wikipedia.

But if you feel that strongly you should have spent the last year, since those 'staggering numbers' of comments of all opinions on the list, actually editing the articles - others have and I believe they have demonstrably improved as a result. You have and are refusing to participate - preferring to strategize with Fred, pounce, tag and revert war, and then skip right to a call for outright bans. That is shameful - to say nothing of an admin behaving in that way. I think you know this. I'm going to bed, feel free to continue to argue for why you can't edit, just call for bans.- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Phil (and arbcom) did not address any of the questions Ryan asked at the start of this thread. -- noosphere 18:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The current proposed decision lacks specifics

A few more thoughts about the current decision, offered as (hopefully) helpful feedback.

1. The current decision isn't very touchy-feeling. That may be an inherent weakness in using the ArbCom to resolve these problems, but I'm not surprised that Ryan, Kevin, et al are getting frustrated by the evolving decision. There are some aspects of the decision that indicate that their editing is welcome, but without a softer pitch, the decision is going to leave a lot of people offended, which is not necessarily what I think you intend to do.
2. Worse, the current decision is awfully non-specific about what in particular is wrong with the pages. Don't get me wrong, I also have the intuition that the pages need a lot of work, I'm just not sure what specifically the ArbCom thinks is wrong, even after reading the proposed opinion a few times. For example:
   1. Is Phil right that the number of kilobites of coverage of election irregularities must be balanced with the number of kilobites of coverage the general election in other articles? That's a big part of his complaint, (and, IMHO, wrong), but I'm not sure if the ArbCom agrees with that principle or not.
   2. The current proposed decision says that the topic is significant and entitled to "fair coverage" but at least implies that the current coverage is not fair. Why? Is it that the pages don't adequately describe the opposing POV, that they arrange verifiable facts in a manner that inappropriately conveys a "personal opinion," or some other reason.
   3. Is Phil right that excessive citation to verifiable local newspapers is inappropriate?
3. The probation remedy is also very unclear. Editors may be banned for "disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivil[i]ty, and original research", but those terms are awfully ambiguous, particularly when "not limited to" is included. Some specific examples of this conduct in the past, or some procedure involving warnings prior to subject bans, would strike me as less chilling.
4. I'm sure this is not what the ArbCom intends, but the combination of "we don't rule on content" but "Phil is correct that the articles are bad, and we direct you to make them better" presents a risk of creating a large gray area, where the ArbCom threatens to strike editors who make the pages bad, but won't say specifically why they are bad or what can be done to make them better.
5. The upshot may be that unless probation is applied in a very innovative manner, Phil is basically in charge of the article rewrite. No one will be able to say which of his specific criticisms were the ones that produced the ArbCom ruling, and people will be concerned about disagreeing with Phil, because of the risk of being stricken from the pages altogether.

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)

Thank you for pointing that out, TheronJ. I should just like to add that the questions you list are really just the tip of the iceberg. Arbcom has simply not explicitly addressed virtually anything submitted in to evidence, on the workshop page, or in the discussions on the talk pages. -- noosphere 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We expect those who edit these articles to set to work and significantly improve them. However we do not get into specific content questions. As it is the articles are way too long and way too detailed. Fred Bauder 18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As i said before; Republicans can't win this if all of the facts

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)

What counts as "improvement"? Can you tell us that without making a ruling on content? No. Saying the articles "are way too long and way too detailed" is ruling on content.

Delegating the decision of what counts as "improvement" to an admin is also a de facto ruling on content, but without daylight shining on his decisions as it is on this arbcom case.

Also, there are plenty of issues of behavior (especially on Phil's part) which arbcom has simply chosen not to address. You can't claim you're avoiding them because you don't want to rule on content, because these are not issues of content but behavior.

All in all, the proposed rulings are very short on findings and remedies regarding editor behavior and very long on findings about content and remedies regarding content. -- noosphere 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Opinions on current affairs" principle

The "Opinions on current affairs" principle states "personal opinions on current affairs are not acceptable content for a Wikipedia article". Though we all know you're referring to the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, that's not at all clear in the phrasing of that principle.

I suggest instead, "personal opinions not substantiated by citations from reliable sources are not acceptable content for a Wikipedia article".

That way the personal opinions of me and Phil can be excluded, while the personal opinions of George Bush and John Kerry can be included, as long as they're properly cited. -- noosphere 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

arbitrators as power-editors

think about it. Kevin Baas^talk 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Except, never edited the articles and probably never will. Suck it up and make the articles better. Maybe we are editors. If so, consider your manuscript returned with a note, "Needs some work". Fred Bauder 12:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thereby making a content ruling. -- noosphere 18:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh hi Fred, I see you're listening now. In that you're voting on my beliefs and statements, you might be interested to know what exactly those are:

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)

Thank you for your trust and sincerity. Kevin Baas^talk 21:17, 10 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)

So wait, say the NYT publishes an exclusive interview with GW. There is absolutely nothing published anywhere else regarding that interview. One article in a single paper is "very little published". So what the NYT wrote regarding that interview must now be considered a "minority opinion"? What happened to documenting claims with citations? That GW was interviewed by NYT and that he said such and such would be verifiable and thus perfectly acceptible in Wikipedia, even if no other paper had published that interview or even mentioned it. -- Noosphere 23:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One article in the NYT is pretty notable. But remember that there have been pretty famouse cases of faked interviews even there. So Wikipedia could probably be fooled by a NYT exclusive that turned out to be a fake. We're not perfect, but then we don't need to be. --Tony Sidaway 00:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, what was the subject again? Because i thought it was about what statements i made and what statements i didn't make. Kevin Baas^talk 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by RyanFreisling re: editor's recent comments

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)

I second that, with the exception that I do not believe that Prometheuspan is likely an intentional disruptor. Kevin Baas^talk 00:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

and Prometheuspan is talking about content and partisianship, the first of which belongs on the article talk page, the second which doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia. Kevin Baas^talk 01:03, 12 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)

arbitrators' rule: content or behavior

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)

theory vs. knowledge

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)

Latest NYTimes Bob Herbert piece: "Those Pesky Voters"

Bob Herbert, columnist for the NYTimes, wrote about the irregularities in Ohio in Monday's edition:

Republicans, and even a surprising number of Democrats, have been anxious to leave the 2004 Ohio election debacle behind. But Mr. Kennedy, in his long, heavily footnoted article ("Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"), leaves no doubt that the democratic process was trampled and left for dead in the Buckeye State. Mr. Kerry almost certainly would have won Ohio if all of his votes had been counted, and if all of the eligible voters who tried to vote for him had been allowed to cast their ballots.

Mr. Kennedy's article echoed and expanded upon an article in Harper's ("None Dare Call It Stolen," by Mark Crispin Miller) that ran last summer. Both articles documented ugly, aggressive and frequently unconscionable efforts by G.O.P. stalwarts to disenfranchise Democrats in Ohio, especially those in urban and heavily black areas. [7]

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)

You're really missing the bit where I don't want the article rewritten to adhere to a POV, I want the article rewritten to only use sources like the Kennedy article, the Miller article, and now Herbert's article, aren't you? Phil Sandifer 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

More accurately, Phil demands that certain claims in Wikipedia only be cited by the likes of the NYT, Harpers, and the Rolling Stone. For others Phil finds the Boing Boing blog and The Gainsville Sun not only acceptible but desirable. Phil has repeatedly refused to explain this discrepancy in his espoused views regarding Wikipedia editing standards.

Furthermore, arbcom has failed to address the fact that, as noted in evidence and on the Workshop page, many of the claims in the article are supported by not just one but up to six independent sources. Many of the claims in the article that are cited by the less than mainstream sources are backed up by others independent sources, including mainstream sources. In fact, there are over 70 claims backed up by multiple citations. Please see the evidence and Workshop pages for details. -- noosphere 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight....

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 think despite the obvious conflicts of interest to date in this case, it's most likely that Phil will not enjoy any 'privileged' status as an editor due to his administrator status. Phil was not excluded from being among the editors affected by that filing. I can only conclude that if Phil makes an ill-conceived edit or blanks valid content, his edit will be revised/corrected/reverted as any other editors' edit would be. Real productive editing cannot take place amongst the threat of banning for mere disagreement - to say nothing of it hanging over the heads of good-faith, productive editors like those he targeted with this RfAr. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While I am not, under the decision, forbidden from blocking anybody from these articles, I have trouble imagining a situation where I would feel that I could block Ryan, Kevin, or noosphere without a conflict of interest.

In practical terms, with the current decision, what I intend to do is to depart the article for about three months in the hopes that the more knowledgeable editors will take the spirit of the arbcom's decision to heart and start condensing the articles and reworking them to rely entirely on mainstream summaries - especially since one of their major points through this arbitration has been that these summaries exist. I think they're all clear on what needs to happen with these articles, and I trust them to do a good job with it. Phil Sandifer 15:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I don't even know what my beliefs are, what my position is, or even what statements I make, so needless to say, things are kind of foggy... Kevin Baas^talk 16:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

71.132.132.15, it's not clear what Phil's role will be, considering he has the power to ban people. However, it seems that the decision you quote delegates power from arbcom to administrators (and they also mention "mentors"). Instead of arbcom stating plainly and clearly what behavior of ours merited their penalties and why, they're delegating that power to people who will not have to state ther reasons for banning in an arbcom decision (where the dubious merit of such a decision would at least be written in black and white, in a relatively prominent place for all to see). Instead, all an admin would have to do is cite this case and claim the editing in question was "disruptive".

The question then becomes, what effect will this have? Well, apart from the relative lack of accountability, it's plain that someone's going to take a hatchet to these articles. It might not be Phil, it might be Tbeatty, Arkon, or another Merecat sock... and if anyone reverts them they're toast.

On the other hand, it could be (though I'm not counting on it), that deletion of large parts of these articles will be considered "disruptive editing", and it's Tbeatty, Arkon, and Phil who'll be banned for trying to do so. Again, I'm not counting on that interpretation of the decision, but it's vague enough to leave it completely to the interpretation of whatever admin(s) wind up implementing it.

So who'll implement it? Is it going to be some admin(s) appointed by arbcom? (arbcom, who refuse to acknowledge even the existence of most of the points and pleas of anyone but Phil in this case) If so, I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to suggest that whoever it is, it's going to be in the mold of Phil or Fred (meaning quite sympathetic to the excision of large parts of the articles, effectively minimizing the reports of irregularities).

If, on the other hand, it's going to be up to any random admin that happens to take an interest in the article, then I don't see this decision accomplishing anything, as then the various involved admins will start arguing about who's being disruptive, Phil/Tbeatty/Arkon, or those reverting them. -- noosphere 19:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Phil

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)

New evidence / new party to dispute

• I am submitting this recent event: [8] as new evidence in this case, and as it involved a user not a party to this case, namely, User:Guettarda, I ask that he be made a party of this dispute, as one of the users allegedly "trying to own the article". Kevin Baas^talk 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Question for the ArbCom

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)

Thank you, Theresa

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)

Arbcom silence

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. -- noosphere 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, Fred's first act was to create the 'article probation' template with content reflecting his own, failed remedy, rather than the passed remedy, in that it describes the cause for the template as an issue of of 'low quality'. Fred's unilateralism was thankfully offset by ArbCom's voting in most of the egregious findings he brought, but besides those votes (for which I am grateful) the lack of discussion of the many points raised has indeed been troubling, as noosphere correctly notes. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think those editing the article need to solve most of the issues raised yourselves. That is the reason for the remedy I proposed. We simply do not have the patience or time to go through the entire article and its sources. I know it can be done much better than it is now. Fred Bauder 03:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

When the 'issues raised' are specific, they can be addressed (e.g. "is Palast notable? Yes." "Is this section too verbose or overly specific? Yes." etc.). More general objections however, are unlikely to have specific resolutions and you certainly cannot expect to command the outcome.

This is Wiki, not an authoritarian state. An editor cannot command another editor to edit. Each editor will follow their own areas of expertise, ability, opinion and interest. Your authority as an Arbitrator doesn't extend to content, and certainly doesn't extend to dictating the actions of others. I will not violate the ArbCom's rulings, as I interpret them... but as we clearly learned in this ugly case, you are not ArbCom and ArbCom did not agree with your oft-expressed, personally disrespectful opinion of the article and it's editors.

If you continue to insert your opinion into this process and represent it as the findings of ArbCom, you should not be surprised if other editors disagree with you. Moreover, you should see your own misrepresentation of ArbCom's findings as disruptive - not their conduct. Especially in light of the 'article probation' status, it's bannable if anyone tries to bait good-faith editors with egregious POV-pushing. I earnestly hope you will also conduct yourself with the appropriate respect and good faith on the 'locus' articles and not consider yourself 'above' such a requirement for constructive editing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)