Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ta bu shi da yu (talk | contribs) at 08:56, 12 November 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities

This has been a tough one for me to do. I'm normally quite leary of the VfD process, but I think we need to confirm some of our principles here. Let me start out by saying this is not about partisan issues - it is about how we at Misplaced Pages want to handle "current events" and the danger of doing so.

This article was split off from a section in U.S. presidential election, 2004 into it's own page. Unfortunately, that move has opened it up to massive expansion - overshadowing the real impact of this issue as reported in external sources.

(correction-this article was at no time a split off - FT2)'

(also note: Netoholic modified significantly a whole section from the U.S. presidential election, 2004 article ) - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do not use this vote to debate the sides of the issue. The problem as I see it is in the approach this article is taking. The way this article stands, it seems to only be here as a "conclusion searching for evidence" and we are simply adding to an internet blog rumor mill by performing our own "investigation".

A summary of the problem points (more expansion on these given on its Talk page):

• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability - that the "raw data" used comes from dubious sources (partisan websites, blogs, and even, yes, images uploaded to ImageShack with no traceability). Remove that, and we are left with is a collection of scattered, unlinked reports of problems which are typical of all elections.
• Misplaced Pages:No original research - some of our editors have produced charts and graphs based on the dubious data. Statistical analysis is outside our scope. It is our responsibility to summarize the conclusions of others, not to formulate them. This article is nothing but an essay.
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view - from the article title to the content, this page draws a conclusion for our readers that there is a conspiracy, rather than problems faced during most elections.
• Misplaced Pages is not a mere collection of external links - This article is essentially linking to every minor report and rumor on the 'net. While there is "nothing wrong with adding both lists of links and lists of on-line references you used", this article is not using those links as references, but rather as evidence of its conclusions.

I ask that it be deleted, so that outside agencies do not use the bold speculation of a few of our editors as corroborating evidence. Making the history of the article unavailable is the only sure way to do that. We can start over by re-adding a summary of the speculations to the main election article in a responsible way. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Summary of opposing view

This is being placed here to show the counter view — something the original author saw fit to remove from this page. Might as well show the opposition to the delete as well. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Article

The reasons for VfD are incorrect - the article and its sources:

(1) Meets "Verifiability" in a big way - sources are House Committee letters, Federal Expert testimony, Official poll results, etc

(2) Meets "Cite Sources" guidelines in respect of any weblogs or other less formal sources

(3) Is explicitly within the terms of "Original research". Not only the article does not propose any original idea, but also the guideline states specifically:

"However all of the above constitute acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape, for example if ... the ideas have become newsworthy they have been repeatedly and independently documented..."

(4) Advocates no position but merely states evidence (to which opposing evidence can be added).

Talk page consensus: "The neutrality criteria is (1) that the information contained must be accurate capable of verification, and must be sourced, and (2) that evidence of irregularities and evidence that there were not irregularities are both fairly represented.

... Should any person on either side wish to add any kind of evidence that the election was not in fact irregular, evidence that the voting machines were in fact not subject to irregularities, evidence that any item on this article is inaccurate, or evidence that any expert statement is implausible and suspect, then that should be added to this article."

(5) In respect of "a mere collection of rumors":

To describe matters that respected House Committee members saw fit to write not one but two letters within 4 days to the GOA expressing alarm, where Federal Hearings have heard expert testimony as to the seriousness and potential for these issues, which can be found in the reputable printed national papers of many countries, where many thousands of individual American voters have stated they witnessed incidents that suggested the same personally, and where official data of the US government itself suggests an significant issue, as "a mere collection of links", "every minor rumor" and "partisan junk" might suggest Netoholic is highly partial in this matter.

Delete

1. Netoholic @ 20:01, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC) -- I myself am on the side of Kerry, and am reasonably sure some irregularities happened - but no more than other elections and not enough to warrant this article.
2. Uncleanupable, and therefore without potential to become encyclopedic - just getting the link for this off of Template:In the news caused a massive revert war on the main page involving at least two admins. See history starting at 17:27, Nov 10, 2004, when Neutrality made the addition. - RedWordSmith 20:59, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

   I was one of the admins. I have ceased trying to include it as news (I made a mistake in judgement over this one), however this should not affect whether the article is kept or not. Please vote on whether to keep the article over its own merits, not on the edits done for related articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3. Is Misplaced Pages supposed to be an activist, partisan website? Because even those who want to keep the article seem to want to do so because it's "an important story" that the "major media" isn't covering. Put the page up next month, when the issues have all been resolved. Three quarters of the assertions are unatributed opinion without any citation or link. The statements that ARE cited come from unreliable, partisan internet websites. I'm sorry, but democraticunderground and commondreams are not wikipedia quality resources.

   • Contributor - please sign! Also, check out other articles that were kept on VfD. See Christian views of women. Also note that we have potentially partisan and explosive articles like the one on the Arab-Israeli Conflict. These have been constantly editted to NPOV, and are not going to be removed any time soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
   • A large part of the motive for wanting the article is to have a neutral reference for evidence on both sides, as this controbversy goes on, whereby those who become interested in the question (and there will be many who want to prove or refute it) can find accurate impartial information so far as we're able as a community. This is well within the bounds of wikipedia, if we can reach consensus on subjective matters such as homosexuality, abortion and euthenasia, then we can surely summarise in a NPOV way purported evidence relevant to a debate as we don't even have to draw conclusions to do so. Thats my motive - a clean sourced article that I can read as time goes on to understand the issue, and that grows and reflects what is best known by many people, and its qualified sources. I can't speak for others. FT2 06:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

4. Delete for now. This article might be fixable someday but today, it's pointless speculation which is distracting good editors from more important articles. I recommend that we wait a few months and let the official investigations do their work. Then someone can write a clean and comprehensive article without all the disputes. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) moved to correct place

Merge

1. Significant portions of this article relate directly only to electronic voting and should be moved there. This would significantly reduce the size of this page, and allow the information pertaining directly to the 2004 Election controversies be covered here. Much of the background research provided here does not belong. In addition, the POV of what remains truly needs to be cleaned up.--Radioastro 22:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. This article is a veritable breeding ground for half-truths, conjecture, and Michael-Moore-like propaganda. This is not a real controversy in the news so it shouldn't be covered in depth. 2000 was different...that was a huge controversy and should have been covered in detail. Most of this info should be trimmed to be a small, succinct part of the main U.S. presidential election, 2004 article or whatever pertinent articles. --Doctorcherokee 00:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Merge most of the information with the main 2004 US election article and the rest with the article on electronic voting (there is no need to independantly discuss the same issues twice). I've already offered to do this in Misplaced Pages's IRC room myself after I get over a recent surgery. I believe that once all of the strawmen, unreliable/unverifiable sources and numerous POV statements are removed and a bit of condensing is done it will easily fit under its own header on the main article. Information as it comes in can then be added as it is verified. If merging it with the main article becomes impossible, I also agree with another user that said this page needs to be renamed to "2004 U.S. Election Voting controversies" (or something similar). In any case the page is in sore need of a cleanup and de-POVing before it goes ANYWHERE. Reene (リニ) 07:29, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep and clean the article of original research. This is certainly something that has gained national attention. (Not as much as 2000, of course). Just monitor this article closely and make sure it stays out of the realm of original research, and within the realm of verifiability. —siroχo 20:16, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
2. Based on the criterion on Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy, deleting this entire page is an absolutely unreasonable response to contested content. The entire page does not warrant deletion, in that the ONLY criterion voiced as {potentially} applicable in the 'May Require Deletion' section is thus far 'Original Research', which can of course be addressed in process. Methods and Processes exist for discussing the issues intelligently (esp. scrubbing invalid, original research), and opting for deletion is not a reasoned response to the natural differences in interpretation and opinions that make up this Wiki article. Honestly, I think this request is ill-considered. (this unsigned vote was left by anon User:66.108.161.196)
3. Keep. This article constitutes original research, and it needs to be gutted and torn apart. However there is some valid information here, so it shouldn't be deleted. Rhobite 20:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
4. Keep, but rewrite in an NPOV fashion. RickK 20:25, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
5. Kevin Baas | talk 20:26, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
6. Keep, the article is not original research as FT2 explains in depth on the talk page. Some clean up is warranted. There seemingly has been a systematic attempt to damage various aspects of the article using every "wikipedia trick in the book" for the last 18 hours or so. Zen Master 20:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Keep. Important and interesting issue. The article could benefit from some cleanup and should be checked for NPOV problems. Martg76 20:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. Keep. This article constitutes original research, and it needs to be reviewed. But in a world without a paper trail, math or Stat proof is all that is available and with the results of the math now being done this article has potential to become encyclopedic. There is valid information here, so it shouldn't be deleted. user:papau
9. Keep, but clean up. This is indeed a national issue, and is real. The article right now is a bit of a mess, but far from irrecoverable. This falls in with Netoholic's all-or-nothing attitude about this article in other areas as well (see his bid to delete the Controversial3 template). --Spud603 21:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
10. Keep the article but, once this foolish VfD listing is disposed of, move it to 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. There's been discussion on the article's talk page about the title. Improper capitalization should be removed; the addition of "voting" is to exclude controversies like the bulge under Bush's jacket in the debate. As for the substance, the subject obviously merits an article. It's been extensively discussed in the media. Ralph Nader has formally demanded a recount in New Hampshire, based in part on one of the issues addressed in the article, the discrepancies between exit polls and Diebold machine results. (I'll add this to the article.) Concerns that particular portions of the article might constitute original research or otherwise be inappropriate should be addressed through comments on the talk page and through RfC, both of which are already in progress. JamesMLane 21:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. Keep. The article is well researched, and this information needs to be known, ESPECIALLY with the mainstream media burying the story.
12. Keep.kizzle 21:20, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
13. Keep. I found the article to be useful and it's certainly a valid topic. Most of the objections raised by the submitter could be addressed by sending this article to cleanup. —Psychonaut 21:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. Keep, but needs some work, especially in POV. Some of this could qualify as "original research,"; (and needs to be fixed in that regard) but the article itself is not entirely such. NiceGuyJoey 21:29, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
15. Keep. If (and IMO 'when') the election fraud issue is resolved, the pertinence of the page will become eminently clear. In the meantime, that there is a conflict is certainly on topic for a reference site. Yes, it needs some work. Yes, finding someone relatively neutral to shepherd that work won't be easy. No, those two things taken together do *not*, IMO, constitute a valid reason to delete the page. Does Misplaced Pages really want to contribute to "History is written by the winners"? Baylink 21:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
16. Keep. Definitely...Problems were widely expected before the election, so it is important to have an article that describes what did and did not cause problems. This should be done without original research and in accordance with the NPOV policy. If you think that the article contents violates these policies, modify it, but I cannot understand how one can believe that deletion is the way to solve this problem. — David Remahl 21:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
17. VfD is a bad place to make editorial decision. The question is not the article is good or bad, but is whehther we need a parmanent deletion for some particular reason like copyright-vio. -- Taku 22:24, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
18. Keep. It is very important to keep this article on here, when the mainstream media will not cover it. It's the truth and nothing but. MinnyBean 22:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
19. Keep. anthony 警告 21:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
20. FT2 22:39, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
21. Keep: This is important information not readily available elsewhere. [[User:Hollymark|Hollymark) (moved to correct location)
22. Keep. If the data is inaccurate someone should fix them. However, these are ongoing events and with any ongoing event there is alway inaccuracies and misinformation. To not cover these stories, correct or incorrect, would be to go against the spirit of Misplaced Pages in my view. --Butter 23:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
23. Keep for the reasons I've already outlined on the article's talk page. Shane King 23:41, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
24. Keep --Stewie Wiki 23:59, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
25. Keep Ducker 00:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
26. Keep BlahBlah42 00:07 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
27. Keep It is appropriate for wikipedia to note the existence of controversies and the issues they involve. While I agree that much work needs to be done on this article (especially in the NPOV area), I think an improved article on the subject would be an appropriate thing for wikipedia to carry. --Mosesklein 00:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
28. Keep Most references from reputable sources (directly or calculations based on official counts) - no valid reasons given to list the page content as "inacurate" (and even less to qualify it as "junk") - Content important for future reference to electronic voting machines and associated problems. Might need some editing. Eric514 00:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
29. Keep This page has excellent potential for a resource regarding the 2004 election. Would anyone argue that the 2000 Florida recount not be included?? Of course, editing, updating, and additional sources for raw data would be helpful. But there is obviously and certainly no cause for complete and irreversible deletion. jwouden 00:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
30. Keep, alas. Accusations like this will be flying for some time, ungrounded though they may be, and we might as well have a place for them. Of course it will be a magnet for POV pushers and troublemakers, but in its absence so would the main 2004 election page, so no loss there. VeryVerily 00:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
31. Keep As long as it is dealing with documented sources, it should be here. We have plenty of articles with thinner documentation and larger margins of error. 66.30.79.242 01:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
32. Keep There is nothing wrong with this article existing. It needs cleanup however. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
33. Keep. What FT2 said below. ] 02:01, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
34. Keep. Solid article. Elizabeth D 8:20 CST Nov 11 2004
35. Keep. There was a 2004 election. It had controversies. It had irregularities. I'm not sure in what fantasy world the 2004 election happened and there were no controversies or irregularities, but in the real world, there were controversies that have been noted by far more than "the Internet rumor mill", and there is no reason to delete an article which describes them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
36. Keep as far as I'm concerned the Secretary of state and attorney general of ohio both stating that over 90,000 votes had been discarded is verification enough for me that some weird sh-- is going on. Just because CNN and ABC are in on the scam doesn't mean we need to be.Keep/fact-check/verify/expand/nominate for Featured status when finished and finish asapPedant 03:07, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
37. Keep. It looks like the guilty side is whining about having a hand caught in the cookie jar. If, after all the investigations are finished, they are innocent (not likely), then edit as needed. Otherwise, please keep it up. The public has a right to know. Also, Netoholic's track record seems sketchy at best.Shelly S. 5:08 HST Nov 11 2004
38. Keep. A particularly poor article, but should be fixed (and cleansed of original research), not deleted. --Delirium 03:15, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
39. Keep. Bad article, good issue. ]] 07:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
40. Keep. The article requires cleanup and caretaking, but the subject matter is not a "conclusion searching for evidence". Whether real or simply a massive "internet blog rumor mill", it is notable either way. func(talk) 07:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
41. Keep.

Comments

• This VfD isn't formatted in the regular way, and some possible choices, such as redirect, aren't listed. Should someone reformat it? Rhobite 20:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Choices on VfD are either Delete the article and history, or Keep and make suggested fixes (merge, redirect, etc.). This format makes votes on either side of that line easier to tally. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't be focussing on tallying vote counts, we should be focussing on reaching consensus. anthony 警告 21:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure we can't.  :-{ Baylink 21:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with Anthony about consensus. The VfD is diverting energy from the normal process of improving the article. When Netoholic was urged to raise his concerns on the article's talk page, he responded: "I've tried that in the sections above. Now users are re-adding those sections and dubious data and removing my disputed tags. That is why I have lost patience with this group. I have requested outside comment on this article, and if that does not work, then I will ask for deletion of this partisan junk." His RfC had been posted at 17:59. Netoholic then made this VfD listing at 20:01. Apparently, he "lost patience" with the RfC process about two hours after he began it. JamesMLane 21:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • If you refer to the actual talk pages and user history pages in question you will see that Netoholic's claims about engaging in debate are simply false, he engaged in absolutely no debate and acted unilaterally with the full knowledge that others disagreed with him and played games damaging all aspects and sub aspects of the page. He only went through the semblence of debate after he was rebuked and many noticed his actions. His history and the timeline of events can convince you more than anything I can say here. Zen Master 22:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with this. You should note that I wrote the following on Netoholic's talk page:
      • Further to this (I notice you archived this after like 1 hour on your page!) Perhaps you could stop making unilateral moves like blanking the page and redirecting it to a similar yet not quite related page ? Also, more things to look out for: don't just revert with the same edit summary (see , to which ZenMaster asked you to "rv please discuss your changes on the talk page and give proper time for others to respond" , to which you (ironically) reverted again with exactly the same edit summary . You forced me to revert you because you didn't bother to discuss this to come to some sort of consensus. Then you moved this text to the talk page : however you could have copied it into talk and not removed it. This was reverted , and you again reverted this with the text "(rvt. do not re-insert un-verified data. source it in the Talk, and then re-add)" . You then reverted again, only this time you were so eager to revert that you altered removed another users edits! I note that you wrote: "(rvt. I am here to protect WP's data integrity)". I find this ironic. Later on you did it again!!! Stop that! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• If I may, I think the unsigned keep vote above is very telling: "this information needs to be known, ESPECIALLY with the mainstream media burying the story." People, however well intentioned, seem to be confusing us with Indymedia. We're not. We're not a news sources. We're not a forum for debate. We are trying to build a freely available encylopedia. There's an article on electronic voting that could use some solid NPOV editing with general information on the subject. This doesn't help. - RedWordSmith 21:52, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to say that we must only listen to "conventional" news media either. There is nothing that says that we should value conventional media information higher than community-driven media either. — David Remahl 21:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this request for deletion, but I agree with Netoholic that certain users are making it hard to remove POV from the article. Rhobite 21:59, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • You're right, we aren't a news source. Thats been done by House COmmittees, a few zillion web pages and online media, expert witnesses and probably about 1/2 the worlds media outside the USA. What we are is an encyclopedia, and I say if we can provide an article on subjective matters such as gayness then we can for sure find a way to present the information available in the relevant sources without advocacy or opinion. FT2 06:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Do we need to organize the votes? There appear to be two additional votes for 'keep' outside the Keep/Delete structure (Anthony's and possibly the one below this comment).
  • Also, the comments that the opinions are 'activist' and 'partisan' are erroneous and do not contribute to the dialogue. Posting information that has not been disproven which demonstrates irregularity in favor of a certain candidate, especially in the absence of evidence of similar irregularity favoring the other candidate, is not activism or partisan, it's the ongoing effort to separate truth from fiction. My apologies if this comment is in the wrong location/page. (66.108.161.196)
  • I would recommend *manually* numbering the votes, so that removed votes are clearly obvious.
• I find it immensely amusing that here we have Netoholic, using what one person calls "every trick in the book to get the article either discredited, tagged as disputed or outright deleted, and who manually moves the opposing point of view to the very end of the VfD so nobody will read the responses to his VfD smokescreen -- because he wants to delete an article which lays bare evidence of voting irregularities!  ;) FT2 00:38, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Look, I supported Kerry, and strongly oppose Bush, and think there may well have been voting irregularities. But this article is pure crap, and embarrassing to Misplaced Pages. It's a bunch of amateurish correlations posted on blogs by people who obviously have no idea what they're doing. Causal claims are then suggested from these relationships without any attempt to correct for demographic factors; for the rural/urban distribution of voting machines; or for really anything else. There is no analysis of possible explanations and their relative likelihoods; there is really nothing at all except some random correlations. There is a high correlation between rates of ice cream consumption and murder too, but that's a meaningless statistic. Likewise with these statistics. To reiterate, I think there may well have been vote fraud, but that needs to be demonstrated with some respectable studies, not some random guy with a geocities webpage and an ImageShack account who obviously doesn't know the first thing about statistical analysis. --Delirium 03:29, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to delete. These issues can be fixed. Being "embarrassing to Misplaced Pages" never stopped things like Holocaust denial, and these were cleaned up to be quite respectable. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I appreciate that I may hold a minority view in this vote, it is still my view that this article (not the issue itself) is a scourge on Misplaced Pages. Warriors are in charge of it, removing tags indicating the specific dubious information, and using attacks on me rather than addressing the article's problems. Even those voting Keep here are expressing major concerns. I ask now that in the interest of congeniality, that all personal comments stop now. Discuss the article and its merits. I am open to personal discussion with anyone here, so long it is not from an attacking posture. I stand by my history with this article, which shows attempts to fix and communicate the problems. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I agree. Though we can't talk to you about this properly because you keep insisting on removing comments from your talk page when people want to discuss things with you. You won't even let me place it on my page, forcing me to protect it archive1, archive2, archive3 and archive4. My final word on the matter. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic - The problem with your approach to this article has been explained several times now, at least 5 or 6 by myself alone, with each point meticulously sourced and verified, and several times by others. My question is, I would like to know which aspects of it are "pure crap". The letters (two in 4 days) sent by the House Committee asking with alarm for a GAO investigation? The official polls of .gov websites showing voters who don't exist? The experts who testified on their identical concerns? The overseas press? Or what? Please justify the "its pure crap", on the talk page, because in my book you haven't even come close to beginning to make a case for it.

The only cases you've made have been to overlook every wiki policy page you've quoted - Verifiability, Cite Sources and Original Research. All inadequately drawn upon, each one of them. Mix that in with a load of blatent deletes and labels that others dont see as you do, a template TFD and now an article VfD, and thats why you are getting the short end of it right now.

What I want is fact not weasel. Go to the talk page. List out now, the exact sources in the article which you feel are misrepresented right now as more reliable than they are. List any data or presentations (maps etc) that are apparently unsourced. List the information claimed which actually is unverifiable. Do it now. Do not add tags, do not delete, learn to work with us, and if there is merit in your ideas, when examined neutrally, be asured there will be people who will see that. If they fall apart under scrutiny and people feel that actually its OK by Wiki standards when you doubt it, then you may have to accept their opinion and ask questions instead of just going it alone". You've found that doesn't work, both in the article, the talk page, the template deletion attempt, and now here. Then we will have good quality debate.

Part of that debate will be to stop jumping to "let's go delete it" but to instead go "lets see if we can find better evidence to substantiate and fix it". Or maybe "lets label it so the source we do have is clear". You need to help do that, too. If evidence or information exists relevant to this question, its your job as a wiki-ist to give it the fairest presentation it can have too. This is not an attack. I want people to work with you. But if you're a rogue wiki-ist and can't or won't, then this will be how others will respond. So far the response for whatever reason is about 10-1 against. FT2 06:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Responding to Netoholic: Personal comments are referring to your history in this matter, and are not "personal attacks". I welcome your criticism of the page, but the techniques you employed to harass and damage every aspect of the article were unacceptable. You ignored or didn't even bother to check for talk page decisions, listed everything for deletion, revert warred with many people, and were rebuked by people that don't care about the page -- I could go on. If you have valid concerns with a controversial article then you should be spending more time on the talk page, and less time making unilateral changes. The "prime directive" of wikipedia is debating your point of view on a talk page when there is controversy, not making unilateral changes because you believe your interpretation of wikipedia guidelines is the correct one. The ends do not justify the means. Zen Master 06:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Note: He's at it again!!!! Netaholic shifted both FT2 and my own text to the bottom of the page!!! I had to roll his edit back! Netaholic, seriously, you aren't helping your case in any way! And I wasn't terribly interested in this article when I started out (with the exception of the talk page reverts that I now regret). I'm certainly interested in this article now. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't insert your comments in between mine, please. Respond in your own section. -- Netoholic @ 06:53, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
    • I can and will. I'm not breaking policy by doing this. Neither is FT2. We will do so if we feel we need to correct the record. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Other than the fact that I have asked nicely. Please just stop fighting. You're winning this vote, leave my statement exactly as I presented it, please. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
        • I'm not trying to win!!! I'm trying to present facts and gather consensus. I would like to work this out civilly, but you keep removing sections and blanking that page. Not only that, but all discussion with you is impossible because you keep removing all comments on your talk page where you perceive people are criticising you. This makes it impossible to have a normal dialogue with you. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • It's my understanding that an article deletion is not a contest to be won by any means necessary. ]] 07:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Handling sock puppet votes

There are obviously a large number of Sock puppet votes in this VfD (users with far less than 100 edits). Should we list them here, or mark them on the main vote page? -- Netoholic @ 07:33, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

It is possible to recognize possible sock puppets by apparent new users who know their way around the Misplaced Pages system and who may vote on articles for deletion or vote on issues, for example, in their first few edits. -- from Misplaced Pages:Sock puppet

When did we go from "possible sock puppets" (emphasis in original) to "obviously ... Sock puppet"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know that I'm assuming bad faith here, but the author has an agenda. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mo0 counts the votes So... based solely on red link userpages, that leaves 28 keep votes there. And unless there are about 25 sock puppets (which I highly doubt), the overwhelming consensus still stands. What's the point in this case? ]] 07:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

delay and obfuscation? Preventing improvement of the actual page (remember that? If not, it's at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities --RyanFreisling

Author knows many tricks to try to change the voting pattern. One of them was moving this to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)