Each of these threads was started by an abusive sockpuppet and has been closed accordingly
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New development in ACORN matters
Closing disruptive discussion started by banned sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Law enforcement agencies in 11 states have been investigating former ACORN canvassers - investigations that have involved the FBI in Nevada and New Mexico ... The Ohio Republican Party is in a court battle with Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner over potential election fraud. The Republicans won a federal appeals court order demanding that Brunner turn over to county election officials by Friday [Oct. 31] the names of about 200,000 new registrants whose personal information did not exactly match state drivers' license or Social Security data. ... Brunner filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court." Reliable Source. This is a significant development, and the story also summarizes the current investigations quite well. Should this be included? WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with ACORN. This is actually a story about yet another attempt by Republicans to acquire a caging list so that they can engage in voter suppression.
There's another reason: That particular section of the article isn't about ACORN. Nice "..." there, WB. You've effectively conjoined two topics that aren't actually conjoined in the article. Don't you ever get tired of misrepresenting the content of your citations? --GoodDamon15:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
::The Republican Party has previously stated that they have obtained lists of the names and addresses of ACORN's newly registered voters and sent out "test mailings." This was simply mailed to the names and addresses listed, welcoming new voters to the political process and inviting them to vote for GOP candidates. These mailings were frequently returned to the GOP with markings such as "No longer lives at this address," "Vacant lot" and "Abandoned building." It is not a voter suppression tactic, but a way of gauging the true depth of the voter registration fraud that is happening on ACORN's watch. Those who characterize this watchdog effort as a voter suppression tactic against legitimate voters should be ashamed of themselves. Also, the executive director of Project Vote, Michael Slater, admits that as many as 13,000 of their voter registration forms "could contain fictitious names or addresses." This is a new, reliable source containing statements by the top man at Project Vote which appears to be ACORN's parent organization. So by all means, let's carefully look at what this source reports. The KC Star, like the Philly Inquirer, is an eminently reliable and neutral, perhaps even Democrat-leaning source. Its reporter saw fit to report Brunner's emergency appeal in the same story as Slater's confession, so I think it's more than a little bit relevant. No misrepresentation of any sources here, GD. I did not claim that ACORN or Project Vote is a party to the suit. The parties were correctly identified as the GOP and Brunner. Don't try to accuse me of misrepresenting the source when I've done no such thing. You, however, might remember such efforts at Talk:Barack Obama. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not lying. The KC Star felt it was relevant enough to report in the same story. I quoted them directly and didn't say, or imply, that ACORN or Project Vote was directly involved.
Next let's address this completely frivolous and baseless WP:RECENT accusation. Here we see a closely knit family of organizations. A key man admits 13,000 fraudulent voter registrations. There are 26 employees charged or convicted in 6 states. Even though we can't say that in mainspace, we can say it here. They're being investigated by authorities in 11 states and by the FBI in two of those states and, since the KC Star has reported it exactly that way, we can and must report it that way in mainspace. It doesn't violate WP:SYNTH
This is a major landmark in the history of any organization. It will be notable 20 years from now, 50 years from now, and 100 years from now. So stop falsely claiming WP:RECENT, and while you're at it, stop all of your other false accusations against me. Focus on the content and the edits. False accusations are a personal attack. They violate WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Please refactor immediately. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we're going to get anywhere at the moment complaining about whether interpretations of sources sink to the level of lying. However, an appeals court order requiring the organization to disclose a list of new voter registrants is not very notable, and is a strong case of recentivism. It is simply one ruling relating to public disclosure. If something comes of it in the end, then depending on how it shakes out it may or may not be relevant to the organization. That's about as much as one can make of it. Until then it gives the matter undue attention to include it in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Okay. What about Slater's confession about 13,000 fictitious (a synonym for fraudulent) voter registrations? Let's not cherry pick the ACORN/Project Vote statements that we're going to use. Take the bad with the good. Slater isn't a "disgruntled former employee." WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
All are encouraged to continue attempting to reach consensus, and refrain from attacking other editors. I see a good faith disagreement here that someone wants to escalate. Please assume good faith, everyone, and proceed. Marx0728 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Many editors are well past assuming good faith with this particular editor. But I do think we ought to do some thread pruning and archiving. The bickering clouds attempts to build consensus (or find that there is none). The article is still protected. What a mess. Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Marx: Do you grasp the irony of editing others comments, labelling them personal attacks, then launching a long personal attack on the two people whose prior comments you had just so labelled? On that note, ta.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
:(ec) I apologize to Bali ultimate. I just want this article to accurately show all of the most notable and verifiable facts. I did not intend to mislead anyone regarding the lawsuit against Jennifer Brunner. But there have been a lot of false accusations against me, and I admit that I'm getting sick and tired of being needled this way. Let's try to reach a consensus. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Proposed version of entire voter registration section
Closing disruptive discussion started by banned sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have removed all of the strikethroughs and underlining. This is a "clean copy" for Sheffield Steel to cut and paste into the article mainspace. There was substantial agreement (in two parts) above, with the sole objection from Bali ultimate, who has now departed the article. I have added a citation of the new reliable source (Kansas City Star) to support the "11 states" reference, but not one other word of additional content. Please state, in the discussion section below, whether you support or oppose this version. We can discuss adding any additional material, such as Mr. Slater's or Ms. Moncrief's statements, in a civil manner after this step is completed. Marx0728 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states; this number included 450,000 first-time voters. The remainder included address changes, as well as 400,000 forms rejected among other things as duplicates, incomplete submissions, and fraudulent submissions.[1]San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, whether innocent or intentional, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.[2]
ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states, in some cases as a result of ACORN-flagged registration forms, and some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] In a case in Washington state, ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."[11][12] In October 2008, the FBI started an investigation of ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification, and 11 state authorities are also investigatingformer ACORN employees.[13][14][15][16]
Final discussion
{{editprotected}}
Please state below whether you support or oppose the previous "voter registration" version.
*Strongly support. This achieved consensus in two sections over the past two days. It strips down the section to its bare essentials and leaves out any material that was the subject of an objection by any editor. Sheffield Steel has indicated that if we can reach consensus, he'll lift the full protection. So let's reach consensus. Thanks for helping me reach this goal in a calm and mutually respectful manner. Marx0728 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. Strong support. It should include the sworn testimony from Moncrief and the confession about 13,000 fraudulent voter registrations from Slater. But it also gets rid of all the self serving, spin doctored press release crap, so it's good for now. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak support - It looks to be an improvement. It's not perfect, but I can live with it as a starting point. Is there a source for the 11 state count? --GoodDamon22:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Reject - I made a mistake I won't make again: I trusted WB to, just this once, be truthful. No, that cite does not support the sentence referring to 11 states investigating ACORN. They are investigating former canvassers, and the article does not establish that they are investigating ACORN itself in conjunction. I won't even bother warning you against misrepresenting the content of sources anymore, WB. I'm through with this. You are an untrustworthy POV-pushing SPA and likely puppetmaster, and you've used up the very last dregs of good faith I could possibly have had in you. I no longer have any reason whatsoever to trust a single point you push, and will henceforth reject any other content you propose out of hand unless more trustworthy editors vouch for you. --GoodDamon01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Support (Reject for the moment since problems arose. Will check it out further tomorrow and hopefully I can go back to support.) as an innocent quiet bystander who is following this "sitcom" very enthusiastic for quite some time as long as no major valuable rejection(s) appear(s) (such as violation(s) of WP-policies to give an example). It's a good compromise for now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Reject (in part) The language looks more-or-less OK, other than the uncited claim about 11 state investigations. Somewhat per expectations, the KC Star cite that WB claims supports this claim does not do so. However, it does seem to contain a needed citation for another claim in the article: "ACORN is bound by laws in most of the 21 states where it's been active to turn in all new registration applications, even suspicious ones, and the group follows that policy everywhere, spokesman Scott Levenson said.KC Star" We should use that to support the stated fact about "required to turn in forms". LotLE×talk00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Goodamon: Here is what the Kansas City star says: "Law-enforcement agencies in 11 states have been investigating former ACORN canvassers." I don't think that supports the last sentence of that edit as written (it is "former canvassers" after all that are being investigated, not acorn itself, according to the KC star).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
::They are "former" ACORN employees only because, according to Moncrief, they've been thrown under the bus. When they turned in the stacks and stacks of fraudulent voter registration cards that Democratic election officials are now identifying as fraudulent, they were "current" ACORN employees; and if they're indicted, convicted and sent to prison like so many others, it will be for felonies that they committed in the course of employment while they were "current" ACORN employees. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
WorkerBee74. Let me try to make one thing/point clear to you so you don't corner yourself with such statements. I (like everybody else) could apply for a job at ACORN to sign up new voters. If I'm (as everybody else, even you if you'd apply and gets approved to work for them) bring in fraudulent forms on purpose or by mistake (because of people who sign up in any fraudulent way or just because they don't remember that they are already registered or maybe think they have to do it again despite that I ask them if they've registered before and they're just afraid and without knowledge about the consequences, and so on...) it would be my (or your) mistake and I, not ACORN or any organization I'm working for would be responsible and end up in court. Remember those convictions? They where "bad" employees that where charged and convicted, not ACORN itself. See the difference? I wrote it as simple as possible, at least I guess so. I'll try to respond to other posts of you either later or probably tomorrow. It's getting late here.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
WorkerBee74 has been blocked for the next three weeks. As a POV-pushing single-purpose account whose purpose is about to vanish, I doubt he'll be back to see your argument. However, while I agree that what you're describing is a likely scenario, my understanding of the FBI investigation is that they are currently trying to determine whether the issues with voter registration fraud were caused by individual bad employees looking for easy paychecks, or a systemic problem with ACORN's management. The point that WorkerBee74 missed is that no determination on the matter has been made, which makes excessive focus on them a recentism problem. --GoodDamon05:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree but it's just too late to check out the sources by myself before tomorrow. Anyway, I'll watch this page even if I don't comment on every comment. It's just not worth the effort (for me). So, I'll be there. *smile*--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems like it always comes back to the FBI investigation which cannot be sourced to "reflect" an investigation of ACORN itself. So no "season finale". This needs to be fixed if possible or left out. Any ideas? And sorry for "soaping" a bit.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
::MCK, the FBI investigation has already been sourced to two separate reliable sources. The last two sources cited: AP and KC Star. These are the gold standard of reliable sources. I'm glad I could clear up this misunderstanding for you. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
reject oh yeah, as that last sentence is at the very least misleading (once one seeks out the sources and backstops for oneself), i can't support the edit as it stands. Could live with it if that's removed (the fbi bit is fine, TMC. The problem is tying of the FBI bit in 2 states, to something entirely different in 11 states in a misleading and incorrect manner).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
* Bali ultimate and LotE are welcome to propose alternate wording for the phrase they call "misleading" and, if it preserves the fact that 11 states are currently investigating fraudulent voter registrations turned in by ACORN, I'm fairly sure that I'll support that subsequent edit. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
goodness we've got two rejections and TMC seems to be on the fence (he says changes are needed, so it appears he is not in agreement). Also, Goodamon asked a question, and made it appear that his full assent was dependent on an answer to his question, one he has not yet received. So, I count only 3 supports, one maybe support, and 3 requests for further changes. And please, remember, voting and consensus are not the same thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Reject - mainly because it invokes an FBI investigation that has no indictments or convictions, and may turn up nothing whatsoever. Furthermore, I believe WB74's attempt to get it shoehorned into the article before a reasonable amount of time to discuss it has passed is highly disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop deleting my edits to this page immediately, and stop trying to spin doctor the responses of others who clearly said, Support. We have consensus. Five in favor, and three opposed based on their hairsplitting objection to a twice reliably sourced statement. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Waiting for one of the objectors to post an alternate version of the sentence which they object to. As long as it include the FBI investigation, and the fact that 11 states are investigating fraudulent voter registrations turned in by ACORN, which have both been reliably sourced, without trying to shoehorn in any self serving press release crap, I'll probably have no problem with it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I would favor keeping the existing version, with the removal of "In October 2008, the FBI investigated ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification." Since there are no indictments or convictions, there should be no mention of it in the article; furthermore, if indictments and convictions did exist, it would still have recentism issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Can't agree with you there. An FBI investigation is notable enough for inclusion, in my opinion. Even if it results in no criminal charges against ACORN itself, it's a big enough event in the organization's history to merit a mention, although in that scenario it would be mentioned and then noted that nothing came of it. --GoodDamon01:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Please consider removing this last comment of yours, WorkerBee. It's a clear personal attack that has nothing to do with improving the article. You have already been warning about this behavior many times. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Another attempt
Closing disruptive discussion started by banned sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have edited the final phrase that three editors find objectionable. It is highlighted in blue above. I cannot imagine anyone splitting that hair any further. Recentism is a bogus objection as GD pointed out. The FBI investigation will still be notable 100 years from now.
*Strong support.WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Complete rejection per the reasons already given. This changes nothing, including the non-neutral language. The version currently in the article will do for now. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Reject - And I will continue rejecting any further proposals that try to turn investigations of former employees into investigations of ACORN itself. --GoodDamon01:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
::It's painfully obvious, and absolutely crystal clear, that the 11 states are not investigating ACORN, but "voter registration forms turned in by ACORN." What part of that don't you understand? WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added five more words, highlighted in red above. Go ahead, put that hair under the microscope and split it again. You're clearly trying to protect the selfserving press release crap, and keep out any mention of the FBI investigation or the 26 indictments and convictions, until after the election.
reject for now as proposer is blocked long term, which skews the discussion. We should probably wait until article protection is lifted and handle any editing as part of normal process. Incidentally, the article was protected due to two editors revert warring against the established editors on this page. One is now blocked. If the other persists, it is tendentious editing against consensus so the recourse is blocking. I think we can safely lift protection and go back to normal editing. Wikidemon (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Imagine for a moment how silly this would all seem if, in a few months, ACORN was cleared of all wrong-doing. That's the sort of thing we try to avoid recentism for. What seems like a major event in the history of the organization now may look more like barely a footnote in short order. There's no deadline for inclusion, and generally speaking it's better to wait and see what kind of effect the investigations will have before jumping all over Wikipedia demanding that it reflect the very latest campaign-promoted news. --GoodDamon22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
:::It would still be a very notable event in the history of the organization. As Workerbee outlined above, there have been 26 em,ployees charged or convicted in six states, with simultaneous investigations by the FBI and 11 state agencies, and Mr. Slater, executive director of Project Vote, has admitted that 13,000 falsified registrations were turned in to election authorities. I completely agree with 205.181.102.85. It's a whitewash, and the author is lotle. Marx0728 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
*Strongly support. There is no excuse for not making this edit, right now. Wikidemon, the section as it stands in the mainspace contains self-serving claims by ACORN spokesmen, as the FBI investigates them for voter registration fraud, and there is no reason to wait unless we're trying to ensure certain results in the election tomorrow. As Workerbee outlined above, the article presents these unverifiable, self-serving claims as "facts chiseled in granite" and makes no mention of the charges or convictions of ACORN employees. Marx0728 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC).
Reject - As per above. And suggest closing, as the SPA pushing this has once again been blocked. Can we move on to something else now? Well, probably not, as it's election day, but one can always hope... --GoodDamon14:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
*Support. If you don't like the proposed version, why not propose another version, or improvements to this proposed version? Or are you happy to have in the article mainspace a section that everyone agrees is flawed? Curious bystander (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's discuss your objections on the proposed "Voter registration" section
Closing disruptive discussion started by banned sockpuppet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see that there are a lot of people opposed to the voter registration section. That seems peculiar, since it was presented in two sections previously, and each of the two sections appeared to be supported by consensus. WorkerBee74 is blocked, so let's try to keep it all civil. Scjessey says that the article Talk page is not the place to discuss the conduct of other editors, so please obey that rule. Here is the proposed new section. Please discuss in detail and with specificity, your objections in the discussion section below.
ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states; this number included 450,000 first-time voters. The remainder included address changes, as well as 400,000 forms rejected among other things as duplicates, incomplete submissions, and fraudulent submissions.[17]San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, whether innocent or intentional, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.[2]
ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states, in some cases as a result of ACORN-flagged registration forms, and some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud.[3][4][18][19][20][21][22][23] In a case in Washington state, ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."[24][25] In October 2008, FBI insiders leaked a story of an ongoing investigation into whether ACORN coordinated any registration form falsification, and 11 state authorities are also investigating former ACORN employees.[26][27][15][28]
Please provide a detailed description of your reasons for objecting to this proposed section, particularly since almost all of you supported each of the two sections when they was first offered at the top of the page. If you have an objection, please offer an alternative wording that you can live with. Thanks. Marx0728 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Once I pulled out the citations to allow easier reading, it appears that they continue to fail to support WorkerBee's invention of the "11 state investigations" claim. It looks like the addition of that non-supported information is the only addition, so obviously it is not acceptable. did I miss some other proposed change? LotLE×talk00:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
::Incorrect, lotle, but thanks for specifying your objection. Please look at the fourth citation you pulled out, the Kansas City Star. [Gordon, Greg (2004-10-28). "FBI launches probe into ACORN over voter registrations". Kansas City Star. Retrieved 2008-11-02. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)] Here is the 13th paragraph, quoted in its entirety: "Law-enforcement agencies in 11 states have been investigating former ACORN canvassers — investigations that have involved the FBI in Nevada and New Mexico." Please read more thoroughly before making such accusations. I checked it out very carefully myself before re-posting it, and have verified each and every word of it. Frankly, I just don't understand why people are objecting. It's accurate, it's very well-sourced and it's neutrally worded, without the self-serving ACORN press releases and statements, and without Ms. Moncrief's testimony, even though I think it's sufficiently reliable to include. Marx0728 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm going to be gone until at least noon US time on Saturday (November 8), so please, I encourage all participants on this page to specify your objections like lotle has done. When I come back, I'll address them. Thanks. Marx0728 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
::That wasn't helpful at all. LotLE clearly itemized his objection, claiming that the "11 state investigations" were an "invention" by WorkerBee74, and then Marx0728 demonstrated by chapter and verse that LotLE's objection was entirely groundless: the "11 state investigations" were verified using a reliable source. And Bali Ultimate pretends that Marx never said anything and the reliable source doesn't exist. Not helpful at all. Tendentious, in fact. Curious bystander (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing for bystander: My tolerance for provocation is much lower than usual. You're a fairly new arrival here and you immediately characterized a 4 word sentence of mine (blandly supporting lotle) as "tendentious" and "not helpful at all" and said it showed I was "pretending" that "a reliable source doesn't exist." I note that you've had blocks and topic bans in the past, and this is how you come into a talk page on an already locked article?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Curious bystander is correct that his oppose wasn't helpful. In fact, guidelines suggest not to use one liners such as "per lotle" or "per nom" or "fails [some:policy]". Further, you have no business bringing to note any history of bystander, especially after he posted a well thought out, perfectly valid point. DigitalNinja18:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Support - Much to my surprise, this finally looks like a properly-sourced, neutrally-toned proposal that doesn't place undue emphasis on the investigation. I suppose even a stopped clock is right twice a day. LotLE, I know that the proposal itself is coming from extremely suspect sources, including one likely puppetmaster, but I've scrutinized it closely, and unless I'm missing something it's solid. Note to WB/Marx/Cb: Don't take this as an opportunity to declare consensus immediately just because I've said I support this version. I would like to see if there are any other arguments against it, first. --GoodDamon03:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
As I have produced a version below which I find to be more neutral and more likely to achieve consensus, I am removing my support from this version. --GoodDamon20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The fact that two of the "support" votes are from SSP reported (and not excluded) socks of the same blocked user raises a certain suspicion, of course. Even bracketing that, the KC Star source is both isolated (despite many sources trying to find the same sort of summary and failing to find such "11 states") and indefinite about tense. "Have been" is odd here. When "have they been"? Is it an ongoing fact in November 2008 (as is insinuated)? More likely the indexical is meant to pertain to 2004-10-28, when the article was actually written. In that case, it would be "11 states investigated in 2004." What ever happened with those events 4 years ago? Given the lack of further stories on charges, etc. in most places... well, I don't know what since the sources don't tell me. This is another example of WB trying to spin partial facts or clauses taken out of context to claim something much broader than wat sources actually support. LotLE×talk04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: the date on the article is weird. The citation given shows the 2004 date I mentioned, but the article when I just clicked on it shows today's date (i.e. more recent than all these prior discussions of it). It's unclear what KC Star is doing with the byline date. That said, some paragraphs of the article are clearly discussing the 2008 election cycle, so maybe the 2004 date is a simple error by someone or another. LotLE×talk
::To answer the "isolated" objection, one reliable source is sufficient. To answer the various objections about grammar and tense, please specify proposed alternate wording rather than just objecting. Simply objecting is not constructive. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
*Strong support per GoodDamon. For those inclined to instantly trot off to get me blocked at WP:ANI, to prevent any constructive contributions to this article by a left-wing, partisan Daily Kos member like me, please review this edit before trotting off: [1]Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
::::*I think you should review WP:BLOCK. The purpose of the block is not to punish WorkerBee74, but to protect Wikipedia. How is Wikipedia protected by preventing him from contributing in this very non-disruptive manner? Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::::If you and the others from Talk:Barack Obama delay consensus long enough, WB will be "voting" for himself. People that you don't agree with will keep coming back from blocks, and there are a lot of us. So there are drawbacks to that strategy. 300wackerdrive (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Support without regard to who is who, or any drama on this page - it looks like a fair summary of the issue for now. If the investigations turn something up, or if it dies down without repercussions, we can revisit in a few months. Wikidemon (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
*I support the inclusion of this material, in much the way it is outlined in the proposed change. Die4Dixie (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC) [Statement copied from discussion below with format corrected by Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)]
*Support - ILIKEIT. No, actually I do like it, but I like the sources much more. Also, the last three sentences really sold it for me. In a neutral way, it draws the feelings of blame from ACORN, to individual employees and even cites prosecution of such as a manner to make an easy dollar. I think this best expresses mainstream media's view of the situation. Nice work! DigitalNinja 15:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC) [Moved by 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)]
Please replace the "Voter registration" section in the article mainspace with the following text. We have consensus. Counting Marx0728, it's 6-2. The arguments in favor of the edit are overwhelming, and the arguments against it have been shot down in flames. Thank you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons previously stated. Also vote count is inaccurate - exclude socks and SPAs and the count is more or less even. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states; this number included 450,000 first-time voters. The remainder included address changes, as well as 400,000 forms rejected among other things as duplicates, incomplete submissions, and fraudulent submissions.[29]San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, whether innocent or intentional, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.[2]
ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states, in some cases as a result of ACORN-flagged registration forms, and some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud.[3][4][30][31][32][33][34][35] In a case in Washington state, ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."[36][37] In October 2008, FBI insiders leaked a story of an ongoing investigation into whether ACORN coordinated any registration form falsification, and 11 state authorities are also investigating former ACORN employees.[38][39][15][40]
"Oppose" that there is a confirmed consensus. There is a clear pattern of premature "consensus-claiming" going on and even so consensus seems to form, such is not yet a clear call as some might see it. It's a shoot ahead and rather damaging and potentially bringing any improvement to a halt.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Ditto - I said not to declare consensus just because the current wording looks reasonably good. This is premature, and the inclusion of votes by recently, frequently, and currently blocked SPAs do not lend weight to it. Right now, by my count, the consensus is against including it, if those accounts are ruled out. And they definitely should be. --GoodDamon00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm basically just following this page, tracking, commenting and "expose" what I see as a (at least pretty much) neutral observer. My intention is everything but getting involved in those "war games" that would (as proofed by that long-term silliness) just a waste of my time. Hopefully I'm still a positive factor by giving my 2cents once in a while and at some point in the (near?) future it will be possible to give my point of view on the issue itself without just being another useless waste of my of time and resources I might have to offer. Till then, I'll just keep it the way I did now for some time: Watching and interfering when I see need for it (or when I get "pissed" like today as "some editor" thought it would be just fine to move my comment to where s/he thought it would do "less harm", the only way of [my] interpretation that would make sense).
There is one thing I would like to suggest: instead of waiting for editors making mostly negative leaning proposals (which have basically always the same base and a slight rewording if at all), the non or (less biased?) editors could try to come up with a strong proposal based on reliable sourced facts. My guess is, working then on such proposed language could be way more constructive than the other way around. Here you go; Another 2cents of mine. (And by the way, feel free to move this comment of mine where it might be helpful as the discussion goes on).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting 8-4 or 7-5. Blocked users should not be voting, and procedural opposition is still opposition. I'm on the edge of changing my own !vote to an opposition because I just don't see that the proposal has gained acceptance as is. Even if the total truly were 9-3 that is not a clear consensus that would justify a contentious edit to a protected article. However, given the prevalence of SPA accounts with questionable history here, and the well-founded concerns of sock/meatpuppetry, it would be a mistake to take any count at face value. If this issue gets pushed here or elsewhere it looks like we're heading for some kind of melt-down. It is not worth it over this, so the best approach IMO is to table this whole discussion and deal with it later.Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Damon: My principal objections at this point is that the edits aren't sufficiently bite-sized. As you're probably aware, there's been a history here of long edits proposed and inserted that, after investigation by others than the proposers, have proven to be inaccurate/misatributed/outright falsehoods. I think it's a bad way to begin again to edit text three graphs at a time (I'll note the slew of citations up above. Every time i've examined cites for proposed text, including some that are there now, i've found problems. I won't continue to chase my tail). It would be much clearer, and lead to less controversy, if proposals for editing existing material were framed like this: "Instead of the current wording xxx... I would like it yyy" with a reason. And one sentence at a time. That's the sanest way to go forward, and the one most likely to achieve consensus.
One question that leaps to mind immediately is why is this being deleted? "During this drive, 60-70% of registrations were among people of color, and 50% were among citizens under 30.[17] ACORN collected 1.7 million registrations during drives in 2004 and 2006. During the earlier campaigns, 400,000 new voters were among the registrations.[18]" I might have others. But i feel very strongly, given the past behaviour of various socks, blocked editors and tendentious individuals, that going forward we should break things down into bite size. I urge anyone who wants to achieve consensus to pick which of his new sentences is most important and propose it. After that, the second most important sentence. This will help build severely damaged good faith. Let's take little bites.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::As WorkerBee74 has indicated, "During this drive, 60-70% of registrations were among people of color, and 50% were among citizens under 30.[17] ACORN collected 1.7 million registrations during drives in 2004 and 2006. During the earlier campaigns, 400,000 new voters were among the registrations.[18]" comes directly from self-serving, spin-doctored ACORN press releases and no other source. If no one else wishes to explicitly state that the material is disputed, I dispute it. Let's make that clear. Therefore it must be reliably sourced and we definitely need to use a secondary source. Until a secondary source is found, it's gone. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There is definitely merit to that approach. Let me say then that I tentatively support the paragraphs above as a partial end-result of incremental edits as you propose, assuming each bite-sized chunk passes muster. --GoodDamon04:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::This edit has already been thoroughly discussed in bite-sized chunks here and here, where it was divided into two bite-sized chunks each of which gained consensus, and further discussed here, where the bogus and tendentious objection to "11 state investigations" was first presented. I have never seen an edit that was more thoroughly and reliably sourced, or more thoroughly discussed except on another page that I am not yet allowed to mention, and by the same editors. It has been discussed to death. The bogus and tendentious objection to "11 state investigations" has been shot down in flames with a reliable source. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
commentLotle: The kc article is clearly from this election cycle, and fairly recent (this month) based on the content. The original source is Mclatchy (formerly Knight-Ridder) so if it was important, one could track down the exact date through their site. However, the more i think about this (particularly with the "urgency" of the election behind us) and the fact that we've had so much misinformation almost make its way in/briefly make its way in to the article, my feeling at the moment is absent details on the outcome, if any, of these investigation and whether they lead to acorn or not if there is an outcome should come before this stuff goes into the article. After all, as the article stands now, there's a mention of an unfinished FBI investigation and details on a few cases as well as the sentence "ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states, in some cases as a result of the ACORN-flagged registration forms." This seems sufficient to point out the issues and concerns around acorn and registration.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
*Comment: The source (Kansas City Star, publishing a McClatchy news service story) is reliable, and it is painfully obvious that it is from October 2008. Kossack4Truth (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion for Controversy section
stale thread so closing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just a suggestion, many articles similar to this where the organization has been allegedly involved in fraud have a controversy section. For example, Premier_Election_Solutions (where the company has also been accused of electoral fraud).
As has been frequently mentioned, all of the allegations of fraud are buried under a mountain of text, with the exception of one short sentence at the end of the first paragraph mentioning an investigation. Malcolmst (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, but "criticism and controversy" sections are something Wikipedia is trying to make a thing of the past. They're magnets for trolling and editwarring. Any description of criticism and controversy should be scattered throughout the article, rather than concentrated in one section. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Per WB above (heh... Never thought I'd say that), "Controversy" sections typically degrade into coatracks for attacking the subject of the article. Criticism should be worked into the body of the article. The only exceptions I can think of are when negative material is the primary cause of notability. --GoodDamon02:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This seems a bit overdone: This article is about ACORN. For the fruit of the oak tree, see Acorn. For the social classification, see ACORN (demographics). For other uses, see Acorn (disambiguation).
Please change to read: This article is about the advocacy organization. For other uses, see Acorn (disambiguation)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To MiguelMunoz: this article was recently protected, so changes can only be made by an administrator. I think it's reasonable to lift that to semi-protection, but that's what it is right now.
Done. Please verify whether footnote 24 actually supports the statement—I skimmed the Herald article and couldn't find anything relevant. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Concern about voting
Unproductive discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just in case anyone here is not aware of it, the account Kossack4Truth, that has recently appeared here, is another in the long list of suspected sock puppets of WorkerBee74: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth. The topic ban on that account might have run only through the election (I forget the details among these many accounts, which are blocks, which bans, etc). Curious bystander, of course, is also in this list. Use of sock armies is not very conducive to discussion of editing matters. LotLE×talk18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:Stop making these accusations and trying to provoke people. You have reported us as sockpuppets multiple times, months ago; you had Checkusers, and the results were either inconclusive or unrelated. In other words, if we were a "sock army," we would already be blocked. In fact, nearly every editor on this page who has disagreed with you has been the subject of a Checkuser, and we are all still editing, so your accusations are false. Contentious article Talk pages are no place to discuss the behavior of other editors, as Scjessey has pointed out. So stop it. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Review this edit from the User Talk page of MastCell, the admin who has been self-appointed parole officer of said topic ban. He has specifically and very explicitly authorized me to edit this article. Now, both of you, stop being such a dick, all right? Let's try to work together in a constructive and cooperative way, and rescue this article from its current fucked up condition, all right? Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a few strong feelings about this too and am generally sympathetic to the premise, but I do not think this talk page is the right place to deal with sock/meat puppetry. Whether you count the "army" as one !vote or 3, the discussion is more or less the same. If the situation were different it might be useful to remind people of the issue. But for now could we please use this page for suggestions and questions regarding improving the article, and deal with process issues in some other time/place? Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll note a variety of newish editors all of whom seem to be making personal attacks in their comments here. Please stop it. I am also more than a little annoyed that one of the new editors has prematurely declared consensus, an ongoing problem with this article. I have made what i feel are strong objections to this proposed insertion -- the strongest of which is that the article currently has sufficient detail on these matters and the fact that there is no evidence that the isolated investigations of "former acorn canvassers" are going anywhere, are leading to anything, etc... Given my coatrack concerns with this article, i think it best to wait and see if they go anywhere, got dropped etc, before we get into the specifics of these "11" cases (i use those quotes to indicate there is no clarity as to what is being investigated in these cases). Again, enough with the personal attacks and accusations. The behavior of some on this talk page is taking us further away from a decent working environment, as well as diverting editors from actually editing productively elsewhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a pattern with WB/K4T/CB: s/he chimes in with a bunch of socks and SPAs "agreeing" to some contentious edit, then "declares consensus" for the revision. It happened a dozen times on Obama pages until the lot of the accounts were blocked/banned for decent periods. Apparently K4T is trying to wiggle out of the 6 month topic ban against her/him by claiming this article is not Obama-related (which it really isn't) while trying to stick in anti-Obama material in it. LotLE×talk20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
i'm not sure why this page is being able to be used as a platform to attack other editors. It appears there is a reliable source. With a reliable source, we do not need to "wait and see" how something a reliable third party source claims. Confusion about if someone might be a sock puppet or whatever does not diminish the validity of the third party source. If this behavior continues of attacking editors instead of their edits continues, then I will collect the diffs and make a report. My midterms are over and my papres written, so I have the time. The most telling proof of validity is the reduction to ad hominem attacks. I ''''''support'''''' the inclusion of this material ,in much the way it is outlined in the proposed change.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I agree that the ad hominem attacks and false accusations are signs that the "side" making these attacks has lost the debate. LotLE was the one who first came to this article on October 12, deleted all the criticism and added ACORN press releases. Look who's now in the minority, and starting a new thread to draw attention to his false accusations. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Boy, it sure is hard to follow what's going on upthread, what with all the moving of comments, the editing of comments, the allegations of this and that and so forth. At any rate. Here's some other stuff i'd like to get in. In the existing FBI section (by existing, i mean the bit that's already in the article), we should have Congressman john conyers comments:
"House Judiciary committee chairman John Conyers complained in an October 2008 letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey that it was "unnaceptable" to leak information about an ongoing investigation during the campaign and he cast doubt over the legitimacy of the effort saying it was "a right-wing cottage industry to cry wolf over alleged “voter fraud” during an election season (only to have such claims evaporate after the election has concluded)."[[3]]
I think this (from the American Lawyer) should also be added in the voter registration fraud section:
"Brian Mellor, a lawyer for ACORN, said that allegations the group has behaved illegally in regards to voter registration are "flat-out not true." He said the group was required by law to hand in registration forms, even ones it suspected had been fraudulently sumbitted by canvassers, and that it had warned election boards of the potential problems. "What angers me most about all of these stories is we turned cards in and asked for prosecutions back in February and March," says Mellor. "I personally sent letters to every single board of elections saying we're going to turn in these problematic cards, if you want to pursue them, call me." " [[4]] Bali ultimate (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::The statement by Conyers might belong in the FBI article but here it would violate WP:WEIGHT. For every statement from an ACORN spokesman or ACORN press release, we must have one statement from an ACORN critic. How many of each would you like to have here? I say two of each. You can have Mellor and Lagstein if we can have Moncrief and Limbaugh. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
tmc -- the logical implication of this fellows argument is that the fbi investigation shouldn't be mentioned in the article either. That's not what he wants, but that is the logical conclusion of the current course he's pursuing.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Wacker: What a lawyer representation an organization has to say in its defense and what the head of the house judiciary committee has to say in its defense can not and should not be balanced in any way by what a radio opinion journalist and a fired former bottom rung employee (who was reported to the authorities by the organization for sumbitting bad registrations). If you don't recognize this basic fact, then you will continue to be a disruptive presence here. Won't address you directly again.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::::You're entitled to that opinion, of course. But ACORN's spokesmen represent one POV, and there's a significant opposing POV. NPOV does not mean "no point of view," but appropriate representation of all significant points of view. You're enamored with the pro-ACORN POV. Moncrief wasn't a "bottom rung employee" either, nor was she fired for "sumbitting [sic] bad registrations." She was employed by Project Vote for three years. Please stop misrepresenting the sources. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the Conyer's statement is too much material, and would expand the section beyond the weight it merits. However, it is interesting to see the weird back-pedaling by CB/Wacker/WB/K4T/Marx or whatever name the proxies are editing under now. When they find some obscure right-wing opinion article it is urgently necessary to include 300 more words on it, because "it is verifiable"... when the chair of the Judiciary Committee states something, it is suddenly too long to include.
Of course, I continue to think the whole FBI mention is undue weight unless or until there is public statement about it (don't hold your breath on this campaign leak). But probably if it is to be mentioned, it should be counterbalanced with a shortened version of the Conyers statement. LotLE×talk18:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone organize this place?
resolved so closing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Perhaps move the conversation about the suspected sock of WorkerBee somewhere else? The encyclopedia seems to move rather quickly on topics like these, especially when GoodDamon and Magnificant Clean-Keeper are involved :)
It would help the process of consensus or even discussion for that matter if conversations could be interpreted efficiently. Cheers, DigitalNinja15:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
