Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 3

You could here a pin drop
Nice and quiet in here. Makes it seem like it was just me, all my sock puppets, and my meat puppets (which sounds gross, but I believe it's the right term) making all the trouble...

I added back some stuff that got taken out. I also did a section for the 2008 campaign. I think there is enough material now and ACORN has been a big enough part of the campaign that it deserves a section.

I moved the Voter issues into it's own section where it seems to make sense.

My biggest complaint is that there seems to be some information organized by chronology, and other information organized by topic, but I think it's better now.

Feel free to blast me for any mistakes I made in my additions. Gulp...(Wallamoose (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
 * No blasting - overall it looks well done, sourced, not biased, and of appropriate weight. And done courteously and in good spirits - thanks!  There are a number of things here and there, which we can work on, but I think it improves the article.  A fine example where a change sounds a lot scarier on the talk page than when it happens for real.  I did a minor edit to one section, which I don't know is your addition or was already there.  When explaining why the fraud occurred, I think it's too specific and a little opinion-ish to say that "a percentage" of workers commit fraud because they don't want to do work, and also to put it in the present tense, something that introduces timing issues.  We only know from sources what happened before, not what might happen next.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved from user talk) Hey Lulu, I hope you are well. I noticed you took out the notation about a voter registering fifteen or more times, but that's in that NY Post article and IS a result of an ACORN registration. I thought we were going to allow some details to be added?(Wallamoose (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I think your edits of ACORN have been very good today. However, as my edit comment indicates, this really does not plausibly have anything to do with ACORN if a voter submits multiple registration forms. It may well be that fifteen different ACORN employees handed someone a registration form (or the same person handed him a form multiple times, which would hardly imply malice rather than just failure to remember every face).  If a voter doesn't decline to complete multiple forms, that hardly has anything to do with the registration workers.... unless some rather implausible and convoluted additional circumstances exist, none of which are suggested by sources.  LotLE × talk  00:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Anybody else want to offer an opinion? I don't agree. If ACORN employees register a guy 15 times (the dozens I put was for the guy whose name showed up more than 70 times), that's an issue, and that's what the article says. And again, I thought we were going to add SOME details about the kind of fraud that's happening? Can you add some of the other details we discussed if you don't like this one? I like to have a couple of examples included as per previous discussions. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC))


 * While "common sense" has no place in article space, I think we can use it slightly on the talk page :-). Suppose some guy, for whatever reason, fills out every voter registration form put into his hands, even past the first one.  If a bunch of different workers all come to his door, how could they possibly know that some other worker had already accepted a form (even assuming all such workers were 100% honest and all were optimally trained by ACORN)? I suppose that to some extent, marking out the blocks to avoid walking them repeatedly by multiple workers is reasonable planning for an ACORN supervisor... but if the accusation doesn't reach anything worse than slightly imperfect logistics planning, I hardly think it belongs here (ever get a bunch of coupons for the same pizza joint stuck to your windshield?... annoying, but probably not something that belongs in the Dominos article).  LotLE × talk  00:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it depends on the circumstances. So do we have more information?  Did he register 15 times in a day?  That would suggest during a voter drive, where the workers were at least somewhat complicit (even if not necessarily the organization, and even if once they took all his obviously fraudulent forms, they technically were obligated to process them).  Or maybe we have an RS saying he took a hot dog or other bribe to do it?


 * In general, wow, good editing! Did we decide yet to include the Consumer Rights League (huh, well, they don't have an article) as a reliable source on there being criticisms?  -Fredgoat (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting way into original research. Article after article talks about how many times some people registered.  It's notable, it's verifiable, it's sourced.  Also Lulu you're saying the guy had nothing to do with ACORN, but that's not what the article says: "The vote of Darnell Nash, one of four people subpoenaed in a Cuyahoga County probe of ACORN's voter-registration activities, was canceled and his case was turned over to local prosecutors and law enforcement, Board of Elections officials said yesterday."
 * And finally as an aside, ACORN could certainly train it's employees to ask people "have you registered before"? and only to get new registrants.


 * But again, that is all irrelevant, because the story and lots of others deal with ACORN canvassers signing up people again and again, often dozens of times, and in some cases offering small bribes to the registrant and offering an incentive to the canvasser to sign up as many people as possible. So please someone put this information back in the article?  Pretty please?  I thought we all agreed that a few details of the type of voter registration fraud were appropriate to add. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I support it being in, as long as stuff is sourced real good. My issue was only with CRL. -Fredgoat (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Lulu, you deleted the part where it says conservatives are linking Obama and ACORN fraud - I'm taking this opportunity to cross party lines and put the R in BRL (Bold, Revert, Leave before the chaos ensues - seriously, I'm sorry, it's my bedtime, get back to you guys tomorrow). But Obama is relevant. It's okay to have things talk about their relationship to other things. -Fredgoat (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This Salon article may be of interest as it appears to offer a response to Blackwell's position and advances the position that the uproar over the voter registration fraud controversy is a "ruse" meant to disenfranchise. Is Salon a reliable source? Is the underlying discussion presented in the article notable in regards to ACORN or does it belong elsewhere (or nowhere?) thanks and kind regards, --guyzero | talk 01:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be fair
Certain editors keep taking out this very reasonable statement:

Opponents argue that ACORN should supervise its staff more carefully, or provide better training and supervision to eliminate this illegal behavior by its employees.

If you want more than the citations already given then tag it. But stop taking it out to make the article suit your fancy. There's nothing controversial about this. Let's not have an edit war over notable and verifiable information. Could someone please put this back in. Thanks.

Also, please leave in the $800,000 figure. It's notable. It's verified. That's what he paid the affiliate of ACORN. What's the big deal? Please. Let's all try to be fair and reasonable.(Wallamoose (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

special prosecutor
Obama campaign is asking the investigation be transferred to special prosecutor. --Voidvector (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * also note quote "With avenues to victory in the presidential race closing fast, Republicans are now laying the groundwork for casting doubt on the results." --Voidvector (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

San Diego rejection rate
I was curious about the rate of registration rejections on ACORN drives versus other efforts. I found the information that I added from San Diego County. I'm frustrated that it is too particular, and not necessarily representative of other locations. However, I don't have any sources for national averages or broader data. Also, I definitely do not want to put WP:UNDUE weight here by cataloging rejection rates in every state and county, even if I had all that data from reliable sources.

What do editors think? Does the SD example provide a reasonable "snapshot" of comparative rates? I guess it would be helpful to have any data from other locations just to know if this is at all typical. SD had 17% rejection of ACORN submissions, versus <5% for other drives. There is no evidence of what percentage were intentional errors versus wholly the result of inadequate canvasser training and/or the problems of registering hard-to-reach and poor populations. If some other state or county had dramatically higher or lower rejections, that would be worth discussing here on talk

...of course, not all jurisdictions legally can determine the source of a registration form (in terms of what registration drive it is part of). Some states can and must simply accept registration forms without characterizing canvassers who collected them (and other jurisdictions require registration by deputized county officials who are therefor agents of the county itself). LotLE × talk 05:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you put the text here, I'll be happy to give you an opinion. It's such a clusterfuck and moving target in the article at this point it's hard to know what you're asking about. I'm just keeping an eye for blatant propagandizing for now -- wikipedia is a wonderful thing, but the architecture doesn't work during short term periods of intense interest.Bali ultimate (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at the voter registration section, or search for San Diego (or for "rejection rate", etc). LotLE × talk  07:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's very interesting, but it's also going to be original research / synthesis to try to make anything out of the raw data. I can easily think of a dozen reasons why that might overstate or understate the problem.  For instance, are we comparing apples to apples?  There might be 100 small drives carried out in church basements and high school gymnasiums with a 3% rejection rate because those are inherently more careful - and hypothetically two or three other ACORNs out there with 10-20% rejections.  Conversely SD might have lots of big registration drives and ACORN is the worst anyone has ever seen.  It would take an expert analysis to make sense of it, and we can't trust partisan sources, or even newspapers covering partisan claims, to get to the bottom of it.  Surely, with all the talk about this someone has written authoritatively about whether the local or nationwide problems ACORN had with faked or rejected entries is exceptional or within the normal range.  Wikidemon (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are lots of reasons that SD may or may not be a good sample. It's just the one I found in a news search.  A number of editors had expressed the sentiment that some sense of the rejected registration rate in ACORN drives would be relevant.  Also, per Threepillars, there is no inherent connection between rejections and fraud (you can't really make any assumption except where there was actual prosecution and conviction, which is a number of cases I can count on my hands).
 * FWIW, the EAC report I found (for 2004-2006) gave national average rejection of 3.1%, but large variability with PA leading states at 14.5%. I have no idea what the EAC might say about CA generally or SD specifically since it isn't in the report.  LotLE × talk  17:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You can also see general invalid rates at reports of the Election Assistance Commission webpage www.eac.org by looking at early tables in their "NVRA Impact Reports." They do not separate out rates by source, but clearly some states where drives are not present have very high invalid rates and duplicate rates. The implication being that error rates at government programs can also be high. Keep in mind that "invalid" "fraud" "incomplete" are all very different things AND that some cards tossed by officials are later found to be legit applications that should not have been tossed (i.e., "false positives" in the detection system, hence fears over database matching). Add it all up and you have "user errors" vs "ACORN errors" vs "election official errors."  Ultimately, aside from people filling out forms for fake people or making duplicates (and lots of real users file a dulplicate or two a year for non-fraudulent reasons) any errors on the forms are "user errors", perhaps the staff should be better trained, but people have to take some responsibility for filling out forms which their own applications. I mean an ACORN staff cannot remember your zip code for you or possibly know your Social Security Number!!


 * I presume you actually mean http:://www.eac.GOV/ ... let me see if I can find the actual relevant URL (nudge, that would have been helpful). LotLE × talk  17:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC) ... OK, here's something specific: http://www.eac.gov/program-areas/research-resources-and-reports/copy_of_docs/the-impact-of-the-national-voter-registration-act-on-federal-elections-2005-2006/attachment_download/file
 * Thank you. Yes .gov. I should have linked to it. There are also reports for past years, showing similar problems.Threepillars (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To sum up: system errors come about in even any simple operation. Government run voter registration efforts have many errors. Again, see the EAC reports. The invalids in there could not all have come from drives. (Also note how variant the error rates are for states.)


 * Somewhere in all this people need to ask why we care about erorr rates? Is it that it proves ACORN is doing a bad job? Or that they produced more errors by also being one of the largest sources of registration in many states? Or are people trying to use errors to prove conspiracy? Threepillars (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A general point: If editors think it is not fairly citable to mention the SD numbers I found, lets chat about it here. I'm not steadfast in the need for that material (but obviously I lean towards it having some relevance, having located and added it). I would also greatly welcome any improvements to my phrasing of the material, or well-cited (not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH) contextualization. Of course, any such additions should be as brief as possible; this isn't a place for a book on the intricacies of election and registration procedures per jurisdiction over American history. LotLE × talk 17:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the information as it is now. What does it tell us? If there was some report sumarizing acorn's error rate as greater/lesser than that of its peers, it would be relevant in a discussion of the registration problems. This doesn't seem to really get there.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yesterday there was a long-ish CNN report that included interviews with some election officials, who seemed to be saying that ACCORN's rate of false applications is particularly and unacceptably high, that it is a problem they have tried to get ACCORN to do something about for years, but that the organization has not addressed. I was only paying it half a mind, being on a treadmill a the time, but if we can find a trend among reliable sources to say this or quote seemingly authoritative officials saying it, I think that's relevant and overcomes some weight, POV, and recentivism concerns.Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're referring to the CNN report from Philly done by Drew Griffin. He's been very sloppy in my opinion about election officials saying something but not checking it out for himself. Lately, he (Griffin) has actually been reversing some of his earlier statements. I think some other elder anchors at CNN have found his work one sided. He also got trashed by at least one media review group and the "fact check" type groups also have not been as strident as him. Again, people shoud look at the research on this, and not trust TV (if you have to trust journalist, try the print media they seem much better). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepillars (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out - good catch. I was on a treadmill at the time watching the captioned version so you'll have to forgive me for not researching further.  When I got back to google and cnn.com I couldn't find the report.  I agree that this one segment, though technically a reliable source, is not reliable enough to be the sole support for such a contentious claim about a major organization.  However, if the claims can be better sourced it may well be the case that ACCORN has a systemic problem with voter registrations.Wikidemon (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Voter registration
Removed "per signiture or" Source for change is ACORN's site. Quote: "Fact: Our canvassers are paid by the hour, not by the card . ACORN has a zero-tolerance policy for deliberately falsifying registrations, and in the cases where our internal quality controls have identified this happening we have fired the workers involved and turned them in to election officials and law-enforcement." http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12439&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22383&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12340&cHash=ef14f35f55


 * Is this enough for us? Can we take their word on this?  Is there a different source that says the same thing?  Could they have started paying by the hour after the FBI started its latest round of investigations? -Fredgoat (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Find a citation for "pay per registration" and we can use it. It's not our place to speculate on what is maybe possible, who knows.  One source (albeit primary, not secondary, so less good) says paid by hour; until or unless other sources are presented, this one is the best and only information we have.  LotLE × talk  04:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Voter registration
Between 2004 and 2008, ACORN has focused its efforts on voter registration drives. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN registered over 1.3 million new voters in 21 states.
 * What proof is there that ACORN "focused" or focuses on voter registration efforts? It has often done so and it does many things in a variety of complex areas. As their site and history books and articles on them show.Threepillars (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

ACORN pays workers near minimum wage to get registrations. Where ACORN has discovered potentially false voter registration forms provided by its workers, it has followed legal requirement to submit them to voter registrars, but flagged them as requiring additional attention by voter registrars. In San Diego County, CA, officials stated that during 2008, ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17%–in contrast to a rate of less than 5% for voter drives by other organizations. This rate includes rejections for all reasons, both innocent and intentional.
 * How is the wage related to the issue? The not so subtle implication that poorer people are more criminal is distasteful. Threepillars (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the implication is more along the lines that poor people are likely to be less skilled and/or less educated, and hence (perhaps) more likely to make errors in canvassing or in understanding procedures. LotLE × talk  18:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The implication is that minimum-wage workers tend to be inexperienced, unskilled, etc., both in a general sense and in comparison with others in the same job category. Also, that it's a low-quality job, and so workers are more likely to cut corners.  Probably true on average.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of finding people to fill out fairly simple forms, a bit of skill is involved in making sure the form is complete and in getting folks to talk to you about filling one out, but that's it. Somebody who is better paid and more educated is not any more likely to know how to really move applications through a group of people in a community. If the concern is about fraud, however, I don't see how skill applies, unless the less educated you are the more likely you are to think you should cheat (which doesn't make sense to) or believe that you won't get caught. 138.88.157.94 (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fraud is often perpetrated out of laziness or ignorance. There is an oath and perjury warning on many voter registration forms, presumably.  Sometimes an utter lack of concern for getting the facts right translates to a willingness to fill out forms in the names of others, make things up, and sign attestations and oaths to things one knows or should know are not true.  From a manager's point of view one could make the case that knowingly allowing unskilled workers to perjure themselves is complicit.  From an organizational perspective, it's reasonable to say that setting up perverse pay incentives, failing to vet workers, and allowing procedures that encourage fraud is a systemic flaw, and from the perspective of a client one can argue that Obama should check out his vendors better.  It's comparable to when KFC buys chicken from a slaughterhouse that permits workers to abuse animals, or Nike hires contractors that permit child labor.  The only leverage to curb misbehavior by unaccountable rank-and-file workers is through pressure from the top.  If the CNN report can be believed (see discussion elsewhere on whether it's reliable or not), ACCORN has been under fire for this in the past and has refused to deal with it.  All of this is just talk and not sourced yet to the point of being worth including - but this is the talk page.  I'm making a plausibility argument that if it does get suitably sourced then the weight and relevance are sufficient that it is an important point to make in the article about the organization.Wikidemon (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to know where to start on correcting those errors, Wikidemon. ACORN has systems in place to catch fraud, hence those they caught. Any payment will be an incentive. ACORN has dealt with it, etc., etc. it is a form of error in a very large and complex process and structure. You just retread a lot of things already covered and not relative to the issue of employees being low income. Applicants themselves have some responsibility, too, for filing in these forms. Afterall, they are their applications. Fraud is committedd by people who are educated, too (see the link elsewhere in here to the CA case of the Republican just arrested; he seems to be very experienced in this work, so educated in that manner if not formally educated). Indeed, the more educated perhaps the more fraud (more savvy at it) : ) Threepillars (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Very needed cite
A sentence was modified and some material added to indicate that ACORN has endorsed (and been supported by) Democratic, Republican and Independent candidates. It reads much better now and gives much better perspective. Big, big caveat still remains: this claim has not been given a citation. Given what a hot-button topic this is, this isn't a claim we can leave in the article very long without proper citational support (the only thing we have of relevance is the Obama endorsement, nothing about other candidates in other contests). LotLE × talk 20:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my error. I have the books around here somehwere on the history of ACORN that discuss this. They also were famously involved in the New Party in the mid-1990s which ran some people locally against Democrats. This is still happening with the Working Family Party in NYC. I'll try to dig it up.
 * More importantly: People should not assume because there are facts that they endorse Dems that it means they don't endorse Republicans. So, people shouldn't use a citation of an endorsement to mean something more complex. That's what I was trying to fix. I'll be back later with the citations. 138.88.157.94 (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really doubt that your added fact is true, but we definitely can't go on "famously" as a source. I trust you'll add a citation from a relevant source soon.  LotLE × talk  22:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: if we come up with evidence of endorsement of New Party candidates, let's go ahead and mention that as well (and link to New Party appropriately). LotLE × talk  22:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how they were a major player in getting the New Party (now defunct) and the Working Families party off the ground, it seems safe to say they supported its candidates and endorsed them. The co-chair of Working Families is the current head of ACORN's staff (Bertha Lewis). A problem with sourcing some of this is that some of the documents are lost to history. The book I'm thinking of about Republican endorsements from ACORN is either "This Mighty Dream" or Delgado's book.138.88.157.94 (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We cannot go on what "seems safe". Please, please, please provide an actual citation for whatever fact goes in the article. Different editors have bounced different claims about what candidates ACORN has endorsed, each under the "seems sensible/common-sense" approach, which is worthless! The endorsements are some subset of {Dems, Reps, Inds}... let's have specific and reliable sources that say which subset it is. LotLE × talk 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your points, but are you saying that if ACORN is major player/founded in WFP and WFP runs candidates sometimes against Dems that you don't see the logical connection? Maybe it's harder to write that up, but once done it seems like a link to the party and acorn (as opposed to each candidate or mix) is still as sourced as a general notion needs to be. That doesn't resolve the Republican endorsements, but I cannot find some of my books. Darn piles. Threepillars (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care about a "logical connection" (or more specifially, I eschew it)... making one would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. We need a citation in which someone else makes any logical connections for us, and we simply refer to them.  If ACORN really did endorse a WFP candidate, there is presumably some press release or newspaper article about that, and we can simply put it in a footnote.
 * We have evidence of one Democratic endorsement (Obama). So one Independent and one Republican would technically get us support for your edit.  Even better would be some third party source that mentioned several endorsements, or a history of endorsements, all in one place.  The web is nice, but if you have this in a book, citing "History of ACORN, by John Doe, p.37-41" would be great too (filling in real book details instead :-)).  LotLE × talk  19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements
Mostly putting some stuff here to add to article later on endorsements. We have the Obama endorsement there. LotLE × talk 22:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a source on endorsement of Franken (D; Senate): http://mnpublius.com/2008/07/franken-gets-acorn-endorsement/.
 * Jim Himes (D; Congress): http://www.himesforcongress.com/page/content/endorsements
 * Dayne Walling (Flint mayor; seems to be non-party race): http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/decision2007/2007/07/walling_lands_acorn_endorsemen.html
 * Bill Green (D; City council, Philadelphia): http://greenforphiladelphia.com/news.aspx

Non-ACORN registration fraud
I stumbled on this nugget: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10762949?source=most_emailed. It appears the California Republican Party registrations get some indictments too. Not really for this article, but a bit of perspective on the handful of charges against ACORN workers. LotLE × talk 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should this even be discussed here? It is completely irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as the crack cocaine being traded for fraudulent voter registrations, by a group allied with ACORN. There's a bit of perspective as well. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Glad you see the parallel. Perhaps now we'll stop trying to insert text that blames the victim (ACORN itself) instead of the perpetrators (a handful of employees who would rather fill in Mickey Mouse than do the work). I'm glad to see you coming around. -- Good Damon 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It remains to be seen whether ACORN is a victim, or the mastermind. That's why we have investigations by the FBI. 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on. They were the victim. Let's not turn this article into a discussion of campaign talking points. The FBI is investigating voter fraud by employees. Unlike in the case of the GOP registration outfit, the head of ACORN isn't under investigation, let alone arrested. But I digress... I agree with you that this is no place for that particular discussion. -- Good Damon 19:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New ACORN scandal
A news report by Newsmax.com says former employees of ACORN are blowing the whistle on a new scandal involving the commingling of funds. ACORN says it does not take government funding but it has many, many subsidiaries that do take government money for charity work. According to this report, millions of dollars in taxpayer funds supposed to go to ACORN Housing Corp go into the political operations of ACORN and voter fraud. RonCram (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And now ACORN registered Mickey Mouse to vote: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article852295.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.158.235 (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh... I'm not going to rehash the entire talk page here. We don't need a paragraph on every single fraudulent voter registration, just because a few of them happen to be funny. We don't even know if the bad registrations are a systemic problem or just the odd bad employee. Please... read the rest of the talk page, and see that we're already discussing these issues above. -- Good Damon 14:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This thread is not about voter registration fraud. It is about the commingling and misuse of funds. This is the reason Rep. Boehner has called for the defunding of ACORN. It should be in the article. RonCram (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't provide the story or the evidence, just a link to the homepage of Newsmax. Also, just because a Member of Congress makes a claim, it don't make it so. It's easy to make a charge, there needs to be something more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepillars (talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on people, why are we being so POV in favour of ACORN? There's not even a section called Controversy... Obviously there have been some controversies (this and voter registration fraud) involving this organization. Whether you THINK they're true or not they should be discussed. Just my two cents. Malcolmst (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation quality
First thing, I kiss the (virtual) feet of Wikidemon. Thanks so very much for the wonderful cleanup of references yesterday!

Second thing, it seems like despite the heroic efforts, citations keep getting new problems with new edits. WB74 inserted a bunch of footnotes to support the claim that 22 charges or convictions of ACORN workers have occurred. Unfortunately, these facts seem firstly motivated by WP:TRUTH, and only secondarily by citations. Nonetheless, I think something close to this number is probably right, and I have nothing against it being in the article (FWIW, it was me who edited a few days ago to say "at least 15"... I actually think the 'at least' is clarifying, but I'm not going to fight about those two words).

At some length on this talk page, WB74 provided lots of citations, most of them from far-right opinion publications rather than reliable sources. In an edit today to the article, a somewhat different set of citations were provided. These seem rather sloppily collected. The first one I looked at was the wonderfully WP:RS NYT; however, once I read its body, I saw that it had nothing relevant to the 22 claim given in the sentence (it was about Ken Blackwell's stricter enforcement of registration requirements in 2006, perhaps in excess of the new laws according to the article). It was an interesting article, just not one having anything to do with the sentence it was listed next to.

So I'll look through the rest of the added citations. I urge other editors to also pay careful attention to the relevance and accuracy of citations added by a certain set of highly partisan editors. There's wheat among the chaff, but we obviously can't assume that just because something points to, e.g. NYT it actually supports the point claimed. LotLE × talk 18:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through WB74's citations, and removed those that were irrelevant or broken links (and fixed the formatting of the others). Within the links, I've added XML comment blocks that indicate what each actually indicates so that editors can see at a glance (in the edit window, not in the displayed page) what has been cited. Here's the current status (please retain the annotations if you find additional citations):

LotLE × talk 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a total of 20 charged and 5 guilty pleas. Not seeing any found guilty after pleading innocent. Any data on that? -- Good Damon 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. It's a total of 13.  As indicated in my parenthetical, the WA charges are listed twice.  The earlier Seattle Post-Dispatch cite only gives the charges, the later Fox source follows up with the pleas.  This seems reasonable though (the original is a better source, but because of timing can't have later result).  I do, however, think that there are 7 St.Louis charges that are not currently cited because the cite was a 404.  I imagine we can find a substitute cite for those charges.
 * FWIW, don't make anything of the plea deals. Very few charges, of whatever sort, actually go to trial.  Other than some high-profile cases that make the news, a plea is the usual way of reaching a conviction.  LotLE × talk  19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To all, please (1) use the full citations in a reasonable template format (cite news, cite book, cite web, etc), and (2) check to see if the cite is already used, in which case avoid duplication by naming it the first time:   and then referencing it in subsequent uses:  .  Regarding reliable sources, in my opinion a semi-reliable source is okay to further elucidate a point that is verified by a reliable source, e.g. a Washington Post article that fully supports the statement followed by a Wall Street Journal editorial that provides some useful background.  Finally, regarding numbers it looks to be just short of two dozen, but no doubt we missed some and some more are in the pipeline.  The safest thing to do, IMO, is to make a general number/time reference, such as "As of October, 2008 nearly two dozen ACCORN employes" or "at least a dozen and a half" or something like that.  But by mentioning the date it doesn't become obsolete.  Should a dozen more be indicted next month someone can come along and update the statement if they wish.  I do think the numbers are useful because they give a sense of the magnitude of the issue.Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Enthusiastically second Wikidemon's point on good format citations. Also, there are a bunch of citations for "charges in STATE" in the third paragraph of the Voter Registration section that would seem to be largely duplicative of those in the "N total charges" sentence.  If we can consolidate the citations, and use just the best ones, that would be great.  Using named refs as Wikidemon mentions is a good approach.  LotLE × talk  19:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus request
Since LotLE has chosen to unilaterally whitewash this article by concealing information about voter registration fraud convictions beneath a mountain of text, I must request consensus for my version seen here. LotLE wants the pro-ACORN stuff all laid out first, without any mention of the fraud investigations in the section header. The fraud investigations are enormously notable and as many have suggested, worthy of an article all their own. I want the pro-ACORN stuff and the fraud investigations laid out side by side, in fairness to both. First a pro-ACORN sentence. Then a fraud investigation sentence. Then some more from ACORN's POV. Then some more about the fraud investigations. Please state whether you agree with my version, or LotLE's attempt to bury any mention of these multiple fraud convictions under a mountain of pro-ACORN text. 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WorkerBee74 really should know by now that a WP article does not exist to provide an equal number of words for each "pro-" and "con-" political postion. Neither is it's purpose to prove the WP:TRUTH of some soapbox/hot-button issue.  This is a history of an organization.  The voter registration investigations already probably have too much weight, but for them to make any sense at all, we need to first frame it in the context of ACORN's widespread voter registration drives generally. A general narrative of those drives can, should, and does mention the investigations and charges that have resulted during them.  A bit on the political context of all of that is relevant as well (if it is well cited to neutral sources, not opining by WP editors).
 * In other words, the consensus version that came out of a lot of edits in the last few days (largely, but not only by me) presents a neutral history. The soapboxing by a not-quite-barefoot SPA moves the article towards political screed.  One is good for an encyclopedia, the other is more appropriate for a political blog.  LotLE × talk  19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WorkerBee, 300wackerdrive, please be civil and do not open a request for consensus with a personal attack on other editors. I'm tempted to reject this proposal out of hand for the contentious way it is brought up.  However, I will do my best to review it and consider it in light of ACCORN's notability and the current scandal/controversy.Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That was me. Not WorkerBee. 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've changed the name above :) Wikidemon (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support 300WD's version. A check of Nexis shows lots of headline news about ACORN but very little of it is NOT about voter registration fraud. Supremely notable, and the number of convictions belongs in the lead. I'm sure there will be arguments about recentism but these felony convictions date back to 2004. Is it really a coincidence that the most recent investigations are in the battleground states - Ohio, Florida, Nevada? Also I agree with 300WD's assessment that LotLE is whitewashing the article. I called it "submerged under an ocean of gray text" but the intention is the same: list all the good stuff first and hope readers don't have the patience to read all the way down to the bad stuff. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I support. I do not completely understand the text change.  However, given the prevalence of coverage now, I would support a mention of the fraud investigation in the body of the article, including a statement of the number of employees who have been indicted if that can be sourced to a reliable neutral major publication - the New York Times would qualify.  I would not support a detailed discussion of the controversy/investigation in the lead but I would support a brief several-word mention that summarizes the discussion in the main body.  That's all based on the sources and situation as it now exists, and could be revisited in a while if new information comes out pro or con.  So basically I am supporting the edits if they can be sourced, but please no incivility or edit warring.Wikidemon (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please make the edit, Wikidemon. I do not want to be accused of editwarring. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it looks like it has consensus, glad to oblige. I would wait another 12-24 hours though to see who weighs in and then see who said what.  Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys need to stop with the 'whitewashing' nonsense, it is disruptive to any discussion. I don't support the changes above as they are presented as a false choice ("balanced vs. whitewashed"). I'm happy to look at specific changes rather than a blanket revert, and I'm also happy to look at a detailed discussion that focuses on content as Wikidemon proposes above, but I won't look at any proposals that focus on an editor. --guyzero | talk 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Details on changes: LotLE × talk 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) WB's change in section title is completely POV.  The section is about voter registration (drives). Investigations came up during that, but are not the primary meaning of a registration drive.
 * 2) The lead paragraph of the section needs to discuss registration drives themselves.  It would be nice to find a bit more information than the one sentence indicated 1.3M registrations, but that's at least a usable placeholder for a general section introduction.
 * 3) WB's change to indicate the charges earlier than the investigations that didn't have charges seems good.  That's an improvement even.
 * 4) The payment made to King's County by ACORN itself is about actual organizational behavior.  It definitely needs to follow mention of investigations, but I'm not sure if it should be at the end of the para, per WB's edits, or closer to the sentence on actual charges.  It's OK where it is though.
 * 5) WP:NOTNEWS.  Don't know why this is so hard for WB to get his/her head around.  A search of current headlines isn't an encyclopedia article.  That said, the existing sentence on investigations should stay in the lead to alert readers that more on that topic will be in article.  Any addition that tries to indignantly yell about how awful ACORN is is soapbox, not an encyclopedia.

In response. First, I am not WorkerBee. I am 300wackerdrive. Your previous accusation of sockpuppetry is false.
 * 1) The voter registration fraud convictions are felonies, in several states, and there are new investigations. As WB has pointed out, they happen to be in the battleground states where 527 votes could make a difference in who wins and who loses the entire election. Notable, notable, notable.
 * 2) Agreed, and it does mention registration drives themselves in the first sentence, but then it should mention the fraud (proven beyond a reasonable doubt in four different states) in the second sentence.
 * 3) Agreed.
 * 4) Not much difference there.
 * 5) Your argument about WP:NOTNEWS has been answered by WB. These convictions go back to 2004. They are notable, notable, notable. It's not your soapbox either. That's why the pro and the con need to be presented on an equal basis. Your sentence first. Then my sentence about the fraud. Then a paragraph from you. Then a paragraph about the fraud. Yes, it's notable enough to go into the section header. 300wackerdrive (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarcastically support - In fact, let's make sure that the number of individuals employed by any company or firm who have been arrested for any crime involving their jobs be in the lead of their respective articles. Articles about software companies? Let's get their misbehaving employees who pirated software into the lead. Car manufacturers? Let's get every individual in the employ of GM who ever committed a crime into the lead. Sigh... OK, in all seriousness, will you guys even still be here pushing this stuff after the election? ACORN has a long and varied history, and the evidence is mounting that this was just some bad employees. Could we abandon recentism for just a little while, and see how the investigations actually pan out? -- Good Damon 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This material was here is greater detail for four years before the election - and it, and I, will still be here after the election. How about you? WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the crimes committed by GM employees subvert the entire purpose of GM, and if they are felony convictions beyond a reasonable doubt and spread across several states, then they should be in the lead. Recentism arguments do not apply to the investigations and felony convictions that date back to 2004. 300wackerdrive (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ignoring the bickering - *ahem*), I think 300wackerdrive has a good point. If 15 GM employees were convicted of some random crime, say, shoplifting from a local Walmart, it would not be relevant.  But if the charge was that GM employees to were forging safety test data, and GM was accused of facilitating that through poor supervision, and 15 employees had been convicted in court of it, then sure.  ACORN is in the business of, among other things, registering voters.  If reliable sources say that its record for worker-committed fraud is worse than most others, and it's a matter of national interest, then sure it's notable.  There are several ifs in there, particularly reliable sourcing.  But in principle I do think there is something there.  Now, you bet it has political implications for the election.  It would not be a national issue but for the election.  Nobody would be accusing ACCORN of fraud - and ACCORN would not be registering voters so enthusiastically either - if this were not a presidential election year.  Partisans on both sides are in full propaganda mode.  And Wikipedia has no deadline.  "No deadline" doesn't mean shut down all the politics articles until after the election, though.  It just means we aren't in a hurry.  The question is fairly asked, given that there is attention this election year to election fraud by ACCORN employees that is allegedly of a systemic nature, do we describe the fraud by the workers in the article about the organization?  My simple answer is yes, in an amount duly weighted, if everything checks out.  Other people are free to disagree, but I don't think the question is improper.Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
The Voter registration section is about Voter registration (and all of the descriptive information, including alleged registration fraud). Renaming the section to Voter registration fraud or similar is not NPOV. --guyzero | talk 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If consensus forms to describe the worker fraud, a more neutral but accurate heading could be found that correctly mentions that the section is about improper voter registration submissions but does not trumpet the "fraud" accusation. Wikidemon (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally agree and thank you Wikidemon for describing some really good ways forward here that may end in everyone being happy(?) I believe the current article version defies POV, though. 300wacker, these changes are still under discussion and does not have consensus. Please revert back your changes to the section heading and the reorder of the section. --guyzero | talk 21:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a way forward: 15 ACORN employees have been charged with voter registration fraud in four states. At least 10 employees in three states are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. These fraudulent voter registrations just keep surfacing in key battleground states and it's all well-documented in very reliable sources. The fraud investigations and/or the convictions are important enough to be noted in the section header. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

wackerdrive has recently edited in text saying "at least 15 employees have been indicted or convicted" in four states. It has three cites, which i've snipped below. None of the cited articles refer to indictments or convictions that add up to 15. One of the articles mentions 4 people being indicted in kansas city. That's it. So at minimum this reference needs to go (unless i misread those articles. twice). I have pointed out this at least unsubstantiated and probably erroneus claim before, but it keeps reappearing in the text of the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/us/06ohio.html http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/politics/10214492/detail.html http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/02/voter-fraud-watch-could-acorn-scandal-in-washington-have-been-avoided-with-photo-id/Bali ultimate (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, have hunted around for any sources for "15 indictments and/or convictions" and have found none. I'll strip that text out of the article in a few hours unless a source can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources say four ACORN employees were indicted (three convicted, one awaiting trial) in KC, five felony convictions in Washington state, four indicted in Ohio (disposition not yet known), and two convicted and sentenced to community service in Colorado. 4+5+4+2=15. That is not WP:SYNTH. It's arithmetic. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that sounds like simple arithmetic. The problem is, when i read the citations provided for this claim, the only mention of any specific case of indictment or conviction is the kansas city one, which refers to four indictments (no mention of a conviction in the article). So while I have no problem with the kind of synthesis you're proposing, I do have a big problem with unsubstantiated claims. In this case, the claim is not supported by the links provided. It's possible this claim might be supportable. Do you links that support this claim? I can find none and until somebody does, i think you'll agree that the claim will have to go ("4 indictments in KC" is well supported and of course should stay if it isn't already elsewhere in the article).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just added back more sources whose citations were deleted by LotLE on October 12. Please review. If you still have sourcing concerns, say the word and I'll continue to restore the cites that LotLE deleted. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes i still have a sourcing concern. By painstakingly going through the discoverthenetwork link, i find four more (one kind of iffy, but whatever). That takes us to 8 total. The opinion piece from the journal provides no additional info on charges/convictions so doesn't support the claim and is not a useful citation for it. As it stands now, you have newspaper accounts that add up to 8 instances of charge or conviction.

A small point and not worth it to me to fight a battle over, but the "At least tktktk" is poor writing for an encyclopedia article. Anything that can be enumerated is always an "at least." Of course, there might be more grains of sand, bad registrations, or lesbian midgets than the ones already counted.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Will get back on this later tonight with more of the sourcing LotLE deleted on October 12. This used to be a good, well sourced list till he came through. I have worked on this for some time (mostly as an IP address) and a lot of stuff is gone now. I have to hunt through the old versions in the edit history. Good progress being made today though. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm going to be blunt: The current edits have broken the article. That section should not be called "Voter registration and fraud investigations" for the same reasons that controversies/criticisms sections are generally frowned upon. The controversies should be worked into the prose of the applicable section, which in this case should be "Voter registration." And if the current registration fraud investigations are to be discussed in that section, they need to be in the larger context of the registration efforts, not in their own separate subsection, or this article risks becoming a coatrack for attacks on ACORN instead of a neutral article. Finally, that section should have a tag, because these are current events we're detailing. The investigations are ongoing, and have reached no conclusions. -- Good Damon 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And one more thing... Consensus was declared prematurely. One doesn't achieve consensus in a matter of minutes, which seems to have happened here. And if anyone mistook my earlier comment as support for this becoming an attack article, they are sorely mistaken. -- Good Damon 22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Damon: I'm returning to all this after an absence, so may have missed much discussion. I don't like much the heading "Voter Registration and fraud investigations" (award for ugliest heading in article is clearly "acorn in political discourse") but don't see it as a huge issue. Something like "Voter registration efforts and controversy" would probably be better.

But the allegations and issues surrounding them do need to be addressed somewhere. If not there, where? Does removing the words "fraud investigation" unbreak the article? I think as a first point we should focus on text that needs improvement. As to tags, tag away.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bali, I wish you'd give me a chance to find all those credible, reliable sources that LotLE deleted before you revert. I do not edit WP 16 hours a day, seven days a week like some people here. I found another: From the Columbus Dispatch, May 9, 2007. "In what might be a Franklin County first, a Reynoldsburg man was indicted yesterday for voting twice in the November election ... [An attorney] said Gilbert was registered in both counties by ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a nonprofit agency that has come under fire in 12 states for voter fraud."
 * Here's another, from the Atlanta Journal Constitution, October 8, 2008: "In July last year, seven ACORN workers were charged with felonies in the largest voter fraud case ever in Washington state ... Five pled guilty."
 * Now I'm getting tired of you people coming in here and wrecking a good article with your partisan agenda. I worked on this for years and so did a lot of other good people. LotLE just came barreling in here, deleting four years of work collecting sources, and you supported him. Then I have to go hunting for them, I laboriously type them all in (Unable to cut and paste) and you delete it all again, Bali. Show a little respect for the work that was done before you arrived. I'm continuing to find all these reliable sources that were deleted. Please restore the material you've deleted and stop supporting LotLE's partisan agenda.
 * I've proven four indicted in Kansas City (with three convictions), seven in WA state (with five convictions), one in Ohio and two in Colorado (both convicted) so far. So that's 4+7+1+2=14. I'm not done yet. Restore what you deleted. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In effect what you're asking me and the other editors is this: "Let me put in things i know to be true now and i'll find citations for them later." You've been putting this thing about 15 in over and over going back weeks now. First it was 15 felony convictions, then it was 15 convictions and/or indictments, now it's something else. One time it was some nonesense about cocain that had nothing to do with Acorn. To be frank, the target keeps moving and every time i do check out what you've provided it doesn't check out. It's exhausting.

So. If you have some stuff you want inserted in the article, write it, bring it here, with citation links and pulls of the info that supports your synthesis (I ask this last because i had to wade through thousands of words on one of your last links to find out that, no, it didn't support what you were using it to support). If it checks out and is relevant, in it goes. But I'm tired of backstopping you and every time finding out what you've done it wrong. It's getting hard to assume good faith as a consequence.

I understand you're a busy man. But if you're too busy to get it right before editing something into an article, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. Please stop focusing on other people's partisan agendas, how they've "ruined" the article and frustrated your own clearly pure motives. It's not helpful.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice rant but you're carefully ignoring an important detail: people worked on this for four years, carefully compiling all the sources to support all of these summary statements, and LotLE deleted them with a flick of the wrist. Now I'm trying to gather them up again and you're complaining because I can't duplicate four years of work in one evening. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I don't care about your allegations against lotle. I don't care about your claims of past involvement in editing this article. I don't care about snark on what I'm "carefully ignoring." I don't care how hard it is for you to substantiate whatever it is you're trying to substantiate.

Here's what I do care about: You have consistently put things in the article that were unsupported and in some cases untrue. This has hurt your credibility, at least in my eyes. So if you want major content changes in the article, dot the i's, cross the t's, and bring it here for review. If it was actually in some great past version of the article, then it should be easy to track down.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Entropy (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT - Conditionally. Remember, at this point they're being investigated for voter registration fraud by the FBI and in 14 states. That does not mean that they are guilty, will be found guilty, and all hung. We don't know what's going to happen, ONLY that they are now being investigated by the FBI. We also know that Mr Obama's campaign has said it was "politically motivated." Therefore, I would have no problem with a statement (and link!) being added to the main page stating that the FBI was investigating them and also that the Obama Campaign calls it politically motivated. Remember, the fact that the FBI is not investigating is not saying they are guilty of anything. So yes, I support. Dr. Entropy (talk)

Dr. Entropy (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Blast. Last sentence should be "...is now investigating..." See? HTML and I do NOT get along! :)

Dr. Entropy (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest closing proposal as no consensus
Given the ongoing incivility, edit warring, accusations of sockpuppetry, and discoveries that the proffered sources are unreliable and/or do not match the claims made, I do not feel I can constructively participate in the conversation at this point. I am therefore withdrawing my support for adding material about ACCORN and suggest we keep the material out until and unless consensus can be found in a reasonable way. I do think that the material should be covered somehow but this is the wrong way to go about it, and I see nothing good coming out of this discussion. If someone wants to restart it later under better circumstances, that's fine but for now my patience is exhausted on this. Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Voter registration and fraud investigations
Well here it is then, laboriously typed in just for you. The header above works or if you prefer, replace " fraud investigations" with "felony fraud convictions." Either way would be fine. Here is the text of the first paragraph with the material I want to add in italics.

"During 2007 and 2008, ACORN registered over 1.3 million new voters in 21 states. ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in a number of cities, in some cases as a result of ACORN-flagged registration forms; Twenty-two ACORN employees in four states were indicted or convicted of related fraud charges between 2004 and 2008, and investigations continue in five states."

The first source shows two ACORN workers pleading guilty in CO. The second shows seven indicted (five of them pleading guilty) in WA. The third shows four more indicted in KC. (According to a later source three of them have guilty results and the fourth is awaiting trial.) The fourth shows eight more indicted in St. Louis. The fifth confirms other indictments and adds the Columbus, Ohio indictment of one ACORN worker. 2+7+4+8+1=22. Now, if you're a man of your word, you'll cut and paste that into the mainspace and save me the trouble of laboriously typing it all in again. The current investigations in five states are itemized and reliably sourced one or two paragraphs later. Those sources are still cited in the mainspace. WorkerBee74 (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets look at the sources. This is a lot of work, but it would be good to get it right: newspaper! 4 real live indictments in 2006, with actual citable source. Adding up the actual sources rather than the WP:TRUTH that WB "knows in his heart", it looks like we can cite 12 indictments in 1 state with what we have. I think it is probable that sources could be cleaned up to reach 7 additional charges in WA, and 3 convictions in CO. That would bring us to 22 "charges or convictions in three states, actually. The fact only three were convictions (plead out) is probably worth mentioning in the phrasing.  LotLE × talk  06:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Colorado: Source given doesn't meet WP:RS (discoverthenetworks.org; not by a long shot), but it does allege three (misdemeanor) convictions in 2005. It claims to be sourced to Rocky Mountain News, which would meet WP:RS.
 * Washington: The opinion piece cited claims 7 workers charged with felonies in 2007. No indication of convictions; also not something that meets WP:RS. I think the claim is actually true, but it's an awfully bad cite.
 * KC, MO: Hey this one is an actual
 * St. Louis, MO: Another news source (hurray!). 8 indictments (charges unknown). Not clear if these are workers for ACORN or Project Vote, who worked together in that 2006 drive.
 * A broken link to an unreliable source (National Review opinion piece).


 * While you're at it, how about putting these in proper citation format and eliminating duplicates? Wikidemon (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm too exhausted from source checking :-). And also from a few weeks of trying to clean up the horribly formatted, often broken, generally irrelevant, citations added by the SPAs and partisans. LotLE × talk 06:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've fixed all the citations. Not perfect, but better.Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously from the listing below, there are more than enough reliable sources already listed on this page. For those who don't like my Washington State source, there's #10 below, the Seattle Times. For those who are unsure about the eight indicted in St. Louis, see #7 below, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. All eight pled guilty to federal felony charges of election fraud. For those who don't like that "Discover the Network" cite for the two cases in Colorado, see #4 below, the Boston Globe. For those who claim that the National Review is unreliable, it's highly respected and the author is Ken Blackwell, formerly secretary of state for Ohio, talking about voter registration fraud prosecutions in ... Ohio, of all places. Imagine.
 * The scorecard:
 * Colorado: Two pled guilty to misdemeanors, sentenced to community service.
 * Washington: Seven felony indictments, five guilty.
 * Kansas City: Four indictments on federal felony charges. The most recent source says three are guilty and the fourth is awaiting trial.
 * St. Louis: Eight pled guilty on federal felony charges of election fraud.
 * Ohio: So far, proof of one ACORN worker indicted on a felony charge in Columbus in 2004. I count a total of 22 criminal charges, including 20 felony indictments and 18 convictions in four states. Bali, I now formally disavow and withdraw my previous overusage of the number "15" with apology. We have just blown right past it.
 * LotLE, none of this would have been needed if you hadn't barged in here like a bull in a china shop on October 12, to wipe out four years' worth of work with a tap on your mouse, in response to ACORN's sudden emergence as a political hot potato for your chosen candidate. So stop whining. I have a family and a full-time job that often requires overtime, and I occasionally have a few idle moments to run Nexis searches with the company computer and edit WP with my smart phone. I cannot cut and paste. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.socialpolicy.org/typo3temp/pics/18a22900b8.jpg Here's a photo of Barack Obama meeting with ACORN workers. It was published in the ACORN newsletter, Social Policy, in 2004. Obama was a state senator and running for the US Senate at the time. The article that accompanies it is abundantly informative about the deep, affectionate relationship between Obama and ACORN, going back many years. Obama served as an attorney for ACORN in a voting rights lawsuit against the state of Illinois. He served as a trainer for their voter registration drives. Fair use photo for the article mainspace? Should it be added to Obama's BLP article as well, with a detailed caption? WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Shall I provide the photo of McCain meeting with them? It's just as appropriate, which is to say, not at all. Of course ACORN uses glowing language to describe their relationships with politicians. Doesn't mean we should drop WP:PRIMARY to include those descriptions in this article. -- Good Damon 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, the current (post Wikidemon) cleanup is looking a lot better. The investigations are properly worked into the prose, they're given proper weighting, and stand out without overpowering the rest of the article. I'm in favor of a moratorium on major edits for the time being, and letting new information come out before trying to incorporate excessive detail about the investigations again. -- Good Damon 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From the article in ACORN's Social Policy newsletter: "Obama started building the base years before. ... When he returned from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state of Illinois' refusal to abide by the National Voting Rights Act ... Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project Vote in 1992 ... Project Vote delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5000 of them). Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus, it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for state senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends." GoodDamon, do relationships get any closer than that? McCain attended one immigration forum. ACORN hasn't even been suspected of doing anything illegal regarding immigration. That isn't just some "glowing language." That's statement of fact. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me be sure I'm clear on this: You are specifically for ignoring WP:PRIMARY when it comes to ACORN's claims regarding a particular politician? Are you absolutely, positively sure you want to go down that path? -- Good Damon 14:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heavens no. I want this article to obey every word and keystroke of WP:PRIMARY, but especially this part: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone - without specialist knowledge - who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. ... To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."
 * Neither one of the two bullet points would prohibit my proposed edit. I want this article to make no analytic, etc. claims about the quote from Social Policy nor do I want it to make descriptive claims about it. I just want the blockquote and the photo with a short introductory sentence, all fully compliant with WP:PRIMARY. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I'm sure you're perfectly at ease with a similarly placed sentence, with similar sources, indicating John McCain's support for and association with ACORN in its pro-immigration rights stance. I'll get started on that immediately. -- Good Damon 15:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * McCain's involvement with ACORN is not known to extend beyond his appearance at one immigration rally, but if that's the price of including this photo of Obama and the Social Policy quote about his extensive and affectionate involvement with ACORN's voter registration efforts since 1992, I say, "Get started on that immediately. I am perfectly at ease with it." WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. I'll try to lay it out here... Organizations such as ACORN always trumpet their associations with prominent politicians, no matter how close those associations actually are. Establishing an "extensive and affectionate involvement with ACORN" for either Barack Obama or John McCain treads into BLP territory, for which primary sources are definitely to be avoided. I'm not in favor of aiding ACORN's attempts to pump themselves up by-proxy in that manner. Characterizing their ties to either candidate in their own terms is not ideal; such relationships are far better expressed by neutral, reliable sources. -- Good Damon 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I try to find a reliable secondary source and use it? Or will you claim that it proves I'm Workerbee's sockpuppet? I have reviewed the policies that someone left linked on my talk page, and I've reviewed many more policies. One of them is, "Don't bit the newbies." Another says, "Assume good faith." Are you biting the newbies? Did you assume good faith? 300wackerdrive (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've bent over backwards in your case to assume good faith. You've inserted so much patently false information, then slightly modified it and sought to reinsert when caught (but not modifying it enough for it to be, you know, accurate) that you've made it impossible to assume good faith in your case anymore. I was one of the people editing this page who leant towards allowing more information on the issues you're obsessed with... but even when i was trying to find neutral language to get some of your content in, it turned out you were blatantly misrepresenting information from long opinion articles, which probably weren't good sources on matter of fact anyways. So at this point, as far as i'm concerned, there is no edit that you should make to the article at this point. Bring everything here first... not just with the citation but with the relevant section pulled from the citation... and we'll see if it holds up to scrutiny. By the way, I don't believe for a second that you are a newbie.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the problem with inserting well-sourced and neutrally written factual statements about the FBI investigation and Obama's long involvement with ACORN's fraudulent voter registration campaigns? He was in charge of one in Chicago as far back as 1992. He represented them in court in a lawsuit against the state government of Illinois. He teaches their leadership seminars every year. Workers attend those leadership seminars and then go back to St. Louis, Kansas City, Ohio and Colorado, where they are convicted of felony voter registration fraud.
 * Put the information into the article. If they are dots that need connecting, let the readers connect them. Don't deny that the dots exist, or that they happen to be in a straight line that leads to your candidate. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's take a look at what you said: "ACORN's fraudulent voter registration campaigns." That, right there, ought to be a warning flag for you. Let me be blunt: You are POV-pushing, because you are assuming that allegations against ACORN == ACORN's guilt. Nothing else you say after that can be taken at face value. Nothing. As a POV-pushing, single-purpose account, your edits cannot be regarded as trustworthy, and need to be checked more or less constantly by all other editors. -- Good Damon 18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If this had just happened once or twice, I would be more than willing to give ACORN the benefit of the doubt. But they have turned in hundreds, or even thousands of fraudulent voter registration cards in several states, during a period of several years. These are the states (Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, Florida, Colorado, Missouri) that are going to be close in the election. There have been felony convictions of ACORN employees in several of these states: five convictions in Washington, 11 in Missouri, and two (misdemeanors) in Colorado. The FBI is now investigating the national ACORN organization. It raises the likelihood of a national campaign of election fraud. Put the facts out there for the readers. Let them decide, rather than you or me deciding for them. 300wackerdrive (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And as every single reliable source describing the case has indicated, ACORN was required, by law, to turn those in. But all that is moot; their guilt is not for you to decide here. Are they guilty? Likely, in my opinion. They were probably at least looking the other way in all but the most egregious cases. But that is my opinion, not established fact. It's not up to me to decide they're guilty for Wikipedia's purposes. It's also not up to me to decide they're innocent. It's up to me to wait until a preponderance of reliable sources decides one way or the other. You, by your own admission, are presupposing guilt, and want that in the article. NO. In no uncertain terms, no. Stop this now. And reassess your reasons for editing here. If they are for anything but improving articles, go elsewhere. -- Good Damon 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing well-sourced information?

 * Closing as disruptive forum-style discussion. Suggest not editing further unless anyone wishes to self-redact.  Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very notable when an entire nationwide organization is investigated by the FBI to find out whether it has choreographed massive, nationwide election fraud two weeks before a presidential election. I have found very reliable secondary sources, The Daily Telegraph and ABC News, to document the FBI investigation and Obama's ties to the fraudulent voter registration drives. The edits I've made were neutrally written. I believe this FBI investigation into ACORN itself is appropriate for the lead. Why do you keep removing this information, if your purpose isn't whitewashing? 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called building an encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's called whitewashing to help get your candidate elected. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You have inserted so much false information ("15 felony convictions" "votes for cocaine" etc...) that your well of goodwill has dried up. You have never sought to build consensus, contribute in non-contentious ways to the article, or even apologize for your insertions of unsourced falsehoods. You continually acccuse a variety of editors, with a variety of styles and who work on a variety of topics as belonging to some cabal, while you yourself are a recent, special purpose account. This article will eventually get to where it needs to be, despite the fact that you've slowed the process down with your disruptive behavior.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As we can see now, "15 felony convictions" is false only because the number is too small. The words "votes for cocaine," or anything like it, were not inserted into the article itself. I was misled by an inaccurate Wall Street Journal editorial to believe those were ACORN workers, when they belonged to some other organization allied with and coordinating with ACORN and I would apologize for that mistake if your conduct were honorable enough to deserve an apology. Hairsplitting distinctions abound here. You're whitewashing the article to help get your candidate elected. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And you've just demonstrated why you're not to be trusted. Let me be clear: You are a liar and a fraud, demonstrably so with the evidence of your own actions and behavior here. Your behaviour has made it impossible to work with you productively. Last direct word from me to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest you strike that. While this is obviously a single-purpose account, and probably a sock, there's no need for personal attacks. Yes, the user has run dry of good faith, but reverting and ignoring the user says that more eloquently than insults. -- Good Damon 17:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're probably right. But I generally don't like the fact that people can "self-edit" their comments (actual whitewashing, sometimes). So i'll let it stand as evidence that i lost my temper, and that can or can not be held up against the rest of my behaviour when dealing with this guy (with whom i feel i did make good faith efforts to work with).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Prez election
This section is still undue weight and recentist. C'est la vie. Sorry I didn't see that some recent edits were yours, Wikidemon. I obviously assume your intentions and faith are good. Nonetheless, I think it is important to lead the section with the fact ACORN endorsed Obama (in the primary), rather than bury it at the end of the section. That's the only fact that is actually about the section title, and it is interesting and notable enough. The extra stuff about the minor connection between the Senator and the organization seems to make much more sense in that context than off somewhere else as "trivia".

I took out the Blackwell bit altogether. I've been leaving it in in deference to some editors whom I can no longer assume good faith of. But it has long seemed of very, very little relevance to this article. Blackwell says bad things about Obama, and Obama says bad things about Blackwell. The mention of ACORN is no more than a vague footnote to that discussion between those politicians (or rather, it's a weirdly indirect way for Blackwell to try to make a campaign accusation). This just isn't the article for everyone that supports or opposes the Obama campaign; there's no way this comes close to being important to the organization's 40 year history.

In any case, the section flows much better sticking to actual direct connections between ACORN and the two major party prez candidates, which is what we have now. LotLE × talk 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of text
SPA account is back, and adding essentially duplicate text about the FBI investigations, which are already mentioned in the article. -- Good Damon 15:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * closing - proposals to add to probation and to community-ban two editors are rejected; discussion became uncivil; disruptive editors both blocked - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Article probation?
Should we put an Obama article probation notice on this page? It seems that the edit warring, incivility, etc., is spilling over from the Obama-related pages involving some of the same cast of characters. Although this topic is not (or should not be, at least) Obama-related, the problems clearly are. Wikidemon (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't support that. The so-called ties between Obama and ACORN are too tenuous to consider this an Obama-related article except for, apparently, edit-warring purposes. When the election is over, the SPAs will die off, and this article will become about itself again, rather than about Barack Obama. -- Good Damon 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking specifically of this outburst. Plus I just noticed this.  If an editor admits that he is editing this article for Obama-related partisan purposes (specifically, to counter perceived partisanship of other editors here) and doing so in a way that involves incivilities, accusations, and edit warring, is that not a violation of article probation?  When the election is over we will presumably allow article probation to lapse or change to something else.  Should Obama be elected, a sitting African-American President would surely continue to have the attention of sockpuppets, vandals, trolls, and POV-pushers, but it may take a different form, and indefinite article probation seems a poor option.  Wikidemon (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the problem is one guy. I guess if he get's banned, nothing to stop him from coming back in as something else... but whoever he is, will definitely give up in 13 days. Just as a general note, wacker and/or workerbee have sought to insert so much false information at this point that i would take nothing they offer at face value.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like 300Wackerdrive is pushing for 3RR again, immediately after the SPA's prior block for the same thing expired. I think it's now at 3 reverts, not quite to 4.  However, given the behavior of doing nothing other than edit warring for non-encyclopedic content, if some editor wants to file a new report, I suspect an admin would not look favorably on this abuse of process by 300.  LotLE × talk  18:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The 3RR board is for 3RR violations, not general edit warring. You're right that it could trigger a look but it will more likely result in a "no violation" and in any event it's not the official place.  If none of the advice given the SPA sticks regarding civility and edit warring I think we're looking at a long term block or topic ban.  Incidentally, the edit you just reverted is mine.  I think that leading off the general election section by stating Obama's actual involvement with ACORN is more POV than the second and third paragraphs, which describe the controversy and focus on ACCORN.  Also, Obama's involvement in the voting rights lawsuit is not related to the controversy.  A few may be using it to create controversy but the fact of who their lawyer was is not notable or relevant to the organization, and if the lawsuit itself is notable that should be described in the section on its activities and accomplishments, not on the controversy.  Best to work all that into the actual story of the controversy.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting exactly 3 times (but not 4) is not a right though, which is what 300 did within a few minutes. Lots of timeseditors get blocked for 3 reverts, even where it falls short of 4 reverts, especially if it's part of a clear pattern, following another block, and against multiple warnings.  Obviously, a long term topic ban would be more appropriate than simply an escalating temporary block. That's harder to get administratively, however... I figure if we can get 48 hours here, and 96 hours there, that gets us to the election.19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert
I've just reverted WB74's latest, which is to increase the indictment count and add sources, and left a civility warning on his talk page regarding the edit summary. I don't think we've agreed to mention a count to begin with because it's suspect, so increasing the count is not constructive. Further, I do not wish to give serious attention or enter discussion over edit summaries accusing other editors of acting like a "spoiled child". Wikidemon (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He just keeps generating numbers and providing lots of cites (well, sometimes the numbers come without the cite). Every time i've checked all the cites the number he has generated hasn't matched the cites provided either in quality or quantity (that is, he sometimes describes a "charge" as a "conviction" or an actual "misdeamonor guilty plea" as a "Felony conviction..." etc...). I at one point at least said, hey, if provabale i agree that "15 felony convictions" is an interesting number. But then he couldn't prove it, not even close, and he's been all about slipping in this or that large number ever since.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the above I deleted the mention of a count. The section has grown, without consensus, and I think it is too long per weight concerns.  One obvious place to trim is the enumeration of state investigations and their status.  I'll try my hand at simplifying this.  Given that there's no consensus to begin with to include all this, I don't need consensus to trim it.  If people don't like the trimmed version for one reason or another, the obvious thing to do is to take out the paragraph entirely until we have a consensus version.Wikidemon (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I should add that "charges or convictions" is an arbitrary, and inherently biased way of describing the extent of a corruption scandal.  Convictions are one thing.  But ongoing investigations, charges, etc., are different things entirely and adding counts for the two together does not give anything meaningful.  Rather than lists and counts, we should per summary style and weight, simply say it happened.  If a reliable third party source gives a useful count we can cite that, but to indulge in the exercise here of trying to keep a running count is pointless.Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with all you say above now... but in my naive youth (last week), i thought i might mollify him with a compromise on some of the juicier claims, which then turned out to be unverifiable/untrue, which then sent us down the slippery slope to these other demands of his, which will now lead to us being called whitewashing surrender-monkees or something (but in all caps, which everyone knows hurts more.)Bali ultimate (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Given this why don't we simply declare WorkerBee74 and the new SPA persona non grata? They've overstayed their welcome and are clearly not going to contribute constructively to this article.  I don't think we have to wait for administrative blessing - administrators do not have any special status for community sanctions, just privileged use of tools.  They've been reluctant to deal with all this trolling. We could simply say enough is enough and we're not going to deal with it anymore.  Ignore / revert / redact until and unless they work with other editors.  I doubt anyone reviewing that would find fault.  Wikidemon (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a matter for administrators, not involved editors. There is no doubt that WB74 is editing in a highly tendentious and disruptive manner, attempting to overload the article with negative information to give a false impression and introduce bias; however, Wikipedia has a mechanism for dealing with that in the form of WP:ANI. WB74 is quite right in stating that declaring an editor "persona non grata" has WP:OWN implications that do not sit comfortably with me. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely, and in the strongest possible way, oppose and condemn any unilateral effort by partisan editors to declare other editors "persona non grata" on an article without community support, when said partisan editors are provoking an editwar with the editor they seek to declare "persona non grata." Read WP:OWN which you've violated so flagrantly. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you do, as the editor involved in the most tendentious and disruptive editing. Stop editing in that manner, seek consensus, cease using socks, and work in cooperation, and you'll find your edits are no longer summarily reverted by the vast majority of editors here. Sorry to be blunt, but you've brought this on yourself. -- Good Damon 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "persona non grata" per se. But I definitely think we have to treat any edits by WB with extremely heightened suspicion, given the truly dismal record s/he has shown for accuracy in claims and citatins. I think insisting, as a start, on requiring any proposed edits by WB be discussed on this talk page first is reasonable enough. Better, of course, would be getting a sanction of a topic ban that explicitly extended to this article (but some of the disruption really does depend on the sockpuppet matter... and WB has been careful to use that account name only from his/her smart phone; and to use the other accounts only from land lines, making check-users inconclusive). LotLE × talk 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You do not have consensus for your effort to delete the numbers "26 employees" and "six states" from this article. If we are going to say "registered 1.3 million new voters," we are also going to say "26 workers charged or convicted of voter registration fraud in six states," and we will also say "thousands of fraudulent voter registrations." If you're going to trumpet the good efforts of ACORN, then the fraud and the FBI investigation should get equal space and prominence. I will work on a revised version of the entire section and add it this afternoon. I look forward to your cooperation. Workerbee74 and I, as well as any other reasonable editor, can see how you are trying to whitewash this article to help get your candidate elected. 300wackerdrive (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this is contentious material, you could go a long way towards establishing your willingness to edit cooperatively if you post your proposed changes to the talk page first. -- Good Damon 15:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's very simple. I propose to restore it to the way it was before these two POV pushers started whitewashing it again within the past 24 hours. Workerbee has done some good research last night. He has found several new ACORN workers charged, bringing the total to 26 charged or convicted in six states, with excellent sources. These two (Wikidemon and LotLE) are trying to whitewash the article to help get their candidate elected. Very simple, really. Use their own proposed tactics against them: ignore / revert / redact them until they get the message. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I mean my advice about "heightened scrutiny" to apply to all the accounts WB edits under, not only the one named "WorkerBee74".
 * I know I shouldn't fall for the silly baiting, but I'd note that I had nothing to do with the removal of the specific "charged or convicted" number (I haven't made any edits to this article since yesterday). In fact, I spent a heck of a lot of work getting the citations right to support some specific number.  However, I see the point of that edit by Wikidemon and Scjessey.  Endlessly fighting about whether the number is 13 or 15 or 21 (or now apparently 26) just leaves an opening for the WP:DISRUPTion of WB (under the various accounts) who tries to stick in evermore salacious and irrelevant details.
 * I wouldn't mind seeing a reintroduction of something given a sense of the scale. Probably only of convictions (including pleas, which are just as much convictions as trial results).  Maybe something like "around a dozen convictions of ACORN employees between 2004 and 2008".  Not to get caught up some false precision in the number.  I'm also thinking "charges" should be omitted; you know the saying: "Any competent DA can indict a ham sandwich"... that's a low bar. In any case, this detail should only be reintroduced by a good faith editor, not the disruptive one.  LotLE × talk  15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So far, no acquittals and no charges dismissed that I've read about. All charged have either been convicted or are awaiting trial, as far as I can tell. So the "anyone can indict a ham sandwich" claim is invalid. Unless you can show that a significant portion of these charges have been dismissed or have resulted in acquittals, the charges belong in the article. As more charges and more convictions in more states come to light, we can easily update the numbers. Your whitewash campaign to help your candidate get elected is plainly evident. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, three convicted in Kansas City; eight more convicted in St. Louis; five convicted in Washington. That's more than half of the total charged. Also nearly all of these cases are felonies. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

General note: In all the sources I've seen, provided by WB and friends or otherwise, I have not seen any support for the idea of felony convictions. What seems to have happened in WA and MO is that felony charges resulted in pleas to misdemeanor convictions (partisan sources tend to try to spin this by carefully omitting details that get in the way of insinuation). Perhaps WB can have one of the lawyers at the office where s/he works explain the process to him/her: as a rule, prosecutors overcharge (i.e. felonies) in order to obtain pleas to the actual crimes (e.g. misdemeanors). This pattern has nothing to do with voter registration, it's equally true of, say, theft or assault charges that come in various flavors. LotLE × talk 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Only actual convictions, as depicted by reliable sources, are valid in this article. Speculative charges and indictments can be made by anyone. Also, aggregating tallies for such things is synthesis - the total number must come from a reliable source. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen. I don't have anything against salient, well-weighted facts, such as the number of rejected registrations that came from ACORN. I have a problem with anything that presupposes guilt on the part of ACORN management or insinuates that bad registrations are a systemic problem. -- Good Damon 15:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose attempt at PNG -- wouldn't work, inflammatory, and contrary to the spirit of wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "What seems to have happened" doesn't look that way to me. Those who claim that plea agreements were made for lesser charges must prove that using reliable sources, the same as Workerbee and I have been so stridently and stubbornly required to do. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Otherwise, if they were charged with felonies and they pled guilty, it is only reasonable to conclude that they pled guilty to felonies. Weaseling is so unbecoming, LotLE. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Scjessey, if charges are not important, then you should go around to all the biographies of Republican politicians who have been charged but not convicted, such as Ted Stevens, and delete any reference to the charges against them. I'll bet you'll come up with some rationalization for refusing to do it. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Reports
Note that I have filed a 3RR report for WorkerBee74 (who is now at 6RR) here and AN/I report on both the SPA/socks here regarding the incivility and general tendentiousness. It is a shame dealing with editors so disruptive takes this many months and has to wait for a specific blatant incident like today's due to the sluggishness of Wikipedia process, but if it wasn't obvious before it is obvious now that this / these editors should not be editing these articles given their utter refusal to honor our process, behavior, and content rules.Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are now blocked. Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Endlessly expanding intro
Can we please, please, please put everything after the end of the first paragraph below the table of contents (perhaps in a new subject called: general background)? Pretty please? It's just expanding up there in various partisan ways that will do nothing but confuse/bore any general reader who comes here for unslanted info rather than to have this or that bias confirmed. All that stuff about "is non-partisan, but is pro-democrat, but does not take government money, but 15 years ago once did, but does help poor people, but is controversial/corrupt.... does not belong above the table of contents.

As for my own partisan leanings -- i like obama (lets get it all out on the table) but sentences like "ACORN pursues these goals through community organizations across the country and that seek to use direct action, negotiation, legislation, and voter participation." Talk about deathless prose. Uhm, and they also seek to persuade people by using telephones, sending faxes, in face to face meetings, and via email. Why not add that in?

The first sentence of the article says as much as should be said about the nice stuff acorn trys to do in an introduction. Anything more just makes the article read like propaganda. (the third graph starting "Acorn advocates...." is overkill of the overkill).

As for the other side -- A 15 year old grant from Americorp in the introduction? really? That belongs in the intro to an encyclopedia entry on this org? All that stuff about is but is not partisan... in an intro...? Put it in "general background" below the table of contents if you must. "Acorn says (don't make a declarative "Acorn is not" that's always a matter of opinion someone can object. But what Acorn says is solid fact) it's not partisan, but it does tend to support Democratic causes. Republicans charge it blah blah blah.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just go ahead and do this but it would get reverted. But really, this is the sane way to structure the top of this article in encyclopedic form.

INTRO:

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on voter registration, housing, schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions and other social issues that affect its members. ACORN has over 350,000 members and more than 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the United States, as well as in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado.[1] Maude Hurd has been National President of ACORN since 1990.

END REAL ENCYCLOPEDIC INTRO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1. GENERAL BACKGROUND.

ACORN advocates for government programs and spending to meet its objectives and is made up of several legally distinct parts including local non-profits, a national lobbying organization and the ACORN Housing Corporation.[4][5] ACORN says it is non-partisan, but it has a political committee that is often aligned with the Democratic Party on policy.[4] This alignment, as well as other political activities and advocacy, have made ACORN an object of partisan conflict.[6][4] ACORN's voter registration programs have, in some places, been investigated for fraud (what other kind of fraud would a voter registration program be investigated for but "voter registration fraud?".[7] Acorn says it does not now accept direct government funding and is not tax exempt.[10]. In 1994, ACORN received a $1.1 million grant from AmeriCorps[8][9]. END SECTION, REST OF ARTICLE ETC ETCBali ultimate (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia's Intro policy (in fact I haven't got a clue what it is), but my two cents is that the way you've restructured it seems like 6 eggs one way, as opposed to half a dozen the way it's structured now. So I don't object to your change, and you have asked very nicely so that makes me inclined to support you.  But I also don't see why it's needed. I think the Intro has become a pretty good summary of ACORN and the rest of the article.
 * The partisan addition about the Federal funding misallocation belongs back down with the loan fraud stuff where I put it yesterday.
 * I hope you're having a great day. Don't run with your scissors.  :)  (Wallamoose (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Hi, I'm not sure if this talk page section was originally at the top of the talk page and revitalized or if it's a brand new discussion. New threads on the talkpage should go to the bottom of the talkpage. If it's a brand-new topic for this talkpage, you can automatically create a new thread for that topic by clicking New Section at the top of your browser view-port (wow I sound like an old fart using that word.) Anyway, with regards to your proposed edits, it is fair for the lead to summarize the major points of the article, see WP:LEAD. I don't exactly follow your proposed changes, above, so one suggestion is to boldy implement those changes as a single edit for the first step of a bold, revert, discuss cycle. Please read through WP:BRD carefully to decide if this suggestion is a good way to discuss your proposed change. regards, --guyzero | talk 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the misplacement of the new topic. As to my proposal, if this isn't a "good way to discuss" my proposed changes, than what would be? This seems the place for it. At minimum, i'd like to cut down on redundancy and tangential issues, and i'm going to do it now -- i will keep reference to the controversy in lede, as that seems to be wiki policy (general encyclopedic policy would be far more general... here goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. This is a great place to discuss changes and it is excellent that you brought your proposed changes here first. I only suggested WP:BRD because I couldn't mentally sort out how the article and lead would look after your changes, though it may appear that I'm trying to pawn work off on you due to my slow-workin' brain. :-) regards, --guyzero | talk 21:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit looks pretty good to me. I agree that information contained in the paragraph you trimmed was already contained in the first and third paras. regards, --guyzero | talk 22:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just find it ridiculous that Wikipedia will parrot ACORN's claim of being "non-partisan" when it has a PAC that endorses candidates, and only of one party. 71.156.45.13 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for clarification, ACORN has political action committees, but not a PAC. Some information regarding their endorsements and partisanship has been added. But the debate about how much emphasis this material should recieve rages. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Linking Barack Obama to ACORN
An interesting article was published by Canada Free Press linking Obama to ACORN. Interestingly, ACORN is trying to tie themselves to John McCain. RonCram (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Spectator in the UK also has an article linking Obama to ACORN. RonCram (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's another article, this one from Cleveland Leader.

Canada Free Press is not a reliable source, and neither is Ms. Melanie Phillips (she's a commentator). Please stop confusing news with commentary. One is reliable for statements of fact, the other is someone's opinion. -- Good Damon 14:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes you say Canada Free Press is not RS? Melanie Phillips is a commentator but op-ed pieces are RS for the opinion of the columnist.  You did not discuss the article in Cleveland Leader, so I assume you accept that article as RS? RonCram (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. It appears you may be correct regarding Canada Free Press.  I thought it was a daily newspaper like Detroit Free Press. As an online news source, its position as RS is more questionable.  I withdraw the source for the time being until I know more about it. RonCram (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that one is laughably bad. Rule of thumb: Any "news" source that lists the contributor who wrote the article as "Julie" and includes lines like the one below are to be summarily dismissed:

"The mere fact that his campaign has now changed the language of the site shows that they have conceded the fact that their original remark was a bold-face lie."
 * It's hard to know where to even begin. The bizarre leap of logic? The blatantly biased tone? The inability to write "bald-faced lie" correctly? -- Good Damon 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting how an article can be said not to be RS when it is published in an RS publication. The point of Wikipedia policy to require information comes from reliable sources is the editorial oversight required at RS publications. Now you are going to say you are a better editor than the editor of a daily newspaper? I'm not buying. How about this one from the Wall Street Journal? You do realize, of course, that this is just going to come out all the more, right? RonCram (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There really is not any doubt as to the fact Obama's campaign paid ACORN $832,000 for voting activities during the primary. This has been reported in the media repeated.  Here's another one.  It is up to Wikipedia readers to determine if this money was used to fund voter fraud or not, but we cannot keep this information out of the article.  It is interesting, relevant and well-sourced. RonCram (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to put this more clearly: Commentary is not news. It's commentary. Every single one of the links you've provided is commentary. Not news. That newspapers sometimes print commentary is no great mystery, but you'll note that they generally have them in a section called something like "Commentary" or "Editorials." Now, one of these things is reliable for statements of fact. The other is only reliable for statements of their author's opinions. You cannot source a statement of fact like "Obama's campaign paid ACORN $832,000 for voting activities during the primary" to a commentary. You can, however, source it to news. -- Good Damon 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact of Obama's payment to ACORN is not a matter of opinion. It has been reported in TV news shows and used as the factual basis of commentator's opinion pieces.  The fact of this payment is not in dispute by Obama's campaign or by ACORN.  To attempt to keep this fact out of the article because no one has found a news article reporting it is ridiculous.  Broadcast media and the internet have changed the way news is reported.  Opinion pieces in RS publications can be cited on Wikipedia, and often are, when the opinion piece reference a fact.  What is not allowed is quoting the opinion of an op-ed writer and claiming his opinion is fact. I have not done that. RonCram (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a larger press release put out by PR Newswire and published by Forbes.  Now if any of these facts are disputed in a reliable source, we should include the dispute alongside.  That is the way NPOV is done.  But to exclude this information from the article is just plain wrong and smacks of censorship. RonCram (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron: You have a very poor grasp of what a good source is. But you have one good point here. The payment i think is sufficiently notable and should be restored. I vote for restoring the following sentence and citation: Obama paid an ACORN affiliate, Citizens Services Inc. $800,000 for "get-out-the-vote" projects for his 2008 presidential primary campaign. Obama's campaign has stated that it "is committed to protecting the integrity of the voting process" and is not working with ACORN for the general presidential election."http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.htmlBali ultimate (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a well developed understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. I have been posting on Wikipedia for years.  Congratulations on finding a better source. I think it would be helpful to readers to have some discussion in the article about different ACORN affiliates and how money flows between them. The article you cited has some good info on this and I have seen others.  RonCram (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obama's payment to ACORN for get-out-the-vote in February or whenever is relevant how, exactly? There is no controversy around this, other than the attempt to tie it all together with WP:SYNTH. It might be relevant for a campaign article, but it is unbalanced to single out this one transaction which only seems to perpetuate the effort to connect the dots. The fact that this RNC(?) press release conducts WP:SYNTH does not mean we should follow, even if Forbes reprinted said press release. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Connecting the dots is what makes this article interesting. It would only be WP:SYNTH if we were connecting the dots ourselves. The news organizations are connecting the dots.  What is helpful about keeping Wikipedia readers in the dark about relationships and payments of money?  Haven't you heard the saying "follow the money?"  RonCram (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A 1995 article from the Chicago Reader provides a contemporaneous account of ACORN's early views of and interactions with the aspiring politician--http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/ Ajschorschiii (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on voter registration fraud investigations
Now my thoughts... I'm of the opinion that recent events should be summarized in the article, with a couple of paragraphs stating, in neutral terms, the most pertinent facts about the allegations, with careful citations to the best possible sources (no ACORN links, no blogs, no opinion pieces), so that neither "side" can accuse the other of bias. The big things -- the allegations themselves, the prior history of arrests, the raid, a very brief mention of the Barack Obama and John McCain ties -- should be covered in neutral, encyclopedic, non-bullet format (bullets are a sign of lazy editing; I'm always in favor of beautiful prose instead). And then we should take a wait-and-see approach. I strongly reject the notion that because the bullet list was there for four years, we should ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines in favor of the lazy approach. -- Good Damon 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. A pile of crap doesn't become a stack of gold just because it sits there for four years. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullet lists are discouraged but not forbidden. Nevertheless, if you want to go to the June 2008 version (no bullets, but a new paragraph for each investigation to allow for enough room for detail) would be fine. Also, let's all bear in mind that here we have felony convictions. In the Ohio case, a volunteer was being given cocaine by a paid employee of an ACORN affiliate. He turned in fraudulent voter registration cards with names like Mary Poppins and Dick Tracy. That's NOTABLE. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My two cents is that there are two big issues 1) the bullet issue, which is a stylistic one. I think bullets worked well for this type of information with lots of dates and locations, but it's obviously not the end all be all. I checked out the electoral/ voter fraud page out of curiosity, and it's LOADED with bullets. And it can be a useful organization tool. The 2) issue is more contentious.  How much detail needs to be included in the section whatever form it takes.  I'm more flexible on point 1) than point 2).  I don't think just summarizing and paraphrasing is fair.  Saying there was "some electoral fraud" isn't the same as saying "in Dayton, Ohio at least 1,200 fake registration were submitted by seven ACORN employees.  Fake names included Wade Boggs and Nolan Ryan, but none of the 1986 World Champion Mets. Individuals interviewed admitted to getting people already registered to register multiple times, and to register their pets. The investigation has led to four prosecutions".  This is just a made up example showing the extremes of too detailed and no detail. I don't think it has to be that detailed, but I'm just sayin', somewhere in between.  I want to know what this fraud is.  How it's being carried out.  How many people are involved. I think the guy saying he registered 15 times is notable. I was only planning to vote twice.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I have got to respond to WorkerBee74 here. No, it is not notable that someone registered as Mary Poppins, even if you put it in ALLCAPS. Funny, perhaps. It would be even funnier if someone had actually tried to vote under that name. But not notable, any more than any of the other fake names ACORN was required by law to hand in registrations for. And I note you failed to mention that those felony convictions were for individuals who had been fired by ACORN for -- you guessed it -- voter registration fraud. But by all means, push the POV that unproven allegations against ACORN are the most notable thing to focus on for the article; now that John McCain's been revealed as a supporter, I'm curious to see your contortions over that. -- Good Damon 00:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You may not feel that the Mary Poppins voter registration is notable. Maybe not so much. But when a paid employee of ACORN's local affiliate pays a volunteer in cocaine to produce fraudulent voter registrations? Karl Rove himself couldn't make that stuff up. The truth is stranger and more fascinating than fiction. One guy filled out 72 registration cards? Come on. This is the stuff that makes reading an encyclopedia interesting, rather than dull and boring. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So... When was the last time you edited in, say, a software manufacturer's article to be sure to include every individual employee who was eventually arrested for piracy? And I look forward to your edits in articles about financial firms detailing everything unscrupulous ever done by their employees, because believe me, that will be a long list indeed; there will hardly be room in those articles for anything else! Look... I don't know how to make this any clearer: Until we know whether or not this was a systemic problem, we can't treat these cases as representative of ACORN as a whole. When you have a hundred crooks in an organization with a membership in the hundreds of thousands, until you know otherwise, treat it as a case of individuals with problems. That guy giving coke for fake signatures? Sounds like a crook giving coke for fake signatures. Let me know when you find evidence he got orders from management to do that. -- Good Damon 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take note that in recent articles about the Catholic Church in America, the few dozen priests who abused children get far more attention than the 100,000+ who didn't. When people do what they say they're going to do, or what they have a duty to do, it isn't nearly as notable as when people breach that duty and commit felonies. WorkerBee74 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take up any problems you have with the neutrality and appropriate weighting of child abuse by catholic priests in America | here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 04:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. I have no problem with the neutrality or weighting of that WP article (specifically, this section). It has appropriate weighting. That's my point, and I could name other examples that further prove this point. Whenever organizations present themselves as existing for some noble purpose, and individual members subvert that purpose and commit felonies in doing so, it is very, very notable and it merits a significant amount of weight. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the management of the Catholic Church was implicated, in the scandal and the coverup. It was systemic. Of course those abuses should be mentioned. Church higher-ups resigned over the problem. Archbishops were punished. It shook the whole church, cost it millions of dollars, and resulted in drastic policy changes. You're not even comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing apples and dishwashers. They don't equate in any way. -- Good Damon 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would note that despite the claims of a couple editors (who are supposed to be topic banned here anyway), the bullets have not been here for years. Or rather, such a large number of bullets have only been here for a couple days. It's the way they've multiplied in the last week, each with more and more spurious information, that has pointed out how stylistically and content-wise ugly they are. The fact is that during an election that raises a lot of emotions, there are going to be dozens or hundred of articles on alleged bad registrations. In fact, the issue of who gets registered and which registrations are "good" is a big, political, partisan, hot potato; part of that partisanship is demonizing ACORN specifically, but not all of it. Hundreds of bullets for every article, each containing some random sensationalistic detail, is extremely disruptive and not remotely encyclopedic.

I wouldn't have any big objection to a child article that had these hundreds of bullets. I suspect (well, I'm certain) that it would start out as a link farm of right-wing blogs; but at least that would be less disruptive of this article than are the ever expanding ugly bullets here. Over time, I suppose the worst of the non-WP:RS sources and claims in the child could go away (presumably after the election, the partisans wouldn't be quite so anxious to insert each daily National Review and Free Republic blog. In the meanwhile though, there is absolutely no way that the bullets are appropriate in this main article. LotLE × talk  23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The bullets can go, LotLE. But the level of detail that existed before you started editing on October 12 needs to stay. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullets bad. Always bad. Ugly, ugly, ugly. As to the rest, I argue against more on this issue. It's own article? About a bunch of partisan political claims and counterclaims that will be forgotten as soon as the US presidential election is over? Ah, it's "controversial" so it deserves its own article? Well, yes. In newspapers. But in an encyclopedia? It's a non-event.

As the version stands now there are mentions of: Six investigations that are either pending or ended without charge, with citations for each one; Four references to past allegations that led to either criminal charges or findings of fault, with citations for each one; a reference to someone trying to link Obama to voter fraud with a citation if a reader wants to learn more about the allegation; Dale Rathke's embezzlement and detail on that matter, with citations; ACORN getting in trouble with the NLRB, with a citation. What more could possible be needed.

In two or three cases I could live with an extra sentence with details of charges. For instance "1,200 fake registrations were submitted in Akron...". A reasonable reader might wonder about scale, so specificity can't hurt. But when I say two or three more sentences i'm talking about declaritive, factual sentences with no commas or clauses. Ten words each, tops. Needless and irrelevant detail on what specific fake names were used? Or what some outraged politician in this or that juridisdiction had to say about his political opponents? What possible purpose does that serve in an encyclopedic article on this organization? Well, it can lead to edit-warring, partisan involvement, et al. That's about all.

There is information in the article that tells the reader ACORN branches have sometimes run afoul of the law and that some people believe this reflects a systemic problem. There is also information that other people see ACORNs legal problems as isolated incidents and not systemic. Both points of view are there and with due weight, plus citations for further reading. But now people are seeking to add (or delete) detail to get the article closer to "The Truth." If there's something uglier than bullet points, it's "The Truth."Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The level of detail that existed in this article for four years is where it should stay. Fifteen people have already been convicted on felony charges in four separate states. Each separate case is notable on its own merits and worthy of a paragraph, not just three or four words identifying the place. Wikipedia is not censored. Supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge. One person says he filled out 72 voter registration cards. The scope of this fraud and its brazen criminality are very, very notable. ACORN has admitted after the Washington state case that there are criminal consequences for the national organization for just one more new case. That was in 2005 and we've had several new cases since then. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! You just volunteered to write a book! After all, entire, detailed paragraphs on each felony conviction of each fired ex-ACORN employee would take up this entire article, and then some. Add the organization's 30+ year history to your apparent enthusiasm for excessive content, and you've got yourself a thick, coffee-table book. After all, if you're going to weigh the convictions of former employees so heavily, you no doubt will similarly weigh the stories and efforts of those ACORN employees who haven't been arrested for anything, and the years upon years of work they've done for the organization. Seriously... Give it up. This article will not become a laundry list of allegations against ACORN, any more than Barack Obama's BLP will become a diatribe about how he's a secret Muslim, or Bill Ayers' BLP will become entirely devoted to the brotherly love the two share as best friends forever. Sorry for the snark, but this is getting very old, very fast. -- Good Damon 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop pretending that I want to write a book. I want to restore the same level of details we saw here before LotLE found out that the GOP was talking about ACORN. The timing of these new arrivals is questionable, to say the least. Anyone seeking to reduce the level of detail that existed in this article for four years needs to provide several damn good reasons for this. We've already provided several damn good reasons against you. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you most certainly don't want that. Because the level of detail that's been in here for the last "four years" was a helluva lot lower than what's in it now. Heck, even as recently as the 3rd, the level of detail was lower. You want to go back to that? I don't buy it. It has not had the level of detail you want for four years. It has had a bullet list. And you want to vastly increase the size of that bullet list. You can drop the "four years" thing now. -- Good Damon 01:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to gang up on one editor, even if (s)he is particularly disruptive and overshadowing the constructive (while still contentious) input of other more reasonable editors Wallamooserocks, but you shouldn't talk about the suspicious new arrivals, since, as far as I can tell, you are the suspicious new arrival WorkerBee. Also no one ever suggested four words per fraud case. For what it's worth, I like what Bali ultimate and Wallamoose said about how the article should look. Can we agree on no bullets (ugly) and no additional articles (stupid), but short summaries including every instance of a citeable fraud conviction (even if it accompanied a firing) or raid or other notable occurrence? I think we should get unfrozen here, if only because Wikipedia has political consequences (whether it intends to or not) and as such has a duty to be more or less balanced when it matters (such as at the height of the election debates). Right now this stuff is pertinent and the page is too left-leaning. I don't want to win that way. :P -Fredgoat (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said here, although I wouldn't characterize the changes you're proposing as making it less left-leaning, so much as bringing more focus on recent events to it. Voter registration fraud is a crime, not a political position, and at this point the main thing that remains to be seen is whether ACORN had any organizational involvement in it. The reason I'm opposed to including more than a summary of the issue is that we don't yet know how the investigation of ACORN will conclude. If it goes one way, then there was an institutional problem with the organization's leadership, and this will become a major section of the article. If it goes the other way, there were some bad seed employees like you'll find in any large organization, and the organization itself is blameless. We don't know. Until we do, I would definitely not go beyond your proposal. -- Good Damon 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The FBI
WorkerBee was incorrect in his statement that I supported this version, of course. However, there is one thing that does need to go in that's notable enough to merit inclusion: The FBI investigation. No conclusions should be based on the fact that there is one, and the attempt to lend it undue weight and rearrange the article so it is about the investigation instead of about ACORN is unsupportable. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned. I propose this wording or a variant thereof (with a proper reference): "The FBI is investigation the fraudulent voter registrations." Simple, straight forward, does not presume guilt or innocence on the part of the organization. It should go into the Voter Registration section (no, you can't rename it to "ACORN COMMITS MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD OMG LOL" or whatever the current inflammatory heading of the day is). So, can I get some consensus on this? -- Good Damon 19:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention anymore? Had no idea... there was in earlier consensus versions... it seems that the edit warriors have led to more POV in the direction opposite to the one they were pushing. At any rate... your sentence sans the type is fine, with a citation.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a neutrally phrased statement that the FBI is investigating. At this point, anything beyond that would be excessive weight. Should the FBI find partial or systemic collusion to engage in registration fraud, that will certainly be notable enough to include as well. -- Good Damon 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources that had existed for the statement before were not WP:RS. It was in a reasonable newspaper, but only attributed to "anonymous FBI sources".  Until or unless named FBI people can confirm that there is an investigation, we shouldn't try to "break the story".  LotLE × talk  21:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. Associated Press is the source, and they are a sterling source, generally considered top quality. It's not up to us to assess their sources... They broke the news, not Wikipedia. And there are dozens of other stories that repeat the statement. The FBI really is investigating, although POV-pushers are attempting to exaggerate the extent of the investigation. It's worth, for the time being, a sentence-worth of mention. I'm not pulling up blogs or any of that crap to source it, I'm using the AP (and not an opinion piece published by the AP). -- Good Damon 22:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * AP is definitely a strong WP:RS. But there is not yet any indication that this is a significant event in 40 year the "life of the organization".  Moreover, despite the reputation of AP, this is not a story we should tell if it was "planted" by partisan FBI workers (something hardly implausible).  Maybe the investigation will result in convictions of the ACORN Board of Directors: in that case, it will be hugely important to the history of the organization, probably the biggest thing in its history.  Or maybe the investigation will find no hint of wrong-doing at any level of the organization: in that case it won't merit the most passing footnote.  Remember WP:NOTNEWS.  We don't have a deadline on getting this information into an encyclopedia.  The best thing to do with an event that may or may not be of any enduring significance for the topic is to let it wait until there is some confirmation of the actual nature of the story.  At the very least, wait for any kind of official statement by the FBI (or other agencies) before rushing to get the headline into WP.  LotLE × talk  22:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. That's a solid argument against inclusion. I suppose I was indulging in a little bit of recentism myself. The known criminal investigations are of far superior weight to an unknown, nebulous FBI investigation. I'll concede the point. -- Good Damon 23:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding. This is the Associated Press reporting an FBI investigation. They have fact checking. In the past, confidential sources for reliable news organizations, such as the Washington Post, have proven to be very reliable as in the Watergate case. If this follows their past pattern, the FBI employees providing this information are known to the AP reporter. He knows their names. He has seen their FBI identification. In a day or two, the blocks will start to expire for the people who you've been edit warring with, and they will have a valid basis for their complaints. In fact, you've just discovered that they have always had a valid basis for their complaints because the FBI investigation was not mentioned in this article. As an univolved observer in good standing, I respectfully suggest that you put the FBI investigation into the article since it's being reported by a reliable source. We do not second guess reliable sources. Make a few other concessions to the SPAs, reach a compromise, and stop acting like this is the Alamo. Marx0728 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * After some thought on the matter, I'd like to wait to see if anything comes of the investigation. While I agree with you on the AP and on the history behind confidential sources, there's no way to know what weight the FBI investigation will have. We do know the weight of the criminal investigations; they've already had a deleterious effect on ACORN, and resulted in arrests of their employees. That's solid, weighty, verifiable effects on the organization. I'm not saying the FBI's investigation won't have similar -- or even vastly worse -- effects on ACORN. But there's no harm in waiting to see how it all shakes out. There's no deadline, and if it turns out to be a non-issue, then it'll require further rewrites of the article after the fact. Now, if the FBI announces the investigation and there's suddenly a preponderance of more substantial reports about it, I'll be first in line to add it back in. But it can certainly wait until then. -- Good Damon 19:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marx. It is a noteworthy and relevant fact no matter the eventual outcome.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Would the mention be important to a reader finding an archived version in 5-10 years? Would it even make a bit of sense to them? I don't know the answer. Neither does Bali ultimate, neither does Marx0728.  Until we know the answer, it's not an encyclopedia, it's WP:RECENTism and doesn't follow WP:NOTNEWS.  Despite the threat of edit-warring, we don't need to get every possible story into an historical article as soon as it breaks.  There is currently no way to include this that gives an historical view. Maybe there will be next week, or next month, when we know something concrete.  LotLE × talk  18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think an investigation by the FBI is, now and forever, notable. Later one can add a sentence that it petered out and they were cleared or whatever. I think that yes, an encyclopedia article on this organization 5-10 years would appropriately have such a sentence. I also agree with Marx that as a practical matter, failure to include a little on this in a non-inflammatory way will act as a greater goad to the trolls.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we should ever customize an article to appease POV warriors and trolls, just on general principles. In any event, I'm only about 60-40 in Lulu's camp, so if someone digs up more concrete information about what, exactly the FBI is investigating, I'd definitely be willing to take a second look. -- Good Damon 20:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only about 60-40 in Lulu's camp too :-). Or rather, I'm strongly in my camp if the source(s) rely 100% on "unnamed sources" to indicate an investigation of unknown scope and indeterminate focus.  As soon as there is a named source that gives some concrete detail about what is or is not being investigated, I'm perfectly happy to have a neutral sentence about it.  LotLE × talk  20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See, now this is cooperative editing. We have disagreements, we talk out those disagreements, we reach an understanding of the situation, and real consensus becomes achievable. No edit-warring required! -- Good Damon 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There really is an FBI investigation. The AP story is well sourced, and i don't think the obama people would be writing letters to the attorney general complaining about the investigation being politically motivated (see |here) if they didn't believe there was sucn an investigation.

The letter i've linked to repeatedly refers to improper leaks about the investigation emenating from the justice department. The point of the letter is to say that leaks of the investigation, and the investigation itself, are being done to influence the election. I think all of this is notable and should be in the article. In this sort of format: "On DATE the Associated Press reported that the FBI had started an investigation into Acorn's voter registration efforts. Acorn and its political allies said the investigation was politically motivated." here's a link that might be of use. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/739642.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bali beat me to it in providing this source. I was looking at it online, I came back here and he/she had already mentioned it. A quote from the Miami Herald may be appropriate, in this fashion: "According to the Miami Herald, 'the FBI is investigating ACORN and the possibility that it's engaged in a vote-fraud scheme.' Acorn and its political allies said the investigation was politically motivated." These are reliable sources. Marx0728 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No dispute there. They are definitely reliable sources. Hmmm... I think the addition of that Miami Herald story pushes me back to the other side of the fence, although I want to make absolutely positive we don't weigh this too heavily, as it's still too light on details regarding exactly what/who is under investigation. Lulu, got any argument to add to this? I'm also wondering what other editors have to say. I'm now about 55-45 for adding a single sentence on the FBI investigation. -- Good Damon 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Back again... i would be strongly opposed to the wording from marx, particularly the bit about the "possibility of a vote fraud scheme." Just say the FBi is investigating "Acorn's voter registration efforts;" language that is neutral, doesn't presume anything about what direction an investigation may or may not go in, etc... if the investigation goes anywhere (or is squashed) or whatever, sentence can be added later.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved it and adjusted the wording for neutrality. -- Good Damon 23:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) :::This is how to compromise with the edit warriors who are blocked. A small accommodation of their demands will suggest that if they push for more upon their return, they might be showing an unreasonable nature. We're not fond of unreasonable people here. I have been bold, added the sentence I proposed above. If you have a problem, change the wording a bit. No worries. Marx0728 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)For normal editing conflicts, you're absolutely right. But in those cases, we were dealing with single-purpose accounts whose creator (I'm convinced it was sock- or meat-puppets) had no interest in improving Wikipedia; they were merely using it to advance a political point of view. Those accounts inevitably get blocked repeatedly and eventually banned, and there's no way to convince them to start editing more cooperatively. It's their way or the highway. Personally, I was never strongly opposed to including the FBI investigation, and with the addition of more sources it looks like a perfectly valid piece of content to include. But they wanted to make the article about the voter registration fraud first, a detailed love story between Barack Obama second, and an article about ACORN as a distant third. -- Good Damon 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am off for the weekend. Good work. I hope you don't have a big fight on your hands when I come back. Those edit warriors will be unblocked by then and they may be angry. It's best to avoid immediate conflict by just giving them an inch. When they come back and demand a mile, it will be clear who's being reasonable, and who's being unreasonable. Cheers. Marx0728 (talk)


 * See my comment above (when you come back). You can do that with editing disputes. POV warriors are something else, though. -- Good Damon 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Marx: Don't worry about the edit warriors. They should not drive content, one way or the other. However, adding text as a new editor here with no track record and without finding consensus is contentious and i would have straight reverted if the nicer goodamon hadn't beaten me to it with a polite deletion. New users are of course welcome but on something that has been this heated, it is unwise to jump right in like that.

I also note that you returned to wikipedia, after a long absense, a day after the blocking of the two former edit warriors. I also note the only outside activity on your own talk page during your brief last foray into wikipedia in july was by kossack4truth. I draw no conclusions yet.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest striking or redacting that. Until there's evidence otherwise, I'd prefer to assume good faith of any new editor who shows up. -- Good Damon 23:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if i understand the edits lotle just had to do, the new user marx added in the contentious bit "about 26 investigations and/or convictions." Just went ahead and did that without ever bringing it up here. i can see no way he would have been aware of that number, or that it was disputed, or anything of the kind, if he simply just happened upon this page as his sole new interest upon his return to wikipedia after a long absence. And that unflagged insertion (no notification on the edit) came after he was so nice in seeking consensus here on another matter, the FBI stuf -- but then unilaterally went and did it his way absent consensus being found. So, I'm sorry to say that an eye will have to be kept on marx. The goodwill well will be shallower for him than it was for wacker/worker. (As a matter of personal policy, i won't redact my own comments, though i will in some cases apologize, say i was wrong etc... later).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, good catch. I missed that. OK, then. We might have a return of the POV warrior, and I'll admit the appearance of marx seemed kind of coincidental. Nevertheless, until and unless he gets contentious, I'm inclined to chalk that one up to seeing the numbers in the comments and adding them all up. If marx is the POV warrior, we'll find out very, very shortly, because he will side with 300wackerdrive and WorkerBee74 on almost everything, while arguing that he's merely being "reasonable." -- Good Damon 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also the immediate semi-threat of "when the blocked editors get back, I know they will ..." as Marx0728's first comment. Such prescience about the future actions of WB/300/etc. is interesting.  LotLE × talk  23:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And back to actual content -- i think damon's current wording on the fbi investigation is fine and appropriate. Please lotle, i really don't see the need for more fiddling on that one.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yeah, I got the feeling that Marx0728 might not be entirely barefoot too. In any case, I'm good with the most recent edit on the FBI matter, by GoodDamon: "In October 2008, the FBI investigated ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification." The phrase used really is from the AP source (or close enough), the time indexical is removed. I still think the fact AP itself points out it only has anonymous sources is rather important, but that's fine... as long as it doesn't grow something POV in the sentence, I'll leave it be. LotLE × talk  23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think we can pretty much call that the "consensus" version of the sentence, then. I'm more than wiling to close the book completely on the topic of the FBI and the criminal investigations at this point, and get back to growing the more pertinent sections regarding ACORN's history. -- Good Damon 23:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A question... after Marx made his edits a lot of objectionable material was in the article again... but the addition of that material wasn't obvious by merely comparing his various edits to each other, or to the editors prior to and after his edits. I only got them by reading the article again. How could that be? (the answer may be that i just misread the screen, but i did it twice).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as a general thing, I often find it useful to look at the diff across a span of edits, rather than only adjacent ones. So for example, I can look at "everything that changed since yesterday" or "everything that changed in User:Foo's 6 consecutive edits".  It's not a silver bullet, but if you don't use that, it might help you see the history better.  LotLE × talk  23:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very clever of you to come to this article and delete an entire list of statements each supported by a reliable source, claiming a WP:WEIGHT violation due to length, and then fight against inclusion of any summary statement to the effect that 26 ACORN workers have been indicted or convicted in six states, claiming a WP:SYNTH violation. You have constructed a very precise Catch-22 to reduce mention of this scandal to an absolute minimum, and you pretend you didn't notice that your version somehow failed to mention the FBI investigation of the national organization. Very clever of you. Your bias has been exposed. You are whitewashing this article to help get your candidate elected. It is a gross violation of both WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to refuse to mention "26 in six states," after you erased the bullet list of individual investigations, charges and convictions. 300wackerdrive (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your proposed inclusion is a clear violation of WP:SYN, where it says the following:
 * "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C."
 * Edit-warring, name-calling and accusations of bias will not change this fact. You are using synthesis to augment negative reporting in order to suit your personal agenda (as evidenced by your narrowly-scoped editing record). Please cease your disruption immediately or face additional blocks to the two you have already collected in your two-week Wikipedia experience. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I go ahead and close this discussion? The issues it brings up -- weighting, the FBI investigation, etc. -- all seem to have been dealt with appropriately. New accusations from single-purpose accounts discussions of content ought to be in new sections. -- Good Damon 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning WP:SYNTH issues

 * I object. The WP:SYNTH issue regarding 26 workers indicted or convicted in six states still needs to be worked out. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be a different topic. That section was primarily about the inclusion of the FBI investigation. Let's make this a new topic, then post the results from your WP:SYNTH question here when it's done. -- Good Damon 15:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then in order to avoid any problems with SYNTH, I have listed the individual cases, each with a realiable source cited. Let's try to defeat the Catch-22 that is now being employed to suppress these well-sourced facts. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A litany is of undue weight and questionable relevance. Please don't edit war on this - you are an WP:SPA who was blocked twice in a week for edit warring the exact same section, and this is still the same week.  This was already rejected about a week ago.  We have decided as a group not to include information in this detail.  The way to cover this is to say in a neutral way what happened without counts that synthesize a result or mix apples and oranges, and provide links to the reliable sources.  There's no cach-22 in not being able to get around the rules to do what you want, it's just regular consensus.  Someone else, or I, will revert once you are done inserting this.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) No, you have massively rewritten that section, so it is no longer about ACORN's voter registration drives, to provide an extreme emphasis on just the controversy. You can't possibly describe the prose changes and additions in these edits as simply listing the individual cases. Let me be blunt: This article is about ACORN, not about the current largely manufactured controversy, and not about the individual employees of ACORN who decided that making up names was easier than working. The reason you keep losing these arguments is that you are trying to make this article about something that it is not. 300wackerdrive/WorkerBee74/sock-name-of-the-day, 'why are you here? Do you want to improve Wikipedia? Do you have an actual interest in ACORN or Barack Obama or Saul Alinsky or Bill Ayers? Are you interested in any aspect of any of those articles other than what you can use to specifically smear Barack Obama with? Are you interested in them in any way that isn't related to campaign talking points? So far, I think the answer is no. I no longer assume good faith about you or your edits. You mis-describe them, you give bad summaries of what you've done, and your focus is rather singular in nature. I am reverting your edits now, and I warn you not to restore them, in any of your guises. There are so many things wrong with what you've added, from weasel words to ignoring the manual of style in favor of painting ACORN with a negative brush that there's no point in listing each thing individually. Cut it out. And if you'd like to restore some good faith, edit in a different section of the article. Do some real research into ACORN and its history, and demonstrate that your interest in it goes beyond making the article into an attack piece. Consider this your only warning. If you revert, I will file another AN/I report, and you will be blocked again, I guarantee it. -- Good Damon 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with wacker's proposal. I would also note leaving synthesis issues to one side that his edits have frequently been factually unreliable. It takes a lot of time to sort through the flurry of citations he usually drops in, and when one does they've been misunderstood/misrepresented by wacker.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He's blocked again, this time for two weeks. I don't imagine we'll have to deal with that particular account again, as the election will be over by then. -- Good Damon 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as the kind folks at WP:SYNTH established that this was indeed attempted synthesis, I'm going to go ahead and close this one, too. -- Good Damon 20:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

CCHD drops funding of ACORN
The Catholic Campaign for Human Development, a long-time ACORN funder, is reported by Catholic News Service to have dropped the funding of ACORN over "financial irregularities."--http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805268.htm Ajschorschiii (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a very weird story. It concerns the embezzlement (documented in the article) that happened in 1999.  It's not clear if this is actually something CCHD did recently, or if it's some kind of old story with a new date stamp added.  LotLE × talk  05:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Knowledge of the embezzlement allegedly was kept from the ACORN board for years, and apparently CCHD acted after the embezzlement was made public. According to John Fund of the WSJ on 10/30/08--"Mr. Rathke's departure as head of Acorn came after revelations he'd employed his brother Dale for a decade while keeping from almost all of Acorn's board members the fact that Dale had embezzled over $1 million from the group a decade ago."  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533169940482893.html Ajschorschiii (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)