Until I have time, the display version below is dated, but the original page in Wiki-syntax can be found here. The discussion over my User Page may be found here. This has the Wiki syntax adapted for Wikia.

I had to use a very strict source-reliability metric to try to protect this stuff from being deleted from the Primaries Wiki article; and frankly would prefer to keep going with that approach. It didn't work in Wikipedia. However, this first section is an expanding work in progress. I have mostly avoided the big ones, although the NY section was (collaboratively) written for the original Primaries' fraud section.

Bare with me, and feel free to post links, but the sources really need to be reputable news sources - which makes all of this difficult. I still haven't seen any sources talk about NJ fraud, electioneering, and irregularities that I witnessed firsthand.

Alleged Fraud and Irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primary Contests

Various reports and allegations of electoral fraud, electioneering, and electoral irregularities have arisen over the course of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries.

Despite the largely unsubstantiated rumors of a caste of twitter trolls called Bernie Bros,[1] the Atlantic reported "Correct the Record, a super PAC devoted to defending Clinton, announced a plan to fight attacks against Clinton and her supporters online by sinking more than $1 million into personnel and infrastructure for a digital task force... [to] 'engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media.'"[2]

Some 125,000 voters were removed from electoral lists in Brooklyn as part of the updating of voter rolls.[3][4][5] As a result, voters otherwise eligible but purged from the rolls were required to sign affidavit ballots, which would normally be counted if the voter's eligibility and affiliation requirements could be proven.[6] "With the New York City Board of Elections confirming that more than 125,000 voters in Brooklyn were removed from voter rolls and widespread reports of voters having trouble accessing polling sites and other polling irregularities, New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer announced... that his office would undertake an audit of the operations and management of the Board of Elections."[7][8] Following a lawsuit in which "[m]any voters... [alleged] that they had registered with a party before the deadline, but that their voter registration was either never updated, was entered improperly, or was changed without their consent," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman also announced he would investigate allegations of voter suppression in the primary.[9]

The Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit, later joined by the Clinton and then Sanders Campaigns, against Arizona regarding "voter access to the polls after the state’s presidential primary last month left thousands of residents waiting as long as five hours to vote."[10]

The Las Vegas Sun would later note similar "[l]ong lines and procedural problems also were reported in the Democratic caucus" on February 20, 2016.[11] At the May 2016 Nevada Democratic Convention, one delegate wrote in Salon that the convention was marred by alleged impropriety when "a full half hour before registration closed, [State Party Chairperson Roberta] Lange read the results of ballots that had been passed out to early arriving conventioneers regarding temporary rules for the convention, rules which would discount the results of the county convention (the second tier of the caucus process, where Bernie had won more delegates), rules which would require that all votes at the convention be decided by voice alone, and which ruled that the decision of the chairperson would be final ... appear[ing] not to count the votes from [Sanders supporters'] side of the room; she ejected dozens of Bernie delegates who didn’t have a chance to defend their eligibility."[12] After some procedural disputes, reports surfaced of violence at the state convention and threats against Lange.[13] NPR fact checking concluded that "'violence,' which NPR more often uses to describe events in war zones, seems too strong a term to me based on the evidence... so far," though there was "pushing, shoving, and screaming, a chair was brandished and a great deal of hostile and obscene language used."[14] Professor Seth Abramson noted that Snopes and NPR's Ombudsman had both conclusively disproved the claim (with the former more extensively documenting the not credible origin of the rumors via the 'not present at the time' Jon Ralston).[15][16] As to the threats against Lange, the Nevada Democratic Party formally alleged that Sanders supporters had made death threats against Lange.[17] Despite attaching "evidence,"[18] while in many cases unambiguous displays of coarse language, none of the text messages or voicemails are death threats, and none clearly indicate the partisan support of the caller or texter.[19]

"[H]ours before the start of the presidential primaries in Puerto Rico, members of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ team accused the leadership of [Puerto Rico's] Democratic Party of fraud, saying they hindered the certification process of their voting center officials."[20] The head of the Sanders Campaign in Puerto Rico's hispanic voter efforts alleged that "Sanders officials were initially denied access to prisons to help inmates vote" by officials from Puerto Rico's Democratic Party, and an internal campaign document expressly alleged that "local party’s president Roberto Prats and elections commissioner Ramon Lopez de Azua '[we]re holding back the certifications of Bernie Sanders’ voting center officials.'" [21] MSNBC had reported that, in apparent response to the local party's delay in certifying Sanders campaign poll workers, the Sanders campaign reportedly requested a reduction in the number of polling places, which may have contributed to long lines in the Puerto Rico Democratic Primary. [22] However, the Sanders campaign clarified that this was untrue and that Sanders campaign "staff asked the party to maintain the 1,500 plus presidential primary locations promised by the Puerto Rico Democratic party in testimony before the DNC in April." [23]

  19. Id.
  23. Id.

Discussion on Deletion of "Irregularities" Article

Irregularities during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016


Template:La – (View log<dot-separator> Stats)
(Template:Find sources AFD)

There were some irregularities in the (almost) completed Democratic primaries, but they aren't so notable as to deserve their own article, or even a redirect (hence my decision not to recommend a merge). the past titles included the word "fraud", indicating this article was created with the idea that the vote was "rigged", which is a fringe theory. These irregularities also seem to be unrelated to each other, aside from happening in the 2016 Dem primaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Do you think a redirect should be left? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to the idea, but don't know who would type in "Irregularities during..." in order to search for this info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Just asking for the sake of the closing admin. I also don't think it's a plausible search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FRINGE, this article exists solely to advocate a fringe theory with no legitimate evidence from reliable sources to back it up. — Red XIV (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The problem with merging any of the information included in the SYNTH article under consideration here is that there have been numerous discussions on the inclusion of this kind of info in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016‎ Wikipedia article, and I don't think that I'd be too far off the mark in saying that there was pretty much overwhelming consensus again & again to not include these kind of (what really are fringe) allegations in that article, which have mostly come from unreliable sources. I wouldn't be opposed to merging some of the reliably-sourced info from this article here into the Wikipedia articles on the New York Democratic primary, 2016, the Nevada Democratic caucuses and convention, 2016 & the Puerto Rico Democratic caucuses, 2016, if that info isn't already contained in those articles already. I also agree that a redirect would not be appropriate in this case as well, and the many other redirects associated with this article here should be deleted. Guy1890 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Selective merge Either put the information in the "body" of the Dem Primary article (February/March/etc.), or move information to separate articles on the individual primaries. S51438 (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The article's creator (Template:Ping) has copy/pasted the entire article on his user-page [1]. I am sorry to see this person quit Wikipedia, but per WP:UP#COPIES among other things this can not remain there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I dunno if any of this can be resolved in this forum, but the original creator of the article under consideration here has also copied & pasted various old talk page threads from both the page under consideration here & some other talk pages to his user page. Guy1890 (talk)
  • Extremely Selective Merge with Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. No redirect required, since there is absolutely no way anyone would search "Irregularities during the..." The material does not appear to be mentioned in that article, and I think at least some inclusion is appropriate, although mitigating the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE aspects is equally important. As a second choice, Selective Merge to the articles on each individual primary. GABgab 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You cannot include any of this information, nor any information about irregularities or alleged fraud, in the primaries article without reopening and reversing the overwhelming consensus against any inclusion of any information - without any legitimate concern cited. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:FRINGE and not being notable for a stand-alone article. Any merging should consider WP:UNDUE. AusLondonder (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as many of the allegations are poorly-sourced fringe theories. If there are well-sourced allegations they can be included in the individual states' primary pages. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FRINGE. Really, few people take this stuff seriously, and the reliable sources only talk about allegations and claims, rather than facts. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed Article on Alleged Fraud and Irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primary Contests

Various reports and allegations of electoral fraud, electioneering, and electoral irregularities have arisen over the course of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries.

Some 125,000 voters were removed from electoral lists in Brooklyn as part of the updating of voter rolls.[1][2][3] Some voters signed affidavit ballots after experiencing irregularities, ballots that would have been counted if the voter in question could prove that they met eligibility requirements.[4] New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer announced an audit.[5][6] New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman also announced he would investigate allegations of voter suppression in the primary.[7]

The Las Vegas Sun noted "[l]ong lines and procedural problems also were reported in the Democratic caucus" on February 20, 2016.[8] Later, at the May 2016 Nevada Democratic Convention, one delegate wrote in Salon that the convention was marred by alleged impropriety when "a full half hour before registration closed, (Roberta) Lange read the results of ballots that had been passed out to early arriving conventioneers regarding temporary rules for the convention, rules which would discount the results of the county convention (the second tier of the caucus process, where Bernie had won more delegates), rules which would require that all votes at the convention be decided by voice alone, and which ruled that the decision of the chairperson would be final." She said that Lange "appeared not to count the votes from that side of the room; she ejected dozens of Bernie delegates who didn’t have a chance to defend their eligibility."[9] After some procedural disputes, reports surfaced of violence at the state convention and threats against Lange. NPR fact checking concluded that "'violence,' which NPR more often uses to describe events in war zones, seems too strong a term to me based on the evidence... so far," though there was "pushing, shoving, and screaming, a chair was brandished and a great deal of hostile and obscene language used."[10] Sanders has assured the Democratic Party that violence will not erupt from his supporters at the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.[11]

The Sanders campaign alleged that "Sanders officials were initially denied access to prisons to help inmates vote" by officials from Puerto Rico's Democratic Party, and an internal campaign document expressly alleged that "local party’s president Roberto Prats and elections commissioner Ramon Lopez de Azua '[we]re holding back the certifications of Bernie Sanders’ voting center officials.'" [12] MSNBC had reported that, in apparent response to the local party's delay in certifying Sanders campaign poll workers, the Sanders campaign reportedly requested a reduction in the number of polling places, which may have contributed to long lines in the Puerto Rico Democratic Primary. [13] However, the Sanders campaign clarified that this was untrue and that Sanders campaign "staff asked the party to maintain the 1,500 plus presidential primary locations promised by the Puerto Rico Democratic party in testimony before the DNC in April." [14]




I just can't get past the title. "Fraud and irregularity allegations in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016" sounds much more reasonable. Consider moving. S51438 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I also don't think irregularities were "allegations", they were facts. The title needs a complete overhaul. S51438 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
While I don't agree, I'm concerned that such a change might also obfuscate the article from people looking for this year's Dem Primaries. But I think we can worry about what amounts to a fairly minor cosmetic issue - attendant issues notwithstanding - after we worry about adding some content. Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Right, I figured it was for that reason it is phrased that way. However, the title as a whole is not up to Wikipedia standards. If we cannot even get past that, I will not be adding content here. And no, titles are not "minor cosmetic issues". It's the first thing people see. Any objective reader who sees the title phrased this way will know something is amiss. S51438 (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For example, let us look at some articles on similar topics.

Putting "Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, results", or "Republican Party 2016 presidential primaries, nationwide opinion polling" would simply be jarring. We really should be consistent with other Wiki articles. S51438 (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. But yes, it is a minor cosmetic issue. There's absolutely nothing amiss other than format. Or are you suggesting something that I'm missing? Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Typically we would - and you know this - put your suggestion to a group consensus and not to me, but since I doubt there's a large pool of editors at this point, I moved it to an associated title alongside the formats you noted. Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thankfully this page has no consensus requirements. That was the only reason I asked for consensus on the other page. I have changed the title again, as "for" was not the right word. I've decided "fraud and irregularity allegations" is permissible, even though I don't think all the irregularities were alleged, they actually occurred. S51438 (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair point. As to whether or not irregularities occurred, they would have to have been alleged for us to know about them. There have undoubtedly been irregularities and probably fraud (across the spectrum of our history I think it's fair to uncontroversially assert "undoubtedly") that have occurred without our knowledge, because they have not been alleged. But your points about the title are valid; I'm agnostic on changing it again. I think it's fine but if you think 'Irregularities and Alleged Fraud' is better, I don't have an objection.
I will try to do some work on the page itself before Tuesday, but it's Ramadan and I'm part of a voter protection team in NJ, so it will be a little difficult. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I have removed "Fraud" from the title as there is no evidence to support it, we have to go with a neutral title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV from Talk page of Removed Fraud and Irregularities Article

//Knowledgekid87, clearly having the above section discussing changes to the title in front of them, then summarily proceeded to excise the Allegations of Fraud, despite the fact that allegations of "fraud" (stated precisely as such) from [at least] members of Sanders' campaign were properly cited.

There are already feelings running rampant with this issue, that being said this article should be checked to make sure no bias is being spread. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Some of this information was added by editors that retain considerable influence in the Primary page and that overtly sought to include biased information - and perhaps others would extend that complaint to me as well. One might conclude that the proper remediation would be to simply improve the page. But whatever the issue with individual claims, you're going to use this as a guise to get this page deleted because you couldn't settle for having it excluded from the main page. I find this totally disingenuous, but I really don't care anymore. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I never said I wanted this page deleted, it just needs to have some editors go over it to make sure everything looks okay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for the spurious and unwarranted attack and defensiveness. You can review the discussion in the primary page if you care at all to understand my snap-judgment. This will be my last edit. I don't want to edit or use wikipedia anymore. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Dude you summarily changed the name of the page from "Fraud ... allegations" ... Allegations of fraud needn't be proven to be fraud. They need merely be proven to be allegations of fraud. Would you kindly direct me to where I get you sanctioned for these clear violations of Wiki policy? Should you have done nothing wrong this shouldn't be seen as an unfriendly request. But I can ask elsewhere. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [And since there was fraud alleged on this page... that's also disingenuous]
We need to go with a neutral title, "Irregularities" isn't a bad way to go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

New related article from Talk Page of Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

I cannot believe Fraud and irregularity allegations during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 is a thing. Shouldn't these minor issues be covered in this article, rather than an article of its own? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That idea was almost immediately nixed (though I can't exactly tell you why). I think the debate should still be in the talk page. Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC) [*,_2016#Proposals_for_Adding_Fraud_Section_to_Article]
That article is just asking for AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
What does AfD mean? [Googling it was less helpful and more racist than I expected...] Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) - something for deletion? May I ask why? Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:AfD. Article for deletion. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand that consensus cut against any inclusion in this article. However, the (separate) article meets all relevant criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you, @muboshgu, explain why you think it would meet any criterion for deletion? Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a small aspect of the primaries, not notable in its own right. The "fraud" part (I see the article has since been renamed) indicates the entire article is based on a fringe theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I am the one that renamed the article, my recommendation is that the info be merged somewhere as there were irregularities during the voting process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposals for Adding Fraud Section to Article from Talk Page of Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Should reputably citable allegations of election fraud or electoral irregularities be included on this page in some centralized fashion [beyond or in addition to mere mention on each state's caucus or primary page]?

1a) Yes, allegations should be included as a separate section on this page.
1b) Yes, allegations should be included as a separate sub-section on this page.
2) No, allegations should be included on a separate page linked from a stub-section on this page.
3) No, despite mention by major campaigns and reporting in media, these such allegations are inappropriate for a site like Wikipedia.

Please feel free to offer modified versions of these suggestions; and I may have missed other possibilities. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify that this is a solicitation of opinions on whether fraud should be included; as noted below please feel free to offer your opinions, but let's not make this about the substance of any allegations, and let me clarify that at least on my end this concerns all allegations and not those merely against a particular state, campaign, or party. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • There should be links to the individual state Wikipedia articles that mention any of this kind of "fraud". I actually believe that there are already some of these Wiki-links in this article here, and I know that I added some recently to a sub-section ("Controversy and fraud allegations") that was recently deleted from this article here. Nothing should be included in this article here that won't affect the final outcome of any state's electoral process or the national process as a whole. Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Links from where to the individual state pages? And where are you coming up with that standard? (I'm genuinely curious; that's similar to the legal standard for having an election overturned.) Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
No. (#3) I note that this question is worded in a leading, non-NPOV way. But anyhoo, irregularities happen in every primary season, and being that this race is not particularly close (56% to 42%) relative to past years, nothing could possibly change the outcome in any meaningful way. Also, I haven't seen a single story that confirmed "fraud" took place in any of the forty-some odd individual contests. The closest thing was Brooklyn where no fraud has come close to being evidenced. I also want to say that any mention of irregularities must mention the physical threats, talk of grandchildren, etc. in Nevada by Sanders supporters and the many articles in reputable sources discussing the "Bernie Bros" phenomenon during this primary. Omnibus (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
No. and I'll echo that the question was asked in a very leading manner. This is a long article, and fraud allegations are mostly confined to not-particularly reliable sources. The reliable source articles on the issue are mostly focused on the subject of the unreliable sources. --Opcnup (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I have no preference on how a central registry is included. Omnibus and Opcnup, I phrased the no option in an obviously leading manner to bait legitimate counterarguments. I don't understand some of these concerns so I hoped by being unsubtle someone would strongly come back with a legitimate reason for not including any centralized reference - since at least some editors' concerns relate to the centrality. I don't get it as a general concern but I do get it as a concern for inclusion on this page. So in that respect I wasn't so much attempting to lead in the direction of the response as in exactly the opposite direction. I'm also not clear on how any of that would bear on the relevance of the inclusion of fraud allegations *[on Wikipedia generally].
Omnibus, my personal concern is constitutional rights and violations thereof. People, believe it or not, have a constitutional right both under SCOTUS case law and actually one might argue under the 24th Amendment as well *[to vote in primary elections - United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 205-07 (1996)]. So I am not personally concerned with whether - if all allegations were taken as true - they would affect the aggregate outcome so much as the scope of alleged constitutional violations. Would considering some sort of disclaimer as to the impact - I assume there is probably at least one reputable study *[showing the limits of] the potential scope of impact - at all alleviate your concern? *[Of course we would include allegations regardless of campaign-affiliation. Two Sanders staffers in NH were accused of fraud. However, *(in relation to the Nevada Democratic Convention,) I haven't seen anyone use the term "Bernie Bros" []. In its inclusion in the deleted section, we had trouble finding an unambiguous and reputable source for Sanders supporters making threats; although Bill Moyers reported on (emails and tweets) and voicemails. The [SMS's] included by NV Dems in their formal complaint are not threats; but if Bill Moyers' [site] is considered reputable then he (personally, in an article) has claimed that the voicemails encompass threats by Sanders supporters. That's the only evidence I've personally seen. *(You can see our discussion on this above, also.)]
Opcnup, if you check the last revision before this section was deleted [2], though there may have been some content-issues, all the sources were mainstream and legitimate. That was a concern from the beginning. If quality-control were strict would that address your concern? Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
No There is no evidence to warrant all of the information you keep trying to provide via blogs and op-eds to create this section. And you are jumping back and forth on your basis. Like how you accused there to be election fraud accusations in every state. That's an absurd statement in itself and shows you do indeed have an agenda and a POV to promote here. You are typing these long responses on here and it's not being productive and is just superfluous at this point. The consensus is against you and your proposal. I did not want to jump in as I only edit periodically, but I am against adding "Fraud and Allegation" section you are proposing. Manful0103 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong. My agenda is to query the scope of fraud... that's it. Can you show me any squirreling of that stated justification? I had believed it would likely be possible to find allegations for all state. I then admitted that using strict source controls I was wrong and could only find reputably sourced allegations for 12 states. You can read this above but calling it an absurd statement is actually a non-neutral point of view unless you can find a valid citation. In any event, even if you were totally correct your arguments don't actually speak to a legitimate concern or the exclusion of this information. I nevertheless thank you for your input. Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
No The options presented read as being a false dilemma. I disagree with 3) because it is entirely appropriate to mention any irregularities (e.g. voters being taken off the rolls in Brooklyn, not enough polling places in Phoenix, etc...) in the article, as long as the information is reliably sourced. I disagree too with all the other options because I don't think the irregularities need a separate section or article. Given that there is no evidence of anything systematic, creating one might compromise the Wikipedia's policy of keeping its coverage of the primaries neutral. I mentioned they should be woven into the text. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not a false dilemma; it was sarcasm. However, you have raised an option I did not think of. Second however, I suspect the editors who are against inclusion of a (sub/stub)section in this article oppose the inclusion of any allegations of fraud regardless of the source or degree of neutrality. The systematic or nonsystematic characterization of the allegations is not something that should be prejudged. However, can we get some input on the interwoven idea? Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Mark Halperin, Managing Editor - Bloomberg Politics: "I agree. I think, though, what has become personal - and you've seen it in the last 48 hours - is the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, perhaps more in conclusion [sic] than we've seen publicly, but clearly to some extent have not had rules that were fair. That, I think, has made both Jane and Bernie Sanders and their top aides feel like... you know, you have to give us a chance. It has to be a democratic system - small d. And it hasn't been." Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If I may add something: You all should be careful with the wording "irregularties" sounds bias, like someone did something willingly or bat least by neglect to disadvantage a particular group of voters. Just the two exemples by "Anywikiuser":

1. The "missing voters in Brooklyn": This seems to be more a problem of the "election system" than of fraud. Here in Germany we have local registers where all inhabitants are recorded with certain data:

  Full Name, DOB, Place of birth, Marital Status, Nationality, Children, address etc.. The data is just being used for community purposes, no state or federal uthoryty has direct access to this data.

When an election is closing the inhabitants, who are a eligeable to vote find a postcard in their mail box. On that that card, they find informations where they need to go to vote and where and when they can apply for postal voting. In NY-State its the other way round, the voter has to register to be able to vote and take care that his data is correct. So if you are eager to vo don't what for the card, ask the election board to check your data.

2. "Insufficent polling place in Phoenix": There again is the question why have there been "not enough"? In Germany or better in my state its done this way:

The princints are so installed and located that all inhabitants from a certain area can go to one building and vote there.

Normally there are serveral pricints in one building. In gerneral it work that way, that there is empirical knowlege about the turnout ( federal 60-75 %, 50-65 %, and local and EU 25-40 %).

When the turnout is higher than expected there will be cues. There is nothing to blame on there uthorities, except they they reduced they reduced it for unresaonable causes. -- (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. However, these are more evidentiary issues. They are totally valid for discussion within broader discussion of irregularities. But the issue here is addressing legitimate concerns about the inclusion or omission of allegations of irregularities on wikipedia itself. At the moment there is no centralized mention of primary irregularities. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No A laundry list of unproven and largely informal accusations of fraud adds nothing to the article. Have either of the campaigns themselves filed a formal lawsuit or complaint alleging voter fraud specific to the presidential primaries and caucuses? No. If they do, that would be worth mentioning in the body of the article, but including a whole section, sub-section, or page for what is essentially gossip would be inappropriate. NelsonWI (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I have addressed the source concern. That is *[not] a legitimate concern, so we needn't reach your substantive judgments. You are, however, incorrect in your second point. Both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns have joined the DNC's lawsuit regarding voter disenfranchisement and burdening the right to vote of voters in Arizona. [3]. Do you have any legitimate concerns? Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
And you now believe, I assume, that this "would be worth mentioning in the body of the article"? Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You are correct that I was mistaken there -- I had assumed the section/sub-section/page you are proposing was more narrowly focused than you would like (the lawsuit cited has nothing to do with "fraud," but it is an "electoral irregularity," which you indeed included as a discussion point in your introduction to the question). If the lawsuit were mentioned in the section of the article that discusses the Arizona/Utah/Idaho voting day, I would not complain. However, perhaps to your astonishment, you are not the sole arbiter of what is and is not a legitimate concern. Several users in the community have challenged the veracity of your sources, and simply dismissing as illegitimate the concerns of anyone not named Michael Sheflin is not how arguing for a consensus works. NelsonWI (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I realize I'm not the arbiter of legitimacy. However, those several other editors have noted the concern in the abstract. And it's a mischaracterized and invalid concern. Look at the snapshot of the last version of the fraud section that was deleted [4], and tell me what sources concern you. Then I, like you, will concede I was mistaken - about the legitimacy of the concern with source issues. Michael Sheflin (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
To be as brief as possible: 1) with regard to the section on the New York primary, the fact that many voters in Brooklyn experienced problems is true, but none of the sources you cite include any allegations of fraud or even an implication that the outcome of the race would have been meaningfully different without the problems. Including it on the main article for the 2016 Democratic primaries suggests that it had an impact on the contest or that one campaign felt they were being uniquely targeted, which none of the sources you cite indicate to be the case. 2) Including half a sentence about long lines and procedural problems at some polling places in Nevada [5] in a section about controversies and allegations of fraud once again implies something that the source does not. The source does not say it was controversial or that anybody on the Democratic side thought something fishy was going on. Including it under a header on controversy and fraud is editorializing, plain and simple. 3) That brings us to the only actual fraud allegation in the entire section, which is based exclusively on a personal account by a Sanders precinct captain [6] that is neither WP:NPOV, nor a WP:THIRDPARTY source. Just because it was posted on Salon does not make it neutral or credible. 4) How you conjured the sentence "Sanders has assured the Democratic Party that violence will not erupt from his supporters at the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia" from anywhere in this NYT article [7] eludes me. Nowhere in the article is there any such statement from Sanders. The whole premise for the proposed section seems to be built on winks and nudges you are trying to dig out from between the lines of a mix of mainstream and specious sources. NelsonWI (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
1) This wasn't my section. Certainly the final snapshot has problems (I noticed on last look that someone seems to have started deleting stuff including rebuttal text/sources). One editor felt including lawsuits was wrong and deleted all the allegations of fraud that would come in the complaints of said suits - including the at least one that a judge refused to dismiss. For those uninitiated, a failure to secure a dismissal means that a judge is acknowledging that - if taken as true - the allegations could prove the charges alleged. Given the media slant, if no complaints are allowed to be cited then we would need to wait for the resolution of all lawsuits (i.e. years) to determine whether there have been any "legitimate sources" citing fraud. The short answer is that you can find that testimony at the Board of Elections hearing too. So in short, I appreciate your response but unless you're saying that no sources can allege such fraud I may have set up the wrong standard. 2) This was a source legitimacy issue. It actually does allege the same irregularities that led to the DNC suit in AZ. 3) [I originally added the Salon bit as a response to an addition noting that the rules were actually floated 1 month before the Dem NV Convention; it was a first-hand delegate testimony of the procedural grievances that erupted on one side. I have to imagine that productive rather than obstructionist editors could have - cumulatively - done a better job than I have. But looking at the state of this article that is not a foregone conclusion. 4)] That bit about Philadelphia was added by someone else [*I also haven't seen that claim so I cannot speak to it.]. I will acknowledge we had a bias problem but I think you'll find it mostly came from the editors that have shown their opinions here to be overtly anti-Sanders; those editors then argued the section was biased. Look I'll acknowledge you've all won. You've abused and misused the consensus-building process in bad faith to exclude, on hypothetical possibilities, the possibility of valid information. That's why you guys lack basic knowledge about the scope of allegations actually present (i.e. the DNC suit, for instance) - because it's not sourced on Wikipedia. Having said that, this is why serious scholars and researchers don't waste their time with wikipedia. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes. And we should make its own section since it is nationwide.[8] & [9] I've also collected sources from both sides to provide the NPOV. The exit polls in the 2004 Ukraine election differed from exit polls by 12% and the american department of state declared election fraud. The results in Alabama, New York, and Georgia all differed by the same or more. In fact, the allegations of election fraud are so widespread that there are multiple articles providing reliable sources giving the opposite POV (that there is no election fraud), such as this Washington Post article, or this article by the Nation.
I tried to add a NPOV to this page, but a few wiki editors were very intent on Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system to keep wikipedia a bastion of their own bias as opposed to actually countering bias. My experience with these users has led me to see that Wikipedia isn't a good place to look for knowledge, unless that knowledge is a short plot summary of a movie. Kswikiaccount (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
What you provided seems to be closer to irregularities, and not fraud. As for exit polls, there is a significant amount of literature from political analysts that discredit them as accurate measures of political behavior. Even if we were to accept your premise, there isn't enough evidence to suggest the exit poll discrepancies meant fraud. In fact, a popular meme that showed these discrepancies originated on a website that actively promotes conspiracy theories. S51438 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I accept Kswikiaccount's premise and I think that if this were not domestic analysis there would be no question that exit polls would be relevant. Given scenarios in which that would apply I think there's like a lateral degree of racism involved as well. Regardless of the inclusion of exit polls, and your ad hominem attack on this person's viewpoint - or at least their argument, your argument that his information alleges irregularities is in obvious bad faith since you know that this discussion encompasses both fraud and irregularities. FYI, I've challenged you above and I'm still waiting for you to show where the multiple sources you continued to add actually allege either that Lange claimed or that (they claim that) Sanders supporters made death threats. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I will respond if the information is re-added. This was not an attack. Kswikiaccount stated his sources suggested fraud ("In fact, the allegations of election fraud are so widespread"). The sources did not suggest this. They merely stated irregularities. S51438 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I think Kswikiaccount called it fraud because that's what [Ambassador Tefft, in Congressional testimony, called the] fraudulent 2004 Ukrainian presidential election in part based on exit polling ( Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It really is reaching to connect an election in 2004 to 2016, especially because the source provided speaks very little of exit polling data, instead citing "ballot stuffing", "fake turnout figures", and other means of fraud. We have no evidence of that here. In any case, exit polls are not always reliable indicators of voter preference. S51438 (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I was explaining my thoughts on why Kswikiaccount may have referred to this as fraud. In so doing, I have allowed you to completely detract from his point. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hell no. That would violate half a dozen Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC) (Like: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR (which we already see in the discussion above), WP:PRIMARY, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS just to start the list) 07:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Recapitulation - and please feel free to respond; I have no doubt there must be countervailing views as to how to summarize the preceding discussion (I am copying and pasting this from my talk page):

"Here I feel confident in saying that I can dismiss [concerns that are invalid]: 1) the foremost and most numerous concern was that sources might be disreputable; well... if you're concerned about drunk driving you don't resurrect prohibition and ban cars... so this issue is not legitimate insofar as we have strict source controls: disreputable sources can be excluded, gray area sources can be thrown to the group and excluded; if it's the only source for that particular claim, the claim could be discarded (pending a reputable source) - resolving any valid overlap of that concern and whether the material should be included on Wikipedia (... ... ...); 2) Omnibus noted (specifically) that it should include anti-Sanders allegations; that's not a legitimate concern, however, it can be addressed insofar as the section would obviously include (NPOV) all allegations of fraud and irregularity; 3) people were concerned with the leading way I asked the question to bait responses; not a legitimate concern with regard to the issue, though; 4) people were concerned I have some nefarious agenda; that violates the good faith standard as you've rightly pointed out, but it also has no bearing on whether any valid allegations should be included and is thus resolved (to the extent that it - like the source complaints - are not bad faith) in that only such allegations would be included; 5) there were several evidentiary concerns (as in that specific components of irregularities and fraud were or were not true - not germane to my thinking about why this should or should not be included): one editor was concerned that there was no allegation that irregularities or fraud was systematic - that isn't true at a sub-state level with particular respect to New York (but more broadly) - but then I cited the chief editor of Bloomberg Politics saying exactly that (I'm a little concerned with him being an exemplar of journalism, but my point is that this type of issue is evidentiary, can be resolved elsewhere, and only bears on the inclusion of the information in Wikipedia to the extent that - as here - [there is no actual question that a claim has been made]; we personally may not agree with this particular claim but that doesn't argue against the inclusion of a citation to the fact that a claim exists; in that sense the concern [against inclusion] is not legitimate); 6) one editor was concerned that the threshold was that campaigns must have filed lawsuits and then backpeddled upon learning the campaigns have joined the DNC's lawsuit; 7) Guy offered no up-and-down yes or no but stated "There should be links to the individual state Wikipedia articles that mention any of this kind of 'fraud'" implying some form of yes with links to the sections in individual states' pages (which I think makes perfect sense). The only unquestionably legitimate concern that needs to be discussed is whether allegations should be interwoven with the text of the main article per Anywikiuser's suggestion - alongside the question of whether valid allegations should be included in an article section or a new article.

Actually there was an earlier concern before I added the consensus-building section, that basically went that inclusion was appropriate only on individual pages. I think it had to do with not cluttering the main page with mere allegations. From that I suggested the stub-section with links to another page. But either way, while a totally legitimate concern, I think that is resolved (minimally) by just having a separate article. What's the reason for not having an article for what is widely perceived and (thus) reflected in media and campaign announcements? Our personal views on the substance [and rationality] of that perception do not negate the existence of that information [of these allegations in the media etc.].

But [concern] #6 is a good example of my understanding of this process per the rules you posted for me on the talk page. That editor had a concern... but it was not legitimate. I offered my reasons for it not being legitimate (it was based on a faulty empirical premise). We then resolved the concern - which in that case was very specific. As to the other concerns, and I believe my list above is comprehensive. I'll offer an example on compromising on a legitimate concern: being very generous to Omnibus, and reading his concern as to the neutrality of the allegations, his concern is totally legitimate - but it is resolved by simply being comprehensive in our inclusion of valid allegations...

So again I'm not sure what legitimate concerns that actually leaves [unresolved]; please tell me if my logic has failed somewhere. I believe most of the concerns are essentially similar - concerns that if we allow the inclusion of fraud allegations, people might cite sources badly. Well... they do that anyway on Wikipedia, so we need quality control... but that's not a legitimate concern [as to whether that information should be included on Wikipedia if proper citations existed]." Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I would also note that the text & tone of the exchanges that have recently taken place on the above user's talk page might indicate that they are getting ready to dismiss any consensus against their own views here as "invalid", which, of course, is not how consensus on Wikipedia actually works. This user does not appear to me to be willing to learn how Wikipedia actually works and listen to other user's concerns, which is very troubling indeed. Guy1890 (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You were responding to my comments. You can refer to me in the second person; I find your objectification very troubling indeed. But regardless, the exchange you note on my talk page isn't obscured... I pasted it in full, and - I would also note - you were responding to it. My understanding of consensus is that it is supposed to adduce, crystalize around, and resolve legitimate concerns. I think that's backed up by but it's not that detailed with regard to what constitutes a legitimate concern. Still, that obviously means that concerns that are not legitimate (whatever that, in turn, means) cannot affect the threshold formation of consensus, regardless of their ultimate impact on content. But there is also some paucity, on the Consensus page, as to how this process affects the inclusion of an entire category of content. I glanced, so I may have overlooked stuff, but it seems this is primarily geared toward content and not category.
So consensus would arise, for instance, over whether to include the popular vote but not over whether to include an article about the Democratic primaries. While this discussion started with regard to whether and to what extent, if at all, allegations of fraud and irregularities should be included in this article, another editor has suggested that exclusion of a centralized source might be a form of gaming the rules and (and I think this is logically correct as well) content discrimination. So if the idea is that any concern can be used to prevent inclusion of valid information, I think that is a misreading of the rules; the concerns have to be legitimate. (And, let's be specific... concluding that reddit prevents inclusion of valid claims is not a legitimate concern... so that is invalid... and yes... this editor has dismissed that consensus against his (my) views, because a) while it would be inappropriate to cite to reddit, that is totally irrelevant to whether properly cited claims should be included, and b) because we can resolve any aspect of that concern that is legitimate by simply having proper quality control. So (per consensus) we move on; and when we've accommodated all legitimate concerns we have reached the end. It may not be the end all or any of us want. However, this regards content and not categories of content. This process should not have taken place regarding fraud; and any consensus that forms on this talk page - it seems to me - is essentially confined to the attached article. There cannot be a consensus that fraud allegations will not be included on Wikipedia. That's my understanding of the rules.
And so most concerns don't address the actual question of where information should be included. None address legitimate reasons why the content generally should be excluded; most address generalizations for why bad content necessitates exclusion of all content. That, per my understanding of Wikipedia, is not a valid use of Consensus or reading of the rules. Allegations of fraud and irregularities, regardless of one's substantive and inherently non-neutral conclusions about any or no fraud and irregularities themselves, meets all criteria mentioned here - - allegations are 1) notable - they have been mentioned by the DNC, both campaigns, and (virtually?) all major media (regardless of the frequency); 2) any information included would be properly verifiable; 3) everything would be carefully scrutinized to maintain NPOV, with disputes being resolved by consensus; 4) we would obviously exclude original research - this would be citations to discussions in media, politicians, pundits, etc. So given all of that, it seems to me the consensus required concerns the method of inclusion.
As to my discussion above, what precisely was the fallacy in my conclusion? Did I overlook concerns other editors noted above? Did I mischaracterize them? Was I... in fact... illegitimately dismissive? Those were not my aims; so if so let's cure those defects if that was the impact. But if your point is that this information simply will not be included at all costs, then I reiterate that another editor who seemed more knowledgeable suggested this was an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's rules per (; and I think given ( one would need - to I think paraphrase the very first comment I made on this talk page - a compelling reason to justify exclusion of verifiable, reputable, legitimate allegations that are of national public concern and interest. Perhaps this consensus attempt has determined that [for now] no section should be added to accommodate the allegations - or perhaps that is not what it has determined. However, that cannot then be used to simply exclude otherwise valid information from Wikipedia. And your repeated expression of distrust in my motives (which if you challenge me on I will compile and cite) violate your obligation to assume good faith. Can you point to - in my articulation above quoted from my talk page - any examples of where I was in fact dismissive and was not actually just trying to speak to and compromise with the concerns our fellow editors have expressed?
I think perhaps we should revisit this issue when a separate page is added, since it's clear that regardless of the textual length, the nature and scope of the allegations will mean a need to resolve evidentiary, format, and other issues specifically. And, as I think was an original concern I also noted in the quoted section above [I hope and think], it might serve to detract from this article. Once a separate page is in place, it would make more sense to revisit how this page can incorporate that information. Or at least those are some thoughts on the fly. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I actually don't see my preferred proposal here, so I will have to say no to all of them. I would rather we include mentions of fraud/irregularities on the separate Wikipedia pages for each primary. This page is very general, and unless it can be established that irregularities/fraud were so general to encompass most, if not all states, then it should not be included here. S51438 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Alternatively, I think incorporating the allegations/etc. into the central body may be feasible (assuming, once again, we have a vast amount of information that includes almost all states). Any separate section or subsection will undoubtedly lead to the impression that the entire process has been flawed (especially because a section of this kind cannot be found on another Democratic Primary page or a Republican Primary page). Wikipedia pages are not designed to instill thoughts into the reader, only to provide information. This information needs to be general enough to belong in this article itself. S51438 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't see that proposal because that's germane either way. The only question is how to include the information in some centralized source. If your point is (as I think I am properly inferring) that it should not be, you need to provide a legitimate and compelling reason that it should not be, because otherwise that would thwart the purpose of Wikipedia. I agree that a section attempting to incorporate all this in full may be unwieldy. It doesn't matter that the entire process may or may not have been flawed. What matters is that the allegations for a nexus through the same core types of facts that make them relevant to include together. Right? The votes - as people pointed out per your idea of including national vote totals - actually do not relate to this national process leading to the convention. Arguably, there is no national process prior to the convention. But it would be silly to argue we should only have a convention page and then individual primary/caucus pages. It would be silly because it would so obviously be a pedantic attempt to thwart the purpose of Wikipedia. That's the situation we find ourselves in here. So the question is not whether the information can be added locally - like local convention/primary/caucus pages it obviously can be. The question is how but not whether to include the information centrally. If you still disagree with this as some sort of false dichotomy, then you need - per my examination above of how this falls within the core purpose of Wikipedia and why this issue actually should not fall under the consensus process (but rather that should be left to individual disputes under the entire category) then you need to provide a compelling reason why this should not be included in Wikipedia in compiled form. That was the original purpose for my baiting no answer. And that issue has not actually been addressed - nobody has explained short of substantive prejudgment about scope - why this should not be centrally included (not in this article... in general). Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You remind me much of my younger days on Wikipedia. Put it this way. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Adding information that is completely relevant to a topic may seem perfectly reasonable to you (and I will admit, I always became very frustrated when editors would take away the information I had contributed under the guise of "rules"), but that does not mean the information can be added fairly. So no, your framing of the discussion, which has completely shut out the possibility of not adding the information at all, in fact is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia: We do not add information just for the sake of information. You cannot possibly make such a sweeping determination of information inclusion and expect it to stand. That neutral arbitrator beckons. S51438 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
And in addition, I have to say the lack of precedent is something we must consider. The 2008 article does not mention irregularities, though undoubtedly some did occur. We try to formulate Wikipedia pages in similar ways, especially when they are so close in subject matter. When precedent is to be broken, the edit must survive a good deal of scrutiny. As of this writing, I think we may have to call in a neutral arbitrator because the discussion is quite contentious and any edit which incorporates the concerns of editors here is probably impossible. While any editor is free to form consensus, an editor involved in the discussion is not given free license to determine which concerns are legitimate and which are not. This is why despite the fierce conflict over the addition of the popular vote, every concern lodged against it was considered legitimate. Wikipedia's ambiguous definition of legitimate, as pointed out above, does not mean an editor can simply do whatever they want. Ambiguity implies a neutral authority needs to be brought in or every concern should be presumed legitimate. S51438 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Editors dropped the ball, but that does not mean we should continue to do so. As a policy issue this argument cannot prevail. Perhaps it was raised in 2008 regarding 2004 or 2000... and for whatever nobody really challenged the logic, and so such info wasn't included in 2008. And if nobody challenges the fundamental lack of logic underlying this argument now, perhaps it will resurface in 2020 or 2024... etc ad infinitum and thus past failure will be used to justify continuing failure and violation. Instead, we should just start doing our jobs and then this type of recursive logical failure will not be allowed to prevent legitimate information, properly sourced et al ad nauseam, from making its way into the premiere online compendium for such information. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you have ever considered that this article is not the proper place for this information. Further, I am not here to question the logic of the past. We at Wikipedia generally consider the past discussions and past resolutions to be the framework for any current discussion. No matter what you write here, you won't accomplish erasing the past. Simply put, this edit lacks precedent and saying the Wikipedia community has engaged in illogical edits over the long term has failed to justify uprooting this precedent. S51438 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No This discussion has become superfluous and a silly debate between someone trying to promote a biased POV and the rest of the regular editors trying to explain to the person why their proposition is not appropriate. Let's please agree to settle and end this discussion. I see a complete consensus against the original proposition. Let's focus on improving and updating this page appropriately. Can an administrator or someone please end this discussion? Also, the proposer of this section seems to write such incredibly long responses to all this that it honestly makes me wonder what they are trying to do. There is consensus against it. This is turning into a forum. Let's avoid that please. And let's finally end and resolve this. Manful0103 (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to do that, so long as you explain why the status quo takes an editor's legitimate concerns (in this case, Msheflin) into account. I'm not exactly sure what his concerns are. He writes so much and never seems to indicate clearly why this information should be included. S51438 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I repeat what many others have already said on why not. His (I will assume gender because of the name) "concerns" are obviously not a true encyclopedic concern. As you pointed out, look how insanely long his responses are on here. What value does any of this have? I see nothing coming out of it. My point is that there is consensus against it. I just think it needs to be closed. Manful0103 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Following the model in the first section [10] here, you are free to close the discussion, provided that you can adequately determine consensus in your favor. S51438 (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
You're attempting to exclude information and in so doing you are thwarting the purpose of Wikipedia and likely thus inadvertently, because I don't think you're being malicious, gaming the system per the links provided above. You cannot merely exclude information of public interest, validly cited. That's the concern. If your question is what does this debate have to do with the page... there does appear to be consensus, at present, against including information on this page. There's no reason given for that so it's not clear to me where you find consensus based on legitimate concerns. But that's fine. So as I said, we'll add a new article per this topic meeting all of the 4 criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Consensus is not an appropriate means of determining whether a category of information should be included on Wikipedia. So per my previous comments you didn't read, this consensus/discussion is purely confined to the inclusion of fraud allegations within this page. You cannot use this invalid line of reasoning to squelch valid information on Wikipedia. However, you're welcome to join the discussion of - and add your views to the consensus-building processes regarding - specific allegations laid out within that broad category. You're simply not permitted to exclude an area of information - particularly based on incommensurate concerns.
So for the tl;dr crowd - this discussion concerns manner of addition of information to this page only; any valid information can already at present be added to the individual state pages (per Wiki policies/guidelines). And this discussion can be revisited when a decent first cut of the new article has been up for a little while. And perhaps the group will then coalesce around the inappropriateness of linking to said article and provide no reasons therefor. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
And manful0103, if you intend to continue to defame me, maybe you could explain how my POV is biased? For the even more tl;dr crowd who are capable of rejecting a proposition without knowing what it is... My concern is that Wikipedia excludes the widespread perception, and the widespread reporting on (therefrom, perhaps), of procedural irregularities. My bias, as a law student in the con rights clinic, is my concern that such irregularities - if taken as alleged - would in at least some cases form violations of the constitution [ I've repeatedly stated... that's my bias]. Can you explain to me how violations of the constitution are not noteworthy? Or do you need me to explain how that's a concern? Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"Consensus is not an appropriate means of determining whether a category of information should be included on Wikipedia." This is simply not true, as the top of this talk page makes blatantly clear. It seems you are participating in a process that you don't understand. As for creating an entirely new page, this discussion will likely be used against its formation, especially if consensus is not determined in proposal 2's favor. In addition, as you have pointed out, there are additional barriers to the creation of another page. S51438 (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
You undoubtedly know that I was applying that statement to a category of information... as I have repeatedly stated... So you can argue the popular vote count is not relevant and should not be included; you cannot argue that a national article for the primaries should not be included. One is a piece of information; one is a category. I think I understand the process, as I liberally responded to this argument above, but this consensus can be used to determine the relation between any new article and this one. I think that's logical. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
"you cannot argue that a national article for the primaries should not be included." Well obviously, as this is not the proper location for that discussion. S51438 (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I and User:Guy1890 have asked a neutral arbitrator to determine consensus on this issue. This does not prevent other editors from establishing consensus, but it places future limitations on those involved. If consensus remains undetermined for a period of 30 days or if this discussion continues to attract its current level of input for 30 days, then the ability for involved editors to determine consensus is annulled and neutral arbitration will be required for consensus determination. I encourage all users to come to an edit that takes into consideration the concerns of all editors here. Any gauging of consensus that merely dismisses the other editors without addressing their claims (such as stating concerns are not legitimate) would be against Wikipedia policy, and that determination of consensus should be challenged. S51438 (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. As I've pointed out, consensus only impacts inclusion of a centralized or interwoven (or no) reference to these allegations on this page. Any question of inclusion of this information more broadly goes beyond the scope of this discussion. However, if there is an appropriate place for such a discussion to take place of which I am unaware, please refer me to that Wiki policy/guideline (- that would be easiest, I think). Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Using this process will allow you to submit a draft for an article and have it reviewed to see if it is publishable. S51438 (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I know we are potentially awaiting arbitration to close the debate. Since the debate was effectively defunct regardless, I am - true to word - suggesting either reopening it or adding a new (Talk Page) section to the same effect for the sole purpose of determining to what extent to include references (in this article) to Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, fraud and irregularity allegations as it expands. This is not a discussion about whether that separate page should exist. I have (also) applied for protection for that page, which was declined on grounds that it had not yet been vandalized. Please don't vandalize it... Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Russia Today *IS* a propaganda site and not reliable - have you actually looked at the discussions at RS/N about it? I don't know what "western media" is suppose to be here, but established media with a reputation for fact checking is indeed reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Please IP, your tactics here aren't going to work in your favor, and no one is "choosing who is the neutral arbitrator" for closing any threads on this page. Guy1890 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You aggressiveness when interacting with me makes me feel exhausted and is driving me away from editing. In fact, after your first encounter with me, I stopped editing on this site for a few weeks. Please, either a) stop communicating to me, or b) take your aggressiveness down a significant number of levels. Thanks.
Just in case it isn't 100% clear, this is what is aggressive: "Please IP, your tactics here aren't going to work in your favor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswikiaccount (talkcontribs) 23:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a politically neutral page. This is not a page for Hillary nor Sanders supporters to air their opinions.2602:306:CC42:8340:B9DA:211D:AE70:83C2 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sanders campaign accuses Puerto Rico Dem officials of fraud" from the Hill.

The Inquisitr claims Bernie Sanders is responsible for voter suppression in Puerto Rico.

A lawsuit in New York by voters alleging election fraud.

"Sanders' campaign did not want county officials to certify the results until "there's a complete audit" to account for votes that potentially should have been counted." from a local source.

I am astounded at the fact that people added the alleged election fraud section and it was taken down. Multiple major sources are talking about this, and have done so for almost two months, and editors on wikipedia still continue with the bureaucracy and silly stalling attempts. If this is an encyclopedia then the allegations of election fraud must be in this page. This information should have been added a long time ago, and I find the incessant resistance of the addition of this section highly unethical and telling about bias of the english wikipedia editors who have been so sexist to warrant an actual drive by Wikipedia to try to get more female editors. Kswikiaccount (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, it can be added here. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
No, this is POV and as it turns out it was the Sanders campaign which led to the closing of polling places. None of the sources you list above meet the requirements for reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Our fraud page does a better and more truthful job of documenting this scenario. 1) Why is The Hill not reliable...? 2) The Sanders campaign has denied it requested a reduction in polling places, and has instead asserted that it requested maintenance of the previous 1,500 polling places. [But that campaign has alleged lack of cert of its prison registration workers.] Either way, your point is incommensurable as you appear to discount the sources and then use them to make a partisan case. I don't understand why people keep posting here as this issue is defunct, but I will continue to reply to those responses that are overtly biased or untruthful. Marek, if you feel you can contribute positively to the fraud page by all means do so. Otherwise this section is effectively defunct. My understanding is no allegations, regardless of their weight, validity, breadth, or verifiability, will be included in this article with no legitimate concern cited. Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found