User talk:Abd/Archive 1

More on the Majority Criterion
I've been pondering the Majority Criterion and how it's defined, and I've come to the conclusion that voting criteria can and should (when appropriate) rely on unexpressed preferences. Here is my logic for this, hopefully you will agree.

1. Without taking unexpressed preferences into account, Plurality voting actually passes a large number of criteria it shouldn't, including the Condorcet criterion.

2. Because of this, the Condorcet criterion takes actual preferences into account, not just those which can be expressed.

3. Since the Majority Criterion is just a weaker version of Condorcet, it would be no surprise if it also takes hidden preferences into account.

4. Arrow's Theorem specifically states that all voters have ranked preferences. In fact, Approval voting violates Arrow's theorem for the simple reason that it doesn't take all the voter's preferences into account.

5. Along those lines IIA and Independence of clones also take hidden preferences into account when dealing with Plurality. It's disguised by having multiple voting sessions, but the purpose of those is to figure out the hidden preferences.

6. It's certainly true that for practical purposes, you'll never know if an Approval Voting election violated the Majority criterion- the only elections where it could be the case are ones in which at least two people receive more than 50% of the vote, which would almost never happen with voters who have some idea of what's going on. However, many voting systems fail criteria in impractical ways- for instance, Condorcet methods fail monotonicity only in extremely contrived situations.

I'd like your opinion on this before I go and change things. There are certainly advantages to only looking at expressed rankings, but all the other criterion where this matters bypass it one way or another. I don't see why the Majority criterion should be different. I'd like to say that it doesn't apply to Approval voting- but honestly, a voting criterion that doesn't apply to some systems is pretty useless.

I know you've been arguing for Approval voting for a while, so you might know some other things about it I don't. Let me know what you think. Paladinwannabe2 15:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sincerity
Sincerity has almost nothing to do with the Majority criterion- I have no idea why you are so hung up on it, it doesn't matter, unless you are trying to argue that people are voting insincerely with Approval voting.

Just in case you are trying to argue that, I would like to point out two things: 1. 'Not insincere' and 'sincere' do, in fact, mean the same thing. Claiming otherwise means that there are votes that are not sincere and not insincere.

2. For the specific context of approval voting, suppose that a voter has the following preference:  A > B > C.  Whether he votes A + B or just A, it's a sincere vote. The whole point of Approval voting is to have a voting system in which all votes are sincere.

What you should be arguing is that the Majority Criterion can't be based off unexpressed preferences, and that something can only fail the Majority Criterion if the ballots indicate the majority favor an unelected candidate. (Worded like that, Approval voting will pass the Majority Criterion). Paladinwannabe2 20:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Majority Criterion
Somehow you seem to think that sincerity has something to do with whether or not Approval voting passes the Majority Criterion. As you should know, there is no advantage to insincere voting with Approval, and therefore all votes in an Approval ballot can be assumed to be sincere- insincere votes only hurt the voter. It's actually a problem with limited information: Suppose a voter has the following preference:  A > B > C.  However, he can't express that full preference on a ballot:  he has to choose either A = B > C or A > B = C.  This isn't 'insincere', it's just an (intentional!) limitation of the ballot. If you only look at expressed preferences, Approval voting does pass the majority criterion- but so does Plurality voting, for that matter. Paladinwannabe2 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You broke the three-revert rule
These four edits occurred in less than 24 hours:

That is a violation of the WP:3RR policy; please read it. You can prevent sanctions if you self-revert back to the version before your fourth change(s). P-j-t-a 20:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (User P-j-t-a just registered, apparently for the purpose of putting up this notice. I don't think there was a 3RR rule violation, what I did was revert some edits by User:Acct4 who is a blatant sock for the banned User:BenB4. So I'd guess that P-j-t-a is another sock in that same series, trying to intimidate me.) Abd 05:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that I would be warned before being blocked. The warning above was inserted by a new user, clearly a sock; after I allegedly reverted edits as described above. I had been attempting to get attention to *common* use of revert on the Instant Runoff Voting article, for a week or so, with no success. The reverts I did make, in possible apparent violation of 3RR, were of improper editors making improper edits, but to disentangle this would take time; and I don't think that four reverts were actually made. I had asked for advice on how to deal with the situation with the article, and was attempting to bring in experienced Wikipedians. Abd 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

IRV
Ok, I'll take a look at cleaning up the IRV article, but it'll probably in a week or two before I get started. New Ubuntu Linux release and all. We might want to fork it on a user page if the reversion is so pervasive as to make it unedible (and then request admin help once the "good" version is NPOVed and ready). Scott Ritchie 04:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott, we could use help. The FairVote cabal blasted themselves off of Wikipedia, only User:Tomruen is left, it seems. The sock puppet who had been doing most of the dirty work filed a 3RR complaint against me, and, of course, he had to place a warning on my Talk page. Seeing the warning, I knew what he was going to do, so I placed an explanation there, and was careful to be brief, something which is extraordinarily difficult for me. Basically, the socks dragged an administrator to come look at succinct proof that they were socks.... poetic justice.

It also dragged down Tbouricius, since he had registered and dove immediately in to furious editing of the article. Certainly looked like a single-purpose account or meat puppet. Plus it may have blocked Rob Richie's access to the article, he had been wielding a meat cleaver from anonymous IP, hacking away with reverts anything edit he didn't like, blatantly violating 3RR. Apparently he did not realize that we could look at email from him and confirm that it was him, though it was already fairly obvious.

So.... we have a relatively clear field to edit the article now. Even though they accused me of being POV, I really do want to see an NPOV article and have no interest in using it to promote other methods, unless neutral and reasonably complete and balanced information has that effect without incorporating promotion or crafted nuance, the specialty of FairVote.

The article has been partially protected. It does not seem like Ruen is willing to risk his access to start using abusive reverts.... He's definitely COI from his formal affiliation with FairVote, but, hey, we *do* need some advocates left! You gotta have all sides, within reason, to have true NPOV. In this sense, victory is loss. Abd 04:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ask10questions
User:Ask10questions was not involved with any abusive editing, but was one of those suffering from reverts by the sock puppets and anonymous IP editor, who does finally give his name below. The only suspicious thing about this user was that she did not post to other articles. She is, indeed, a political activist interested in voting security. She is, also, a strong opponent of IRV, and some of her edits may be inappropriate, but that's why we like to have multiple editors from various points of view. There is no reason for her to be blocked.

User:Tbouricius is, as Mr. Richie notes below, a real person, not a sock puppet, and, as far as we know, had no other account. However, the timing of his registration, immediately after I began working on Instant Runoff Voting, could indicate meat puppetry. Nevertheless, he is a published author in the field, an associate of Mr. Richie, and the only problem I had with his participation was that he (1) condoned the anonymous IP reverts and (2) refused to allow removal of allegedly controversial material pending negotiation of the language. He thus continued the policies of the edit cabal which included Richie and the sock puppets, and started an edit war over it. I see no reason to continue his general blocking, but he should not, at his point, be allowed to edit the article itself, due to his formal Conflict of Interest and the edit war; he has a supporter active, and I would assist as well. Abd 04:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm personally not looking into this matter any further. If this an issue of semantics, let me clear this up: they're all either sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or single-purpose accounts. Nothing is stopping them (or him or her, depending on who we're dealing with) from creating new accounts (or a new single account, if we're dealing with one person) and contributing positively and effectively to Wikipedia as a whole, instead of just proliferating a petty edit war about voting systems. I appreciate your input, but, in short, no, I'm not unblocking any of them. If you're unsatisfied with my answer, take this to WP:ANI. --  tariq abjotu  04:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

IRV -2
Captain Zyrain 14:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Please stop editing the IRV article to suggest that Robert's Rules of Order recommends a system "similar" to IRV. The system is IRV.
 * 2) Please stop editing the IRV article to insist that Approval voting specifically is better.
 * 3) Please stop making edits to the IRV article implementing your opinion as to whether Arrow's Theorem should be mentioned in the opening of the evaluations section without reaching consensus on the talk page.

Thank you for your comment.

(1) I think it would be useful if you would pay attention to the exact language that I put into the article, it was, to some degree, negotiated. Since it has been taken out, I'll revert it back before finishing this discussion. Understand that what was there before is not acceptable to me, and I have found opinion elsewhere confirming this understanding, but it will take time to bring it in. Until then, I'm standing on the position that the original language does not enjoy consensus, that the consensus that left it in so long was a false one based on incomplete investigation and the warping of the edit environment by sock puppets and Rob Richie's liberal use of anonymous many-revert edits. (I presume you now he has admitted to this, pleading ignorance.) The reference is not essential to the article, but definitely, we can agree that something like Instant Runoff Voting is mentioned in Robert's Rules. However, because this can give the appearance of a "recommendation," which is iffy, I find it necessary, to allow the mention to be there, that it be specified accurately.

(2) Is it "IRV" which is described? Well, how does "IRV" treat exhausted ballots? Are they included in determining the majority? This is a crucial question. Robert's Rules does not mind *at all* that an election fails. It requires that any election by plurality be specifically permitted in the bylaws, otherwise an election that fails to render a majority vote for a candidate simply fails, further process must ensue, and Robert's Rules specifically dislikes top-two runoff. Now, if you take "IRV" and vary it by requiring that a winner have a majority of votes, after transfers, *and including all ballots with a valid vote for any candidate* in the basis, you have accomplished a true majority vote for the winner, or a failure if no candidate gets that. The artificial majority obtained by disregarding all ballots not containing a vote for the top two is not a majority in the meaning of the concept as used in Robert's Rules. Notice that you could get this kind of majority in Plurality: just discard all ballots as described! IRV merely uses a more flexible process that pulls in more votes, but only by *requiring* that all candidates be ranked can IRV avoid this; and, I can guarantee you, any parliamentarian worth his salt would abhor that rule, for it simply invalidates the vote of any voter who cannot sincerely support the election of a candidate set.

So, there is a difference between what is described in the RR reference and what is described in the IRV article. Now, we have several choices: we can include the true majority required form of IRV in the article as "IRV," or we can specify the RR form as a modification of IRV.

Now, suppose that we agreed that Robert's Rules is describing IRV, or we could agree on a name for it. Now, does Robert's Rules "recommend it"? That is actually a stretch. I've quoted all the language in Talk, and it appears to be falling on deaf ears. Robert's Rules actually recommends repeated balloting over "preference voting," and the form of preference voting it describes is only an example. There are other forms of preference voting and, indeed, it is essentially voting where it's a ranked ballot showing preferences. *How* the preference are analyzed, Robert's Rules only gives one example and does not recommend it over others. It is merely a simple and actually used method. Bucklin would be a form of "preference voting."

Basically, I'm not going to allow a new cabal of IRV advocates, however sincere, to force the article to remain in the same state that it was maintained in by an illegitimate cabal, until and unless a new consensus appears on the controversial matters. I have limited personal resources, but the issues are beginning to attract attention from experts, and I'm getting advice on the controversial issues. That advice, from experts, is not confirming what is being vigorously asserted by the IRV camp.

If reverts continue, I will start simply removing the reference entirely as controversial, and if arbitration is required, so be it. I do not fear arbitration, though I would certainly hope that this community can mature to the point where it can find consensus without wasting the time of others.


 * Please stop editing the IRV article to insist that Approval voting specifically is better.

I have not done that. Look again. There is a list of Pro and Con arguments. I have edited both the Pro and Con arguments at various points. In this case I added a Con argument that is actually being made. Thus, if we are going to have Pro arguments that are actually being made, such as the argument that IRV "may reduce negative campaigning," which uses the weasel word "may" when actual campaign arguments are much stronger, we then should allow Con arguments. The language I added to the section which qualifies the arguments as being only that, arguments, which may show bias and which may even be outright false and provably so, makes it clear. Any editor could put in such an argument, based on actual experience and, preferably but not necessarily if there is no suspicion of it being a straw man argument, and not be considered to be "insisting" that the argument is true. You lost context, which is unfortunate. When your head is clearer, I'm sure you will think better of it.


 * Please stop making edits to the IRV article implementing your opinion as to whether Arrow's Theorem should be mentioned in the opening of the evaluations section without reaching consensus on the talk page.

This is so convoluted that I don't understand it. My position is that *nothing* should be in the article that has not been established or agreed by consensus; until there is some formal process which determines an issue, all editors stand equal and can withhold consensus. I'm not going to explain Wikipedia process here and, in fact, I'm quite a new user, but let me put it this way: I've been working for years to develop the theory of process like that of Wikipedia, and thus it is *in theory* very well known to me. I read the articles about how it works, and what I see is "Yes, Yes."

Arrow's Theorem does not say what was in the article when I started editing it. Arrow's Theorem is quite narrow and does not apply to methods which do not specify a preference order, so a claim that "All election methods must violate" at least one of the specific list of Criteria that Arrow gave quite simply is not true. It is insupportable. This is relevant here because the reference to Arrow's theorem is used to defuse objections to IRV by essentially claiming "Well, no method is perfect." It's a *political* argument, and it is POV, unproven, if made that way, and sometimes that is exactly what is said. Now, polish that and clean it up a bit and paint some more specific language on it, you can make it appear to be less POV. But, in context, it remains POV. I see no justification for mentioning Arrow's theorem in the article *at all*.

But, of course, I will defer to a consensus of editors, particularly after the expert opinion starts coming in. I think it is on its way. If not, well, something else will happen. I also solicited Scott Ritchie's support in cleaning up the article, and he agreed. Scott Ritchie's work was involved in the STV article which was a featured article. He is a major player in the Voting Methods project for Wikipedia. Some editors imagine that I'm just an isolated nut case; they are entitled to the opinion, but.... I'm not. I'm in regular communication with a broad range of election methods experts, including some who agree very much with what I write, and some who disagree with a lot of it.

So ... thanks for sharing. See you in Talk. Abd 06:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me, I had been operating based on hearsay without having reviewed your edits. I won't do that again. Captain Zyrain 06:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
I have nominated you at Requests for adminship/Abd. Please accept on that page. Captain Zyrain 06:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you have to answer the three questions in the appropriate places (i.e. after the A:) in order to be considered. Captain Zyrain 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA
In accordance with WP:SNOW, I have closed your request for adminship, which stood at a tally of 0/9/0. I hope you will listen to the concerns and advice the opposition gave you, and try again at a later date. Good luck. Acalamari 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I found it interesting to observe this process. Of course, I was not seeking to become an administrator, I was simply responding with appreciation to the nomination of Captain Zyrain. The nomination was closed per WP:SNOW which betrayed to me something that I've found common on Wikipedia: process where participants express opinions based on habit, reflex, without investigation. Most voters pointed out my inexperience, which could not be denied. I'm *still* inexperienced, and will remain that way for a long time; however, there is an assumption in the voting that an administrator will dive in and start flailing about not understanding what he is doing. I've been, among other things, a midwife, self-taught. Never lost a baby, though I ran into a number of difficult situations. How did I avoid this? I stuck with what I knew, and when something arose that I did not understand or did not know how to deal with, I sought help, we'd transport the woman to a hospital. Dangerous? Perhaps. Certainly far more dangerous than being an administrator here who does not specific policy and tools, but is quite careful about using the administrative privileges. For a time, as an administrator, I might be useless, but the real question should be, given the serious shortage of administrators, would I be *worse* than useless. For example, would I use my tools to further my own concepts of NPOV in articles of interest to me? I dealt with that question in my response to the nomination questions.


 * One vote was of interest, in particular:


 * Strong Oppose This report at WP:AN/3RR demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of WP policies. You weren't able to create a properly formatted report, even when asked to repeat, and then you launched into a 2000 word diatribe when your request is denied. Sorry to be so frank, Abd, but you've got a long way to go. Ronnotel 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. The situation was a IP editor massively reverting an article. Indeed, I wrote way too much. Was what I wrote necessary? Obviously it was not effective, whether it was necessary or not. However, from my experience as a meeting chair, I'd say that Ronnotel should not have been handling 3RR. Indeed, were this not old, I'd probably be going for some review process. I was a newcomer, as he stated, and found the instructions quite confusing. I did not know, indeed, how to present a diff, so I presented, instead, contribution history, *which showed the same thing with one link that would be found with diffs.* As a chair, I know my duty when a member tries to do something and is confused about how to do it. It is to assist the member, to attempt to understand what the member wants to do, and inform the member how to do it, or even to proceed with an assumption that the member has followed proper form. "I'll take that as a motion to appeal my ruling as chair, is there a second?" As a chair, I have the authority to rule the member out of order and to ignore what he says. But that's an abuse of the position of chair. I presented, clearly, sufficient evidence to show a serious problem, and Ronnotel dismissed it on technical process considerations alone. Ultimately, what happened in that case was that the sock master active in that edit cabal filed a 3RR report against me, and the administrator, instead of just looking at pure process, i.e., did I do the reverts, looked at the complainant, an account which registered, and as its sole actions, warned me about 3RR, and then filed the complaint. The administrator then looked at the history and saw what I had earlier reported, and blocked two sock puppets, the IP editor, an SPA meat puppet, and one account that was simply an SPA, not anybody's puppet in any way. It all could have happened much quicker if Ronnotel had been willing to deal with substance rather than process. I understand the need for process, and if I continued to file reports in an improper way, it would be a real problem. But first report? Don't bite the newcomers, listen to them, encourage them, channel their energies, teach them how to file a proper report. This was not an ordinary content dispute, it was the active maintenance of an article as a piece of political propaganda, by the Executive Director of a major political action organization, assisted by sock puppets and meat puppets.


 * Why did the administrator looking at that sock 3RR report act so quickly and effectively? Well, I'd learned something. Be brief if it is necessary to get the attention of busy administrators.... many of them are seriously distracted and make decisions very quickly. So when the 3RR warning was put on my Talk page -- it's still here -- I made a very brief exposure of the situation. It would have taken a truly blind administrator to miss it.


 * But, normally, I still write too much. On the other hand, I have a lot to say, forty years of experience with group decision process, to bring to the table, and to write less, except where a very confined purpose exists, takes me much more time. I don't expect that people who aren't specifically interested will read all of it, and a response of "say what? That was too much for me to read, can you summarize what's important in a few sentences?" will be met with, indeed, a few sentences summarizing. I've been writing on-line since the 1980s; I was active as a moderator on the WELL (virtual community), and I was -- and still am, technically, -- a moderator for the usenet newsgroup soc.religion.islam, which as one might imagine, has seen a few controversies.


 * Do I plan to run for administrator again? Why? There is a reason why the symbol of the admin bit is a mop. I'm far more interested in policy, and one does not have to be a police officer, dealing continually with the scum (besides protecting the honest while maintaining rigorous fairness with alleged scum), in order to be effective in the field of law. Legislators and political advocates don't wear guns. Administrators do. So the vast and mostly boring dedicated service of administrators is essential, and important, and, too often, thankless. So, thanks, admins, I'd give you all barnstars if I had time. Even the relatively incompetent, they serve the community as well, in the end. What I'm proposing, in bits and pieces, here and there, will create a penumbra of known and trusted users without admin privileges, serving the administrators by providing them with reliable information and advice, making them both more effective and more efficient.

--Abd (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Electoral reform article series
Any interest in helping out with this series of articles? Most of these articles need to be created, and the rest need expansion. Captain Zyrain 03:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Electoral reform in the United States by political division
 * Alabama - Alaska - Arizona - Arkansas - California - Colorado - Connecticut - Delaware - Florida - Georgia - Hawaii - Idaho - Illinois - Indiana - Iowa - Kansas - Kentucky - Louisiana - Maine - Maryland - Massachusetts - Michigan - Minnesota - Mississippi - Missouri - Montana - Nebraska - Nevada - New Hampshire - New Jersey - New Mexico - New York - North Carolina - North Dakota - Ohio - Oklahoma - Oregon - Pennsylvania - Rhode Island - South Carolina - South Dakota - Tennessee - Texas - Utah - Vermont - Virginia - Washington - West Virginia - Wisconsin - Wyoming - Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) - American Samoa - Guam - Northern Mariana Islands - Puerto Rico - U.S. Virgin Islands

Articles for deletion/Wyoming Rule
Please vote to keep this article: Wyoming Rule. Captain Zyrain 19:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly
I have put this article up for peer review. Please feel free to provide feedback if you desire to do so. Captain Zyrain 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, now it is up for FAC. See Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. Captain Zyrain 03:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Loss function
Talk:Loss function was deleted under WP:CSD. It was a blank page that only had one contributor; two edits, one adding a WikiProject tag, the other removing it. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior in reference to FairVote citations
It has come to my attention that you have engaged in repeated deletions of FairVote citations as well as apparently unjustified complaints against User:Tbouricius which were lodged at User_talk:Wikidudeman. This potentially insidious, passive-aggressive behavior may constitute a violation of WP:GIANTDICK and you are encouraged to either step up your offensiveness to a higher level or desist completely. Thank you for your cooperation. StrengthOfNations (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well. It's tempting to reply, Your move, creep!, but that would be rude, wouldn't it? So, instead, "Stay out of trouble!.

For the benefit of future generations who might not have handy access to Wikiquote: [RoboCop calmly bashes a violent convenience-store robber, then turns to the proprietors.] RoboCop: Thank you for your cooperation. Good night.

[RoboCop stops a rape attempt by firing through the woman's dress into the testicles of one rapist, then turns to the other.] Robocop: Your move, creep.

Reporter: Robo… excuse me, Robo! Any special message for all the kids watching at home? RoboCop: Stay out of trouble.

StrengthOfNations appears to be a throwaway bad hand account. Let me make it clear: I do not hold User:Tbouricius responsible for the behavior of his apparently self-appointed defender. With a friend like this, why would he need enemies? StrengthOfNations is making enough of a mess (for example, History and use of instant-runoff voting in the United States and Articles for deletion/Range voting, that it might become appropriate for action to be taken. What is the significance of these creations? Well, the History article is a reposting of material edited to remove or balance out POV aspects in the Instant-runoff voting article, plus additional material, all presented in about as POV a manner as possible without going totally over the top. I've been perceived as an "enemy of IRV" because I'm allegedly a devoted supporter of Range voting, and, so, with the AfD, attacking what I supposedly love would be a mode of retaliation. StrengthOfNations appeared on my radar screen when he posted an RFC tag in response to something I'd written in Talk:Instant-runoff_voting. I thought it helpful. So the AfD was a bit of a surprise. Then these little droppings on my talk page and User talk:Tbouricius.... I've been considering filing a suspected sock puppet report for another account, maybe it will be a two-fer. (That sock -- it's pretty certain -- targeted the same interests, so it *could* be the same hand.) So many socks, so little time ....

(As to the "enemy of IRV" charge, it's preposterous. IRV is just an election method, after all! I reserve enmity for deceivers, and there are deceivers involved with nearly every cause. "It's all for a good cause" is an excuse I've seen countless times, where people ended up lying, defrauding, and, unfortunately, even killing for some noble crusade. In any case, why would I put so much effort into cleaning up the IRV article, quite possibly preparing it for Featured Article status, if I hated it?) --Abd (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Your edit constitutes vandalism. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stayman Apple (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern, thanks for watching out for vandalism. My action with History and use of instant-runoff voting in the United States was not vandalism, it's about content. The article was created largely as a copy of another page, probably taken from history, prior to a series of accepted edits that removed POV imbalance, plus other material has been added, some legitimate, some not. If my action was not the best way to deal with the situation, by all means, become informed about it, as needed, and let me know. The material was copied to Talk so that it could be worked on, and, of course, anyone who disagrees with my action could simply revert my edit, as User:Stayman Apple did. By reverting that material back in, though, the editor is taking responsibility for it. I could have used reverts on the page instead of what I did. I left a note on the page explaining the action, referring to Talk, and placed all the page content on Talk. Vandals don't do that.

I have now reverted the page back to blank it, with the note. If I am reverted, I will place a speedy deletion or other appropriate tag. I preferred to try to work with the problem content to extract value from it, if there is any; that remains to be seen. (interesting information, unsourced, is interesting but not yet ready for inclusion in a debatably inappropriate article; if the editor is willing to work to properly source the information, that would be a great contribution to the encyclopedia, whether it remains in this article or is put elsewhere. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Health Ranger
What do you think about self-referentialism? I see you have had dealings with StrengthOfNations in the past. Control Hazard (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Self-reference is the meaning of existence. As to StrengthofNations, I'm not aware of any interaction prior to his appearance placing an RFC tag in Instant-runoff voting. I suspect, somewhat, that he is a straw puppet. If so, I would suspect who he is. On the other hand, if he is a regular sock puppet, and actually does favor IRV, I would likewise have suspicions. --Abd (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, you are supposed to post comments on the other user's talk page, not on your own although that is acceptable as well and possibly even helpful in the event that they wish to continue the conversation without having to recopy the other side of the conversation from their own talk page which you had previously posted your content on and which they will no doubt wish to continue the conversation in a mirrored format as well so that both sides will be duly represented on the respective talk pages. Stayman Apple (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two standard methods for dealing with conversations. One is what that user (probably a sock) asserted, but, in my experience, it makes conversations impossible to follow. So I prefer the other method, that a conversation takes place where it was initiated. Simple. However, there is an exception. If I make a request on an admin page, that page gets automatically watchlisted, which then puts what might be a lot of traffic in my watchlist. I might remove it; in which case I wouldn't see the response unless it is put on my Talk page. *This* is the reason -- the only one, as far as I can see -- to respond on a user talk page to a post on one's own user talk page. To notify a user who might not be watching the page he or she wrote on. Personally, I always watch what I've written, at least for a while.
 * --Abd (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

friendly advice
brevity is the soul of wit 75.108.207.134 (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes.


 * However, witless is the bowl of useless advice.
 * --Abd (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That nearly slipped by me
Two pages into my talk archive, I could have missed it. Thank you for the kind words. :) Durova Charge! 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop the attacks
Repeatedly accusing me of being a conflict of interest editor and repeatedly rehashing my unfounded blocking that was reversed by the admin is overly aggressive. I believe you have as much or more of a conflict of interest as I do, in that you are an adherent of particular voting method and are repeatedly "adjusting" the IRV article to place as much negative spin as possible (though often carefully within the bounds of reasonable argument). However, the recent battle you had with another editor and me about your insistence on inserting a reference to your preferred reform (Approval Voting) in a totally forced and inappropriate manner is way over the line in violation of the NPOV standard.

I suggest when you and I crash into each other with edit reversals from now on, if we can't agree on a compromise on talk, then we seek outside comment, rather than you insisting your edit stand as the only fair version and mine is POV. I tried to post a request for comments on the IRV article talk page, but perhaps I typed it badly, since I don't see it on the RFCpol page. Maybe you can help get it right for me. Tbouricius 19:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I regret your apparent distress over this; I hope you can read my explanation in a way that is helpful to you. You are a COI editor by Wikipedia standards, that is not a doubtful thing. I mention that you are a COI editor when it is relevant to process. Instead of taking it as an insult, you might take it as a badge of honor, that you are active in the world trying to make positive changes. However, COI editors should refrain from contentious edits of articles where they have that conflict.

That I favor an election method under certain conditions does not create a COI. Not only do I have no affiliation with any organization promoting my alleged method-of-choice, as was gleefully pointed out by one of the FairVote editors attempting to discredit me, I was banned from the Approval voting mailing list for alleged off-topic posting, a whole story of its own, full of drama and fascinating stuff of no interest to most people. I propose Approval Voting, not because it is the best method, but because it is a vast improvement over Plurality, *at no cost*, and therefore it does not exhaust reform capital, which could then be used to work on further reforms, such as proportional representation, or, for single-winner, IRV (yes, IRV), or, better, Coombs method or Bucklin voting, or other advanced methods including forms of Range Voting, some are simple enough to be used here.

What my opinions create is a POV, not a COI, and almost all editors, and especially the best, are afflicted by their own POV. That is why we seek consensus, it can transcend POV.

I think you did the RFC correctly, it simply takes time for the bot to get around to doing its work. Good move.

Mr. Bouricius, if you think an edit of mine is POV, please describe *exactly* why, don't simply revert it as POV, and don't cooperate with a sock puppet in making it difficult to maintain the article. That could come back to bite you. I assure you, I would be dissatisfied if my edits result in POV imbalance. I'd encourage you to read the Wikipedia guidelines about NPOV and how to find it in the presence of disagreement. It isn't necessarily easy, but it's worth the effort.

I would also urge you to be careful about trying to keep accurate, sourced information out of the article because it is "confusing" or "too complicated." While the article should certainly be clear and concise, it could be said that, sometimes, we have three desirable characteristics: clear and concise, interesting and informative, and NPOV. Pick two. It can be *very* hard work to find all three; in the field of political action, one wants sound bites, simple statements with punch and some desired effect. You know this, and it is behind the former insistence that the mention of "IRV" in Robert's Rules should be in the introduction, with no further explanation. That is a very good example of how an *arguably* true statement can be POV in effect, and there is a lot written on this subject in the guidelines. As I said, they are worth reading. Even fully true statements can be POV if not presented with balancing facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it's never been said that therefore it's easy. --Abd 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of raw curiosity (and feel free to take it to email via "E-mail this user" if you feel a response would be off-topic here) have you looked much at the Australian lower and upper house voting systems, and if so, what opinion do you have on them? It seems like you know a lot about the topic, and I'm interested in this area, hence my question. Orderinchaos 08:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks
Hey, thanks for backing me up. I've been editing Wikipedia for a while and reading it for a while before I started editing, and if there's one thing I'm really annoyed about it's that I spent a lot of time editing voting systems criteria a while ago (before the 2004 election) and now all that work is deleted with nothing to show for it. Someone (probably Yellowbeard) must have put up AfD's while I've been busy with grad school. - McCart42 (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Yellowbeard was certainly a sock; I have my suspicions as to the puppet master, but.... he has abandoned editing, I think, the master, I suspect, has been learning to go deeper undercover. Yellowbeard, from contribs, quite clearly was an enemy of Range Voting or at least of Clay Shentrup, a very vocal and sometimes rude -- but also very bright -- proponent of Range Voting. It's blatant from the very first edits. He would put up an AfD for an article that wasn't being actively edited, and, big surprise, nobody had it on watch, or if they did, they were busy elsewhere. Then, when the article is gone, nobody notices it for a long time; I've had articles deleted and when I came back later, I'd wonder what happened to it, did I really create that article or was my memory faulty. It's not in my contribs history! -- because edits to deleted articles aren't visible to ordinary mortals, only administrators.


 * There has been controversy over article deletion. There really should be two different kinds of deletion: deletion for copyright violation, libel, etc., articles that are completely inappropriate, (and these might be nuked) and deletion for mere non-notability. The latter really don't do any harm; they might be excluded from indexes or otherwise have some demoted status; but the AfDs of Yellowbeard were only the latter kind, and, in the case of Proportional approval voting, many links became obsolete. Yellowbeard's last edits were fixing all these links. Silly. A huge waste of editor effort, because many of these articles will come back. PAV was notable and supportable, in my opinion, but Yellowbeard certainly was not going to show the evidence, and the election methods community mostly did not show up. I only found out about it when researching Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. The first AfD filed, Schentrup method was appropriate, by current standards, that method was more or less a joke of Clay's. He misspelled his own name in it.... It was utterly inappropriate for him to start an article on it.... but he's not really a Wikipedian, and lots of people, including well-established experts, make that mistake.


 * As to backing you up, you are welcome; however, what I'm actually doing is backing up the NPOV policy of Wikipedia (which I consider more important than notability. Something that is NPOV and non-notable is relatively harmless, and even notable facts can create POV bias when selectively reported. My own POV can be strong, to be sure, but I use it as a POV detector. When we have properly edited articles, every legitimate POV should be able to say: Yes, this is true. We argue *this* and they argue *that*, and these facts are relevant (and maybe those are irrelevant, but the relevant facts we need to have in the article to balance them out are there. The "irrelevant facts" are there so that we can find consensus. So if, understanding this, and actually preferring ultimate truth over my own POV, if I'm offended by an article, if I think it is POV, it probably is. *The same is true for any other POV among those who are sincere, and we routinely assume sincerity, that's WP:AGF.* Wikipedia is an experiment in consensus process, the real work is done through it. Wikpedia is not a democracy, but, in fact, it operates almost entirely as a consensus democracy; there is a trustee who rarely intervenes; and the protection against abuse by that trustee is that we *could* take our marbles elsewhere and our work would not have been wasted. It would merely be a nuisance. But, because the trustee has so thoroughly withdrawn from all but a few central activities (such as actually appointing the members of ArbComm, which are technically merely nominated by the elections), it is highly unlikely that a user revolt would be needed, only if Wales lost his mind ... and the board of Wikimedia backed him up.


 * I'm interested *very much* in Wikipedia process, to me it is even more important than any individual article or set of articles or my advocacy of Approval Voting. Much more important.

--Abd (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, by the way, tell the other guy that about Islam - I completely disagreed with him but didn't feel like arguing. - McCart42 (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, if he asks or if I'm editing an article, maybe. But if I felt I had to intervene every time someone spouts ignorant nonsense, even harmful vitriolic hateful nonsense, I'd go completely insane. Instead, I'm only quietly mad. I wrote on your Talk page essentially to thank you for making that attempt, and to give a little background. To you. If useful, fine. If not, well, I hope no harm done. I'll be in touch.--Abd (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So I'm going to back out of editing voting systems articles for at least 5 months - I have a lot of work to catch up with. If something major comes up like another massive AfD crusade, feel free to post a message on my talk page. - McCart42 (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you for something. Currently, a clearly pro-IRV editor, an acknowledged sock (claims legitimacy, which is certainly possible), is claiming that arguments I make are only my own isolated opinion. Now, I know that is not true, but unless I solicit meat puppets or get perilously close to that, it's hard to prove (at least not quickly). If you occasionally look over Talk:Instant-runoff voting, perhaps watchlist it, and pop in if you see something you agree with (proposed by me or him or some other editor) that is being claimed to be idiosyncratic and inappropriate, and make some comment, it does not have to be long. I've been a student for quite some time of the propaganda in this field, so I'm sensitive to what may seem like harmless language, but, I can assure you, if they are edit warring over it, and it is not clearly necessary, it is not harmless, it is spin with political purpose. There are some current examples under discussion. Thanks in advance for any comment you can make. --Abd (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it...
I didn't do that block you congratulated me for. See various threads on WP:ANI for the fallout. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

About consensus, police powers, and a sad case of misunderstanding AGF.
User:Physchim62 currently is the subject of a case before ArbComm, and he has written about it (indirectly) on his home page, and about his relationship with Wikipedia. I think it's worthy of comment, but he has removed all relevant comment from his Talk page and I'd prefer to leave it clean for him, he has not requested comment, so I'm commenting here; I will use interspersed form, showing my own comments with indents.

(Physchim62 wrote:) I started contributing to Wikipedia nearly three years ago, attracted by the idea of helping to create a free encyclopedia. The project has grown considerably, and changed considerably, since then.

One could argue that the task of creating an encyclopedia can never be completed: this is convenient for certain editors, as it hides the fact that Wikipedia has become its own justification. It exists to perpetuate itself, a never-ending Process, the largest MMORPG in history. "Defending" the project from its "enemies" has become the stated goal of much activity. The encyclopedia merely provides the backdrop.


 * It's worth reading the case: Requests for arbitration/Physchim62. I contributed quite a bit of comment on the workshop page Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop. For reference, there is also Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Proposed decision.


 * I became interested in this case because I was following the situation with User:Durova, who resigned amid a scandal under circumstances that raised many issues about how administrators function; in her case she was clearly working hard to defend the encyclopedia against sock puppets, and she made a mistake. A mistake she corrected within 75 minutes, openly acknowledged it, and apologized. However, the "shouting" that Phsychim refers to truly affected that case; it came out that she had compiled "secret evidence" that she did not wish to openly disclose (and which was moot because she had withdrawn the block based on it), and that there was a private mailing list she had shared the evidence on. There were, shall we say, Loud Demands that every subscriber to this list be revealed, that the list archives be opened, and many users were "shocked, shocked" that Wikipedians communicate with each other privately sometimes. It's an error. Wikipedia process is almost entirely open, the most notable exception is checkuser information, only accessible to a few special administrators, which can correlate IP addresses with user names, and which seems to be broadly acceptable as legitimate. The secret evidence was evidence that Durova compiled from her own research, and disclosing it could harm efforts to identify other abusive sock puppets; Durova was responsible for her own action, and any administrator is free to use whatever evidence they think relevant to form a basis for their own actions. Further, from the beginning, Wikipedians talk to each other outside of Wikipedia. It's actually crucial, for if all communication were through Wikipedia open process, it would also all be centrally controlled, and there would thus be no remedy available against true abuse of authority by the trustees. Quite simply, any criticism that actually touches the trustees, the people with superuser tools, could result in bans *and we would never know about it*. Free speech requires the option of privacy.


 * In any case, I had no prejudice against Physchim62. I thought of him positively as a hard-working administrator. My point is that I had utterly no axe to grind about him, and I'm not aware of any incident where his actions were offensive, prior to the incident that led to the Arbitration, and I only learned about that through the Arbitration itself.


 * What was remarkable to me about the Arbitration was that the case could be decided almost entirely upon the evidence provided by Physchim62 himself. I've been computer conferencing since the 1980s, I was a moderator on the W.E.L.L., back then. I discovered that there were certain controversies which, in theory, should be easily resolvable, because the record of interaction was all preserved. However, what became clear was that for some, it didn't matter what was in the record. What mattered was who was right; if the record contradicted this POV, well, people obviously weren't interpreting it correctly and, "I'm right -- I'm always right -- and so it isn't even necessary to look at the record." A corollary to this was that if someone was offended, and complained, and they were clearly angry, well, they must be wrong. Again, the record didn't matter.


 * In this case, as with most, all the evidence was available. All that is needed is interpretation, nothing, in fact, is hidden. Now, what happens in such situations? All of the phenomena I've seen in the past ... except that something else can also happen, under certain conditions. There are processes for actually making a decision. Generally, a consensus appears. The consensus is far more sophisticated than what any individual could possibly invent, though sometimes some individuals may anticipate it, to various degrees. When this happens, sometimes not everyone will join the consensus, but it can become quite clear what is going on in that case. People can be attached to outcomes, so they may firmly hold to their own personal interpretations of the evidence, beyond all reason.


 * Properly, Wikipedia does not punish such people. The withdrawal of a privilege, in this case the exercise of what amounts to a police power, as an independent "officer" of the community, is not a punishment, it is a protection of the community; further, every such officer should enjoy the general trust of the community. If that trust fails, *for whatever reason*, the possession of these tools by someone not broadly trusted is a hazard to the community, it is divisive, and if editors become afraid to act properly, which includes the right to make mistakes, the project is chilled. Administrators are empowered to make ad hoc decisions and apply them within certain established policies, and even outside that, for it is known and understood that no set of rules and policies can anticipate proper behavior, and every member of this community is free to Ignore All Rules, provided. Provided that they do not disregard the precedents of the community, and they are prepared to accept the consequences if they err. Generally, the *worst* that will happen to an administrator if they violate policy and can't justify it, or, alternatively, can't convince the community that they won't do it again, is that they will be relieved of the special tools that administrators have -- and which are not necessary for the bulk of the work actually done to create the encyclopedia.


 * As to ordinary editors, again, the worst that can happen is that the right to edit the encyclopedia is removed, and, as is well known, it's possible even for a blocked editor to return as a sock puppet, and, provided that the editor does not engage in tendentious edits or vandalism or other violations, it will pass unnoticed. (Usually. Sometimes such a sock may be "caught," even without actual abuse, and thus may be blocked, to enforce a prior block, but the community does not put a lot of effort into detecting even fairly blatant socks. Sometimes to its harm, by the way.)

It is hardly surprising in such an atmosphere that the traditional values of civil discussion and consensus decision-making have a hard time subsisting. In their place has come ochlocracy, the rule of who-shouts-loudest. The mob wants Action, and it wants it Now.


 * Sure, that *might* happen. Is it happening now? More to the point, did it happen in this case? What actually happened was that the circumstances of this case were fairly obvious. I don't see any sign that a "mob" piled in and began shouting. Rather, a series of editors, and I think many of them were experienced administrators, wrote commentaries on proposed findings. The complainant was, indeed, angry, and there were proposed remedies that some thought were excessive. This incident began with an error made by Hesperian, who happened to be an administrator himself, though he did not use his tools in this situation (and his restraint was exactly what would be expected, the use of administrative tools in a conflict of interest situation is contrary to not only policy, but simple common sense). It was argued that Psychsim62 improperly used *his* tools to protect his own POV, but this was largely, in my opinion, a red herring. He may have believed that serious damage was about to be done to many pages through an improper edit of a template. That belief was clearly an error, but ... administrators can make errors. But what happens when they do? Durova showed the way: she promptly corrected it, she undid whatever she could undo, and she apologized.


 * However, in this case, Psychsim62 did not do that. When Hesperian complained about Pshychsim's action (an action that is probably going to be determined was improper ... but that really isn't the point), and he used "colorful" language, calling Psychsim62's argument given as the reason for a fast close of the Template for Deletion discussion that Hesperian had started, a "steaming pile of crap," Psychsim62 clearly got angry. And he had a button called "Block." And he used it. *This* is what he did that so many considered not only an error, but a dangerous one.


 * If I am stopped by a police officer for, say, speeding, and I get angry when the officer issues a ticket, and, as a result, as he is walking away and he looks back, I make the most common "rude gesture," that is extremely offensive, and which could actually cause a physical fight among people who are not police professionals, can the officer arrest me? Happens to be that I know a lawyer who is an ex-officer. He was in this situation, he believed that the officer was rude and he was, perhaps properly, quite angry about it. He made the gesture, but did not make any aggressive move that might reasonably have caused the officer to fear a physical attack. Was he safe?


 * Let's put it this way; if the officer had arrested him, or had beaten him, and this was reasonably alleged, the officer would immediately be relieved of duty. A block is the Wikipedia equivalent of an arrest; an editor (or administrator) who is blocked is no longer free to carry out their ordinary activities. And, *unless there is reasonable fear that immediate damage is about to be done, and the only remedy is an immediate block,* we expect an administrator to not intervene or "arrest" or exercise the privileged powers merely based on a personal dispute or insult. Physchim62 argued that what he described in his response as a "personal attack" -- and he justified the block based on "personal attack," -- was intolerable on Wikipedia.


 * However, while there were some who justified or excused Physchim's behavior with regard to the original dispute, *nobody* confirmed that the message left by Hesperian on Phsychim's talk page was a "personal attack." Rather, multiple editors described it as the use of "strong language," arguably "uncivil," to be avoided; but also noted that such "errors" are common. Further, if one disagrees with the action of an administrator -- or anyone, for that matter -- the recommended first remedy is to discuss it with the administrator, on their Talk page. If editors fear that their complaint, if worded too strongly, is going to result in a block, again, Wikipedia participation is chilled. As to substance, "steaming pile of crap" is quite equivalent to "argument devoid of meaning, and offensive as well." What if an editor believes this about an administrative action -- what if it is even true -- and writes this? Is it a "personal attack?" As was noted by many, this was not a "personal attack," i.e., an attack on a person, but an attack on an *argument*, which is actually proper, though the language used was arguably inflammatory.


 * Now, Physchim62's complaint, above, does describe a danger with Wikipedia process. However, in fact, the tools to actually do something are held by only a few, and decisions are *not* made by voting, for the problem of participation bias is evident and well-known. If an administrator makes a decision contrary to precedent, policy, *and* without justification, based on a lot of users "shouting," that administrator has erred and can be held responsible. That, indeed, is what ArbComm is for, if lower levels of dispute resolution fail, only ArbComm decisions are binding, long-term. In his response to this case, Physchim62 has shown a blatant and serious failure to {WP:AGF Assume Good Faith]]. Rather quickly, before the members of ArbComm began to weigh in, he was anticipating that his position was not going to be sustained. ArbComm has not made any decisions, though voting has begun on certain proposed findings and remedies. Phsychim62, by writing what he has written at this time, *anticipates* that ArbComm is just going to "follow the mob." However, there is, here, no mob, nobody crying for his blood. The recommendation that Physchim62 not only be desysopped but also prohibited from applying for it again without further action by ArbComm did not receive any support. Hardly anybody wants to see Physchim62 "punished," and a phrase that suggested that he be made an example to deter others was, so far, roundly rejected. Many writers, indeed, seemed to be hoping that Phsychim62 would recognize his error and apologize.


 * He violated guidelines when protecting the template he was a part-author of, he violated guidelines in prematurely closing a TfD discussion -- there is no hazard from a discussion, at least not in a case like this! -- all this is apparently being confirmed, not that it was ever in doubt. He could have justified these actions as based on his desire to protect the encyclopedia, though, even though it was actually unreasonable that Hesperian, a trusted administrator, would deliberately, himself, violate policy and wreck hundreds of articles. In other words the fear was an error, it was not, in fact, reasonable.... but Hesperian was not blocked for that. Protection of the template was enough.


 * But the reason given by Physchim62 for the block was not protection of the encyclopedia. It was "personal attack." What this case does establish as a precedent (though I think it was unnecessary, it was already clear) is that an administrator must not block someone simply because that person has, in the administrator's sole opinion, verbally "attacked" the administrator. Even if it *was* a personal attack. Rather, there is process that *any user* can use to deal with attacks. What is offensive is the use of police powers in the service of one's own anger. There has been utterly no support for Physchim62 in this action, yet he appears, from what he has written on his home page, to completely fail to understand that he has, by his own actions, by the arguments he has made in this case, clearly shown that he cannot, at this time, be trusted to hold the baton of administrative power.


 * I think a block from editing was also proposed, and that was roundly rejected. While the WP:AGF failure shown in this case would be worrisome for any editor, not just an administrator, such failure is quite common, editors get heated and sometimes seem to imagine that other editors are Satan incarnate, or clearly under the influence, and, unless they *continue* with personal attacks, edit wars, etc., never see sanctions, just, possibly, warnings. From a single excessive comment -- rare. It would have to be pretty offensive.

The mob, of course, cares little for rules, unless they can be used for repression. Inconvenient rules must be changed, or ignored. They know nothing of the role of the rule of law in any kind of "community". Yet without a fairly stable set of rules, there can be no community. No individual has any interest in investing time and effort in a community if the "rules" can be changed arbitrarily at any time. Most people learn this first in the school playground, even if they don't realise it at the time!


 * Sure. However, no set of rules can protect the paranoid, those who imagine that every criticism is an attack on them. That fear is inside, and that is where its primary victim must recognize it and deal with it. There was, however, no major ignoring of rules here, as far as I can see, *other than by Physchim62.* He ignored clear rules setting the boundaries of administrative power, crucial rules that are based not only on Wikipedia precedent, they are actually common law. His errors with regard to protecting the template were minor, though, and arguably motivated by a desire to protect the project. I doubt that he'd be facing anything more than a slap with a Wikitrout if that is all he had done; indeed, I doubt that this would have gone to ArbComm at all.


 * Had he given as a reason for blocking Hesperian that it was "necessary to protect an important template from edits," he'd have found it difficult to justify, but the case would have been less clear. Problem is, he did not give that reason. He gave the reason of "personal attack." He lost the difference between himself, a person, and the encyclopedia, a project. He showed a clear lack of judgment and personal restraint, fatal flaws in a police officer. Officers are given discretion, and they can make mistakes. But there are limits, clear limits in fact, and he crossed them. And, apparently, continues to fail to recognize this.


 * I'll leave a note for him on his Talk page that this commentary is here, so he can read it. This is *not* an attack on him; he was apparently a hard-working and useful administrator. If there were different classes of administrators, some with the ability to protect articles, and others with the ability to block users, I'd only be seriously concerned about the latter ability. His errors with the template (and, apparently, another prior case) were reversible. (But some do think these errors serious, there *is* some chilling effect possible from an administrator with a conflict of interest to revert a page to the administrator's preferred version and then freeze it there; however, this pales in significance in comparison with abuse of the power to block. While both errors are reversible, blocking actually prevents participation in the project.


 * What I suggest for Physchim62, if he can manage it, is to reread all the material and arguments in the Arbitration, but from a different perspective. Let him read it as if there is a message hidden in there for him, let him follow one of the most basic policies of Wikipedia, Assume Good Faith, and trust that, even if it may seem to him that what is being said is wrong, wrong, wrong, there is good intention there, and in that good intention there is also truth. When people say what they feel with good intention, there is *always* truth in it, something to be learned. This is the lesson that Phsychim62 may have failed to learn in the playground, he and too many other people.


 * His commentary about rules does show that he hasn't understood the first thing about how Wikipedia works. It's got serious problems, I have no disagreement with that. But we also is attempting something that, to my knowledge, has never before been attempted on this scale. It is essential for true knowledge that there be no preconceptions, no "rules", in fact, or at least only a seriously stripped down minimum, rules like civility, AGF, and NPOV. Al Gore, in his book "Assault on Reason," quotes Montesquieu on the importance of the independence of the judiciary. Why is that so important?


 * My understanding is that the judiciary provides mechanisms for finding truth. If bias is introduced by restrictions on the freedom of the judiciary, it becomes impossible to find truth. Truth is, in fact, NPOV. For a community to find NPOV and express it is actually an extremely important function, and good judicial writing -- I'm a fan of it -- is actually NPOV. Opinions, if they are included, are identified as such and attributed.... With law, however, there is so much precedent and clear procedure, long established, that most of it is predictable. The new, largely unprejudiced, free process here, which can be so frustratingly chaotic to some, is actually crucial to the proper development of this collection of knowledge. However, the community does build up precedents; these structures and forms are necessary, and nobody should expect, for example, to be sanctioned for following policy with good intention. But "wikilawyering," in fact, while not sanctioned as such, can still bring down the disapproval of the community; this is justifying an action based on alleged conformance with policy when, in fact, the intention is to protect POV and further *harm* to the community.


 * The theory behind Wikipedia is quite deep, probably deeper -- by far -- than could have been anticipated by the founder (though I don't know him, for sure). Apparently, he listened when the community spoke, for a community that is freely communicating, as this one generally does, is far wiser than any individual. I believe that there are ways to vastly improve the efficiency of this communication, and I expect to be working on that. It's tricky. Too "efficient" can become oppressive, but error in the other direction has an oppressive effect as well, or, at least, a dulling one. Whatever comes to Wikipedia in the future, as process, I'm sure that one of two things will happen: it will be better than I or anyone else is likely to imagine at this point, or Wikipedia will break up and the power and energy will pass to one or more descendant projects. Neither outcome is necessarily a bad one, in fact, fission is how other primitive life forms reproduce and spread.

Wikipedia has been perverted from its original principles: the trolls are setting the agenda and that means that the trolls have been allowed to win. There is little point in me investing further time and effort in this "community". I certainly couldn't recommend to others to get involved.


 * "Troll" apparently, here, is based on a thoroughly paranoid charge (or "suspicion") that Physchim62 supported in the Arbitration that the timing of the incident was suspect, that it came along as Physchim62 was running for ArbComm. Let me put it this way: if a troll was the cause of Physchim62's loss of control over his own behavior when falling into a conflict of interest, the troll did all of us a service. However, it's preposterous. There is no sign that Hesperian had any personal axe to grind with Physchim62, and Physchim62's response could not have been predicted, it came as a shock to the community. It was pointed out that arbitrators can be expected to be insulted and attacked, it comes with the territory. The problem here, of course, is that Physchim62 completely failed to understand conflict of interest policy, and that is an essential for an arbitrator here, it's going to come up again and again. He withdrew his candidacy.


 * It's truly unfortunate. Let me put it this way. I've served as a chair for a national organization at its annual meeting; this organization is pretty much organized anarchically, like Wikipedia. I was elected by a supermajority, in fact, I think it was unanimous (at a face-to-face meeting). If a substantial percentage of the delegates at that conference had not trusted me, I would not have wanted to serve. It's *essential* that the gatekeepers be trusted, and trusted widely. It's not an ordinary position, it's a position of trust, and if the trust is lost, *for whatever reason*, it's time to give it up. There is no shame in not being the chair of a meeting, not being a police officer, and, in fact, it can be a badge of honor. There is a WP:COI editor who works on one of the articles of interest to me, and he has complained that my calling him a COI editor is an attack on him. It isn't, and I wrote to him that he should be proud that his attempt to serve his nation politically creates this COI. I just wouldn't want him to be in charge where he has a personal involvement. And I don't want a user of Wikipedia to have the power to block if he has shown that he can't restrain himself in using that power. His anger might even be justified, it's not the point. I don't want the police beating up criminals, it is not their job to punish, only to serve and protect. Punishment is up to the community, to the judicial power, which is rigorously protected. Police must have broad discretion, to allow them, in fact, to WP:IAR}Ignore All Rules, in the real meaning of that, which of course, does not mean that they can do whatever they please. It means that protecting the public trumps all rules.

While I shall endeavour to complete the projects which I've already started with users who retain my respect, I shall not be taking on any new projects for Wikipedia. None of these collaborations require sysop tools, and so I ask that by +sysop bit be flipped. While there are many administrators who still have my respect and esteem, there are too many with whom I no longer wish to be associated.

Physchim62 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All of us are necessary to the project; or, more accurately, all Points of View are essential, must be represented. Phschim62, for whatever reason, has, so far, been unable to discover in himself how to Assume Good Faith; I don't blame him. It can be very, very difficult, and maybe even most people simply cannot do it. But, if he can somehow manage to review the record of this affair while stepping outside, temporarily, from his own POV, he might find gold in it that will transform his life and the life of those who know him.


 * Or he might reject this commentary, as he has apparently rejected all the commentary of the community in the Arbitration. There was no mob there, no screaming, just a group of editors describing what they saw. Most of the writers, in fact, seemed to assume that Physchim intended well, that he simply made a mistake. But the problem that he did not recognize the mistake when it was pointed out to him, that he, apparently, continues to blame others and, essentially, to assume some seriously negative conditions about the community as a whole, and ArbComm in particular, shows, unfortunately, that, at this point, he has little compatibility with the project, for AGF is a crucial aspect of it. This, in fact, is likely to dog him wherever he goes, if he can't face it now.


 * As to ArbComm, it is a body appointed by Jimbo (who is himself maintained in his position by the board of Wikimedia Foundation, which is classically structured in ways that have been pioneered, in fact, by other organizations anarchically organized -- the example I'm familiar with is Alcoholics Anonymous), and, by apparent tradition, according to the results of an election which used Approval voting, a method which is ancient but which is also being recommended for general use by some political scientists, based on its ability to identify breadth of support. Jimbo has promised to follow the decisions of ArbComm, I understand, so ArbComm is certainly a high authority on Wikipedia. This is quite the opposite of mob rule, these are highly trusted members of the community, and, from what I've seen, they have a sound grasp of the principles operating here. They do not function through the general vote of the community, they are completely free in their discretion, they could decide contrary to *all* the comments in the case. But they are not likely to, since the community, collectively, seems to have seen this case very clearly. There was no hysteria as seen, in my opinion with Durova. What happens is that the community advises ArbComm, and it is the breadth of opinion from the community that is important. What's remarkable in this case is that Physchim62 seems to be totally certain that he is right, but almost nobody confirmed his positions expressed. That's a precarious position to be in!


 * Administrators are servants of the consensus. Someone who does not understand that *can't* properly be an administrator. It's pretty basic.

--Abd (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SSP
For your SSP case on Yellowbeard, file a [{WP:RFCU]] (see Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nrcprm2026 too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Abd, yes in my experience, User:Yellowbeard has violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF more than once. This user should be monitored.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the most incriminatingly POV AfD he proposed and was the first to vote on was:Articles_for_deletion/Controversies_regarding_instant-runoff_voting. How convenient!--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, make a report and get the proof out at Suspected sock puppets. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Report was made, [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (4th)]], with ample proof, maybe even too much. My opinion was that RFCU wasn't actually necessary. Identification as Nrcprm2026 was a reasonable possibility, but by no means clear; however abusive sock puppet behavior is, in my opinion, blatant in this case. However, I'm very familiar with the field of interest of this user and understand how the various AfDs and deletions through redirection are tied together, in ways that may not be visible to someone unfamiliar. Complicating this is that quite a few of the actions were legitimate, and so some will look at that and think it's fine. However, it is as if some user, say, targeted for deletion articles on, say, "progressive" issues or points, starting with truly non-notable ones, but pretty quickly escalating. But not "conservative" issues, not ever. A strong characteristic of the AfDs is an extremely brief justification, I call these "drive-by" AfDs.


 * Articles for deletion/Set-wise voting "Delete. Original research."


 * Articles for deletion/Bayesian regret "Original research."


 * (Other deletionist editors may also do this.)


 * (Bayesian regret was particularly outrageous. It's not difficult to find reliable sources for it. Why did he target this article? Well, Bayesian regret is the measure used by Warren Smith of the Center for Range Voting in his simulations of voting method performance. And, for me, the point of this is not whether or not the article topic was notable, it is that it was picked as part of a strategic attack on the theoretical foundations of Range Voting (Bayesian Regret), on the Center for Range Voting (which was marginally notable then, it is definitely notable now, particularly given that I've seen excerpts from a book, major publisher, that goes into detail on it; I've been waiting for the book to be released -- friends have seen bound proofs), on a Range Voting activist, or more to the point, an anti-IRV activist, Clay Shentrup (the very first AfD and a very legitimate deletion in itself), and on Proportional approval voting, approval being a Range method and this being a competitor to Single transferable vote, which is the real goal of FairVote, IRV, though few experts think it a good method, is being promoted because it would get the U.S. over the hump (STV is a complex method, but most of the work has been done if IRV has been implemented


 * The pattern is that of a U.S. based IRV activist, either knowledgeable about election methods or being fed information by one who is; someone has an overall picture of what articles to hit. Previously, we had sock activity pursuing the same goal with article content (that was Nrcprm2026, and this is why that was the suspect, and the Executive Director of FairVote was basically keeping a boot on the article, though IP edits, criticism appearing was reverted out with "editor is a critic of IRV." The point here is not to beat a dead horse but to note that there are those with a motive of keeping inconvenient information out of Wikipedia. And that is the behavior of Yellowbeard. I don't recall having noticed, reviewing his contributions, anywhere that he actually contributed information to articles, or made constructive edits. It's all about deleting content, either through AfDs or through deleting article content and redirecting it, generally without discussion in article Talk. If nobody is watching the article, logging in frequently enough, poof! it's gone and they quite well might not notice it, and, if they do, many users would not know how to figure out what happened and get it back.


 * To be clear, I'm personally convinced that Yellowbeard is either a sock puppet, that is, that he also edits or has edited in the past with another account, or he is a pure SPA, someone who put in a lot of time to learn Wikipedia procedure, and then created the account for political purpose and started to use it. He shows no interest in building the encyclopedia, he is interested in keeping certain kinds of information out of it. From history, I know that there are people like this, and I see utterly no sign that Yellowbeard is anything different from this. What really put me on this was his first AfD nomination, made within minutes of registration; Articles for deletion/Schentrup method. Why that totally obscure article? Clay Shentrup had created this method, naming it after himself, and referred to it as such on some forum. Yes, he mispelled his name. Clay Shentrup is a Range Voting activist and common critic of IRV. The article was totally not notable, I'd never heard of it, and I know Clay well. Then, in fairly short order, Yellowbeard went after Center for Range Voting and Bayesian Regret. It did not take a lot of effort, it is much easier to get these articles killed than to bring them up to snuff. Typically content criticism is used to impeach the article, such as a claim that the article is POV. A good example of an article that is, apparently, not POV, as he claimed, it is, instead, merely reporting the definition of a term in Polish political science, is Articles for deletion/Five-point electoral law But POV in articles isn't grounds for deletion, it is grounds for editing them to properly attribute POV (if it should stay) and to balance it.


 * Closing admin, Rlevse, considered the evidence inadequate as proof, but seemed, at least at first, to have been relying entirely on RFCU, which, in my opinion, isn't the point. A positive from RFCU would have been easy, no further consideration necessary. However, Rlevse did, then, ask another to look at the evidence, who likewise concluded that it wasn't conclusive. Both confirmed that there was reason to be suspicious. So, next steps.... RFC? It is not an emergency, it is relatively easy to prevent continued harm from this user simply by watching him. His current activity, which is at a very low level, is itself, however, more evidence of policy violations. But I'll leave it to others to see this from his contribs, and from looking at what he claims.


 * Yellowbeard depends on people having knee-jerk responses and not actually checking things out. He is attempting to control content through administrative process, and he, unfortunately, readily makes false statements, such as the claim that I've refused to discuss his redirections, when, in fact, he places merge tags, then starts no discussion. I start the discussion, he does not respond. My guess? Too much work. It is easier to toss out accusations.
 * --Abd (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

 *  jj137  ♠ 01:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

At the suggestion of an administrator, I've started monitoring and sometimes participating in a wider range of Wikipedia processes than are involved in my relatively narrow areas of article interest. Generally, my primary interest is, in fact, process in organizations like Wikipedia, so this is entirely appropriate. In the case of this candidate, I saw that he had voted something like "per nom" in an AfD where the evidence presented by the nominator was false, and that he had done this within minutes of the AfD nomination. Or something like that. I pointed out that users who pop in and vote in AfDs without reviewing and confirming the evidence add noise to the process, and weight to unverified evidence. It's not supposed to be a vote, anyway, but a collection of evidence and analysis. So I voted to deny the admin bit, but did note that if the candidate satisfied me by response, that I might change my vote. He did, immediately and clearly, acknowledging that he'd acted in error, so I changed my vote. I do not expect administrators to not make mistakes, indeed, if they never make mistakes, they aren't trying hard enough to serve the community. The problem comes when an administrator errs -- violates policy or the intention of policy --. and then defends the mistake in the face of clear and cogent argument, and it gets worse when the notice of error is backed by obvious consensus. Such an administrator is a danger to the project and has completely misunderstood the administrative role, which is not to serve personal opinion. This administrator did not wait for some consensus to appear, he took the criticism objectively and responded immediately. Which is a sign of a good administrator.

I'm not sure why I come up with the following here, it has more to do with other problems with administrators, but I've been the chair of contentious meetings. If someone rose and moved, say, "I move that the chair, an obvious idiot, out to destroy this organization, be removed immediately from office," I would not have the offender removed as disruptive. I'd ask, "Is there a second?" If there was, I think that goes immediately to vote, it is not debatable. No chair can function in a democratic society who does not have the confidence of, as a *minimum*, a majority. Administrators are somewhat like chairs of meetings; they set aside their own opinions when functioning with the tools of that office, and follow policy, precedent, and their understanding of the community vision, always remembering that the ultimate authority in a meeting is not the chair, but the assembly itself. As my job as chair was, in part, to maintain order, I would, in fact, order the critic removed if the critic then proceeded to shout and actually disrupt, as with "None of you spineless fools will stand up against this tyrant?" In that case, again, any member of the meeting, other than the alleged offender, could immediately object to my order, possibly staying it if the objection were seconded. But here, on Wikipedia, there are many administrators, and, as an example, precedent has become clear that an administrator does not ordinarily block a user on the grounds that the user has allegedly insulted the administrator; rather, that task would fall to another administrator, thus bringing in a second opinion, and, of course, all of this is appealable, and a second administrator who blocked merely to back up his or her friend, rather than to enforce policy, could come under review. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Joyeux Noël
I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation
Hi, Abd. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Deleted Article Summability criterion
Done. I've moved the article to User:Abd/Summability criterion. Best wishes! --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks
I see I have now gotten involved in the Ceoil mess. He just couldnt keep himself from offending yet another editor. thanks fort he talk page watch. DGG (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I would not ordinarily edit or revert someone else's talk page except to add something, but this was blatant, a user reverting your removal of material from your own Talk page. I consider that a user should be able to delete material from their own Talk, absolutely, unless some specific prohibition exists. Warnings are important for the record, but they are present in History, and diffs are used anyway in process that needs proof of warning. I did not form any opinion regarding the legitimacy of the complaint or objection or comment itself, this was pure process, this could even be automated. (User reverts deletion by "owner" of Talk page material ... a bot could do it, I'd think. This process, in fact, could automate protection of any page from such reverts: it would function best set of users be defined as "owners" of pages, not for maintenance of POV, but, again, a trusted set of editors being rated by consensus as trustworthy. Administrators handle this manually, as such a trusted set, by blocking offenders or protecting, fully or partially, pages. Whatever can be automated of that without hazard should be done, to deal with the increasing problem of scale. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ADHD, etc
You have inadvertently referred readers to the Wikipedia page on Tim Hitchens, who is not even a relative of mine, if they want to know who I am. Obviously this is just a mistake. I have tried to post a short note correcting this, but it does not appear on the page when I do so. Can you pleasse correct this, and let me know if you ahve any idea why I can no longer post anything omn the ADHD discussion? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forget that, it has now appeared. PHClockback (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrgh. Sorry, I have no idea how I managed to make that mistake, other than maybe having a surgical procedure the same day? I'd referred to you as Peter Hitchens, it's in your signature, so where in the world did I get "Tim"? Bad coincidence that there is an article on him, or the red link would have stood out like a sore thumb -- that's the first thing I look for when editing. I deleted the Tim link and replaced it with a Peter link. I never saw the Tim article. --Abd (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice explanation
Hi Abd, nice explanation of original research, primary sources versus secondary sources and the issue of "balance" on the Talk:adhd page.--Vannin (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's nice to know *someone* is listening. Horse to water. I have no interest in keeping notable controversy out of the article, and no interest in making the article confusing and overbalanced toward controversy. I have ADHD, as you might note from my user page, but I have no proof that this is (1) physical organic difference in my brain structure or chemistry, (2) *not* a "physical" difference, (3) is or is not a "disease," (4) that medication is good for me, etc. However, let me put it this way. ADHD for me, at my age (63) is *definitely* a disorder, and I can look back and see the damage done to career and relationships. On the other hand, I wouldn't trade it for anything, I'm proud of who I am and what I've done. Overall. I'd just like to have known, and there are things I could have done better, important things, if I'd understood all this decades ago or earlier, and I'm grateful to find out now. All this, of course, is my personal experience and is not reliable source for an article. But it does frame the controversy for me. Some of the controversy is just plain silly, semantics. All human behavior, aside what we can ascribe to the "ghost in the machine," is biologically based. (With computers, we can make a somewhat arbitrary division between hardware and software, but with human beings, our memories are "built" as a network of *physical* connections.) Other parts of the controversy are serious business, like major money involved, careers, etc. Just a fact, it proves nothing at all about ADHD, and is simply fodder for those who care more about argument than truth, about being right (and identifying the bad guys) over being thoughtful and listening. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A fundamental misunderstanding

 * Well, this is my Talk page, so I'm going to go against normal practice and intersperse, as if this were a kind of conversation. That's because Clockback's comment is so dense with misunderstanding of my intentions and of Wikipedia process.

As I prepare to take this matter to whatever arbitration I can find (I shall not rest until you this matter is sorted out), I will make one last attempt to appeal to reason and compromise.


 * I have not seen today's edits, but there is nothing I can see, so far, to mediate or arbitrate. That is, there is no specific question, no specific edit or specific set of edits, no ongoing edit war (though one may have started since I looked.) Wikipedia expects editors to try to work out compromise and find consensus *before* trying to seek administrator attention or mediate or arbitration. Arbcomm, at this point, wouldn't touch this issue with a ten-foot pole. (It's quite the same with standard court process. "You won't agree with me" is not *ever* a cause of action, "you won't do what I think needs to be done" will be tossed out of court, unless some specific legal obligation is shown. Clockback has not attempted to make proper edits to the article and been reverted. And the history clearly shows that. He made *massive* edits, many of them clearly improper, and it is possible that, buried in there, was *something* legitimate. What I suggested to him was to pick his best piece of evidence, his best-sourced claim, and try to put it in. If that doesn't succeed, then we would have a specific dispute to resolve, mediate, or arbitrate. However, Arbcomm does not arbitrate content issues, it arbitrates process and policy issues. Arbcomm does not write policy, though it can be creative in interpreting it.

I notice that you have said the following about my efforts to balance the 'ADHD' article, on the talk page: "What was the problem with this text, besides being unable to read it [My comment - if you knew how to fix that, why didn't you respond to my appeal to do so, if you are so keen on the co-operative spirit of Wikipedia?]?


 * As soon as I looked at the text in detail, I saw what was wrong and fixed it. That text wasn't in the article any more, User:Scuro had taken it out. I had to look back at article history to find it. Why didn't I look sooner? Well, I considered the whole extra draft article a waste of time. Most of the changes that I saw from my first glance at it were attempts to "balance" the article with weasel words, unsourced, and what was sourced wasn't adequately sourced. It was far too much, as well, to deal with at one time. One piece, one change, is what I'd suggested to Clockback. He didn't take well to the suggestion.

[I had written:] Well, the speech in the House of Lords is primary source. It is not subject to peer review, nor to any kind of judgment, aside from a very informal judgment of someone inviting the speaker, or the speaker having a seat, as to balance and accuracy. I shudder at the thought that we could, for example, cite a speech by a politician, speaking on the floor of the U.S. Senate, as to fact and balance regarding, say, global warming. Such a speech establishes some level of notability for an opinion, but not necessarily enough to counterbalance a broad consensus for an encyclopedia article."

This is a category error. I do not addiuce tjhe Hosue of Lords exchange as evidence for or against the 'ADHD' diagnosis. I adduce it as evidence for the existence of a controverys about ADHD.


 * That is not in question. I do wish Clockback would pay attention. The speech does not establish sufficient notability. There is a controversy about ADHD. Let me repeat that: there is a controversy about ADHD. The article reflects that; if there were not, there would not be a link in the article to Controversy about ADHD! The question is the notability of the controversy. If there is a reliable source -- I suspect there is -- that makes the *judgement* that this controversy is significant enough to make it appropriate to start to say in the article "alleged diagnosis" or the like, then we have something to chew on. The PBS page shows some level of controversy, but not yet enough to warrant more than some mention in the article. How widely is Baughman accepted? *I am not arguing against the existence of a controversy, nor against its notability -- my opinion is that it is notable -- nor against any specific position of prominence. I am, instead, pointing to Wikipedia policy and process, which, apparently, Clockback dislikes. I can understand. It can be frustrating to know something *for certain* and be unable to put it in the article because of a lack of peer-reviewed source. I deal with this every day. My ultimate answer will be, in some cases, to *create* peer-reviewed source. I.e., to write an article and get it published with peer review. That, however, takes getting off my duff, so to speak, and doing some *real* work. Part of that work is finding reliable sources for factual claims involved, or doing the primary research to show what is needed (or not).

This does not require peer-review to be valid.


 * This is correct. We can cite non-peer-reviewed sources as the opinion of the writer or speaker. However, what do we do with that opinion? How notable is it? Is the person an expert specifically on the issue? Is the opinion isolated or widespread? And these are difficult issues. That's why I pointed, first, to editing the Controversies article, *because the notability of the opinion, as compared to an alleged consensus in the fied, becomes much easier to establish.* If an opinion is basically notable -- and an opinion by, say, a neurologist, testifying before Congress, on ADHD, would be notable -- then it would, theoretically, be welcomed into the Controversies article. That's why I suggested, first, cleaning up that article. It should be easier, and should then lay a foundation for whatever work can be done to balance the main article.

Even if you ignore the fact that the speech is in response to an intervention by a distinguished scientist and expert on the brain, That is precisely why the material is relevant and should be contained in the article, because it illustrates the only thing I seek to establish in this entry, namely the existence of controversy.


 * Clockback isn't paying attention. The controversy exists, and it's mentioned in the article, and explained in some detail -- poorly written and sourced -- in the Controversies article. Now, how do we change the text to reflect this? While it is conceivable that some overall consensus could appear on policy for this particular article, and then edits would proceed from it, I have never seen this happen. Rather, POV editors make various attempts to fix the article from their perspective, these are discussed, debated, and sometimes there is some edit warring, and, *usually*, out of this, with or without administrative intervention, some consensus appears and the article improves. It is a slow, frustrating, and unreliable process, Wikipedia is, from my point of view, highly inefficient. There would be better ways, but.... it is not so easy to change, the community is huge, with large vested interests (not vested in some specific POV position on content, *but in terms of concept of how Wikipedia should operate.* This happens in every large peer association which does not have what I consider efficient process -- and the flip side is that what is ordinarily considered efficient process is actually oppressive of minorities, and the community here recognizes that and opposes standard solutions (such as representative democracy through elections), and will probably oppose, knee-jerk, what I'm proposing. But what I'm proposing works through voluntary cooperation, it is, in fact, anarchic, and can only be stopped by two forces: apathy that is truly massive, and active and persistent oppression. Both conditions are operating on Wikipedia, but .... there is hope.


 * Clockback, if there is something in all you wrote that is reliably sourced, and I am not denying that there is -- I think there probably is --, *put it in the article*. Don't spend hours revising and making it perfect, don't waste your time. Just put one piece in, giving us something to chew on. This process will reveal the strengths and weaknesses of your position and sources. You or someone else may then be able to fix these. But without that, there is only grandstanding, what is really sophisticated whining.

I do not wish the article to say that 'ADHD' does not exist, even though I personally believe this to be the case. I cannot prove a negative and nor can anyone else. It is notoriously impossible. It is up to those who believe in it to prove its existence, which they are still seeking to do without success.


 * Well, what would you think about someone who claims there is no Santa Claus, when many people claim to have met him? There is a great story written by Carl Sagan, a scientist and sceptic, which was even made into a movie, Contact, and the protagonist -- it's clearest in the book -- goes through an experience which she can relate, but cannot prove. The classic example is God. Some people have experience that proves *to them* that there is *something* more than our ordinary conceptions, and they call this God. Frequently, these people communicate with each other and find agreement on their experience. There is a larger body of people who *believe* what these experienced ones report, but who can't personally testify to it. And then there are many who don't believe it, they deny the existence of this "God," though, normally, they can't really define what it is they don't believe in, what I've seen in these debates is mostly, "Whatever it is you believe, it's wrong." Of course, they don't say it that way, but do a linguistic analysis.... So does God exist. Certainly. In some people's minds, if nothing else. (As to something else, I've never seen a sound "proof" either way. Proof depends on assumptions, always, stated or not. Certainly the best proofs that exist do, and they state the assumptions as axioms.)


 * The question is not proof, but consensus. The "project," (the encyclopedia) is intended to be the "sum of all human knowledge." There is semantic ambiguity there which is behind much of the division among Wikipedia editors, mostly over "sum," -- which can mean "summary" or "totality," hence the deletionist or inclusionist positions -- but what is relevant here is that "knowledge" is not "truth," it is what people *think*. And with technical articles, it is what experts think. And then "sum", as summary, requires us to consider balance, and not fill an article with text based on WP:FRINGE opinion. How do we determine where to draw the line? Consensus. Which does not mean "vote." It's more sophisticated than that.

If those who believe it exists wish to argue this case on Wikipedia, I am delighted that they should so so and reveal the workings of their logic to the rest of us. But they mustn't be allowed to claim that it is a settled fact, or shelter behind the suppression of the opinions of their opponents.


 * I look at any tertiary source, and ADHD is presented as a fact. The controversy isn't even mentioned. You've got to understand, Clockback, that you are trying to move a mountain. The only way to do it, really, is one shovelful at a time. Either shovel snow or go inside and stay warm. But shouting at the snow that it is ignorant and in the wrong place isn't going to clear a path.

My sole purpose from the start has been to ensure that the article makes it plain to the lay reader that the diagnosis is contentious - which it indubitably and undeniably is. Do you really not see this?


 * Of course. Do it. But do it properly. That's what you consistently overlook. You do not understand Wikipedia process, it irritates you, and you basically reject it. Another editor took some pains to explain to you what was wrong with your text, why it could be seen in Edit but still did not display. So why didn't *you* fix it? You claimed it was too complicated to understand. Well, his explanation could have been better, but it was there, it might have taken some re-reading and study and perhaps experiment. But there are also help pages which explain the whole thing. Clockback, if you can't understand something simple like how to place a wiki tag, why should I expect that you understand something extraordinarily complex, like the question of the reality of ADHD? From my point of view, the same lazy thinking could be behind both positions. You are accustomed to someone else editing for you. You can't depend on that here, it might happen and it might not. Certainly someone who thinks your insertion is wrong isn't like to fix it! It's easier to take it out. I fixed the problems in that particular piece that I quoted -- or it would have, as it did before, trashed the entire remainder of the Talk page. That's because I wanted to discuss the material.


 * Now, can you please accept this straightforward point ( I see that another Wikipedian, entirely independently of me, is attempting to make almost exactly the same point and being repeatedly reverted by you.


 * I've done only one revert. So what is this "repeated"? You are thinking very sloppily. I could tell you why, but would you listen?

Doesn't this suggest to you that you may be mistaken?)?


 * About what? Wikipedia policy? That's just about all I've been writing about, and acting upon, and I've reverted Scuro as well, he went outside of policy on the Fred Baughman article.

It will save us all so much time and effort if you will Clockback (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be simpler to just make edits and not argue about them. *Establish* them with source meeting WP:RS or, at least, the fundamental policy WP:V. I take the time to write about all this because policy is, in fact, my primary interest, it trumps content for me. I.e., I believe that if we have good policy we will have good content, and trying to get good content without good policy can be a huge waste of time. --Abd (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

unofficial and official warnings
I've argued content, as have several others, and supplied references, as have several others. We've all been squelched. This is because one user has decided that his opinion trumps all others, every time. It is not arguing from personality to point this out. I haven't reverted anything for days and don't intend to. If this brings others into the matter, I'm only too pleased. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:BATTLE. Some users with POVs push them, and contend stubbornly for them, it is merely part of the process. Wikipedia is highly inefficient, a great deal of editor time is wasted dealing with issues that would be resolved quickly if there were better structure. But how to get that structure and what it would look like is not clear to most -- and a majority opinion among active editors at this point would be highly anti-hierarchical. It is clear to me, because this is, in fact, my primary area of interest, but that does not get it done. So we have to deal with WP as it is. I'm using reverts sparingly, but it is an appropriate answer, within limits. You have *exactly* the same power as other users, there is no serious black mark against you, you are not laboring under some disadvantage, except the natural one of your ignorance. (Ignorance is the state of nature, so that is *not* a personal criticism. We are all more ignorant than we are knowledgeable, but the areas of ignorance differ.) "We've all been squelched" is the language of victim, the poor oppressed, with no power. It's an error. You have not been squelched. You are merely encountering natural resistance to change, from someone who more or less enjoyed the status quo. What did you expect? Roses? Others are indeed being brought into the matter, and why? *Because someone finally inserted some sourced text on the controversy.* That's why. All those words in Talk *delayed* the matter. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Circumlocutory stuff and nonsense. There is no objective proof of 'ADHD', and therefore those who doubt it have no need to offer elaborate proofs of their position. Many people doubt its existence. The article should say this, prominently and clearly. It doesn't. What did I expect? Honesty and fairness is what I expected, and will continue to work for. Nor am I requiring sources because I was criticised for not providing them. (see your message to me elsewhere). I am requiring sources because it is the only method to hand to make my point, that vastly different levels of rigour and proof are required for different positions on this matter. Anyone who wishes to argue for 'ADHD' being an uncontentious fact can say what he likes in this article. Anyone who wishes to suggest that it is controversial is excluded. And that is all I have ever sought to do - to ensure that this article states the undeniable, much-discussed, whopping great fact that the diagnosis is controversial.  But the unproven, unproveable assertions of the ADHD lobby are sacrosanct, protected by their eternal watchdog from any doubt. I most certainly did provide sources, in my draft edit, deliberately produced as a draft to avoid further reversion battles and a threatened ban. And my changes were still rejected out of hand  Because my sources didn't count. I do not, as it seems to me,  have exactly the same power as other users. If I repeatedly revert reversions of my factual contributions, I am threatened with various fates. But if I make a factual contribution, the person who repeatedly reverts it because he says so seems to face no such penalty. Inertia favours the existing (guarded) article.Also red triangles and formal warnings are deployed against me by persons claiming authority. Please don't lecture me or patronise me. If you're as disinterested as you say you are, and and good at computers,as I am not,  then you would surely have helped me when I needed it and specifically asked for it  (sorting out my draft would have been useful). But you didn't. If you have helped me, then please tell me where you did so, and if I accept that this was help, I'll thank you for it. But the entry remains a disgrace, deprived (more than once)of a clear, truthful, prominent and well-sourced statement that the diagnosis is contentious. Since 'ADHD' has never been proved, doe snot offer any proof of itself and has zero objective scientific basis, doubting its existence is a good deal easier than doubting the existence, even, of Santa Claus. Its proponents are the ones who have the case to make. This really shouldn't be so hard to get in to the article. Clockback (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Peter Hitchens, you continue to miss the point. You are arguing content, I'm pointing out process. I know the process better than you. Imagine you went into court with this! You'd be well advised to have an attorney speak for you, because if you started ranting and raving about the injustice of the other side, you'd be sanctioned. There is *process* for all that, and if you don't follow process, you'll be tossed out on your ear. From court. You have to work pretty hard to get tossed out of Wikipedia, ignore warnings, and generally abuse the editing privilege. Your description of what happened -- and is happening -- with the article is inaccurate. You *have* the same power as other users *unless you are ignorant.* Look, you are a conservative, at least theoretically. TANSTAAFL. Stupid is not as effective as smart. If you don't understand legal process, and especially refuse to understand it and rant at the court about how it should conduct itself, how far will it get you? If you learn how to edit according to the guidelines, and learn how to deal with other editors with strong POVs, and if what you want is just, and you can be patient, you will *probably* get it. There are no guarantees. Imagine an early 20th century Wikipedia and an article on, I don't know what they would have called it, "homosexuality disorder." You might be right as rain, but ... not yet. Society would have to catch up with you. Yes, I've read your blog. You are an entertaining writer, accustomed to what you see as forthright speech, it's easy to see why you have been successful in your field. But you also have huge blind spots, and you seem resistant to learning about them. It's the latter that is really a problem, not the former. Everyone has blind spots! That is, in fact, one reason why humans need each other, why recovery from addictions in isolation, by sheer will-power, is rarely successful.


 * Yes, the entry remains a disgrace. Now that we agree on that, what to do? *This is the question.* *How* do we improve the article? To succeed in this requires developing a consensus among the editors. Some might think this impossible, they seem so far apart. But it's happened again and again, particularly when someone skilled at dispute resolution *at the basic level* gets involved.


 * You say, "its proponents are the ones who have the case to make." No, all editors may have to make their case, and, yes, there is an advantage to the status quo, *unless* new editors come in with *sourced* fact and analysis. It is nearly impossible to maintain an article in some privately preferred state, unless a community consensus has been obtained, and the community clearly thinks that the article, uh, sucks. But it takes individual editors, and often ones with some POV, to improve the article. Usually, those with no POV aren't sufficiently interested! There are a *few* who are pure encyclopedists, who have mastered the form. However, consider what you are up against. What major encyclopedia gives significant prominence to the controversy? What textbook or other tertiary source? If you can find one, you'll have a better case!


 * I'm quite aware of how frustrating it can be to know something that is contrary to the common opinion among "experts." One of the first articles I worked on was Atkins nutritional approach. It is still a fairly poor article, needing attention, a hodgepodge of compromises without depth, at least last time I looked. I see, very frequently, articles in magazines and newspapers which repeat what has been the party line for over thirty years: "saturated fat is bad for you." "A diet low in saturated fat is healthier." I have high cholesterol. My doctor tells me every cardiologist in the area would want to put me on statins. Why? High cholesterol. I have no other risk factors. Now, I didn't buy it, I did the research. High cholesterol is poorly associated with heart disease. Saturated fat in the diet *improves* blood lipid balance, there is *no* reason to believe that it causes heart disease, it is an error from another era that persisted, some bad research that was politically accepted. It's all been documented by Gary Taubes, in his recent book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. I recommend it, and so do some surprising supporters, such as Andrew Weil. It is essentially the history of research into obesity and other diseases of civilization, the most massive review of the literature yet undertaken, certainly for popular publication (it is heavily footnoted and sourced, he put years of research into it, and he's one of the best science writers we have, he is *not* a diet doctor and this is not a diet book.) The information which the book is based was always there, but it existed in pieces in different specialized fields. He documents what was actually a *false* consensus, there never was agreement among the scientists as to what became official government dietary recommendations, and probably these recommendations have caused millions of premature deaths. It's a huge story, not nearly well enough noticed. Peter, I'd typically be classified as "progressive" or "liberal," but it was liberals who did this to us.... and the conservatives stood by and watched. If they had acted, it would not have happened. So my kids are given 2% milk in school, not whole milk. Why? Any research showing this is better for kids? Nope. Theory, "fat is bad for you, fat makes you fat, kids are becoming obese, etc., etc." Are kids becoming obese? Probably. Why? Well, lowering fat in the diet will do it! Humans are generally homeostatic with diet; lower one constituent in the diet, another will replace it. And it appears we were not designed for anything like the carb level of modern diets, which only became possible with agriculture. We *can* eat carbs, we can even live on them, but, apparently, not well, *unless* certain other factors are present, such as major exercise, high fiber -- and fat when it can be obtained. However, carbs are *not* necessary for human nutrition, there really isn't any doubt about that. The Inuit had, before civilization, almost zero carbs in the diet, they did not have the "diseases of civilization" and one explorer decided to test the diet out, he lived with no carbs for some years, as I recall, and was healthy. He came back to the U.S. and they did not believe him, so he did it in a hospital under medical supervision. Great story, Taubes tells it but I was familiar with it before. On the other hand, take fat out of the diet, and people get sick, fairly quickly. It is *necessary*. Taubes makes a good case that high carb diets, and especially those heavy with processed carbs (which cause rapid rise in insulin levels), are the primary cause of the increases in obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and even cancer. (Yes, there is an obvious mechanism as to why it would increase cancer rates.)


 * You have the same power as Scuro -- who is the only one I see reverting necessary changes out of the text. You violated 3RR, you were warned. He has not violated 3RR as far as I have noticed. He's pushed it. You went over the edge. That's the difference. You could revert him. But, understand, that if you persistently reverted without good cause *as judged by an administrator who looks at it*, you can be blocked for edit warring, even without violating 3RR. But you would be warned first, almost certainly. And if you think a block is inappropriate, there are quick appeals and slow appeals. Being blocked is not really a big deal, in my opinion, I would suggest that an editor who is *never* blocked is probably not working hard enough to improve the encyclopedia and protect it from vandals and POV pushers. (Or has really learned how to work the process, but note, experienced administrators get blocked from time to time. Also note that administrators lose their privileges for making bad blocks, sometimes. Administrators, in theory, have no more authority over an individual article than you or I.)


 * Perhaps this is all wasted on you. Too bad. But I've certainly wasted a lot of my time before, it's a choice I make because, once in a while, someone listens. If you look over my talk page, you'll see I was warned by an experienced user for making contentious edits on one article, a stern warning about the nonsense I was insisting upon. I responded to him with evidence and an explanation of what was going on. He did a total about face, saying he had been depending on what others had said about my edits, he studied them, and then he nominated me to be an administrator. *I don't want to be an admin.* But, out of courtesy to him, I accepted, and was promptly snowed out, because I only had about 500 edits, and the assumption is that to be a good admin, you have to be a very experienced editor. Maybe. Probably not, what would be more important would be a good grasp of the operating principles of Wikipedia. But I was relieved. Being an administrator is a colossal pain, just look at the Talk page or Contributions of any active administrator. I'd rather work on articles, and being an administrator is *no* help for that, it's a conflict of interest and admins get bounced for using their tools to further their own opinions. And there is no money in it, but a lot of responsibility. Bad structure, actually. It's a Ponzi scheme, admins are burning out right and left.
 * --Abd (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Being silly again, while acting as if you have moral superiority
I knew the changes would be reverted, as I said, but not because the changes were frivolous (as I explain, every word was true and justified by a link to Castellanos) but because the guardians of the page are determined to exclude material allowing a lay person to see clearly that the diagnosis of ADHD is contentious and without scientific foundation. I am being accused of 'warring', but it is not I who aggressively deletes my opponents' entries. I question some of their assertiosn, but leave them standing. I am happy for their case to be put. Mote and beam, old chap. But please, please, report me to someone. I have been threatened with action against my alleged bad behaviour over and over again and it never happens. Why not? Could it be that those who make these threats don't ahve all that much confidence that what they are doing is really so fair, or so procedural? PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are three cases: I have moral superiority, you have moral superiority, or neither of us does. I say what I see, sometimes people think this means I think I am superior. It doesn't. Like most people, I can see others better than I can see myself. We are mirrors, to a degree. If I say, Peter, you have a beam in your eye, you can cite beam and mote, or you can check your eye. Which behavior is more likely to result in clear sight? People with clear vision have it because they checked for stuff in their eyes, and removed even motes.


 * As to action, I've explained the situation many times. You are naive. Wikipedia is slow, users can sometimes get away with egregious behavior. I've seen users blocked for less than what you have done. Others have done worse with no consequence. *But*, if problems continue, eventually it comes to the attention of more and more users. The attention of a single administrator can be quirky. Get the attention of many, as with a post to WP:ANI, and it becomes more reliable. Wikipedia ultimately operates differently on a large scale than on a small scale. On a small scale, it is chaotic and unpredictable, heavily affected by participation bias. On a large scale -- should one manage to gain attention at that level -- it is far more predictable. I have not threatened you with action. I've warned you, and I've confirmed the warnings of others. Yesterday, for the first time, I solicited administrator attention, on his Talk page, and not just about you, you can look at the post, it should, in fact, show up on your watchlist (if it doesn't, you may not be using your watchlist. I'd recommend it). I pinged Versagreek, who had intervened here before, apparently on his own. He is a new administrator (December), and he extended you the courtesy of not blocking you for a 3RR violation. A more experienced administrator might have blocked you at first sight, for 24 hours. Or not. They are all different. If I wanted to create consequences for you, I'd not have chosen him, I'd have chosen an administrator who was more block-happy. --Abd (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WARNING
Abd - can you please STOP making personal assumptions and comments about me and confine yourself to editing the ADHD article or I WILL take this further, thankyou. Miamomimi (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to need diffs. If you intend to take this further, you'll need them anyway. I can't stop what I'm not doing, or4 don't realize I'm doing, and, remember, I have ADHD. This means, among other things, that I will take you literally and not, as someone else might, project a meaning that others would immediately understand without it being said. I have, in the past, when a user wasn't responsive, asked for help -- meaning personal advice *or* other intervention -- from the help desk. Does anyone but you think I'm being offensive to you? --Abd (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Strategizing on delegable proxy
I suppose I should get in touch with the creators of the various Flash animations that FairVote has been using, and introduce them to the subject of delegable proxy. It's not a particularly difficult concept to explain (probably less complicated than IRV and certainly less complicated than STV) but if we get a Flash video about it, then we can put it on YouTube and start a viral email campaign. Delegable proxy facebook group, anyone? Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only potential obstacle I see is the bad blood between FairVote and the range voting folks. You are associated with the latter, right? Can we get the range voting guys to switch over and begin supporting delegable proxy? Their main arguments seemed to be that range voting allowed the voter to better express his preferences, to reduce Bayesian regret, etc. Delegable proxy beats range voting in every area that I can think of. As far as the wiki article goes, the main obstacle I see right now is the scarcity of secondary sources out there, which makes it hard to write a very lengthy/comprehensive article. A paper needs to be written off-wiki comparing DP to other systems such as STV. Sarsaparilla (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, good luck. Yes, I'm associated with the Range Voting people, though not formally and I have no power over what is on the web site [rangevoting.org] nor on the mailing list rangevoting@yahoogroups.com, except for my own posts. The cofounder of the Center for Range Voting, Jan Kok, is the person I consider number two in the field of FA/Delegable Proxy. He is quite capable of explaining it as well as I can, or better, because he is more succinct. (On the other hand, he tells me he takes perhaps three times as long to write as I. It's more succinct because he heavily edits it. I occasionally do that too.... but not usually.) Warren Smith, the other founder, doesn't get Delegable Proxy, even though he invented Asset Voting. His Asset Voting was mathematically complicated, utterly impractical under current conditions. I recognized it as proxy voting, which he had not, apparently, and then suggested that the candidates holding votes could arrange how to reassign them using delegable proxy. It's essentially cost-free and requires no legal structures in itself. That is, the elector (these are technically electors holding the number of votes they were given) casts the legal votes directly and has merely negotiated them through delegable proxy. Smith thinks of DP as too complicated, but, apparently, he does not recognize the simplicity of it. It is just networking, formalized and public.

As to FairVote, I'm considered more or less an arch-enemy of theirs. It's not accurate, it is more that I strongly dislike and have acted against FairVote propaganda. They are following, more or less, traditional political methods, which mean that whatever you have to say to get people to think the way you want them to think, you say. Doesn't matter if it's misleading. Give you an example:

IRV was sold to the voters of San Francisco as a way to save money on runoff elections while keeping the majority-required features of top-two runoff. Runoffs had become common in San Francisco because of huge fields of candidates (22 on the ballot in one in 2004), doubtlessly encouraged by the use of top-two runoff, which allows a dubious candidate with no chance of winning to run and get some votes. What they called the "primary" was in November, with the general election, and the runoffs were held in December and had, naturally, lower turnout.

In the voter information booklet mailed to all registered voters, the Ballot Summary committee claimed that "a majority of votes cast would still be required." But, if you read the actual rules, no, a majority is not required; the requirement of law that a majority was needed for election was removed by the IRV proposition. What IRV does is to discard all ballots containing votes not for the top two, redistributing votes as it goes. The Ranked Choice Voting that they used could only handle three ranks; with 22 candidates..... Lots of exhausted ballots. Essentially, if you vote for candidates that aren't in the running at the end of the elimination process, it is as if you did not vote. Your vote literally does not count, it does not become part of the basis for the declared "majority" victory. So:

San Francisco essentially solved their runoff problem by eliminating the majority requirement! They could have done that a lot more cheaply!

(We could actually, with the same method, guarantee that all elections are won with a unanimous vote! Just take it one more round! No, standard rules consider that a "majority" in an election means that a vote was found for the majority winner on a majority of all ballots containing a vote for an eligible candidate. This is the standard Robert's Rules definition. Robert's Rules prefers, as an election method, repeated balloting *without eliminations at all*. That's far more democratic, and the only question is practicality.)

But, we might ask, is IRV producing better results? Well, it is not completely clear. In every one of the 20 RCV elections that have been held in San Francisco, the winner was the plurality leader in the first round. Coincidence? Probably not. The runner-up before vote transfers remained the runner-up after vote transfers. In *every* case. Before IRV, it happened in about one out of three elections that the runner-up in the primary ended up beating, in the runoff, the candidate in first place in the primary. Now, none. It's not happening. Perhaps the prior results were due to poor turnout in the runoffs? Perhaps. However, in Cary, NC, there were runoff elections prior to the IRV implementation, with the primary in October and the runoff held at the November election. IRV opponents proposed this in San Francisco -- in Cary, the turnout for the primary and for the runoffs matched fairly closely, sometimes more for one, sometimes more for the other. And one out of three runoff elections reversed the primary result. With the IRV election there, no reversal. But only one election that went to runoff.... I intend to do a wider study, because the sample size here is too small to make firm conclusions, but ... IRV is apparently changing election results in such a way as to frustrate the purposes of runoff voting: to guarantee a true majority choice. I'll note that the argument that the "majority" in the last round merely simulates what happens in a runoff is quite spurious: in a real runoff, there is a real campaign and voters make a real choice. With RCV, *maybe* they deliberately abstained from adding rankings, or maybe they ran out of ranks, or maybe they detested both frontrunners and really didn't want to cast a vote for either of them ... but they might change their mind faced with an actual runoff. Or, if they really don't care, they don't bother to vote, which, in my view, is okay too, though I dislike giving them only that option! In most top-two runoff elections, the ballot still allows write-ins, so, theoretically, if the first election misses the Condorcet winner, all they have to do is organize a write-in campaign! If the preferences remain, and voters are sufficiently motivated, they would win.

For whatever reason, IRV isn't performing as people would have expected. Except for election methods experts, who knew most of this about IRV before. *Not* a popular method among experts. FairVote promotes IRV for strategic reasons: they see it as a stepping stone to STV for multiwinner elections. Noble goal, indeed. But what they are doing is selling IRV on false premises, they are attempting to get jurisdictions to spend the money to implement the voting method, hence removing what they saw as a major obstacle to proportional representation. STV is actually a good method, it would *approach* Asset Voting if one had one large district for the assembly.

For single-winner elections, there are two inexpensive fixes: the simplest and cheapest is Approval voting, which is widely considered a good method, except for the propaganda against it which has been effectively organized and propagated by FairVote. Range voting is essentially Approval with fractional voting allowed, and, like Approval, it does not require voting machine changes, and it performs even better than Approval in simulations, but it's probably harder to sell. We are attempting to sell Approval with the very simple and accurate slogan: Just Count All the Votes!

But people like the idea of ranked voting, hence there is another proposal, which has the advantage of having seen some extensive use in the U.S.: Bucklin voting. It worked, and it was almost certainly eliminated precisely because it was working. It is essentially "instant runoff approval." Boy, do the FairVote people hate that claim! They think they own "instant runoff." -- which was a term only invented in 1996, and is not how the method is known in places widely using it, like Australia.

Anyway, if FairVote smells any involvement by me, forget about them supporting anything I've touched. However, my original opinion about the Center for Voting and Democracy, which is what it was called when I first learned about them, was they they were not "democratic." They did not give a fig what experts in the field thought, or about what other election reformers thought. They, mostly, still don't. It's starting to come back to bite them.

In summary, many have tried to cooperate with FairVote but generally it has been their way or the highway. They think they own election reform, though, of course, you are welcome to find out for yourself. You never can tell. All I can say is that some very good and very polite people have tried, and basically been insulted for their efforts. As to what reforms to work on, Approval Voting is really the biggest bang for the buck at this point. Simple, no cost, and rectifies what was essentially an old mistake, there never was a good reason not to count overvotes except the illusion that it violates one-person, one-vote. (It doesn't, except in the same sense as IRV violates it. If the voter votes for two, the voter is really casting alternative votes. Either one of them counts, or none of them count, i.e. at most one vote shows up in the vote margin of the winner, or none. With Approval, the "alternative vote" comes at a price: casting multiple votes, while it gains the voter a vote in other pairwise elections, loses the vote in the pairwise elections involving those approved. There is sound justification for this in election theory.... but the biggest argument for Approval is pure simplicity. I don't propose it as the ideal election method. Now, if we can't get Approval done, I suggest, we are very unlikely to get anything more complicated. But if we get Approval, we will have fixed certain problems at no cost, and thus there may be more room for further reforms.

FA/DP is a *nongovernmental* solution to the problem of government. If we had large FA/DP organizations of voters, we would not need election reform, Plurality would work quite well enough! Plurality only fails when voters don't cooperate, or don't have good advice, that they trust, to follow. The basic problem is that we have depended upon the defective mechanisms of representative democracy through elections (or oligarchical structures) in order to represent the public interest in terms of *knowledge* and *analysis*. Another name for knowledge and analysis is "judgement," and Montesquieu pointed out long ago that judicial institutions must be totally independent from the mechanisms of power, or they will be corrupted. --Abd (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what is the ultimate goal of election reform? Let's look at FairVote and its mission:

Founded in 1992 and operating for many years as the Center for Voting and Democracy, FairVote is the leading national organization acting to transform our elections to achieve secure and universal access to participation, a full spectrum of meaningful choices and majority rule with fair representation and a voice for all. Achieving our goals rests upon bold, but achievable reforms: a constitutionally protected right to vote, a national popular vote for president, instant runoff voting for executive elections and proportional voting for legislative elections. As a reform catalyst, we develop and promote practical strategies to improve elections for local, state and national leaders. FairVote pursues an innovative, solution-oriented pro-democracy agenda. Our vision of an equally secure, meaningful and effective vote for all Americans is founded on the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech: we are created equal, government is of, by and for the people and it is time to make real the promise of democracy. Let's see how delegable proxy holds up against those goals: Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ "secure and universal access to participation"
 * ✅ "full spectrum of meaningful choices"
 * ✅ "majority rule with fair representation"
 * ✅ "a voice for all"
 * ✅ "bold, but achievable reform"
 * ✅ "innovative"
 * ? "solution-oriented" What the heck does that mean?
 * ✅ "pro-democracy" It's more pro-democracy than IRV or STV, which are associated with republican forms of government (DP is more like a democracy/republic hybrid)
 * ✅ "government is of, by, and for the people" With DP, it would be more than just lip service.
 * ✅ "make real the promise of democracy"

IP-MN 2004 presidential poll summary
Hi Abd, I hope you might appreciate my summary of the IP-MN 2004 presidential poll using IRV, an interesting election with 4 candidates over 15%, AND allows a NOTA option for two types of exhausted ballots, so the winner when two candidates remain has a minority of the ballots, but a 74% majority when one candidate remained. Well, it's interesting to see, even if easy to question how seriously members took the poll. (A four candidate race like this also show me that runoffs could eliminate a compromise candidate that might be Condorcet winner. All we really know is Edwards can beat Kerry. THUS voters (who don't like Edwards) are NOT FREE to vote sincerely, if a better compromise existed. Same dilemma in the presidential primaries - needing to pick a candidate who can rise to win party primaries AND win the final round. Without Condorecet 3-way contests are in doubt of a true majority preference. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC) IRV_implementations_in_United_States

Well, thanks for calling it to my attention. Have you noticed that I applied Bucklin analysis to the 2004 San Francisco IRV elections? (I put it on the Talk page for the implementations article, inserting it into that election data.) They supplied the data from the ballots, showing total votes for each rank for each candidate. Bucklin would, in fact, have found majorities for all but one of the winners. We might speculate that voting would be different with Bucklin, but my guess is that voters would vote pretty much the same. And the one race where a majority wasn't obtained very well might have reached it if voters had been, as in actual Duluth Bucklin, to add multiple votes in third rank. Or not. Probably that is the one election (Mirkarimi, Supervisor District 5) that really should have had an actual runoff. Otherwise IRV did find the same winner as Bucklin. With much more fuss, of course. Tom, you once suggested that we shouldn't try Bucklin again because it had been rejected in the past. But so was IRV, plenty of times. All of them for pretty poor reasons, IRV in Ann Arbor for purely partisan reasons, Bucklin for God knows what. It was working.

Have you seen the Range 3 polls conducted by MSNBC after the debates last year? These are the polls that showed Ron Paul being the only Republican with net positive ratings, way, way ahead of all the others; the Democratic side showed Obama and Edwards in the net positive and Clinton with very high positive votes, but enough negatives to take her just below zero, which is about my assesment of the situation at that time. (The polls allowed voters to rate candidates independently, with -, 0, or + as options. 0 was the default. This is Range 3 with default zero, quite a few people like that Range variation, notably Mike Ossipoff. Simple, easy to understand, and shows far more than plurality vote-for-one polls or even Approval polls.) --Abd (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely disapprove of using rank preferences from one election and applying it to a different method. I mean playing is one thing, but interpretation is useless. Even interpreting IRV data as a Condorcet method is forbidden since some voters will have compromised in IRV, if a 3-way race. Range/Approval polling are also limiting. Hopefully poll-takers are offering honest approval preferences, but since its not a binding result, it can't be used to infer a winner from a real approval election. MYSELF, I'd have even less trust from an approval poll than a single-vote poll - BECAUSE of the power of exaggeration and so I couldn't trust it at all. (Of course my polling principle is always to vote for the best underdog in a poll to keep things interesting - can't even trust myself be honest in nonbinding plurality, much less useless approval.) Tom Ruen (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the problem, Tom. However, I do think that people in San Francisco, with Bucklin, would have voted pretty much the same. It *is* an instant-runoff kind of system, but it's more effective than IRV, in theory, at finding majority winners because it can look at all the votes. The question, of course, is, with Bucklin, would people avoid adding votes because it would "hurt their favorite." Note that it doesn't hurt their favorite at all if that favorite is going to get a majority. It's only if there isn't a majority that the additional votes get pulled in. And I think most voters don't think quite so possessively, i.e., they are not so attached to a particular candidate winning -- except for a very vocal few. I'm talking about *most voters*, and, in particular, about nonpartisan elections. What I assume, in looking at the IRV ballot results in 2004 San Francisco, is that voters did mostly rank candidates sincerely. If they had been making the strategic choices that we might expect due to the limited ranks, there might have been fewer exhausted ballots. The high numbers of exhausted ballots are an indication of sincere voting. Otherwise, voters would have been more careful to include a frontrunner in one of the three ranks. (IRV is vulnerable to Favorite Betrayal, but I don't think that, beyond the advisability of including a frontrunner, it's of much effect. And Bucklin, of course, would present a similar strategic need: vote for at least one frontrunner, which seems to be pretty much universal voting strategy. Good methods still require that, the question, then, is what *else* they allow.) In looking at Bucklin counting of the SF elections, I'm studying how it worked in terms of finding a majority. Finding a majority in Bucklin means that a majority of voters did choose to rank the candidate, and voters shouldn't rank candidates they actually oppose. (That's why I think the Australian practice of forcing full ranking is a very poor idea, anti-democratic, coercive.) So what we see in this is probably pretty close to what would actually have happened if SF had chosen Bucklin instead of IRV. And the cost would have been *drastically* lower. Bucklin is precinct-summable, simple to implement. The results would have been the same in every election I looked at. --Abd (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Email
I sent you an email a little while ago; please let me know if it doesn't arrive. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! Great minds think a like. I sent you one, then saw this comment. I'll look, later. Gotta go pick up a daughter from ballet class. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ADHD controversies
Hello, thanks for your long note. I think I basically agree with you on most of your general points; specifically, I think subarticles should meet the same standards of RS/V as any other. I can't say that I have an opinion one way or another at this point about ADHD, but that shouldn't matter - I do have an opinion about what is sourced and reliable. I disagree with you totally on the use of citations in the introduction; rather than "is something verifible," I think the burden is on WP/article writers to provide such sourcing. If what is claimed in the article is actually true, it should be easy to prove by providing a source. In any case, as I mentioned, I haven't formed an opinion about ADHD as a disorder, but I do have an opinion about how to format an article and how to keep it on topic. Hopefully, that should enable us to collaborate without difficulty. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume so. I'm not sure we disagree on citations in the introduction. My position is that nothing should be in the introduction that is not explored in the article. The introduction is merely a summary of the article, and, as such, doesn't have to repeat sourcing (though in some cases it might be prudent to do so). To see how this plays out in what I'd expect to be a mature article, I looked at Isaac Newton. Sure enough, there are no references or footnotes in the introduction, except two, the second of which is for a bit of modern perspective: "In a 2005 poll of the Royal Society of who had the greatest effect on the history of science, Newton was deemed more influential than Albert Einstein.[4]" The first was actually not a source, it's a detailed explanation of the dating issues between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. And it is not sourced! (As you know, there is lots and lots of stuff in the project that is not sourced, because nobody cares to challenge it, and it is not controversial.)


 * The poll about Newton is, in my opinion, not sufficiently notable to put in the introduction, but it's there because of its alleged "interest" to the public, just in case someone hasn't heard of this fellow. The citation has to be with it because it isn't elsewhere in the article; I'd suggest, though, that this factoid really belongs in the "Fame" section, and, then, if it is judged salient enough to rise in the hierarchy of knowledge that would legitimately elevate introductions above the rest of the article, it would be mentioned again in the introduction, without a note. I'm also not at all sure that the stuff about the calendar belongs in the article at all. These are the minutia that editors go crazy over sometimes. I'm not about to start editing Isaac Newton!


 * My point about introductions is that POV editors want to stick all kinds of "important" facts in the introduction, where they get prominent treatment. But introductions are necessarily brief, often too brief to adequately state a situation in NPOV fashion (which can require more words than just summarizing what is "important" -- and, of course, what is important may depend on one's POV. I've noticed quite a few edit wars I've seen are about introductions. Precious territory, inviting the planting of a flag. Rather, I'd prefer to be fairly strict about introductions. *Everything* in an introduction, with the exception of some noncontroversial fact that has no better place, should be summarized from the article, not from independent edits inserting various new facts. And what is in an introduction should be rigorously NPOV and rigorously accurate (considering what is already in the article, properly sourced). And that can require, sometimes, weasel words. That's the point.


 * As to sourcing, I'm a little puzzled by your response about "is something verifiable." Perhaps I should look back at what I wrote on your Talk page (one reason I prefer to respond in-line). Everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable. Normally this is done with a reliable source, but some things, by their nature, are verified in a different way. I find relevant, on this, . WP:SELFPUB allows the use of self-published material, under certain conditions, but it does not really cover the issues raised in "controversy" articles, where the opinions are the facts being reported. My point about verifiability is that if the article says "So and so claims that ...." (and then accurately reports the claim), something self-published by So and So is generally sufficient as a source for the fact. That, I would present, is a rebuttable presumption. (What if so-and-so retracted the claim later? What if it is quoted out of context? And that's why we need editors rather than robots.... Simply that a mail appears on a mailing list purporting to be from a person might not be sufficient; however, if this person is well-known to members of the list, and a fraudulent post would be highly unlikely to be undiscovered, and the material isn't, as noted in the guideline, inflammatory or contentious, etc., it may be usable. As a report of the expressed opinion of the person, not as a source for "fact" other than the opinion.)


 * WP:SPS is on point with respect to the web site of Dr. Sobo. He meets the criteria there, if we allow that a psychiatrist, duly trained and licensed and with other professional qualifications (such as directory of psychiatry at a hospital) and published articles in the field, is sufficiently "expert." Note that this is really about sourcing fact, though it wants attribution, which is proper. Sourcing the site for his opinion is less strict, in my view. For the Controversies article, his site is adequate as a source for attributed arguments and opinions. Further, as a separate issue, his site is proper for an External Link for the Controversies article, and maybe even for the main ADHD article. As I explained, I'm not going there yet.
 * --Abd (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your reply. Perhaps the confusion is mine.  We do seem to agree that the introduction should reflect only what is covered in the article (this is the essence of WP:summary style).  I see your point about Newton, although I wonder when it was made into a FA - many of the older FA's, while well-written, were considerably less sourced.  As you note, if an assertion isn't controversial it may not be challenged.  (A counterexample; recently the Gettysburg Address article underwent FARC review and we had to find sourcing for the assertion that it is one of the most famous speeches in American history.  I found that painful, but in the end, if something is true usually a citation can be found to support it).  My point is just that footnotes, if not explicitly required, and I think they usually are, can only help the introduction.  Finally, I agree with you that introductions can be hotly contested for the reasons you state, and sometimes such conflicts are difficult to mediate.  I have not yet formed a view of the issues you have raised about Dr. Sobo, in any way. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Sobo question should be discussed specifically in Talk, with reference to specific uses of his articles as source. Scuro just removed one mention, citing response to his question on the Village Pump as sole justification; the core is that he trolled for an answer there that the same rules apply to controversy articles as to all other articles, and that self-published material cannot be used, which, of course, is a very general answer one is likely to see, and nothing he got in response expanded on the guidelines. In fact, there are exceptions, as noted in the guidelines, and while "self-published" is a perfectly good reason for taking something out in general, when an editor is edit warring over it or making edits he knows are controversial among the editors and likely to result in edit warring, it's disruptive. Discussion is necessary to determine if an exception applies. (And I would not seek to come to agreement "privately" with you, here, on the specific question of Sobo. It should take place in the article Talk.) On the principles stated, though, I don't expect to find myself in opposition to your views, it looks like we generally agree.--Abd (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Reading day
Here is the article I mentioned when we were talking on the phone... Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Abd 2
Once more into the breach! Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's okay, each time we try this you get a little closer. Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not over until the adipose lady sings. Given the vote canvassing by a sock puppet, it's anybody's guess. Part of it depends on how I respond at this point. There are lots of good pieces of evidence to put up, but I have to be very, very careful about what I use and what goes where. If every editor had the time and inclination to simply look at my contributions and reflect on the edits, I think I'd be a shoo-in at this point. But that, quite simply, does not happen with RFCs, AfDs, RfAs, etc. It is amazing to me how an AfD can proceed, with lots of votes both ways, and, in the end, do some simple searching and evidence blowing the whole thing out of the water surfaces. But how many users are going to put in the hour it might take?


 * This happens with articles as well. I found a major usage of misrepresented source in the ADHD articles, that stood for a long time. Now, that usage, as used, appeared to establish that *facts* quoted prior to it were "rejected" by a massive consensus of major public organizations. (The story is on Talk for Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies) Now, why didn't anyone check the source? For starters, it was hard to find an on-line copy. I *did* eventually find it, but not until I had an actual copy of the article, having failed at my first attempts. Secondly, there are two major camps of editors, which I'll very roughly call the pro-psychiatry faction and the anti-psychiatry faction. The pro-psychiatry faction generally believes that what was in the article is true, so why bother checking it? The anti-psychiatry faction believes that the "consensus" is a conspiracy ... so, again, why bother checking it? Who has a motive to check the source? Only someone who truly cares about NPOV and is willing to do the serious footwork, it takes serious time. But such a person usually has no major interest in the article!!! Have a major interest, good chance you are aligned with one group or the other.


 * The solutions involve paying attention to structure, to providing tools to make it *easy* to verify that sources have been checked. What I'd see starting to happen is that when a user finds and uses a source, that user or someone else puts a copy on a subpage, Foo/Sources. If a user verifies the source, the user comments to that effect. Ideally, a source should be verified by a few users, possibly with some direct quotes (within fair use). Now what has happened with these articles is that generations of editors with strong points of view have worked them over. Many, many sources have been used and then deleted. And then are reinvented later, or, alternatively, remain unnoticed. The source base behind the article isn't documented and validated. Another way of considering that is that the sourcing for articles would be peer-reviewed, i.e., reviewed by all concerned Wikipedia editors. The source page itself would be subject to the same standards as any Wikipedia page: NPOV, verifiability, etc. Plus opinions and analysis could be expressed. (That opinion and analysis is for editor use, it is moot for the article itself.) The Source page, actually, becomes a detail page linking and analyzing all the available source material that any editor has found useful. The is far more efficient than having hordes of editors independently seeking and verifying sources. But anyone can still verify anything, especially if they find it suspicious, and wilfully falsifying, for example, a source validation, would be an offense in my view, that might be sanctioned in some way. As I think I expressed to you at one time, defining a class of editors as specially trusted to validate sources, could make this more efficient; but this would not remove any capacity from existing editors that they currently have.


 * In any case, the RfA is bringing issues and at least one sock puppet out of the woodwork. Just to get the tools, not at all worth much effort. But to examine the issue of how administrators are approved, through a test case (not WP:POINT, which would involve testing with an inappropriate proposal), may be very worthwhile. Because our goal is openness and transparency in any sort of official process, I don't think we can lose.


 * I find it amusing now as I did with the first RfA that so many seem to think I am seeking the position, it seems to be a knee-jerk assumption. Accepting an RfA nomination is, to me, like accepting a request to join the janitorial service; it is, indeed, service, and, to me, it is useless for accomplishing what I personally hope to accomplish (except in the very general sense that what helps the project helps my agenda). But I am sure that, sometimes, administrators do have and do pursue personal agendas using the tools, and, provided that they have learned to stay under the radar, and to immediately cease if pinged, they get away with it.


 * In any case, I'm going to start responding to those who have commented on Talk for the RfA, generally to thank them for their service by participating, but also to respond to questions and issues raised. I want to avoid doing responses on the RfA page itself, and, in fact, I suggest that you also generally refrain from further comment. But, of course, it is up, as always, to your independent judgement. I'm interested, though, in where the community will take this *without* our interference.


 * "Lack of experience" is a narrow and parochial view; it assumes that Wikipedia is special. "There is nothing new under the sun." The personalities and some specific details are different, and the scale is different, but the principles remain the same. I'm hoping that this RfA draws some attention to defects in the process, because those defects are inhibiting recruiting the volunteers that are needed to face the rising challenges of scale. The existing body of administrators generally looks at itself and wishes to maintain some standard of experience, and since their experience is collectively growing, the standard rises. But newcomers, the pool of new users, almost by definition don't have that much experience. Further, experience is hard to measure, so number of edits and other related measures are used. For example, preference is given to mainspace edits. Makes sense. Except that edit warriors are going to have many more mainspace edits, and users who work out consensus on Talk pages, fewer. Working out consensus takes much, much more time than it takes to put in or take out or modify one sentence.


 * Essentially, if it is done properly, the judgment is a personal one, and I've been laying out the essential criteria, and experience has nothing to do with it except as a proof of integrity. (That is, someone shows up, talks a good talk for a few days, can this be trusted? of course not!) How long is necessary? That is actually a more important question than number of edits. However, I think you know my solution: how long, how many edits, the quality of edits, the integrity of the user and thus the safety of the admin bit in his or her hands, is a matter for individual judgement. Ultimately, adminstrators are similar, as I wrote in one edit that was unearthed, to police, and it is important that the community generally trust that the police will not use their position for harm or personal gain. Adminstrators, though, have very little power, and what power they have is subject to continual supervision, if anyone is paying attention. Giving out the bit should be much easier than it currently is, but it should also be much easier to remove it. It should not take an ArbComm decision; if we think that it takes such a process -- which is horrifically "expensive" in user time -- why, then, of course we have to be very careful. Indeed, we must be much more careful than we are!


 * Generally, systems here, as elsewhere, are the way they are for very good reasons, which is one reason why violent revolutions have such a poor track record, they rip up what the society needed to function, without having anything more than untested theory which they enthusiastically apply to replace it. Bad idea. What is needed, what is truly revolutionary, is for the community to wake up; and this, most have overlooked, requires some preconditions: it must be efficient, it must support the participants, providing them with value exceeding the effort they put it, it must be fun. Consciousness without fun is so oppressive that it cannot last long. If the community awakens (which is not what most will think it is when they read this), it will know what to do, what should be kept and what should be altered or discarded. In the end, usually, not much should be changed at one time! But small changes, made in the right places, can be of vast consequence.


 * Any, are we having fun yet? I think so. I did not want you to nominate me, and I thought of this as being a big distraction, but I might have been wrong. --Abd (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I mention above the canvassing by a sock. That appears to have been quite limited in scope, and the only user who, so far, responded to it is User:Scuro. The sock puppet (or certainly an SPA is Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard, whom I had pretty much stopped watching because he had stopped editing. However, he's back, for this purpose. I still suspect Salsman, but there are certainly lots of other possibilities. From the information I have, FairVote actively solicited at least one Wikipedian to attempt to take me out; that backfired, as he turned around and became a supporter. But if they tried with one, recently, with me, they may have solicited others before. Yellowbeard registered in 2006 and immediately began AfDing articles, beginning with Schentrup method, which was a vanity article; what's interesting about it is that Clay Shentrup, the Wikipedian who put up the article (I think the mispelling was his little joke) is a very opinionated and very active anti-IRV activist, who has become a strong supporter of Range Voting. Yellowbeard, as can be seen from Contribs, went after Shentrup's article immediately upon registration, which does establish a presumption as to his political affiliation (i.e., FairVote), plus his use of the AfD process shows familiarity with Wikipedia. Someone who doesn't know the politics might easily think it could be a coincidence. Anyway, Yellowbeard went on to successfully AfD a whole series of election methods articles, including articles where, contrary to his assertions, which AfD participants apparently did not check, there is reliable source, going after the theoretical underpinning of Range Voting, Bayesian regret or Loss function, the Center for Range Voting - which was of marginal notability then, in my opinion, no longer true, that article should come back, though, like the Range voting article, it certainly needed work to be NPOV and properly sourced, Proportional approval voting, which has peer-reviewed literature, and which was referenced from a fair number of articles on voting methods, etc. Nobody was watching the articles, apparently. The pattern: take out everything that can be used for a critical assessment of Instant-runoff voting He began to run into obstacles, though, as people who actually understood the topics started to participate. He attacked them, with the kind of language that we might expect from Salsman. In any case, pretty much all this was laid out in the SSP report, I'll write a little about this in Talk for the AfD; if I use that report, I then don't have to repeat all the detail. Naturally, he flamed me over it. The SSP admin asked me to file a Checkuser, which I did, which came back negative for Salsman. So either Salsman was using cloaking techniques or it isn't Salsman. But sock or SPA, he is. Disruptive editor, he is. At this point he knows how to stay below the level that would make it likely he'll get blocked; it would take an admin who will put in the time to research the details to come to a position to be able to do it. It was recommended that I go into DR .... but there was no active dispute sufficient to justify the effort, and it seemed that watching him would be enough. All of it was water under the bridge, except possibly for the response to the SSP and Checkuser filings. He did delete the SSP warning from his Talk, though that doesn't mean much. So now he comes out of retirement to toss a little bomb, he thinks might further his cause.


 * Ironically, I almost, last night, suggested in the RfA that, to assess my record, anyone concerned could ask about me on the User Talk pages where I have edited, which would include everyone Yellowbeard canvassed, but, of course, as well, the administrators with whom I have had extensive discussions and who have an idea who and what I am. I rejected the idea, of course, but Yellowbeard did part of it for me. Just the part about users he thought would be negative, as indeed some might be. Who he chose is quite interesting. It indicates, pretty strongly, affiliation with FairVote in quite a similar way as Salsman. The key is that he canvassed the newly registered user, User:RRichie, with whom I have had, as that account, no disputes and no Talk page posts. I've warned him on IRV Talk to be careful about contentious editing, and, so far, he's heeded the warning; but Yellowbeard must have been aware of this independently. My edit records alone would not have picked that up as any kind of major contention, except for someone very familiar with the topic.
 * --Abd (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You had a two-to-one margin going there for awhile, but I think that in the past 24 hours you inadvertently gave editors who already wanted to oppose you an excuse to do so. Like the courtship process, RfA tends to be inherently touchy and emotional as it is a process at the conclusion of which a decision will be accept or reject a person based on attributes such as trustworthiness, etc. which will be influenced by perceptions of the subset of your conduct that they have observed and by their own biases and flighty whims which may have little relevance to your actual suitability for being accepted into this modified relationship and the responsibilities that come with it. Your initial responses to questions, however, were quite well-spoken and garnered the respect of your peers to the extent that they were willing to voice strong support. 129.174.2.205 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you have noticed the "conversions." In any case, I have deliberately exposed myself far more than would have been visible through presenting polished answers and sticking to the "image" that I could expect to succeed. While it would be nice to be even more broadly trusted by the community, I think the RfA results are quite good. Consider this: snowed out last time. This time, majority support, and most of the opposing votes are based on experience count and little else. I've been involved in expressing strong opinions! I'd have expected more negative, in fact. Since I highly doubt that I am going to become more contentious than I have already been -- instead I expect less --, this means that I'd probably be approved next time, by a good margin.. (Unless a movement begins to crush what I'm suggesting about structure, and they imagine that preventing me from having the sysop bit would have an effect on that -- it would not, indeed, it might accelerate it --, and they succeed in exercising enough editors to vote in opposition, which I consider fairly unlikely. But you never know.)

Yellowbeard has been blocked. I'm sure he expected it, this was the final use of a throwaway account, and the end of his career (I don't think he will challenge it) accomplished much more easily for me than if I had filed RFC, etc. So, even if just for that, this RfA has been of some use. And, of course, we do know the principles behind the martial arts, I have requested the closing administrator to *consider* the canvassed votes. Remember, what I want to approach is consensus and I would ultimately want all opinion to be considered in measuring that. So why not be happy that Yellowbeard helped that to happen? Doesn't mean I'd intervene to get him unblocked, though, his intention was harmful. (That of TBouricius was not. He is just a COI editor, and his COI comes from trying to improve the world.)

Look, if I "succeeded' by concealing, in any way, who I am and how I think and act, I'd be in a prison of my own making. I am not going to damage Wikipedia, period, by holding the tools, but neither am I attached, in any way, to being given the sysop bit. I truly don't know which is better, to do some mop work, or to work on structure. I became convinced that it might be useful to do some of the grunt work, because it would give me better insight into what administrators face, though I already know far more than the opposing voters might suspect, I've looked at contribs for many administrators, and read many admin Talk pages. Some of them imagine that I would want to do this? Yes, I like to be helpful, but I can be helpful without the tools and the possible expectations if they are granted. (Really, there are admins who do almost nothing, so ... I really don't understand the objections, in the end, not to me personally, but on the edit count basis. How much experience do I need to know that I don't understand something, haven't studied the policies and guidelines related to it, and therefore don't do anything? And why am I going to gain this experience with a few thousand more mainspace edits? The fact is that what I know about policy and guidelines has not come from mainspace edits, it has come from reading the ... policies and guidelines! (Plus quite a few examples of what happens when administrators neglect them and fundamental policy.) Most often, when they were needed, but also just because I like good writing, and much of it is quite good.

So I'm responding in some depth, but I also commented that, please, nobody is obligated to read what I write (there or anywhere else) (and except for formal and legal notices. And I certainly don't wax eloquent with, say, formal warnings on User Talk pages -- unless I clearly separate the notice from dicta.) I suggested that anyone should feel free to vote without reading my comments, just vote "oppose" if they like, I won't be offended. --Abd (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC) This may turn out to have been far more useful than I expected. Plus, Yellowbeard is gone, some small direct and objective positive result. Just call me Lightning Rod, it is a long-time function of mine, I've attracted the ire of many people like Yellowbeard, and they burn themselves out, it's happened again and again. It's sad, actually, but ... they would never imagine that I'm sad about it, because they don't think that way. These sock puppets have wasted a huge amount of editor time, as do contentious POV editors, most notably the really long-term, persistent ones that sit on articles and stay short of 3RR. WP:GIANTDICK indeed.

What is truly satisfying, though, is to see the occasional transformations, as with one admin who had posted a whole series of seriously negative comments, and then moved to neutral. Wow! It's also possible there will be some more -- and more in opposition or support as well. I have rigorously avoided anything like canvassing, both on and off-wiki. I don't need to know what my friends think of me! (They all tell me I should be less verbose, and, hey, I agree with them. Maybe they will hire me an editor. Or someone will volunteer. Neither are impossible. By the way, I have been a professional editor. It's not that I don't know how to do it, it is that it is a lot of work.)

(FA/DP is set up to deal with people like me. Only a few people will actually read me in depth, but then they will pass on what they get from it. Over time, what is important will survive and what is not, won't. So just how much energy should I put into filtering my work myself? The fact is, to me it is all important or I would not take the time to write it. But that does not mean it is important to others. Some of it is, probably. Someday I'll tell the story, here, of Nasruddin when he visited a town and was invited to speak.) --Abd (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How embarrassing.... --Abd (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Conciseness
Perhaps more efficient than writing free-form and then editing it down would be to do more advance planning upfront. My style, when I'm writing an essay or persuasive email or pretty much anything else that I intend to be more than a couple paragraphs, is to outline it; write the essay, beginning with the paragraph immediately following the introduction; and lastly write the introduction, which summarizes the whole essay. It seems to be a good way to stay organized, focused and succinct. But, do whatever works for you – there's no rule against being wordy but it may be self-defeating in some instances. I don't really mind; I'm a fast reader and generally find your material worth reading anyway. I guess what it is is that you cover a lot of important points which are worth considering, but to do so takes a lot of space – most people value time over comprehensiveness to the point where they just take a few points that are super-important to them and kill the rest of their darlings (i.e. don't cover those subjects, or gloss over them). So it's a balancing act where one considers, Is it more important to be succinct or comprehensive? I am not the best at being succint in my wording; there are a lot of recommended methods for slicing unnecessary words out of sentences, although sometimes I find it distorts the original meaning. See for instance http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/572/01/ This has not been an example of a planned essay. Sarsaparilla (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole lot going on. It's actually too much. I'm thinking of doing some unusual things with the RfA. I'm going to ask that it not be closed, but that it be left open, with some conditions, as an ongoing opportunity for users to comment on my behavior. A list of users, who must be users who have participated in the RfA, would be created, and, before it is closed with a community acceptance of the nomination, they would be notified and given an opportunity to review it and change their vote. (It is possible that an administrator could still close the RfA, so the list would be used to notify all participants of any succeeding RfA for me.) What I want is for it to remain open until and unless (1) I withdraw, (2) a communicy consensus has appeared that is not doubtful. Even snow positions can be doubtful due to participation bias. I will also propose -- and implement, or someone else will -- some analysis of the results, starting with the obvious one of excluding canvassed votes. But other forms of analysis are possible. Supposed that user votes are weighted by edit count? Whether or not they are administrators themselves and thus, on the one hand, presumably much more knowledgeable about what is involved and the risks, and, on the other, possibly resistance to the dilution of their clan power? (this phenomenon is predictable, what would be amazing would be if it did not happen), and this explains the edit count creep, among other things (but there are also other reasons for wanting high edit counts, as a barrier to sock puppet accounts and SPAs).

This RfA is raising issues that aren't being raised elsewhere. What I'm suggesting could be done with any RfA -- I see no need to close them at all, ever, just as old Project pages aren't closed. Active RfA pages would be a kind of standing review. And the safety valve: any change in outcome from a *decision* made from it -- equivalent to the present "closure" would allow canvassing of the participants with a neutral notice informing them that some attention might be needed.

It is an entirely separate question as to whether or not proxy votes would be considered. That is merely another form of analysis, and like all forms of analysis, could result in errors if applied rigidly. The proxy table (either general or a specific one for this RfA alone) is simply one more tool for analyzing results. The decision as to how to interpret this is up to the administrator making the decision. And my opinion is that closing administrators should *always* state the specific reasons for closing. Which arguments were accepted by the admin and which were rejected? Was the vote count considered? (in theory, it should be moot -- except that if an administrator makes a decision that a true majority of the community said "no" to, it's obviously in service of the administrator's opinion and not of the community. There is no rigid solution to the problem, proxy analysis does not change the individual responsibility involved in each Wikipedia decision.

We will start to move much more quickly when editors start to realize that what they think FA/DP structure for wikipedia is, isn't it. Every negative comment, though, is an opportunity to explain this. Wikipedia is a Free Association. I.e., the Wikipedia community (which is the real entity, for all practical purposes) is an FA. I developed the FA concept, as you know, out of the practice of Alcoholics Anonymous, which itself developed its traditions out of (1) what worked to deal with a community of people who would argue and fight with each other at the drop of a hat (and then go out and drink in response to the frustration and resentment), and (2) a careful study of the history had made similar efforts fail previously, and it was designed to avoid a repetition of those failure.

However, there is no means of efficiently measuring overall consensus, when that is necessary. (It usually is not, but the exceptions can be harmful). That's DP. The measurement does not remove any other characteristic, including the individual responsibility of the "trusted servants" who make actual decisions in an FA. *FAs* do not take a position, as a whole, on any issue of controversy, and, with regard to internal decisions, they seek consensus *at the level of the decision*. And the overall organizations does not interfere with the primary work of individual "meetings," which here is analogous to a page and those who edit it. Any member of the overall organization may participate, by default, in any meeting, but any meeting may also make its own rules, and, unless these rules affect "the FA as a whole," they are sovereign with respect to that. (There are exceptions on Wikipedia, and major battles have taken place over them, and the issues involved haven't been permanently resolved; but these may be exceptions that prove the rule -- or they may be true contradictions.)

My RfA may, in itself, be an opportunity to test the function of some of the concepts. (It may not last long enough to do that, or it might, depends on how my request is received; but it could continue in Talk regardless, unless that is actively shut down. By the way, there is a key to the problem of Administrative Recall that was raised, in this. What if the original consensus that approved an administrator evaporates, as the community experiences the actual behavior. Under parliamentary procedure, any voter who voted with the prevailing side may change their vote to the contrary by moving Reconsideration. If the right is granted (simple majority), then voting is done again. That much process isn't necessary here. Simply: what if enough voters supporting change their votes later? I'd say this would be like Asset Voting in some proposals. The elected member could lose their seat. The way I'd do it, at first blush, would be that the administrator would be suspended, at least. And the equity of this seems clear. "Once I got to really know this editor, I realize I made a mistake by supporting him." Then, the RfA would essentially re-open, if vote changes reach some threshold (as judged by any administrator, or a class of admins, perhaps. But the reopening does not require everyone to comment again. Satisfied with what you voted before, nothing need be done at all.

And then, of course, there could be proxy applications. But proxies don't change the fundamental process, they could merely make it more efficient. That's huge!

(And then will come all the familiar objections ... it will all come out in the wash.) --Abd (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)