Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

Edit count for Abd
User:Abd

run at Sun Feb 10 21:45:15 2008 GMT

Mainspace             502 MediaWiki talk:       1 Talk:                 642 Template talk:        1 User talk:            148 User:                 7 Wikipedia talk:       33 Wikipedia:            103 avg edits per page    8.35 earliest              17:31, 7 February 2005 number of unique pages 172 total                 1437

2005/2  11 2005/3   4 2005/4   7 2005/5   0 2005/6   5 2005/7   15 2005/8   2 2005/9   0 2005/10  0 2005/11  0 2005/12  0 2006/1   0 2006/2   2 2006/3   0 2006/4   2 2006/5   0 2006/6   0 2006/7   0 2006/8   0 2006/9   0 2006/10  0 2006/11  0 2006/12  5 2007/1   5 2007/2   0 2007/3   2 2007/4   2 2007/5   2 2007/6   0 2007/7   0 2007/8   0 2007/9   58 2007/10  200 2007/11  178 2007/12  385 2008/1   448 2008/2   104

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 236 Instant-runoff voting 38 Approval voting 32 Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder 29 Rashad Khalifa 27 Instant-runoff voting controversies 20 Muhammad al-Asi 18 Atkins Nutritional Approach 14 Fred Baughman 13 Majority criterion 10 Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies 9  Range voting 4  History and use of instant-runoff voting in the United States 4  Allocation voting 3  Waldorf education 3  Simple majority voting

Talk: 234 Instant-runoff voting 86 Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder 57 Instant-runoff voting/archive2 49 Approval voting 39 Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies 23 Instant-runoff voting controversies 17 Atkins Nutritional Approach 16 Delegable proxy 12 Rashad Khalifa 12 Range voting 12 Waldorf education 9  Muhammad al-Asi 9  Majority criterion 7  National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 7  IRV implementations in United States

User: 4 Abd 3 Abd/AfD: formula for conflict

User talk: 51 Abd 9 Tbouricius 8 Durova 8 DGG 6 Tomruen 6 The Community 5 Clockback 5 Compsword01 5 Paladinwannabe2 4 Scuro 3 Wikidudeman 3 TDC 2 Rlevse 2 MilesAgain 2 Miamomimi

Wikipedia: 20 Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Workshop 7 Village pump (policy) 6 Requests for adminship/Abd 2 6 Articles for deletion/University of the Philippines Astronomical Society 6 Village pump (miscellaneous) 5 Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (4th) 5 Non-administrator rollback 5 Requests for checkuser/Case/LossIsNotMore 5 Articles for deletion/Range voting 4 Requests for adminship/Jj137 3 Articles for deletion/Five-point electoral law 3 Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 24 3 Administrators' noticeboard/3RR 3 Articles for deletion/Blood electrification (2nd nomination) 2 Suspected sock puppets

Wikipedia talk: 8 Non-administrator rollback 5 Article Rescue Squadron 4 Mediation Cabal 3 Administrators' noticeboard/3RR 3 Requests for arbitration/Physchim62/Proposed decision 2 Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions 2 No original research

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot . Based directly on these URLs: [1]


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

Responses to those who have voted or commented on this AfD
This is going to take some time and I do have children to care for, etc. So please bear with me as I do this one step at a time. I'm also aware that I promised to "read the book" to answer more fully as to what I would do in specific circumstances, and that has not been done yet. It will come. I'm going to make each response as a section, but I may, as I go, add in user names where there is a single response.

I'm quite aware that what I'm doing here may not have been done before. Indeed, some of what I've already done, in my responses on the project page, are certainly not what I would do if I were "seeking" the office. WP:IAR? Not a way to win friends and influence people. But what I wrote was true. Anyway, I'll get to that.

But first, an incident to mention, canvassing by User:Yellowbeard
Before I proceed, there is one situation here that should be exposed. User:Scuro and User:Tomruen were canvassed to comment. This is not their fault, and their comments should not be disregarded. Solicited by whom? As it happens, it occurred to me, before I saw editor Scuro's comment here, this morning, to check the contributions of a user I used to watch, User:Yellowbeard, whom I had filed a WP:SSP report on, Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (4th), and I noticed that he, who had been inactive, had put up a series of requests for comment on this RfA.

He solicited, first:*Tbouricius, who has been a paid consultant for FairVote, a Vermont legislator who introduced Instant-runoff voting legislation there, and co-author with Rob Richie. That these were the accounts chosen is consistent with my understanding of what Yellowbeard is. He may not be a sock of James Salsman, though that is not proven, but he is definitely a sock puppet, an account established for the purpose of using AfD to remove articles that could be used in arguments against Instant-runoff voting, such as election criteria that IRV fails, or quite a few other aspects of the topic. Anyway, I definitely rained on his parade, so it's no wonder at all that he would appear in connection with this. User:RRichie has just recently registered. He was, as an IP editor, blocked previously, as was User:Tbouricius and a series of Salsman socks. User:Tbouricius, one will find if one researches it, was unblocked with one reason given being my intervention. I have no complaints against the editors solicited here, and they have done nothing improper beyond the usual POV-pushing that we might expect from COI editors, or advocates on a topic, and they have been sufficiently restrained about that, that I have not been exercised to pursue any dispute resolution beyond simply soliciting advice from others. Then Yellowbeard also canvassed on the RfA from:
 * RRichie, the Executive Director of FairVote, see Rob Richie.
 * Tomruen, who is, unlike the first two, an experienced Wikipedian, but also "associated" with FairVote.
 * Ned Scott, a user with whom I have had almost no contact, but who has apparently cooperated with the next user on the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder articles:
 * Scuro, about which more will be written. He is not the topic of this RfA, but perhaps a case of a another editor constantly focusing on me as a contributor in talk will show a bit of what has been going on. As has another editor on the RfA page, I've asked for examples. He did give two at one point, just as mystifying as his response to my comment on the above. I have commented on his behavior as an editor, as I have found appropriate. I.e., as it is affecting the articles and the editorial process. He has erred in a number of ways that, by guidelines and policies, could have resulted in blocks, and I warned him, I believe correctly, but I have not attempted to have sanctions applied against him, nor have I considered such measures appropriate, at least not so far.

Yellowbeard was then pinged by another user about canvassing, and has apparently desisted. From the sequence, it would seem that he first notified his historical partners (or those he saw as most likely to oppose me), and then started to seek other opposition, and anyone who has been watching me would be likely to know that User:Scuro would be very likely to seize the opportunity, as he did. This is in no way a complaint against him.

For reference, before being blocked, Yellowbeard also solicited two more users:
 * User: Clockback Clockback is a well-known newspaper columnist, Peter Hitchens. I have explained 3RR violations to him and have urged him to avoid massive contentious edits, inserting unsourced POV material into Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. However, I have also encouraged him to find reliable source for what he is claiming, and it was my intervention to defuse what I saw as User:Scuro's attempts to discourage him from even trying that led to the strong reactions from that user.
 * User:Miamomimi is a defender of Clockback who has supported User:Scuro -- in spite of the fact that their positions on the article are about as opposite as can be imagined -- in his claims that I have been guilty of "commenting on writers, rather than on the article."


 * Excuse me but I am not "a defender of Clockback" who can defend himself perfectly well. Abd, you've wrongly accused me of being "a "meat puppet," or something similar (such as a sycophant currying favor with a famous person" which was offensive and highly embarassing. I'm not anyones "defender" but would come to the aid of any editor I felt unfairly targetted with personal comments. I have defended Clockback when I was in sympathy with his position. I have also defended people opposing Clockback. Miamomimi (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for commenting here, Miamomimi. Do you recall when Scuro reverted my Talk post, removing it, because it was an in-line response inserted into the middle of his post (accidentally)? Now, I acknowledged that, at the time, as an error on my part (though it was quite improper for him to remove it, he should have simply moved it to after the rest of his material). Here, it's fine with me that you did this. Now, to the point: you have, in the ordinary use of words, "defended" Clockback and diffs could be provided easily; but you are not on trial here, so I'm not going to try to prove anything. Is there something wrong with defending someone, that it would be something that should be so vigorously denied? I did not write what was above as any kind of accusation, but to explain why Yellowbeard would have solicited your comment. He expected -- quite correctly -- that you would be highly critical.


 * Now, if you would like to read further, I'd suggest taking a deep breath, have some tea. Nobody is attacking you and you are in a safe place (though do be aware that the future is watching ... still, that's true wherever you are). If what I say seems strange, there is no emergency. You could ask what I mean if you like, or, indeed, you can ignore any of this. But if you can read it, stepping aside from any sort of idea that you have to "understand" what I'm "getting at," you might discover something.


 * Now, you and Clockback have taken an interest in Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. You are seeing and experiencing the writing of an adult with pronounced ADHD, it's not marginal. It can be extremely difficult for some people to understand me; it has to do with the nuances of ordinary ("normal") communication. I write *very* literally, and every word is there for a reason. A "normal" person may rely on very different ways of thinking and communicating, where tone and many other cues are used to figure out what the person actually "means." With me, exact text is much more important than "tone." Paradoxically, I can also write cryptically, where a few words are carrying worlds of meaning. I get into trouble with both.


 * It looks to me as if you are looking back at text from Talk and you certainly use quotation marks, yet you do, in fact, take material out of context, and I assume that you remember what you are quoting, or that is what is important to you, and the context can be lost, since it doesn't have an impact or you don't understand it. This happened with "dense" before, and the same misquotation was repeated on the project page here. When you take a sentence out of context, it can change the meaning; when you take words out of a sentence, it's even more risky. So now you say, above, 'Abd, you've wrongly accused me of being "a "meat puppet," or something similar (such as a sycophant currying favor with a famous person" which was offensive and highly embarassing.'' Yet the text does not support that I "accused" you. What I wrote was how I think your behavior might be seen if looked at by an administrator who decided to check your contributions. Many of them do that before determining what is going on.


 * When you want to quote what someone has said, you will find that diffs, generally, are better than page references (that's why they were asking you for this on the RfA page). If you just point to the page, as you did above, the page may change, plus sometimes it's necessary to search through a long section (and, in this case, there is a syntax error, so the link doesn't work -- you need to put in a space between the actual URL and the text you want to display.) Do you know how to use diffs? There are several ways to get them, the way I usually use is to go to History for the page. You can display the changes from a sequence of edits there. Once you are looking at a change, you can copy the URL for the diff from your address bar. Now, to the point; first of all, what was the context? Clockback had begun edit warring, and, I think, actually violated 3RR, and he had previously been warned by an administrator. I don't recall if it actually happened, but for whatever reason, I was concerned that you, as someone quite clearly not familiar with guidelines for editor behavior, might think that you might be able to help Clockback (or the article) by doing some of the reversions yourself. And so, by explaining the rules for "meat puppetry," I was trying to warn you not to do that. Unfortunately, you took my description of the situation -- which I still think is accurate and which would, in my opinion, be upheld on review -- as an attack. So, reading this, remember: Clockback was edit warring in a way which could get him blocked. By the way, I didn't have any clue, before a few days ago at most, that you were a woman, my apologies for using "he." I frequently use the "he or she" construction, but ... didn't here.


 * Now, it's time, as well, to note the involvement of User:Miamomimi, and his relationship with User:Clockback. See Special:Contributions/Miamomimi, notice what he has edited. He's been around a while. He started, immediately after registration, with editing the article, Peter Hitchens. In case anyone has missed it, Clockback is Peter Hitchens. In the sometimes blunt and unfortunate language of Wikipedia, User:Miamomimi is either a "meat puppet," or something similar (such as a sycophant currying favor with a famous person, and I have no evidence to bear on that; the effect would be the same as "meat puppet"). Is this an attack on him? I don't think so, I am merely pointing out what is obvious to one who looks at Contributions. The effect, if I'm correct, is that a meat puppet and the "master" are treated as if they were a single editor. As far as I am concerned, Clockback is welcome to as much support as he can muster, or as offers itself to him. The exceptions are polls and edit warring, for meat puppets can allow an apparent avoidance of 3RR violation. Participating in multiple reversions, even if the individual editor makes only one, can, under some circumstances, result in a block. As it has been said, WP:3RR is a "bright line," beyond which blocking is *almost* automatic.


 * The edit pattern shows a special interest in Clockback. So if you and Clockback were active on the same article, reverting, the reverts would probably be counted as if they were coming from a single editor. So if you had done one revert, under those conditions, you might have been blocked -- if he had done three. I was quite aware of the offensive sound of "meat puppet." Which is why I noted that this was "blunt and unfortunate" language. But see WP:MEAT and WP:3RR. I wasn't making any of this up, and that you might be the most independent person in the world and are just riding in to help someone being unfairly handled, doesn't change how the behavior might be judged. Now, about the "sycophant" comment. The motives of the "meat puppet" don't really matter, what matters is the behavior. However, the use of "puppet" implies a controller, and your editing behavior could be coming from other than control by Clockback (which is what you say, and I believe you). Indeed, I believe everything you have said about your motives. I was simply noting another explanation than "puppetry." Seeing, now, how easily unintended meanings of words can trigger your sensitivities, I apologize for using language that was not effective for communicating with you.


 * Bottom line: you did not understand what I was trying to tell you, probably because you did not trust my motives. This is quite common, for me to experience this. The lack of trust seems to originate in the obscurity of what have to say. Paradoxically, my verbosity may come from my experience that if I don't adequately explain my ideas, they will be rejected -- sometimes quite violently -- because of easy misunderstandings. In other words, it could well be that if I am more succinct, there would be more negative reaction to what I write. It's a problem. I've been succinct in this RfA (occasionally!), and it has been misinterpreted; it's unfortunate. When few words are used, it's much easier to come up with interpretations of meaning that are different from the intent, sometimes radically different. Face to face, there are often clues to the intention (or big flags waving). Now, WP:AGF would suggest that, when we think that someone is being offensive, that we try to see if we can re-interpret it in a better way. That could avoid a lot of problems! --Abd (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Be aware the future is watching" and you don't expect me to understand what you're telling me? And you know why do you?? LEAVE ME ALONE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I WILL TAKE NO FURTHER PART IN THIS DISCUSSION AND WISH YOU WELL BUT PLEASE DON'T COMMUNICATE WITH ME EVER AGAIN AND I WON'T WITH YOU. Go well. Miamomimi (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

All of these users might be reasonably expected to hold and express a negative opinion of my participation; there are quite a few others (a strong majority, I suspect), participants in those articles, who would not, so there is no doubt that there has been selective canvassing. Nevertheless, the participation of these users in my RfA is quite welcome, as far as I'm concerned, though I fear that their inexperience with Wikipedia customs and norms may be slightly disruptive (not in an actionable way, they are simply doing what they were asked to do, and would not have any clue that Yellowbeard is a sockpuppet violating guidelines by asking them to comment.) Please treat them with kindness. User:Scuro has more experience, but is still apparently naive about guidelines, policies, and procedures, please assume his good faith, though I would not recommend assuming that his observations and conclusions about my behavior and motives are accurate unless verified. In at least two cases I have apologized for unintended implications of what I wrote about his behavior, and used strikeout to correct the text; in one case I actually had begun to lose my assumption of good faith, but that was based on knowing that his emphatic assertion about his own edit history -- denying what I had written -- was literally false; however -- with quite a bit of work, actually -- I was able to identify the source of the error and the facts removed the reason to doubt his good faith. He merely made some mistakes and probably did not remember correctly what he had done. --Abd (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been recommended that I pursue dispute resolution with Yellowbeard, but, in fact, there was no ongoing dispute; simply by watching him and intervening when he tried to continue his activities, I was able to interdict them without edit warring or complicated process, and he had stopped editing even by that time. I would not want to waste the time of others if it was moot. He's now back, but I consider his action here harmless. It simply shows what I've been facing all along. Beyond what is seen here, Wikipedia editors have been solicited outside to try to make it difficult for me here; as it happens, one of these realized he was, essentially, on the wrong side and has revealed to me what had been happening. I had no idea that I was so important to them, but, apparently, I am.

Now, back to the immediate task, responding with gratitude to the community which has taken time to comment in this AfD. I truly am grateful by the support that has been expressed, and that gratitude extends to the comments from those who have voted to Oppose. It has been suggested that appreciation for votes be expressed here rather than on user talk, which is why I'm doing it here, and it really does not matter to me if I am approved or not. As I wrote before, I'm much more concerned about process than content. --Abd (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Yellowbeard did not stop, he's back at canvassing. Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard. --Abd (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked for persistent inappropriate canvassing of oppose !votes after a previous warning to desist by another admin. It's up to the reviewing bureaucrat whether to underweight or ignore any canvassed !votes. MastCell Talk 17:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think that was appropriate. By this time, Yellowbeard, though, was a throwaway account the master decided to use one last time. Out in a blaze of glory so to speak. Someone with checkuser might attempt to see who it was, though it may be undetectable; I suspected Salsman, and don't know how conclusive the prior dismissal of that was. Fortunately, no harm done. I request that the closing administrator fully consider any issues raised by the canvassed persons, and only discount them if it is clear that the vote is corrupt in some way aside from being canvassed. Indeed, these are about the only votes raising more substantial issues, the ones I had expected would dominate this RfA. I had actually thought of canvassing them myself, and only restrained myself because of the rules, and that I also really did not want to create heat from inexperienced users with little light. On the other hand, if User:Scuro actually does respond to the requests examples, it could mean much more, I might learn something, and likewise the community might learn more about me. Learning about me, and considering what is learned, is what I see as the point here, and exact votes don't matter much, at least not to me.--Abd (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarsaparilla, nominator
I wrote previously why I accepted this nomination; it is an opportunity to explore this aspect of Wikipedia process, and it is indeed possible that I may be of some service with the tools. However, you wrote: The fact that he was tempted to decline is prima facie evidence of a lack of power hunger! Well, if we assume good faith, which I'm not sure we should do when judging the risks of assigning the bit to a user. I might merely have learned that "Sincerity is the foundation of success, and if you can fake that, you've got it made!" I report that I was tempted to decline. It is a claim, not a fact. I guess the encyclopedic habits have really gotten to me.... Thanks for your confidence in me. I don't know why you chose now to do this, instead of waiting until I had the edits suggested in the first RfA, but.... it may turn out to have been useful for something. --Abd (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, actually I didn't realize you had so few edits. But I thought it would be semi-irrelevant given your obvious grasp of policy. We are rapidly approaching a point where no one can be familiar with all the aspects of policy, and we will have to have specialists. Well, maybe not. Policy formulation proceeds at a glacial pace here compared to other fora like the U.S. Congress. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought we discussed that on the phone when you suggested it might be time for me to be nominated again and I said I didn't think I had enough edits. Water under the bridge.

Sarsaparilla wrote this odd comment on the project page, and I'm going to take this as a test of what I'd do if a user put this on my Talk page, and I had time to respond. I'm going to give the ordinary editor response first. Then I'll give the administrator response, and I can really see that I'll need two accounts. (Per general policy, only one of the accounts would have the admin bit set, and it would not be the Abd account, since that account already has a history of possible controversy.) I'll use interspersed format, since it will be impossible to follow otherwise. Remember, this is "ordinary user" first. And, warning. Serious silliness follows. But it starts off innocently enough.

So who do you think's going to win the Potomac primary tomorrow? I haven't a clue and I don't really care, actually. I'm in hog heaven this year, numerous excellent candidates (each from a different perspective). There is even a good "Republican," who isn't going to get the nomination because the system makes it impossible (he's popular enough that he might actually win, because some of his popularity comes from libertarian progressives.

''I'm guessing Obama's going to sweep all three states, but we'll see. And if I'm wrong, it'll be engraved in Wikipedia history forever. (Unless someone deletes this edit. Unfortunately, it looks like I'll have to wait a few more months before I can ask you to remove the evidence of my lack of prognosticatorial acumen).'' Well, it's there even if it is deleted, and so it might still be visible. When this record is examined many years from now, do we think that they will be deterred by mere admin bits? (Depends on what copies exist, of course.)

Personally, I'm voting for Ron Paul partly because of his cannabis-friendliness and partly because my theory is that if we don't start supporting the underdogs in these races, it's just going to be the same kind of centrist candidates who end up polling 10% and making it into the debates. Well, as you know, Paul is really a libertarian; our present system pretends that there is only one axis of opinion: liberal/conservative, when, if fact, there is another major axis (authoritarian/libertarian). The political oligarchy uses polarization to control the process, this is built into what I call "the system." The problem isn't the players, it's the game, the game sets up roles and people fill them. Change the system, the players will make different motions. When I've taken the famous test, I come up libertarian/progressive. And, of course, that is a whole other topic. (I'm a radical anarchist, more radical than "anarchists," because I see hierarchy as natural and essential. But not top-down hierarchy, rather a more biological kind of hierarchy, bottom-up. Distributed decision-making, essentially multiprocessing and integrated over the network. And, as with biological systems, we get there by growing it, not by trying to change the whole structure into something new. One piece at a time, one small step for a man, one giant step for mankind. Er, human, humanity.

''But enough politics. What do you think of how coach Bill Belichick walked off the field before the final play last week? Do you think he should be disciplined for doing that? Personally, I thought the whole ending of that Superbowl was slightly stilted, in that everyone was running onto the field all excited at the victory, and then they said, "Wait a minute, put 1 more second back on the clock."'' Huh? Wow, they can turn back the clock? Maybe I should take an interest in sports, I could use that skill.

Sorry, I'm getting distracted from the most pertinent four questions I wanted to ask in reference to your AfD, which are, Do you believe that some zedens could also be properly classified as shibongs?

Ah! at last, back on track! Not to put too fine a point on it, but, They are, sometimes, maybe, under certain conditions, according to some, others view it differently, some say so, other critics note otherwise, but allegedly they are.

What about rameks – would you consider some zedens to fall under that category?

"ramek" -wikipedia, 7,960,000 ghits. "ramek", 166,000 ghits. Apparently, it's no wonder there is difficulty with the article, ramek is mentioned here almost 8 million times less than not at all. If ramek were to be mentioned on Wikipedia, it would be quite a coup for the Ramekites, or the Ramekin, as they are better known, increasing their visibility on the net by a factor of thirty or so.

"zeden" -wikipedia, 462,000 ghits. "zeden" 589,000 ghits. Clearly, zeden has positive mention on wikipedia.

"zeden ramek returns 8 ghits." Not notable, and "category ramek zeden" returns no hits at all, so it seems quite likely that no reliable source can be found for it. delete

Which leads me to my next questions, are some rameks not of the bloop persuasion;

Well, I did some serious research on this; unfortunately, I had an original thought while doing it, and I've been told that if I write about what I found, even if only in Talk, I will be slapped with a big wet fish, a wiggletrout or something like that, I don't recall and the image was so horrible that I didn't log in for a week. I actually had to eat something and that involved talking to a human being at a Market. Fortunately, I've recovered and I'm back. But I won't even mention it again.

and in your opinion, do some tarmaks not fit the definition of what we would normally consider to be bloops? Please avoid the weasel words. They are or they aren't, and if there is a definition, there is a definer, so, to be NPOV, the claim must be attributed, not to mentioned really ably sauced, or something like that, unless claimant is famous, in which case he or she can be ordinarily sauced, and I think I'm going to be sick ... excuse me....

Now, where were we?

I'm interested in your ability to not only exercise critical thinking about current events but also use analytical logic to unravel the type of complex situations encountered by admins on a day to day basis.

Of course you are, anyone with more intelligence than a wiggletrout would be interested. On the other hand, warm bodies make the subways run. Not everybody has to be smart, stupid people have a right to eat too, just not too much or they become fat stupid people, and without persistent stupidity, how then would we be any smarter than anyone else? I sincerely apologize for my momentary loss of all propriety and political correctness, no offense is intended to stupid people, fat people, or wiggletrout, and all have an equal right to edit and vote in Wikipedia process, directly or however else they wish, whether or not they have a clue, and this is all exactly as it should be. Seriously. But the wiggletrout are not allowed to edit articles where they have a conflagration of interest, or they will be flocked or even branded. Or something like that.

''Your duties will surely involve figuring out not just whether a particular user falls under the category of vandal, but whether he also deserves having the sockpuppet template or analogous notices slapped on his page. Think hard, my friend. This one is for all the marbles. Sarsaparilla (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)''

There are marbles involved? Nobody told me that! Can I go back and delete all my comments in this RfA? Let me see ... policy on user deletions ... WP:DELETESELF deleting own comments. It's allowed! Preferred to use strikeout, but no consequences from doing otherwise. What kind of marbles?

and, seriously, if this piece of nonsense landed on my admin Talk page.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Is there some way I can help? --Abd (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I knew you didn't have an extremely large number of edits but I hadn't noticed they were only about 1,500. Then again, it's not particularly relevant as you could have spent the work of your lifetime writing 1,500 featured article-quality articles off-wiki and then posting them here, in addition to reading all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and a representative sample of the deletion debates, all the while keeping up on the Village Pump, Administrator's Noticeboard, etc. Usually it's not that extreme, but you get the gist. Anyway, just the fact that the edit count is low gives an excuse to vote against, but then again, not everyone is looking for an excuse; some people sincerely believe that it is a decent measure of knowledge/experience. And others just want more information to go on in making a decision, and the more edits you've made, the more there is to look at. There could be any number of motives for using that measure, some of which could be overridden by superb qualities exhibited in those few edits, and some of which couldn't, so to me, it seemed unpredictable how the nomination would go, and in the end, I just decided to roll the dice, since there would be no harm in trying. And victory seemed to be within grasp for awhile there.

Anyway, this debate has taught/reminded me of at least a few things:
 * 1) It's not so much what you are, but how you present yourself;
 * 2) It's not so much what you say, but how you say it;
 * 3) Don't joke around at RfA. (But indeed, when using sarcasm/humor in the midst of any wiki process, there's always the potential to annoy people, hurt feelings or just look dumb. This is partially due to the publicness of this forum, the fact that our communication is written (which eliminates nonverbal cues), and the fact that this is a discussion whose stated purpose and ultimate result will be a decision on a matter of importance.

From maturity (psychological):
 * Maturity is a psychological term used to indicate that a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate manner; this response is generally learned rather than instinctual. Maturity and inanity need not be mutually exclusive, for maturity is more of an understanding for when each of the two behaviors is appropriate.

We learn a lot from this encyclopedia... Sarsaparilla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.91.68 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Wow! Somebody actually reads my stuff! Be careful! It might encourage me to write more! (Seriously, I'll probably be writing less, not more, and my biggest worry if this RfA does pass is that I'll be distracted from what may be more important than pushing certain buttons. Would you consider withdrawing your support? --Abd (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really want me to do so, I'll respect your wish. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kaiwhakahaere
''I am inexperienced, just like you. Ergo, thats TWO of us editors who have no place in Wiki.'' It's important to keep this in perspective. The administrative tools do not confer any "place," administrators actually have no more personal authority than any other user, and any administrator who uses his buttons for personal purpose in any way detrimental to other users can lose them. Essentially, having the tools does not help to edit articles; if I'm editing an article, and I use the tools to, say, stop other editors from reverting me, I've blown it, and if any of them are sophisticated enough to complain, I'm history as an administrator. If I personally attack another user, I'd be blocked the same as anyone else, and if I use my tools to unblock myself, there they go. That some editors think I should have N edits before being allowed to mop the floor has nothing to do with my having or not having a place here. And thanks for your appreciation. --Abd (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Scuro, response of Abd
I removed the following material from the RfA page, it was quite simply too long to be inserted in the middle of a vote section, and formatting errors were causing the vote counts to fail. It would have been much more gentle on the readers of the RfA if a few diffs had been provided instead of copying all this material over.

---start moved material--


 * (a later insertion) I've read pretty well all the commentary in talk twice. No word or single phrase is truly a personal attack. I'm simply going to use one post of Abd's to illustrate how straying off of content and focusing on contributors can also be offensive to a fellow editor.


 * ''[the two paragraphs above were inadvertently separated by text from me. Instead of simply moving the interspersed text down one paragraph, Scuro twice removed it entirely from the page, contrary to strong guidelines against deleting comment from others without permission (outside certain situations that don't apply here). The first time I restored it, it was with explanatory text clearly connecting Scuro's first paragraph with his second. For that, as it was, see the diff for Scuro's second removal: This time, I have moved my text below his paragraph, which could have been done at any point (moving other's text around, if done for clarity, does not require permission.) The following is what he took out]


 * Scuro has been claiming that I've been offensively describing him and what he does. I've asked for citations showing this: none have been given. In fact, he's been harassing me on my Talk page, see WP:HUSH, and   (I've deleted them, actually the first comments I've deleted from my Talk page -- and there have been some beauts before -- but, of course, they remain in History for anyone to see.) (These are diffs for my removals, which show my responses, also removed:   )


 * Above he describes my post -- which is mostly complimentary of Dr. Sobo -- and which only peripherally mentions Scuro, and not in any improper way, as "unkind," with an apparently sarcastic "Thanks." And then he describes Sobo in a manner that would surely qualify as offensive by the guidelines he's been describing on my Talk page. Hence I have been known to mention pots and kettles and the color black. Removing notable and properly contexted material, verifiable by anyone, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, in spite of the wikilawyering; guidelines are designed for general situations, which is why rule number one for Wikipedia is Ignore All Rules. That's an often misunderstood guideline. It doesn't mean that this is an anarchy; in fact, IAR is a basic principle of common law: judges may generally ignore precedent and even statutory law in favor of "public policy," which basically means that they think it good for the public. But if they do so thoughtlessly, they may get reversed, or worse.


 * The removal of such material frequently results in POV imbalance. I attempted to negotiate and implement a compromise in Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, where there was a *brief* mention of controversy in the introduction with reference to this article here. I suggested that before controversy would be presented in detail in the main article -- if it ever is -- it would be appropriate for it to be so explored here. Controversy is not about primary facts, though primary facts may be explored in describing it. Instead, controversy is *about* opinion, so opinions may be cited, indeed, opinions *should* be cited. A common error with controversy articles is to simply summarize what editors may have seen or think. That is, in fact, if not itself sourced accurately, original research. WP:RS for attributed opinions requires only that the accuracy of what is attributed is verifiable. Dr. Sobo has a web site, and we may reasonably assume that what is there as his opinion or report may be attributed to him. Thus the claims made above about using this source are a guideline intended for "primary fact" used inappropriately for sourced opinion. With the main article, there would be the additional question, a difficult one, of balance, but with an article on the controversy, the sole criterion would be if Sobo is a notable critic or not. And there is sufficient proof for that, from what has been published.


 * [end of material deleted by Scuro.]


 * Sobo is a psychiatrist, who treats ADHD and prescribes drugs. Yes, the article in question is "self published." So? Sometimes expert opinion may be used if the person has been independently established, from reliable source, as an expert, but I'm avoiding that here,it can be complicated. He's a notable critic, however. His opinions are relevant. That he is also a cogent writer with a very good grasp of the subject, and not an anti-psychiatry fringe theorist, is merely frosting on the cake. His article, now available through the external link, is the best writing I've seen on the *internal* controversy among those working in the field, but if Scuro thinks there are other, better sources to link, by all means. In complex controversy articles, sometimes, there are classifications of external sources into POV positions, but classifying him would be difficult! It would be ridiculous to call him, for example, "anti-ADHD" or even "anti-drug." --Abd (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have unlimited time in the day, I have a job, family...and many other concerns and commitments that take up my time. I can devote an hour or more a day.. depending. How much time do I have to report back? I'll start tonight and will do it in chunks. Since Abd is replying to this RFA, Abd,...why can you not comply to the oft cited request of you to specifically follow the guideline of sticking to commenting on content instead of contributors...especially if you know that you are upsetting fellow contributors? Secondly, why did you not respond when asked to let it go and do the right thing?...Here...(WP:TRUCE Abd, peace can be achieved if we both follow the conventions of Wikipedia. There are two current behaviours which are impeding my editing ability. I ask that you stop cutting my posts in half with your edits and I also ask that you focus on content and not other editors WP:NPA. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". Can we not solve this here now? --scuro (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC))...here... ( Abd....Abd...I'm not biting on the bait offered. It would be great if we could let this go. I'm ready to move on and have stated so several times now. I don't want to focus on the past and want to work together in good faith. Again, I offer that opportunity to you and wait for your aquiensence. No editor wants to see this go on...but what is one to do if someone can't let it go? The mediation cabal is my answer, hence the request of advice from the mediation cabal. It can stop now, and I'll lead the way. I will focus only on content if you do the same. My commitment starts now, does yours? --scuro (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)) and here (Crikey!! Hey guys, let's just stop with the personal comments and considerations and all play nicely - we've all had problems with each other because this is an emotive topic, but it's important. Abd - a number of editors have had problems with your personal comments but lets forget that now and all assume good faith; I think it's there. You are an important contributor to this article so please don't go and lets all just stay on topic, all of us. Scuro and others - you do resist mention of any viewpoint questioning ADHD as a medical condition, but Scuro your objections are not without foundation, except when dealing with Clockback who deals only in logic (Continually repeating a line from an advert he's never seen will just annoy him) but as he seems to have gone now I don't see that as a problem. So please, lets just forget this and make progress. Miamomimi (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC))--scuro (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On first reading of the histories of the talk pages my memory had painted Abd to be more confrontational then he actually was, this is especially true in the beginning. What got to me was that he didn't stop with the "calling a spade a spade" and spelling everyone's motives out. Had he followed his own advice early, ("*...But, it's true. You did not ask me for advice. Suit yourself.--Abd (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)) this would have stopped there. But it didn't and as I saw large tracks of text, sometimes well over 2000 words long...and interspersed with personal remarks and judgments on my editing style...I became more doubtful of his motives. Those large tracks of text were frustrating because they were jammed full of multiple ideas that may not connect to each other plus they could contain personal comments and jabs. They looked like a giant sophisticated flame. I didn't have the time to argue point for point although I felt in a number of instances he was off base. You were simply overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of ideas and length of post, and I even stated as much in talk. The posts got longer. So how do you respond? Post a few ideas and he doubles your total and triples your length and then sprinkles in those little personal jabs that darken your intellectual functioning. I kept on wondering, why wouldn't he only comment only content, especially when another editor explicitly requests this? The request was made at least a dozen times. When someone asks you to please change...you have bothered them. How could he not tell that he was upsetting someone? I have started compiling edits and they do support what I have stated but I am embarrassed to state that my behavior was no better then his...perhaps worse.--scuro (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour wasn't worse, Scuro, your clear main concern is content, and you're not up for admin. Miamomimi (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent, inserted) Wow! Good work, Scuro. I apologize for the long comments; it, unfortunately, is what I have time for. (Yes, it takes me much more time to write less, and my time is seriously stretched already. I know other people with exactly the same problem; one of my friends writes on the same subject as I and he is quite succinct and clear. And, to express the same ideas, he says, he takes easily three times as long as I do.) I found it necessary to point out certain behaviors and the effects they were having on the participation of other editors; but, at the same time, I was trying to work to uncover the issues that were keeping the editors apart. It's complex, and there are some deep philosophical issues that are at work, that will take serious exploration to disentangle. That process is deeper than just being about "is this a reliable source," because to write a good article on a subject it's necessary to understand the subject, and that can take, sometimes, a form of "original research." This research is not a source for the article. If I write about my experience with ADHD, it is only in and for Talk, not to be put in the article. It's background, and any good reporter will be interested in background, I'd think. However, I can also be quite difficult to understand. Don't worry about it! If what I'm saying is important, it will come back around. In any case, as I wrote before, I'm glad you commented here and quite a few things have been cleared up, at least for me. I'm not having any trouble at all assuming good faith on your part, not that I was ever far from it. The only time there was a problem that way was when I found you had inserted a misleading reference in the article (i.e., it wasn't in the article and you had put it in) and you came back and said you were just moving text around. It took a fair amount of research to determine that you had, in fact, copied the text from the other article, the "main" article. I hope you recognize that it would have been very easy to start calling you a liar at that point. I'm really glad I didn't fall for that temptation! --Abd (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem in a nutshell. The first sentence of my first comment stated this, "He has a tendency to judge other editors and their editing practices far too often in talk, and believes that this practice is productive." It is my contention that not only does he call people names and belittle what he believes to be negative behaviour...he honestly thinks he is justified in doing so.
 * From Abd's talk page: "Much of my concern on Wikipedia is meta, that is, it may appear in connection with some topic, but my ultimate concern is Wikipedia process, and that process involves people, editors with POVs and axes to grind, and a few who actually value NPOV and consensus well above their own opinions. All these, together, build the encyclopedia. The down side, though, is that without structure, the process is horrifically inefficient. There is a reason why consensus process typically does not survive in organizations beyond a few years. It burns most people out. I believe there is a way to move beyond this, to *keep* consensus process but to make it far more efficient. Nevertheless, we start where we are, and where we are includes the existing editors of existing articles with their existing patterns of behavior. So I comment on it, not to insult them (generally), but to open it all up. I'd don't generally comment on editors but on editor behavior. Yes, it's tricky and I can err and gratuitously offend. That's not my intention. Point out a specific example, and, if I agree that it was unnecessarily offensive, I'll apologize, in situ. Otherwise you may be wasting your time and mine complaining. I saw a dogfight, I called it that (figuratively), and now the complaint is that I called someone a dog. No, it was the behavior. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, put it back on the shelf. You are not now, nor will you become, responsible for what I say. Unless it's true and you reject it, in which case you might find yourself in hot water later. Not from me, from your encounter with reality. And all this is *generic*. If you take it personally, that is what *you* are doing. I don't know you and I am not your Judge. --Abd (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abd&diff=187698509&oldid=187636541
 * Consider this, I've seen too many editors who flamebait by making talk personal. If you respond to their personal accusations it all goes downhill quickly. If you notice, I didn't respond to any judgements or observations you made about me or my editing style. I always commented on that you were not on content in talk. Any editor who doesn't directly respond to the negative feedback is a leg down. Think Swiftboating or strawman. That makes an unlevel playing field and intentionally or unintentionally it is seen as a means of control. If you want to call me a "single account user" or make references to "dishonest idiots", or what not, and you believe that has some educational purpose...that should be done privately. By doing it publicly, intentionally or unintentionally, you are publicly demeaning the editor whom you associate references to or pass judgement on. To me I wouldn't trust you with the button. You may justify it's use like you justified the breaking of guidelines about focusing on content...it would save time, wouldn't it? And still you haven't committed to not focusing on the contributor. Do you believe that you know better and thus have a right to do it? Ever consider that you could be wrong and not know it? That would be an unfair to the people you judge....they might spend a great deal of time pointing this out to you. I'd really like to hear what you have to say about this.--scuro (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:EQ Point 9 from the principles of Wikipedia etiquette is don't ignore questions. See the above post.--scuro (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent)You are an editor taking the position in the ADHD article that the disorder is real and not a social construct (which is my own understanding as well). Here it is, in front of you. One of the common traits of those with ADHD is a difficulty interpreting the intentions of others through subtle cues. I can take two approaches: I can answer the literal question, which drives some people up the wall, since they really want me to infer their question from what they actually write, or I can address the implied questions, and typically there are hundreds that can be implied. If I do the first, I'm terse, not understandable, and considered arrogant and dismissive. If I follow the second, I'm verbose, can be understood by those with the patience to read it -- it's a skill -- but also totally lose people who are looking for the first kind of answer, to a question which normal people would immediately get and respond to. I've done a lot of the second kind of response with this editor, and he is apparently allergic to it (as are many). So, here's the first. I see four questions above:
 * it would save time, wouldn't it? I don't understand the question. What would save time? I could guess, but then you'd get a tome in response.
 * Do you believe that you know better... Better than what or who? Pick a referent; generally, sometimes I know better and sometimes I don't. I haven't seen, so far, that I've broken a guideline, I think he is asking, "Do you know better than the guidelines," which aren't people and which don't know things. Scuro, in his comment here, implies interpretations of guidelines that I don't agree with. I'd suggest using Talk here if he wishes to get more specific. To go further with this answer, and do anything other than talk in abstract terms, I'd have to describe his behavior, and why it is relevant to describe it, in my opinion, and thus the whole cycle repeats. At some point somebody has to stop. I am, as this is written, shifting into quasi-admin mode, so you all will see a different editor if you follow my contributions.
 *  ...and thus have a right to do it? No. All editors have a right to do what I've done, including the right to make mistakes. But editors, including me, are also responsible for what they do.--Abd (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ever consider that you could be wrong and not know it? Constantly. And I depend on my friends -- and others -- to warn me. --Abd (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There were a few questions still in need of an answer, "Abd,...why can you not comply to the oft cited request of you to specifically follow the guideline of sticking to commenting on content instead of contributors and their behaviour...especially if you know that you are upsetting fellow contributors? Secondly, why did you not respond when asked to let it go and do the right thing?--scuro (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) Civil comment on editor behavior that is harming the project is appropriate and necessary. (2) I was doing the right thing already, as far as I can tell, and I'm not holding on, so I can't let go. --Abd (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you here. You are a contributor no different from any other contributor. If you believe another editor is harming an article you shouldn't take it upon yourself to be the judge and jury. There are several Wikipedian processes by which you could address your concern. None were sought. By over stepping your your bounds you have upset several editors on the ADHD article. When these editors voiced their concerns repeatedily, over a lengthy time frame...you need to head that message. By refusing to comply to the guideline of focusing on content, and ignoring your fellow contributor's feedback, you are holding onto incorrect assumptions which harm the proper functioning of that talk page. The other editors are upset and because of this will also stray from focusing on content. The end result can be a disfunctional talk page because one editor believes that a guideline should be ignored because they know better.--User:Scuro|scuro]] (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before I give an extended response, I'll give my admin mode response:


 * I'm sorry that my comments have offended you. You can find guidance on how to address this at WP:DR and other places, such as WP:ANI. If there is anything I can do to help, please don't hesitate to ask, but given that your complaint is about me, you should probably ask someone else.--Abd (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are a contributor no different from any other contributor. Yes. Originally, all users on wikipedia had the administrator tools. At present, any user may act as an adminstrator could act, except, obviously, the regular user may not press the "block" button, protect articles, or the like. What I did, you can do, and, in fact, you have. I commented on editor behavior (with respect to what I saw as edit warring and heavily maintaining an article in a unilaterally preferred state, and what I saw as rudeness to editors (more than one) with differing views than yours. You commented on my alleged personal attacks and claimed violations of guidelines about commenting on editors rather than on the article. Both are comments on editor behavior. And both are allowed, under the same principles, or not allowed, and that depends on circumstances.

''There are several Wikipedian processes by which you could address your concern. None were sought.'' That's correct. It's work to follow those processes, and it typically involves much more comment on editors than what I did. Indeed, I made some comments, and your behavior improved with respect to everyone else and it went down the tubes with respect to me. I could certainly complain, but because your behavior is no longer harming the article, why bother? I make mistakes; I've done quite a bit of work to discover those errors (because you don't make it easy, with general complaint instead of specifics, as happened here), and I've apologized and used strikeout to correct incorrect statements about what you did or the possible inferred bad faith involved. But the vast bulk of my comment was about problematic behavior of yours that I saw as damaging the article, seriously, and it was continuing. You stopped, why you stopped isn't my business. Since then, the only comment on you has been that occasioned by your persistent complaints against me, to respond to your questions honestly and openly, and, sometimes, to provide diffs so that others might understand what is going on, not that they particularly care.

When you asked on Wikipedia Talk:Mediation Cabal for help with dispute resolution, and several days passed and nobody responded to you, I answered myself, giving you an outline of Wikipedia dispute resolution process, in detail. I did not target you with it. As every editor I've asked for help has done, I responded to the question first as if you were innocent as a lamb, but then added contingent comment about examining your own behavior, because, as you have hinted, we should all be aware of the possibility that we are seriously off-base, and the effort to understand the situation from the point of view of other editors with whom one might be having some conflict is good for us, regardless. You are not obligated to be grateful, but your review of your own record, as you documented on the RfA page, and which is now moved above, I think, showed that you may indeed have benefited, and I would suggest that this could help you in your interactions with many others. What you did with me, you would probably do with others. And that has nothing to do with how offensive my own behavior is.

Your response to me on the Mediation Cabal Talk page seemed hostile and defensive, as if I'd been accusing you of something. I'd urge you to re-read that; try to read it, setting aside the history, as if someone else had written it than me. Was it decent advice? You did ask for advice, didn't you?

It can be terrifying to "see ourselves as others see us." But it's worth the pain and effort. There have been moments of pain for me in this RfA, though I know myself pretty well; even though I understand, generally deeply, why others would think of me in this way or that, and why they might be exactly right and, again, why I am that way, it still hurts sometimes. It really hurts when I reach out and try to help and the person remains hostile, and it hurts when someone I thought understood me, truly does not.

''By over stepping your your bounds you have upset several editors on the ADHD article. When these editors voiced their concerns repeatedily, over a lengthy time frame...you need to head that message.''

Look, I'm 63 years old, and I've been through many organizational conflicts. It has *often* happened to me that people, even some who were truly my friends, thought I was trying to destroy everything good in sight. And, years later, this person would come to me and say, "You were right, I just couldn't see it at the time." Does that mean my behavior was perfect? Certainly not. But my intentions were right, and the outcome was good, in the end. If you heart is in the right place, Scuro, you may feel pain as the dross is burned off, but in the end, you will be safe and secure, and your life will be filled with joy.

I have stage 1 prostate cancer, which is a bit weird, because it is entirely possible that we could do nothing and it would be moot, I might be more likely to die of something else. Yet it has truly reminded me of my mortality, and so I'm not going to pass my days being quiet just to be polite in the ordinary sense. My time here is limited, so I'm taking advantage of it. I am aware that the future is watching, and it sometimes makes me seem distant and socially inappropriate, but I'm fully present in what I'm doing, and I would not trade my shoes for anyone else's. I'm grateful every day for what I have in my life; this is what you have come into contact with, Scuro. I truly hope it helps you.

In this RfA, someone who perceives me as an enemy intervened, canvassing negative votes, including yours. He represents the same people who tried to get me blocked, within a very short time after I began editing, here, an article of critical interest to them. Every move he made increased my success in what I was really trying to do, which was not to gain administrative tools -- I've explained this over and over, and some readers believe me and some don't -- but to test the water, so to speak. Otherwise why would I go to so much trouble to find out if the community really trusted me enough to use the tools, enough to ask me to do it. Those same people, behind the series of sock puppets sent to work here, have sent others to attempt to make my work here difficult. It has made it easier, because there can be those among their supporters who are sincere and who are willing to look at what is actually in front of them instead of just holding in mind what they were told. Sending someone to try to get me deleted is hazardous, because it brings that person into contact with me. Want to do the most you can to impede my work? Ignore it. Most people will, for some time. And that is exactly how it should be. I'll be thanking Yellowbeard the same as everyone else who commented in this RfA. It's up to him if that melts his heart a little, or hardens it in humiliation. I am not his judge, nor yours. I just say what I see and what I see as needing to be said.

''When these editors voiced their concerns repeatedily, over a lengthy time frame...you need to head that message. By refusing to comply to the guideline of focusing on content, and ignoring your fellow contributor's feedback, you are holding onto incorrect assumptions which harm the proper functioning of that talk page.''

There are guidelines, which give general guidance, with the knowledge that there are exceptions, which is why there are not policies. I've actually explained this several times, Scuro. When there are editors contending over an article, and using edit warring -- or, actually more harmful, persistent POV editing over a long period of time, always at a low enough level that the 3RR police don't descend, and, in particular, when this is combined with offensive comment on the qualifications and intentions of other editors, they may get upset if this is pointed out. Someone who comes in with a strong point of view, massively editing the article according to his own point of view, he may get upset when he is told not to do that. And someone who appoints herself as his defender may actually get far more upset than him, look at the all-caps above. People get upset by my very presence, sometimes. "Why are you looking at me like that?" Scuro, many editors looked at the situation with the article we have worked on. Nobody except the three involved did anything like warn me. I've worried, sometimes, that I am subtly (and unconsciously) manipulating people into humiliating themselves, this is the most dangerous possible behavior: suppose, Scuro, that I understood you very well, and I understood what I could do that would cause you to become publically unglued, the buttons I could push that would cause the community to see you as little short of insane. This would be evil, if that was what I intended. It does happen, though, it's happened many times. For some people, interacting with me is very dangerous -- and that is painful for me.

How did Socrates feel when his people gave him the hemlock? Was he trying to wreck their society? Somehow I don't think so. He just asked some questions, and let the implications do their work.

''The other editors are upset and because of this will also stray from focusing on content. The end result can be a disfunctional talk page because one editor believes that a guideline should be ignored because they know better.''

Is this happening? Seems to me that editors have been fairly civil there, recently. What I see is two editors who are upset, you (and you are now much calmer than you were), and Miamomimi, who has gone off the deep end (this must be very painful for her). Could I have predicted this effect on Miamomimi? I can certainly say that I didn't. I just held up a mirror, and described what can be seen in it, and if she has any friends, I'd suggest that she may need comfort, now. I think she would like you to pursue process against me, and if, after reading this, you still think it is worth it, well, I wrote how to do it, one step at a time. I have no fear of that process, and consider it a blessing if it concludes I was wrong, even if it hands me the hemlock. I'm not attached; I keep in mind that I'm going to die anyway.

There is a hierarchy of seriousness in guideline "offenses." Some actions will get you a gentle suggestion to act in a better way, some will get you a warning, and some will get you blocked, if it comes to the attention of an administrator and you have already been warned. I commented on you in just the same way as an administrator might comment in making some decision whether ot warn or block, though typically with more explanation. (Often a lot more, which won't be happening so much in the future.) I have not approached blockable offense (except in appearance in some difficult situations, where I was, in fact, vindicated by administrators), but you did. When you replaced material that I had termed "harassment" from my Talk page, you were quite specifically violating some basic guidelines about User Talk. When you removed material I had written from Talk, and did it more than once, whereas my alleged offense had been little more than a formatting error, correctable in the same time as it took to remove the material, you were editing in way that, had you persisted, would have gotten you blocked. This doesn't make you "bad," but it does mean that you had lost perspective. No harm done, here, Scuro; I haven't gone for RFC or other measures because I'm not offended, you are simply being human, and I don't see you as evil, I do, in fact, continue to assume good faith.

The editor community working, long-term, on those pages was already dysfunctional, Scuro. It seems I have have served as a lightning-rod; by turning your energies toward me, energy was taken out of the dispute. Think, though, do you think that Yellowbeard would have canvassed Dr. Sobo? How do you think that psychiatrist would have voted, if he had been informed of the RfA? You could find out, you know. All you'd have to do is ask him to comment. Send him an email. In fact, he's easy to find, he has an office phone, and psychiatrists usually have a way of reaching them on weekends. I'm suggesting this, not because it would make a shred of difference in the outcome of this process, but because even thinking about it might help bring to the surface what happened. (The RfA closes, in think, on the 17th? But comments can continue to be added on Talk, if I'm correct.) --Abd (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Some oppose text struck through
I have stricken some text within an oppose vote made by RRichie. The vote itself is intact, and the text is struck through rather than deleted. I made this bold move because the text discusses off-wiki activity on the part of the candidate. There is no way of definitively linking the candidate's contribution to this listserv in the same way as their contributions to Wikipedia can be logged. I believe it is longstanding custom that off-wiki behaviour is not brought into discussions here.

If I have erred in striking through another editor's contribution, I trust someone will tell me and if necessary revert my action. Others may feel the text should be removed entirely from the project page. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  17:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The strikethrough was appropriate as a minimal response. This vote was one of the votes canvassed by User:Yellowbeard, see near the top of this Talk page, and, as far as the cabal that controlled Instant-runoff voting for far too long, Rob Richie was the grand panjandrum, being the Executive Director of FairVote. Yellowbeard had never before so clearly associated himself with the FairVote editors, and, since I know that they communicate off-line re Wikipedia and how to make my work here difficult, it's a bit of a mystery why he was so open about it, it seems singularly stupid.


 * However, this is dicta here. While it is possibly difficult to abstract myself from personal involvement, I think that as an administrator, seeing this vote, I'd revert the whole thing, allowing the voter to replace it with an appropriate vote or comment if the voter chooses. The material being there, and it can be read, is prejudicial.


 * As an ordinary user, with knowledge of the situation, and no involvement, were it not my RfA, where I have quasi-administrative responsibility, I would do the same.


 * But because I do have an involvement, I would not touch it, either as an administrator or as an ordinary user.


 * I will comment below on what was actually asserted. If someone else wants to, they can move the material from the project page above what I write. This has nothing to do with my RfA, and the basic claims Richie repeats here have been made elsewhere in Wikipedia, but I do think it appropriate that I address whatever issues involved impact my participation here and how that might be viewed. Further, again, as an uninvolved administrator, I would review Richie's contributions and, from what I know -- that is shown in them -- I'd at least warn him or possibly block him, depending on immediate circumstances. He is not here to work on the project. He *was* blocked, as an anonymous editor, in an incident that is documented in many places. To find it, if anyone is interested, see my Talk page in its early history, around my short-term block, and then my Contributions for that time, which will link to various discussions, including one where Richie acknowledges being the anonymous editor who was blocked.

--Abd (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment from User:RRichie
I am copying this material from the Project page for reference. Because it is not relevant to my RfA, in fact, I'm not making any extensive response on the actual project page. I'm reserving that for editors who have voted, generally, where there is some issue raised worth of further comment on the process of approving administrators, my own qualifications, etc., as well as to welcome the comments. (I haven't done this, generally, for the "support" votes, I will thank them all en masse when this closes.) I may or may not make a short response to Richie on the project page, I haven't decided yet.

I'm responding here for one reason: this RfA is an extended comment on my participation on Wikipedia to date. At the moment, it certainly appears that it will not be "successful," which is what I expected -- but certainly did not know to be the case, which is why I accepted the nomination, I would not have wasted the time of so many editors if I knew it was moot. However, it also appears from this that if, after I have more editing experience, I were nominated again, it would pass handily, and especially if I am more "administratorial" in my responses -- which I am certainly capable of (and is how I would write qua administrator). So I'm using this RfA to deal with that history, my full,frank, and open responses are here. I won't be repeating them unless specifically asked. My behavior in any future RfA would be quite different. For example, I'd be unlikely to respond to votes with comments at all, except possibly to answer direct questions, minimally.

The history of this may also be of some interest to those who are concerned about the manipulation of Wikipedia for political effect. It's been happening, and, in this case, it was quite effective for a time, possibly influencing actual political campaigns, as the Instant-runoff voting article was controlled to spin the facts in such a way as to make difficult the usual wiki way of dealing with POV bias, until more sophistication was brought to the scene. For NPOV, it is not enough that article text be referenced, for example, it must also be balanced, and by presenting a whole series of facts, but not stating or even actively repressing facts inconvenient to the agenda, spin can be created and maintained, and when sock puppets get involved, ordinary editors will simply give up and go away.

I am not going to support what I claim here by diffs. But I don't believe I'll be saying anything that cannot be supported, it is simply that to do so now, without necessity, would take too long. If there is some ensuing process, such as an RFC or Arbitration -- which I have no plans to create -- I would supply the diffs as needed. But it's pretty easy to find evidence for what is on-wiki by reading around where I contributed during relevant times, as to external matters, it's more difficult but still possible to establish in substance. I will be responding interspersed, Richie's complete text -- except for the quotation from the Range Voting mailing list -- is in italics.

Here is the text copied from the comment by User:RRichie:
 * 1) Strong Oppose Abd Lomax unfortunately is an idealogue on the issue of instant runoff voting and perhaps others (I know he did anough to irritate people on the approval voting listserv to be banned from it,

Richie also cited this in his attempt to get unblocked. I was banned from an Approval mailing list when the moderator, on the face of it, decided that I wandered off-topic too often. However, "off-topic" is in the mind of the beholder, and this moderator had previously admonished me, on-list, to stay on-topic, and had encountered response from his subscribers that "No, I get his point, he is on-topic." So the next time he was "irritated," and without notice or warning, he reacted. Now, this may be a coincidence, but, as a result, I transferred my activity to the Range Voting list, which became quite lively, with many contributors, much of what I've written has ended up as articles on the Range Voting site, but the Approval mailing list almost totally (and very quickly) died. And I have made major contributions to the field of Approval voting and am broadly known and respected by those active in promoting it.

and is quick to call people "sock puppets", "meat puppets", etc.).

Could the fact that they were actually sock puppets or (technically) meat puppets have any bearing on this? I identified as sock puppets User:BenB4, User:Acct4, and User:MilesAgain, all of whom Richie cooperated with in controlling Instant-runoff voting, and all of whom were later proven to be socks of James Salsman, who has been associated with FairVote in California. If I were "quick" to do this labeling, wouldn't I have made some mistakes? There is only one "sock puppet" allegation which hasn't yet been confirmed by Checkuser: User:Yellowbeard, the one who was blocked for canvassing in this RfA. And the evidence that he is an experienced Wikipedian using a bad hand account is overwhelming; the only reason my WP:SSP report did not result in some kind of action is that the reasonable speculation that he was James Salsman was not confirmed by Checkuser, though it remains possible. Richie himself is a WP:COI WP:SPA editor, and has crossed the boundaries of what is acceptable for such, but not so seriously that I've been exercised to initiate dispute resolution, I'd rather work on the encyclopedia. It's been enough, so far, to call a spade a spade, with apparently enough restraining effect that more action hasn't been needed. But, of course, this is precisely the action that is the basis for Richie's present claim. ("Meat puppet" is much more difficult to prove, often next to impossible, without off-wiki evidence; and I have only rarely used that term, with, I think, appropriate caution and even apologies for the bluntness of wikispeak.)

Bottom line, I've had to deal with an extraordinary number of sock puppets and meat puppets, almost entirely in connection with the Instant-runoff voting article, but also there have been broader effects, because User:Yellowbeard was created simply to file AfDs for articles on topics that weren't convenient for the FairVote agenda, and this was shown in the evidence I filed for WP:SSP report on him, and in the Checkuser that the admin responding there recommended. Yellowbeard disappeared from editing after that, probably because the account had become useless, it had attracted too much attention, and it was pulled out once again to attempt to intervene in this RfA. I could certainly pursue process with respect to it, but, quite simply, I don't want to waste more time on it, and especially the time of other editors. I'll watch Yellowbeard, as are other editors, and that's enough for now.

''Abd certainly is quick to jump to conclusions about other people and their actions, which he certainly has done with me. On the issue of balanced perpsective consider the post below he made to the range voting listserv (he is a big advocate of range voting and approval voting, some advocates of which for some reason think that the best way to advance their reform is to trash other reforms like instant runoff voting).''

Some do. However, for years, FairVote has maintained propaganda about other election methods, to the point where trying to search for actual sources is quite difficult, there are so many returns from material created by FairVote to impeach other systems and to claim that they are defective, most notably Bucklin voting, which is a real preferential reform that was really used in the U.S., for quite a few years, and which was probably eliminated for political reasons. I.e., it was working. But this has nothing to do with the encyclopedia, which should present fair and balanced articles on all notable subjects; reliable sources were needed. What was being used, in article after article? FairVote. There are other probably sock puppets that have not gained much attention because they disappeared. One of them warned me over my removal of those citations.... but my removal was correct, and generally I was able to replace the citations with more direct sources. Minus the propaganda that was usually part of the referenced FairVote pages. FairVote was very carefully using Wikipedia to promote their campaign. I care about Wikipedia, hence my intervention here. When Richie was blocked before, he complained that this would leave me with a "free hand" to do whatever I wanted with the article. Well, what did I do? If I did anything improper, I'm subject to WP:RFC like any other editor (and becoming an administrator wouldn't change that).

''Here he writes about "irritating Rob Richie" (that's me, which is how I found out about this). He says he is "out to get me" and that his tactics are working, etc.''

I wrote what he quoted, so concerns that this can't be verified can be set aside. If this is important to anyone, yes, this was me, I do so testify. However, context is lost. The message was dated 12 September, 2007. I did not start editing the IRV article until 23 September, nor did I have any intention of editing it at the time of the earlier post. Further, Richie has selected portions of the post, there are other portions which he did not quote, such as:


 * We deplore the use of smear in attacking FairVote, and we have publicly commented on this.

In any case, this was straightforward -- and open -- political maneuvering. When a party refuses to compromise, to negotiate, the stakes may be increased. Warren Smith, the person to whom I was replying, one of two principals behind the Center for Range Voting, is politically naive and somehow thought that "playing nice" would help things. Others, who have known Richie for years, believed that nothing short of facing political harm would motivate Richie to start cooperating. By this exchange on the Range Voting list, the Center for Range Voting could correctly, if it so wished, distance itself from anything I wrote, since they had attempted (sincerely, by the way) to restrain me; at the time I was responding to Rob Richie on blogs and political web sites, and that is what I was talking about. I was not turning Wikipedia into a battleground. However, because I had become familiar with FairVote talking points and the way that issues were being spun by them, when I later saw the Wikipedia article on Instant-runoff voting, I could immediately recognize it for what it was, an exquisitely crafted piece of political propaganda. This kind of thing is common, it is part of how Wikipedia articles ultimately become NPOV, in fact. Editors familiar with various points of views cooperate toward finding a consensus, after, sometimes, an initial article or intermediate article dominated by advocates strongly interested in the subject.

''Since then he's becom a voluminous editor of the instant runoff page, editing out things that are straight from objective sources based on his own, minority perspective of the issue. Some of his contributions in fact are good, but in general, he definitely is not balanced enough to have any special editing privileges.''

Richie seems to be unaware that admin privileges would not help me in pushing any POV position in that article or others. I would quickly be de-sysopped if I used the tools to promote an agenda for an article where I was involved, and this involvement can be established, sometimes, by a single edit to the article. Richie also seems to be unaware that "minority perspective," if sufficiently notable, must be included in articles; plus most of what he's thinking of isn't a minority perspective at all. For example, the IRV article was using the term "majority," very loosely, following political propaganda that IRV guarantees a majority result. But it only does so by disregarding ballots that don't contain votes for the winner and the final round runner-up, and the "majority" IRV supporters are legitimately referring to is a majority in the last round, not in the election. This is a totally nonstandard meaning of the word, which normally refers to a majority of voters who cast valid ballots in a single election. Making this clear in the article interferes with the political agenda of FairVote, because IRV is being sold as a replacement for Runoff voting, which is used, fairly commonly, where a majority vote is required. Here is the paradox: jurisdictions have a majority requirement because this is considered fundamental to democracy. They use top-two runoff because it guarantees a majority (unless voters really don't want the outcome and can cast write-in votes). Comes IRV and promises to get that result without expensive and inconvenient runoff elections. But IRV, in practice, produces, from straightforward examination of election results, which Richie et al would really like to keep out of the article, the same results as Plurality, and, in *almost* every election that has so far been run in the U.S. the winner did not gain a majority of ballots cast. (I originally reported this as "all," but it turned out that I had erred in reading the election results, which Richie, of course, pointed out. That's how Wikipedia works. Editors can make mistakes, others can correct them.''

In short, I should not have special content privileges, and while administrators do have privileges, they are also closely watched, and any use of admin tools as Richie fears would be quickly dealt with.

I'm not copying the post itself, it is more completely in the reference: RangeVoting/message/6021

''Long and short of it is that Abd Lomax can participate here, of course, but deserves no special powers over content! Hope I do the right sign-off there....RRichie (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)''

And, of course, I don't have that, would not have that, and should not have that, except that as an admin I could make mistakes, just as any police officer can make mistakes, and can lose his or her job if those mistakes are seen as motivated by personal interest or incompetence. It is contrary to Wikipedia policy for an administrator to use the privileged tools in a situation where there is a conflict of interest of any kind; for example, policy is clear that a user can be blocked for personal attacks. In a recent case, an editor, responding to what was later considered a conflict-of-interest action by an administrator, called the argument given by the administrator a "steaming pile of crap." The administrator blocked the editor, giving personal attack as the cause. Ultimately, this resulted in the loss of his admin bit. The original action, the protection of the page he had edited, freezing it in a preferred form, would have resulted in only a reprimand at most -- and possibly not even that, since there were some grounds for him to think that this edit would have caused some massive damage, for this was not an article, it was, as I recall, a template page, affecting perhaps thousands of pages. He was probably over-reacting, to be sure, and may not have noticed that he blocked another administrator. Which was actually only relevant in that he should have expected responsible behavior from the editor he blocked. I argued in the ArbComm case that (1) the original protection was possibly justifiable, though also probably mistaken, there was no danger, and a reasonable person should have seen that. But reasonable people also make mistakes; (2) the block for a personal attack was a serious error, raising concerns about the ability of this administrator to make fair judgments when he was possibly involved in a dispute with the user he was blocking, and (3)this administrator never did acknowledge his error, even when confronted with massive community consensus. Hence the ongoing danger was real, and de-sysopping the only reasonable outcome. He resigned when the end of it was clear, claiming that he'd been unjustly treated. After all, how could "steaming pile of crap" not be a "personal attack"? That's a pretty big error in understanding policy and its application.

If I had the tools, I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole in any incident involving FairVote editors, the voting systems articles (all of them), or any article I'd edited other than trivially. Rather, I'd use standard dispute resolution, and if I thought an incident warranted it, this would include bringing the attention of other administrators to the situation. And any editor can do that.

If Mr. Richie thinks I've acted improperly with the Instant-runoff voting article, and especially if it has caused any damage, he should know that he is welcome to follow Wikipedia dispute resolution which is open for all editors to use, there is no privileged class. But normally, editors are able to work out consensus with each article, and the process doesn't typically make content decisions except by involving more editors (as with an RFC). This is not politics -- Mr. Richies' milieu -- and it does not involve voting, as such. RfAs are a bit of an exception, but, even there, the closing bureaucrat is not bound by the vote counts and could, in theory, decide differently. This is actually a system with which I'm quite familiar with, elsewhere, which is why I've been able to learn so quickly here (less than five months from beginning active editing, I gain almost a majority of votes for an RfA based on my understanding of policy). I gained this understanding by writing a lot, i.e., the very thing that did cause a substantial number of editors to vote "oppose" is how I learned so quickly. I write a lot, and it takes research, and when I get it wrong, people tell me. It's been enough, I think, I'm shifting modes from learning to action based on what I've learned, though there are certain issues now arising where I'm an expert in the field, and I'm being asked to comment, so there may be more discursive writing there (not in Mainspace Talk, probably.)

If Mr. Richie or anyone else wishes to add fact or argument here, that's fine with me, but I'm going to confine further posts to this Talk page to thanking those who participated, and to reporting my analysis of the results, because such analysis is interesting to me; I have no quarrel with the outcome of this RfA and agree that it is correct. I do not intend to further dispute allegations or arguments that might appear here: but this is an opportunity for anyone else to raise issues that they might wish to be considered in any future RfA for me, to be discussed at that time should anyone consider them relevant. If anyone wishes response from me, please use my Talk page. And, until I can be more specific, I am thanking all who commented in my RfA for their time and consideration. It has been a pleasure to stand before the community. --Abd (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)