Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Edit count for Abd

message: 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)
replies: text: If you really want me to do so, I'll respect your wish.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles]]

message: 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)
thread_title: [[User:Kaiwhakahaere]]

message: 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:
#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)
thread_title:  Response to comment from [[User:RRichie]]