Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abd (talk | contribs) at 21:35, 13 December 2007 (→About consensus, police powers, and a sad case of misunderstanding AGF.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

More on the Majority Criterion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerity

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

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

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

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

Majority Criterion

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

You broke the three-revert rule

These four edits occurred in less than 24 hours:

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

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

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

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 151.203.150.119 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Yamla 18:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

IRV

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Ask10questions

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

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

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

IRV

#Please stop editing the IRV article to suggest that Robert's Rules of Order recommends a system "similar" to IRV. The system is IRV.

Captain Zyrain 14:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So ... thanks for sharing. See you in Talk. Abd 06:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me, I had been operating based on hearsay without having reviewed your edits. I won't do that again. Captain Zyrain 06:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I have nominated you at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Abd. Please accept on that page. Captain Zyrain 06:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have to answer the three questions in the appropriate places (i.e. after the A:) in order to be considered. Captain Zyrain 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

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

Electoral reform article series

Any interest in helping out with this series of articles? Most of these articles need to be created, and the rest need expansion.

• Electoral reform in the United States by political division
  • Alabama - Alaska - Arizona - Arkansas - California - Colorado - Connecticut - Delaware - Florida - Georgia - Hawaii - Idaho - Illinois - Indiana - Iowa - Kansas - Kentucky - Louisiana - Maine - Maryland - Massachusetts - Michigan - Minnesota - Mississippi - Missouri - Montana - Nebraska - Nevada - New Hampshire - New Jersey - New Mexico - New York - North Carolina - North Dakota - Ohio - Oklahoma - Oregon - Pennsylvania - Rhode Island - South Carolina - South Dakota - Tennessee - Texas - Utah - Vermont - Virginia - Washington - West Virginia - Wisconsin - Wyoming - Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) - American Samoa - Guam - Northern Mariana Islands - Puerto Rico - U.S. Virgin Islands

Captain Zyrain 03:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wyoming Rule

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

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

I have put this article up for peer review. Please feel free to provide feedback if you desire to do so. Captain Zyrain 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, now it is up for FAC. See Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. Captain Zyrain 03:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Loss function

Talk:Loss function was deleted under WP:CSD#G7. It was a blank page that only had one contributor; two edits, one adding a WikiProject tag, the other removing it. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior in reference to FairVote citations

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

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

For the benefit of future generations who might not have handy access to Wikiquote:

   
   RoboCop: Thank you for your cooperation. Good night.

   
   Robocop: Your move, creep.

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

StrengthOfNations appears to be a throwaway bad hand account. Let me make it clear: I do not hold User:Tbouricius responsible for the behavior of his apparently self-appointed defender. With a friend like this, why would he need enemies?

StrengthOfNations is making enough of a mess (for example, History and use of instant-runoff voting in the United States and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Range voting, that it might become appropriate for action to be taken. What is the significance of these creations? Well, the History article is a reposting of material edited to remove or balance out POV aspects in the Instant-runoff voting article, plus additional material, all presented in about as POV a manner as possible without going totally over the top. I've been perceived as an "enemy of IRV" because I'm allegedly a devoted supporter of Range voting, and, so, with the AfD, attacking what I supposedly love would be a mode of retaliation. StrengthOfNations appeared on my radar screen when he posted an RFC tag in response to something I'd written in Talk:Instant-runoff_voting#Removed_claims_sourced_with_FairVote. I thought it helpful. So the AfD was a bit of a surprise. Then these little droppings on my talk page and User talk:Tbouricius.... I've been considering filing a suspected sock puppet report for another account, maybe it will be a two-fer. (That sock -- it's pretty certain -- targeted the same interests, so it *could* be the same hand.) So many socks, so little time ....

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

Warning

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

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

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

Health Ranger

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

Self-reference is the meaning of existence. As to StrengthofNations, I'm not aware of any interaction prior to his appearance placing an RFC tag in Instant-runoff voting. I suspect, somewhat, that he is a straw puppet. If so, I would suspect who he is. On the other hand, if he is a regular sock puppet, and actually does favor IRV, I would likewise have suspicions. --Abd (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically, you are supposed to post comments on the other user's talk page, not on your own although that is acceptable as well and possibly even helpful in the event that they wish to continue the conversation without having to recopy the other side of the conversation from their own talk page which you had previously posted your content on and which they will no doubt wish to continue the conversation in a mirrored format as well so that both sides will be duly represented on the respective talk pages. Stayman Apple (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

friendly advice

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

Yes.

However, witless is the bowl of useless advice.

--Abd (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That nearly slipped by me

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

Please Stop the attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would also urge you to be careful about trying to keep accurate, sourced information out of the article because it is "confusing" or "too complicated." While the article should certainly be clear and concise, it could be said that, sometimes, we have three desirable characteristics: clear and concise, interesting and informative, and NPOV. Pick two. It can be *very* hard work to find all three; in the field of political action, one wants sound bites, simple statements with punch and some desired effect. You know this, and it is behind the former insistence that the mention of "IRV" in Robert's Rules should be in the introduction, with no further explanation. That is a very good example of how an *arguably* true statement can be POV in effect, and there is a lot written on this subject in the guidelines. As I said, they are worth reading. Even fully true statements can be POV if not presented with balancing facts. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but it's never been said that therefore it's easy. --Abd 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of raw curiosity (and feel free to take it to email via "E-mail this user" if you feel a response would be off-topic here) have you looked much at the Australian lower and upper house voting systems, and if so, what opinion do you have on them? It seems like you know a lot about the topic, and I'm interested in this area, hence my question. Orderinchaos 08:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks

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

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

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

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

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

--Abd (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it...

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

About consensus, police powers, and a sad case of misunderstanding AGF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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