[Election-Methods] RE : Re: peer-reviewed work that is critical ofIRV

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:13 AM 9/29/2007, James Gilmour wrote:
>Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  > Sent: 29 September 2007 04:16
> > At 02:24 PM 9/28/2007, James Gilmour wrote:
> > >I found
> > >only one comment, on the Discussion page for "Plurality Criterion",
> > >where "Voting matters" is described as "an on-line
> > >IRV advocacy publication".  That is a gross misrepresentation of
> > >"Voting matters".  It is not an advocacy publication of
> > >any kind.  It is a technical journal only.  It is very unusual in
> > >that it is dedicated to technical aspects of the STV
> > >voting system  -  as it makes very clear.
> >
> > Let me explain this. There is clearly a strategy on the part of
> > FairVote to cloak IRV with the mantle of STV.
>
>I am not concerned here about how FairVote or anyone else represents 
>or misrepresents IRV or STV  -  we'll argue those cases elsewhere on 
>their merits, as we see them.

Well, that's your lack of concern, which is certainly your right. Not 
everyone can be concerned about everything, or those of us who are 
not already mad would soon be.

>   My concern in this sequence of posts was simply that the 
> technical journal "Voting matters" was being misrepresented as 
> being something it is most certainly not.  And I hardly think that
>one incorrect comment on one Wikipedia discussion page could 
>possibly justify the original statement: "Voting Matters is not 
>highly respected on Wikipedia".

That's correct. But this brings me back to *my* concern, which I 
voiced. What I've been seeing with the Wikipedia article on Instant 
Runoff Voting is that there are some dedicated, persistent editors, 
who have been acting to insure that negative material about IRV is 
excluded or explained away. It's a blatant violation of Wikipedia 
policy, and it's been going on for some time. Part of the strategy of 
these editors is to attack sources. If you put up something that 
could make IRV look bad, they will attack the source. They will do 
this even if the material posted is in the Con arguments section, 
where there is a different standard. (There it should be enough to 
show with sourcing that an argument is actually being made, that it 
is not a straw man argument.) So I made an edit to put in a Con 
argument to match the Pro argument that is already there *with no 
source.*  I sourced it. (The pro argument there was "... may reduce 
the value of 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_campaigning>negative 
campaigning, by encouraging candidates to seek second and third 
choice votes from supporters of other candidates...") The Con 
argument I put up was "Does not reduce negative campaigning." It was 
promptly taken out by user BenB4, who had been assiduous in 
preventing any negative implications.

The plot thickens. It appears that user BenB4 may be a sock puppet, 
or the puppet master. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FCase%2FLossIsNotMore&diff=160922072&oldid=160908173

I wouldn't know this, but he posted to that page, with the subject Au 
Revoir. This is what he wrote:

>:::: Thank you. I appreciate that, and have not decided whether I 
>will continue on the path of [[WP:IAR]].

(This is the famous Wikipedia Rule 1: Ignore All Rules. It can easily 
be misunderstood. Wikipedia is fueled by consensus.)

>  The fact remains that TDC has, for example, called a number of 
> reports used to support his position on [[Talk:Depleted uranium]] 
> peer-reviewed when they are not. And edited the article in the 
> corresponding inaccurate way. [[WP:IAR]] is very clear. When the 
> truth is being played so fast and loose, I do not see the downside 
> of using socks to try to point out what other editors have neither 
> the time nor inclination to. Now that it is down to the point of 
> where I will probably be banned indefinitely, I must ask, what 
> incentive is there to follow the arbitrators' rules when that would 
> be essentially be a violation of [[WP:IAR]]? I don't see any. 
> ←[[User talk:BenB4|Ben<small><sup>B4</sup></small>]] 14:45, 28 
> September 2007 (UTC)

He considers himself justified in using "socks," i.e., sock puppets. 
This has been the major editor of the IRV article. We may not see him 
any more.... Au revoir, indeed. He is back already, but I don't think 
that account will last long. It's quite interesting, when a user 
posts to the article, to look at the User Contribs page, which shows 
all contributions for that user, and then the Log records all 
actions, including the time of user registration. Several new editors 
for the IRV page have registered and edited over the last few days.

One down, how many to go?