User talk:Tbouricius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Quick discussion about Approval voting and the majority criterion

I would like to support your assertion that Approval voting fails, but I need a good source before I can agree with you. The only reliable source I was able to find so far only applied the Majority criterion to ranked methods, with Approval and Plurality are not. (Range Voting and Borda counts clearly fail).

I did get your link. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, he invents a new system in that article for determining whether non-ranked methods pass or fail the Majority criterion. Without more evidence that his definition is now accepted, I can't agree with you. (As far as I can tell, the majority criterion has typically only been used to compare ranked ballots, which does not include Approval and Plurality). On the other hand, people claiming that Approval passes the Majority criterion usually fail to realize that their definitions also let Plurality voting pass the Majority criterion. (Which is just silly, as I think you'll agree). Until one of us finds some more sources (one way or the other) I'm going to request that we leave it in its 'debated' form. If you find some more sources, (even paper-bound ones) please let me know. Paladinwannabe2 22:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for registering!

Hi! I'm not guessing too hard to assume you are Terry Bouricius of Vermont. I saw your name on the Instant Runoff voting email lists since 2000 or so. Found a bio at FairVote: [1]

I much appreciate your recent help on the election method and related pages on Wikipedia, and glad you registered.

If you have some time and want to introduce yourself more, consider adding something on your user page about yourself. I feel more comfortable when people edit Wikipedia with their real names.

Tom Ruen 22:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for setting up your user page, it is something I've been meaning to do myself. Your participation in Instant Runoff Voting is appreciated. I hope you understand that the context is that the article had been dominated by a sock puppet, BenB4, which was the puppet master's third user ID, banned only a few days ago. From the user Contrib history, it is clear that this sock was replaced by Acct4, carrying on the same agenda (with a number of articles). From what we have done so far, I'm confident that we can find acceptable language that is not incorrect, not biased, and neither promoting nor defaming Instant Runoff Voting. My concern has been that the article had become a propaganda piece, which was quite inappropriate, with BenB4 firmly and consistently acting to keep inconvenient information out of the article, and to maintain POV phrasing, with a host of excuses.

And my other concern is that the *real* people favoring IRV and openly working on the article were not taking clear action against this. I fear that this is because it furthered their interests. It harms the cause of election reform when deceptive misinformation and misrepresentation is allowed. It is quite important that Wikipedia maintain a neutral point of view, "neither endorsing nor opposing any cause," to take a phrase from another set of organizations remarkably similar in many respects.

You might also speak to your friend Rob who came in anonymously -- he may have thought -- and used extensive reverts to attempt to remove my work with little effort. It's a Wikipedia no-no; this is the kind of thing that got BenB4 banned. Your approach was far better. At first I thought that you were the same person, not recognizing your name, but when I mentioned it to a friend more involved with the situation, he immediately recognized your user ID as being your real name. So, again, welcome, and I really mean that.

Abd 02:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet or otherwise a single-purpose account. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|reason for unblock here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 18:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous to me. I suddenly imagine a secret inquisition passing judgement over contributors simply because they know alot about a subject and are willing to defend against nonsense. I much appreciated Terrill's contributions. I guess I'm smart to avoid conflict, let others get banned for facing conflict directly. I might not be a single purpose account, but if you looked at my edits over certain periods of time, I'd be in danger of judgement apparently. Very sad. Tom Ruen 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Appreciating your willingness to defend IRV article. Tom Ruen 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to consider joining a request for unblock, with conditions, but Tbouricius has turned out to be, blatantly, a contributor with a COI, and, in fact, Tomruen is as well, and the above comment actually shows it. They both are officially connected with FairVote. I'd prefer to have their participation in the article, but, where they insist on a right to control the content, where they insist that they have the sole right to determine what is sense and nonsense, and where they abuse their right to edit to control the *appearance* of the article in ways that promote IRV more effectively -- which in the immediate edit war situation means maintaining an allegedly controversial statement *in the introduction* with no tag indicating that there is any controversy at all -- then I'm not in favor. They have charged me with being a biased editor without evidence. I *do* have opinions, but I have no COI other than simply through having opinions. I am not using my edits to promote my opinions.... but to balance the article, and the actual dispute in the true edit war that developed shows this. It's much more about process, for me, than about "fact."

And I had nothing to do with the block. Indeed, I was blocked myself, until admin investigated. Terrill and Tom, you were keeping some bad company. When I pointed it out, that bad company retaliated by setting up a 3RR complaint. Which is pretty bold for a sock puppet. They don't like sock puppets! So Acct4 is history now, as well, plus the one-time throwaway sock used to file the complaint. You, Terrill got caught in the same net. I didn't ask for it, I had nothing to do with it. Because socks were editing the article, and the anonymous IP editor, i.e., Rob Richie, they blocked it for new registrations. That, apparently, included you. Karma. You don't just dive in to support your friends. That's meat puppetry, particularly when used to "defend" an article against, what? Finding consensus that you don't like? Abd 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been blocked from joining in the discussion page on the IRV article, so I don't know if anybody will find my responses here...While I wait for my appeal to move forward, I want to respond to some statements made by Abd on the IRV discussion page.
I am genuinely seeking a balanced article. The fact that I am a voting system expert means that I work with a variety of organizations that work on election reform (insluding FairVote and the League of Women Voters to name just two). Expertise is not the same as a conflict of interest. FairVote has and is working on reforms with which I disagree, and I say so (such as the national popular vote for president, locking in plurality outcomes). I am nobody's puppet. I did not simply do reverts, I offered compromise language over and over on both issues (see below), as well as explain my compromise proposals on the discussion page.
I believe the fact that the association of political scientists in America has selected IRV for their own use is a significant and important fact. I did not insist that the APSA or Robert's Rules (RONR) citations be in the introduction. I do think they belong there, but that is clearly debatable. However, I think it is clear to anybody who knows Robert's Rules of Order and IRV that IRV is EXACTLY what it details as its example of "preferntial voting." The Wikipedia article on "preferential voting" also mentions IRV as an example. Nobody other than Abd is confused about this. Abd insists that it be described as "similar to" or "IRV-like." But the mandatory ranking of all candidates (that assures a unarguable "majority" winner) is exactrly how IRV is implemented AS DESCRIBED IN THE IRV ARTICLE in most of Australia.
I guess I should paste the email appeal I sent to the administrator who banned me...so here it is:
unblock|I am not a puppet, but rather an expert seeking to prtect an article from biased attack.

To request unblocking: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.223.82.30 Blocking admin: Tariqabjotu Block reason: sockpuppet or otherwise a single-purpose account Block originally applied to: Tbouricius Your account name (if you have one): Tbouricius An explanation of why your block is unfair:

I did nothing biased, or inappropriate. I only tried to defend the article from attacks of anti-IRV zealots.
Firstly... who I am...I am a political scientist and an expert in voting systems and parliamentary procedures. I have done consulting work for a variety of organizations specifically on election methods including Dartmouth Alumni Assoication, Pacifica Foundation, the City of Burlington, VT and currently FairVote. I am a former board member of the League of Women Voters of Vermont as well as a former City Council President and member of the Vermont House of Representatives.
I am not a "sock puppet." I became aware that a small group of zealots who advocate a new voting method named "Range Voting" had organized to attack the Wikipedia IRV article, and I sought to protect the accuracy, balance and integrity of the article.
As near as I can tell, these Range Voting advocates seek to bias the IRV article because they see it as the main competitor to their preferred reform proposal. They are frustrated by the fact that IRV is a well established and proven voting method used by millions of people in both governmental and private association elections, and with an extensive body of scholarly literature, whereas Range Voting is a new invention of Warren Smith that has no track record. Therefore they seem to want to delete or downplay references to IRV's widespread acceptance and use. Thus one Range Voting stallwart, Abd, has repeatedly sought to delete and alter long-standing material from the article, and I have tried to compromise wiith him, and modify and restore it.
As an example...Abd objected to the introduction mentioning that "many" private organizations use IRV. So I edited that to "various" organizations. He objected that there was no documnetation showing that organizations use it, so I added one example, that being the American Political Science Association (U.S. professors) and linked it to the Wikipedia article on the APSA. He then objected that there was no proof they use IRV on that page, so I added an external link to their constitution. Then he objected that so much detail was inappropriate for the introduction (after HE made it necessary to add it all) and said it should be moved out of the introduction.
The story on reference to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th edition (RONR) is similar. Abd sought over and over to delete the reference. He then objected that we couldn't say that RONR "recommends" IRV. So I changed it to say it recommends "preferential voting" and gives IRV as its only example of it. He still objected, so I changed it again to remove "recommend" and instead quote RONR which says it is "useful and fair" and "preferrable" to plurality voting. He also insists that there is some arcane detail that makes the preferential voting method detailed in RONR somehow NOT IRV, even though any impartial scholar would agree it is in fact IRV as used in Australia and elsewhere. He still insists on deleting this important and true fact.
In conclusion. I am merely an expert trying to defend the accuracy and NPOV of the Wikipedia article on one of the things I know most about. I would urge you to bring in an unbiased political scientist who is an expert on voting methods to review this dispute and I am certain you will see that my edits are valid, balanced and beneficial.
Tbouricius 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting input from the blocking administrator on the unblock request. Newyorkbrad 21:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tbouricius does not seem to understand Wikipedia procedure and policy. The details and charges of bias against me are not relevant. What is relevant is process. Tbouricius opened up an account and immediately dived into furious edit warring with me. It is not surprising that this generated the response that it did. There was massive sock puppetry and abusive editing going on, aligned with Mr. Bouricius and his friends. None of this has to do with the content of the article, it is about process. Process was being abused. As to content, Mr Bouricius is distorting the truth. I did not attempt to "delete" any facts; rather, I added content which *explained* more accurately what was in Robert's Rules. There were no allegations that what I added was incorrect, only that it was "an arcane detail." Arcane to them, but not to someone who understood it. The fact is that the alleged Robert's Rules "recommendation" was questionable, unless qualified with detail, but it was clearly desirable to advocates of the method to have it featured prominently in the article, and Mr. Bouricius is listed as a consultant to FairVote, and the other major editor insisting on leaving the Robert's Rule reference as it was is the Director of FairVote. I would challenge Mr. Bouricius to cite any example of some POV material I have inserted in the article, or some necessary NPOV material that I removed. Frankly, I've left a lot of questionable material in, I'm treading lightly. This was the foremost advocate of IRV in the U.S. maintaining firm control over the article. I stood up to that, and it is no wonder they don't like it. Abd 05:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Abd requested me to give an example of where he attempted to delete accurate and important information or insert false information. I refer readers again to his distortion of the Robert's Rules section (which he has now not only made incorrect, but buried deep in the article). After my making three or four edits in response to his objections to what has been in the article for years (changing "recommends IRV" to "recommends 'preferential voting'" and stating factually that IRV is the only example detailed, and then after more complaint I removed the word "recommends" and quoted exactly what RONR states ("useful and fair" and "preferable" to plurality), Abd claimed that the "preferential voting" detailed in RONR was similar to but NOT the same as IRV. This is a patently false edit. EVERY political scientist who knows about voting systems would agree that the form of preferential voting detailed in RONR is EXACTLY IRV. Abd has inserted false distinctions that no legitimate political science text book or reference book would accept. IRV as practiced in Australia and other jurisdictions (as mentioned in the article) is exactly as detailed in RONR. The only reason I can imagine to insert that false edit is to insert his POV in order to denigrate IRV and try and distance IRV from this respected guide to parliamentary procedure.
Tbouricius 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

unblock|I was blocked based on false information, and the administrator who blocked me has refused to look into it

I have serious concerns about this block, even after having reviewed the blocking administrator's detailed explanation on his talkpage. Although tempted to unilaterally lift the block, I will instead bring the matter to the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:ANI) for discussion. Newyorkbrad 14:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Newyorkbrad,
Since I am blocked I can't send you a message on your discussion page, so I am hoping you will see this here. Firstly, thanks for reviewing my block. Secondly, where can I go for CONCISE advice on editing customs on Wikipedia? I am new and spent a fair amount of time trying to get up to speed on protocol...In the introduction tutorial it urges people to be "bold" about editing, but I learned that can result in retribution, even though my edits were all NPOV, accurate, and improved the articles. I have only edited two articles, (instant runoff voting and Bucklin Voting) because those are the topics where I am a national expert...am I expected to range throughout Wikipedia making grammatical corrections, etc., or is it okay if I limit my involvement (if I get unblocked) to the half dozen or so articles that I know the most about?
Tbouricius 19:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on the ANI discussion. Absent some new and unexpected development there, I expect to be unblocking this account shortly, and will respond to your questions then. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Based on the user's overall edit history, comments in the unblock request, comments from other users, and input from other administrators in a discussion on ANI, I conclude that the block was unjustified. I have also considered the checkuser finding (by Jpgordon at ANI) that this user was not involved with the sockpuppetry on the article in question. In the absence of sockpuppetry, materially disruptive editing, or the like, choosing to edit in only one topic area is not grounds for a block, much less an indefinite block without warning. Finally, I am impressed by the user's request for guidance on how to edit in accordance with policy that his editing is in good faith. In response to that request, I refer him to the links that may interest him from the list in the welcome message below, particularly including the ones relating to neutral point of view and conflict of interest, which is not to say that I find there has been a violation of these guidelines to date.

Request handled by: Newyorkbrad 20:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Newyorkbrad, Thank you for unblocking me. Unfortunately, tariqabjotu seems to have done a double-whammy on me, as I am still effectively blocked -- although only until tomorrow sometime -- because my computer itself is blocked (in anticipation of sockpuppetry I assume), not only my account. If you see this note and can remedy this block easily, great, but the article talk page I want to add comments to can survive without me for another day I suppose.
Tbouricius 01:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You should be unblocked now. You were autoblocked. WODUP 03:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Tbouricius! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Newyorkbrad 20:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Mr. Bouricius. There is a lot of work to do on the article(s). (Yes, I've been doing research on Bucklin Voting, the history is fascinating, far more interesting than one would think from the FairVote material. I suggest a basic principle that, followed, would keep us out of trouble. No material should be in the article, period, while there is no consensus that it should be there. Where a clear consensus cannot be obtained, then there is process to arbitrate. If you will look at the controversy involved in the edit war that arose, the difference between what you and Richie and the sock puppets were insisting upon and what I was granting as acceptable was minor. As Richie wrote, my objection was, in his view, arcane. But it was not incorrect. That is, while you may certainly claim that Robert's Rules "recommends" "IRV," what I put in place described *more accurately* the situation with Robert's Rules. It wasn't *wrong*. There *is* a difference; you think it minor, I think it not. That's a difference of opinion, one which, in fact, would not be easy to resolve. One more point. Richie blatantly violated courtesy and Wikipedia policy. He has admitted to actions that, on their own, could result in a permanent ban. Richie was also cooperating or clearly aligned with sock puppets. By not standing up against this yourself, you made yourself easily confused with them. If you had been, for example, doing some of those reverts *yourself*, instead of leaving me to handle them almost alone, you would have stood out as different from them, and my intervention with you, attempting to get your access restored, could have been more forceful and possibly more quickly effective. Note, also, that what got you and Richie banned was not me, but administrative response to a complaint against me, made by a sock puppet. A person who was apparently a supporter of IRV is the one who got you banned. If you care about Wikipedia, stand up for the process of finding consensus. Assume good faith and seek agreement. With care and time, it can often be found. Richie has claimed that I "hate" IRV. That, like much of what he says, is a drastic distortion. I hate deception and clever misleading argument, and IRV itself isn't guilty of that, it's just an election method, better than some, not as good as others. Abd 23:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

[edit] Collaboration

Would you care to collaborate on Electoral reform in Vermont? Captain Zyrain 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't have time right now. Can you refer me to a similar article you have already finished so I can get a sense of how exhaustive you imagine such an article being?
Tbouricius 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Right now, the flagship article in that series is the somewhat oxymoronic Electoral reform in Virginia. Captain Zyrain 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions on IRV article

Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Instant-runoff voting/archive1. I think what needs to happen to get this to featured article status is that one of us needs to write an outline and basically rewrite the article, using the outline as a guide to copy whatever content from the existing article can be salvaged into the new structure, and introducing new content as needed. Now it's just a question who should do it. Once we get a suitable article posted that addresses the reviewer's concerns, we can then nominate it as a featured article candidate. From that point, it's just a matter of addressing whatever concerns are raised in that process, and of course remaining vigilant to reverse any bad edits until it gets approved as a Featured Article. I will copy this to Ruen's page. If you do decide to make such a major overhaul, be sure to use Template:Inuse so that we avoid a situation where two people are trying to overhaul it at once. Captain Zyrain 16:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to email

Sometimes when someone posts a comment on my talk page, I copy and paste it to their talk page along with my response, so that the whole conversation is there. Email works too, though.

As for this ad hominem stuff, in which people complain about paid staff of FairVote, etc. editing the article, I think those complaints are pretty baseless. It doesn't matter who is the person writing the article; all that matters is the content. Someone who is totally biased can still write a neutral and balanced article. I think you can write the article on IRV but you probably wouldn't want to write the article on Terry Bouricius. Someone was quoting WP:COI earlier; COI is just a guideline and not an official policy.

Sometimes what you can do is have a paragraph on a subject and a link that leads to an article that covers it more completely. For instance, see how that has been done in the article on Great Apostasy with the link to Protestant Reformation.

I might rewrite the article later, I just need to make some time for it. Captain Zyrain 19:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] You broke the three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; according to the reverts you have made shown below. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.

These five edits occurred in less than 24 hours: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

That is a violation of the WP:3RR policy; please read it. You may be able to prevent sanctions if you self-revert back to the version before your fourth change, or otherwise show good faith effort to conform to policy. ---- Abd (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing further research on 3RR, consecutive reverts may count as a single revert for 3RR purposes, so you may not have violated 3RR, though you should be aware of the problems involved in an editor exercising a heavy hand on an article where he has a conflict of interest, see WP:COI. --Abd (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly note of advice

It has come to my attention that there might be a conflict of interest with your editing of the Instant-runoff voting and related articles. Whether there is indeed a conflict of interest or not is not very relevant, what is relevant is the edit warring that has occurred on the Instant-runoff voting article. Reverting material, or re-adding deleted material or re-deleting re-added material over and over again is unacceptable. If you disagree with the content of an article then discuss it on the talk page, do not continue to revert over and over. Reverting material over and over does not accomplish anything and will result in a block if you violate the 3rr rule. Due to the possible conflict of interest, I want to suggest that you be extra careful when editing the article previously mentioned and to totally refrain from any edit wars. If something you do is reverted then don't revert that revert, Discuss it on the talk page. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any problems. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments in reference to this matter at User_talk:Abd#Your_behavior_in_reference_to_FairVote_citations. StrengthOfNations (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Range voting

Please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Range voting on whether the range voting article should be deleted. StrengthOfNations (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] warning about COI editing

Please note the warning I placed, Talk:Instant-runoff_voting#warning_Tbouricius. You've been warned before about contentious editing as a COI editor. It's dangerous even when one does not have a Conflict of Interest. Absolutely, act to make sure that the article does not become biased against IRV, protest on Talk, but, please, try to improve the article, and that improvement does require that notable opposing arguments be fairly and fully presented. Arguments are not facts, and your claim that an argument is "misleading" is irrelevant. If it were being presented as fact, absolutely, being misleading is grounds for editing it; however, what would be more appropriate than removing it would adding balance. This whole Pro and Con section is preceded by a warning that arguments can be misleading. Certainly some Pro arguments are! (and some Con arguments as well). --Abd 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online book! Collective Decisions and Voting: The Potential for Public Choice By Nicolaus Tideman

http://books.google.com/books?id=RN5q_LuByUoC&pg=PP1&dq=collective+decisions+and+voting+the+potential+for+public+choice&sig=vHZ_inaZMs1BE7VGVKzylR_Ux6A

Tom Ruen (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your last edit to the RRONR mention in the IRV introduction

Seems pretty good to me. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abd 2

Please take part at this discussion. Yellowbeard (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit pattern

You should consider diversifying your editing somewhat. Your focus on the instant-runoff voting article and your declared COI combine to make it much more likely that you will eventually be blocked for tendentious editing and being a single purpose account. As a fellow resident of Burlington, I'd hate to see that happen to someone who was on our city council and in the state legislature. Avruch T 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how valuable this advice is, but it's a corrupt idea. Maybe ordinary wikipedia editors have the luxury of diversity of work here, but time is limited for most people who have something good to add in their areas of expertise. I don't believe there is danger of blocking as long as he says away from edit/revert wars and he expresses his reasons on the talk pages clearly. Also - thanks Terry! Tom Ruen (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, having seen indef blocks happen a number of times just based on his edit pattern/COI/previous history of blocks, I can assure you that there is somewhat more than a remote possibility of what I described above. I'm not saying I would endorse such an outcome, just that its possible. In the mean time, thanks for the dig at my advice and ordinary Wikipedians. Avruch T 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I just HATE the idea of letting fear limit participation. I have to have faith honest effort won't be repressed. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that we have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to personally participate. This system is ideal for your purposes, since you have limited time to devote to Wikipedia but many trusted colleagues here. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to User:Tbouricius/Proxy, create a new page, and then enter:

{{subst:Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table/Designate|Absidy}}

You may remember me as User:Ron Duvall. We worked together on the instant runoff voting article. Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of deletion debate for Instant-runoff voting controversies

You have either participated in a previous deletion debate over this article, or edited the article or its Talk page. If you are interested in contributing to the current debate, please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination). Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've warned Richie, please notice, maybe you can help him.

[7] is a warning I placed on User talk:RRichie. In it, I request that he revert my self-reversion at [8]. If you see this first, you could also revert that self-reversion. Edit warring is a total no-no for a COI editor. You are also COI, and involved with Richie, and this could reflect badly on you as well as on him, though I have found you far more amenable to working together cooperatively. I'm sincere in what I wrote on Richie's Talk page. If my self-reversion is reverted, I'd have no plans to take this to the Administrators Noticeboard or back to Tariqabjotu for review, it would show good faith and an intention to continue to work on consensus. You could revert it for him, and, indeed, anyone can revert it. But if that doesn't happen, and I have to simply do it myself after a few hours, I cannot allow edit warring to continue on Instant-runoff voting, and bringing in administrative attention would be my last recourse.--Abd (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)