User talk:MarkusSchulze/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hi

hi Markus, wage ja kaum hier etwas reinzuschreiben, nachdem Du offensichtlich alles vor kurzem gelöscht hast. Ich wollte Dir nur meine Anerkennung aussprechen, dass - so mein Eindruck - aufgrund Deiner Arbeit 'Demokratie' Fortschritte macht. Ich bin recht baff, dass sich die konkreten Entscheidungs-Algorithmen dazu noch in Bewegung befinden. Hätte ich nicht vermutet. Dazu finde ich es symphatisch, dass Du von der TU kommst und dann wohl auch aus einem Gebiet, das so auf den ersten Blick nichts mit Demokratie zu tun haben mag. Tourenplanung??? Wünsche Dir weiterhin viel Spass und Erfolg.

Ende Juli / Anfang August 2009 finden erneut Wahlen zu Wikimedias Kuratorium nach der Schulze-Methode statt. Ich hoffe, daß diese Wahlen der Schulze-Methode zum entscheidenden Durchbruch verhelfen werden. Markus Schulze 17:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

New (?) Voting Criteria: Cloaked Participation

Hallo Markus, a few years ago I read an argument you made on the electorama mailing list regarding a method that fails the Participation Criterion (I guess it was your method). If I remember correctly it was basically this: Anybody who votes in the style of Approval Voting does not have any risk of being the victim of a No-Show Paradox, so failing that criterion isn't such a convincing argument to actually use Approval Voting instead.

I read an argument that was superficially similar to me by an IRV advocate: IRV satisfies Mono-Add-Top and you can vote like in Plurality, so you can dodge the risk of Participation Criterion failure. There was something off in that argument. I came up with these 2 criteria, neither one satisfied by IRV or QLTD-Bucklin, despite these methods satisfying Mono-Add-Plumb:

The Plurality-Cloaked Participation Criterion states that adding a ballot that bullet-votes for only X should neither decrease the winning probability of X, nor change the winning probabilities among the other candidates relative to each other. A method that does not allow bullet-voting for only one candidate is considered failing the criterion.

The Approval-Cloaked Participation Criterion states that adding a ballot that votes a set S of candidates equally top and all candidates outside that set equally bottom should neither decrease the winning probability of any candidate in S, nor change the winning probabilites among the candidates in set S relative to each other, nor change the winning probabilities among the candidates outside of S relative to each other. A method that does not allow voting by putting one or several candidates in the first rank and all other candidates in the last rank is considered failing the criterion.

I show you this because I want to know

1. whether you know these Criteria already under a different name
2. whether the definitions are fuzzy (ich bin kein Mathe-Crack)
3. whether your method satisfies them

before I put them on the Electorama wiki. --R.H. (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't know those criteria under a different name.
2. The criteria are well defined.
3. The Schulze method doesn't satisfy them.

Markus Schulze 15:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Voting System FAR

I have nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.) Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 06:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-monotonic elective systems

I was curious when I saw that run-off systems were under non-monotonic. It seems to me that not all (in fact few) run-off systems result in a non-montonic system... simple majority rule for instance. My impression is that a run-off helps to preserve monotonicity. Is there something I am missing? Greg Bard 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Most two-round systems violate monotonicity. Markus Schulze 08:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the Voting System table

See talk over there. Homunq (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to please explain your edits, and you responded for one of the 3 edits. However, soon after you continued, making another unexplained edit on a matter that was under discussion in talk. This time, you removed sourced material.

You are by no means obligated to get caught in a back-and-forth discussion. However, if you remove sourced material and are not willing to at least post a one-time defense of your position on Talk:Voting system or in the edit comment, there's not a whole lot to do in response besides just reverting you. I can't seek a neutral compromise if I don't know your motivation. Homunq (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You just violated WP:3RR. Please revert your latest edit and participate in the discussion on the talk page. I believe this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but I don't think you're being helpful right now in that regard. Homunq (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I just reported you for your earlier 3RR violation. All I'm asking is for you to participate in the discussion on talk, instead of edit warring. If, as you say, you find participating on talk too "boring", perhaps you might prefer to take a break from Wikipedia. Peace, Homunq (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This is getting ridiculous. STOP EDIT WARRING AND JOIN THE DISCUSSION ON TALK. Your most recent pair of edits, in which you revert me, are wrong about substance, wrong ABOUT wikipedia policy, and wrong BY wikipedia policy. I explain why on Talk:Voting system, in this edit. I've also reported your latest behavior in the same thread referenced above ("reported you"). Homunq (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Markus, here's a peace offering: can we post a notice of this dispute on the EM list? There are a lot of smart people there, and some of them would certainly be sympathetic to your view of Arrow's Theorem. An informed third party would help us return to productive debate and end the edit warring. If you agree, I'd be happy to let you make the posting, and make it as biased as you like (though of course I'd prefer a neutral statement of the two issues: Bucklin criteria compliance and whether the LNH criterion is uniquely contentious or simply as contentious as other criteria). I would even promise not to respond to your posting, except to identify myself if you desired, no matter how biased I felt your presentation was. Note: If I do reveal my real name over there, which I suspect you could guess anyway, I'd ask you to promise not to post my real name here or my wiki username on the list. Homunq (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I did notice your latest edit. Thank you, the gesture is much appreciated. Homunq (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Bucklin voting

Recently, an editor complained about your edits at the 3RR noticeboard. This complaint was closed with protection of Voting system. Now it seems a related dispute has broken out at Bucklin voting. I doubt that good faith will allow admins to protect two articles in succession. I think that one or more blocks are imminent if you are not willing to make an effort to get consensus for your changes. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you, for example a WP:Request for comment, or a posting at a related Wikiproject. If you continue to revert on the subject of voting before agreement is reached, bad consequences may follow. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears that both of you have broken WP:3RR at Bucklin voting. If you continue to revert on that article, or any other voting article, without getting consensus first, you may be blocked. See also the update to the report at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston is correct, Markus, please be careful. I was asked to look at the situation at Bucklin voting, and there are some problems that I believe the knowledgeable editors can work out without major fuss, it just takes time, and I'm urging him to be patient. As to this, Markus, Homunq is correct. A fact tag merely means that a fact is not referenced, and a Wikipedia article cannot be a reference in itself. Please be patient with the other editor, and, when a controversy has appeared, please discuss proposed reverts on the Talk, don't just go ahead and do it, especially over something so relatively trivial as a fact tag. I've commented on Talk:Bucklin voting, starting to help address some of the issues. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please join in on Talk:Bucklin voting? I've separated out 3 different issues, and I'm sure we can find consensus on at least some of them. Honestly, from your brief comments so far, it's impossible to even tell what you really think - for instance, do you think that Majority Choice Approval meets IIAC, ICC, and/or MC? If you're interested enough to stand in the way of my edits, you are certainly interested enough to express your thoughts clearly in a search for consensus. Homunq (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you can understand how frustrating it is that you haven't elucidated your obviously-strong opinions on the talk page. As I said in one of my very first edits in this incident, I don't expect you to get caught up in an interminable back-and-forth on the talk page, where each side simply repeats the same arguments ad infinitum. I do, however, want you to fully explain your point of view once on the talk page, clearly. If you don't, I really don't see what the rest of us can do aside from interpreting your silence as consent. More baffled than annoyed, Homunq (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)