Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, although it is a completely rejected proposal, there is lack of real need to delete these pages, as these pages does not contain any libel contents, copyvio, or anything that's going against the policy. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table

This is related to Wikipedia:Delegable proxy, a proposal that has been very soundly rejected, and might be deleted (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delegable proxy and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 29#Wikipedia:Delegable proxy.) This page (and the many others listed below) does not describe the proposal, but consists of the technology designed to implement it. Since this proposal has been so completely rejected, there is no need for these to remain, and their existence (and advocacy for their use) was the substance of the proposal that has been rejected. Hence, we should delete them all. Mangojuicetalk 02:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also included:

Mangojuicetalk 02:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep as premature. Since the technology implemented in these pages was a centralized implementation of proxy tables, and not adaptable to the special proxy tables which may be part of an actual implementation, I have no personal objection to the deletion of these pages; however, deletion of these pages will break any attempt by a user to see how this would have worked, so if the pages above are not deleted, these should remain. Given that the most likely outcome of other process will be a new MfD on the main project page, and subfiles can be included in that, it would seem premature to list these for deletion separately. This MfD may be moot. Why debate or !vote on what may easily be moot in a few days? --Abd (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Now it's okay. It's true that this breaks the tables, but frankly, that was a bad implementation anyway, there was a better one proposed. Closing admin for the main MfD (Keep) did state these files were to be deleted, and, while it would have been harmless to leave the proxy tables in place, apparently there are those who are really eager to delete as much as possible of this, and, having failed to delete the main proposal, might as well have some crumbs to keep them happy. Enjoy.--Abd (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepI've been convinced by the arguments of editors, other than the proposer for WP:PRX and myself, that Delete sets a bad precedent. I was willing to accept delete to avoid further wikifuss. I withdraw that, not to create wikifuss, but simply because that is absolutely the simplest thing to do, and requires no further work for administrators, who surely have more productive things to do with their time.--Abd (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If the main is deleted entirely, there is no reason for these to remain. Undeath (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But this is an independent MfD, which is weird in my view. If the main is not deleted, what is your vote?=--Abd (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all unless there's a magical groundswell of support for implementing this idea immediately (In fact, there will not be any such thing; the only question is whether the policy proposal will be rejected or deleted. I'm covering my bases here). These implementation details will not be needed by Wikipedia regardless of the ultimate outcome, and the editor voting "Speedy Keep" above is the creator of this idea, with an obvious personal interest in promoting it. It is very likely that retaining these pages will result in User:Abd using these pages for off-site promotion of his idea. Hence, unlike my preference for keeping the main page, I believe these subpages should be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep vote was process, and was correct at that time. This MfD was redundant. It's been changed to Delete. As to off-site promotion, these files are irrelevant, actually. They represented a first stab at implementation and were really not right, for reasons that this whole affair made clear. As the project page explicitly stated (though I think the tag has been removed), this was an experiment, and part of the experiment was to see how the community would react to the idea. We did not really know. It was always possible that people would actually read it and try to understand it. You never can tell, AGF and all that, and sometimes opinions change. The experiment was successful. Thanks to all who participated.--Abd (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all of the listed files. Mangojuice said it best—this isn't going to happen on Wikipedia, so the pages are utterly useless here. If Abd wishes to keep these pages, he should hurry up and set up his own MediaWiki instance off Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Such rampant rudeness. For one thing, this will go to meta, probably. Try deleting it there! For another, we do have a MediaWiki installation pending. For another, we do have copies of all the files off-wiki, we are not stupid, and, finally, next time something like this is proposed here, there will be a support base, which we deliberately avoided creating this time. Oh, and, yes. It won't be me proposing it, nor, I suspect, Absidy. There are some basic principles that those who wish to understand Wikipedia and where it is going might study. Questions answered, hopefully promptly. Otherwise go back to sleep. It's all in good hands.--Abd (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete well put by Mangojuice - I concur.--VS talk 02:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Consensus can change, so uselessness for policy implementation now is not a guarantee of such uselessness later. Moreover, the table is an illustration of the proposal and as such is an integral part of it. As the prereqs note:
“ Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors. However, if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive (e.g. 'Proposal to reject proposal foo') it can be nominated for deletion. ”
The example given in the prereq ("proposal to reject proposal foo") suggests a kind of inherent disruptiveness not shared by this proposal.
If I understand correctly, since this is not a vote, action will be decided based on the strength of arguments and the correct application of policy. Policy outweighs even a consensus reached here, since the policy reflects a larger consensus. So unless someone can show that the table stuff is disruptive or not part of the proposal, it probably should stay. The exception would be if someone could show that having the tables here somehow hinders the development of a free encyclopedia. Does it? If so, how? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
For clarity, it should be noted that Obuibo Mbstpo (as Absidy, and a variety of other account names) was the original proponent of the Delegable proxy proposal, and came within a hair's breadth of being permanently banned for his activities to promote it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That's true. Is that an argument for deleting the table, or did you just want to point that out for the closer's benefit, so they wouldn't think this is some unrelated user? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The actual table and the templates are not needed (or even especially helpful) to illustrate the idea, they're the implementation of the idea. I think the proposal can be summed up neatly in one paragraph, for instance

Delegable proxy was a proposal to allow users to specify a proxy authorized to speak for them in debates they did not participate in directly, and furthermore, to allow proxies to delegate further proxies, and so on. It was rejected strongly by the community, even in an advisory, experimental form. See the page history for more details.

That is all that needs to be preserved of this proposal, perhaps plus a couple "see also" links to related topics. Mangojuicetalk 03:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That was not the proposal. Period. This is the core of the problem here, which is that Mangojuice never did understand the proposal (and that those who proposed its deletion repeated variations of the same misunderstanding, and that others, in fact, appear to have believed it, in spite of repeated denials that this was the proposal. WP:PRX was (1) misnamed as a proposal, this was a tactical error of Sarsaparilla's, and (2) Sarsaparilla used an Afd to suggest how one might use a proxy table to analyze results; this encouraged the misunderstanding, and, further, the name "proxy" further encouraged this, though these were "proxies" with no special powers. However, no suggestion was made with that AfD example that the decision should be made on the basis of this analysis, and, in most cases with an AfD, the analysis would be moot. However, there are some cases where !votes do count, and the MfD showed that many users, on the face of it opposed to "voting," nevertheless believed that their !votes should be counted and respected, as shown by the outrage when the first closing wasn't what most users had !voted for. And the second closing confirmed the first, it changed the result not one bit, which, in my view, shows how the system works, when there is enough attention drawn to a proposal. WP:PRX, however, did not set up a system whereby one user spoke for another or voted for another. Rather, it set up a system whereby one user could express some kind of trust, unspecified, in another, through a proxy file, and then others could use that information *as they cconsidered appropriate*. It did not allow one user to "speak for" another. For such a thing to occur would have required further proposals and policy changes, and, in fact, I'd not recommend it, ever. That misunderstanding explains why AMA was brought up. AMA was an advocate system, where one user would, in fact, speak for another (actually, that's what the name Association of Member Advocates might imply, I never saw precisely what it did, and we certainly continue to see users advocating on behalf of others. But not speaking for them, except by specific authorization -- nobody complained that I relayed certain messages to and from Absidy). But this proposal did not set that up. It simply set up the "proxy table" and a proxy file format, and allowed users to use it as they chose, to create a proxy file, to assign a proxy, with no specific meaning attached, though, obviously some kind of assumption of trust, and, in addition, to accept proxies. It wasn't "advisory," but users might derive information from it for their own use, i.e., could possibly create advice from it. That's a step back from advisory, where some specific meaning would be suggested. None was suggested. However, because there was some level of speculation as to how this might be used in the future, I can see how the impression was created that it was about voting and representation. It wasn't. The proposal was only to set up a proxy table or tables and a proxy assignment file or files. Period. That was the experiment. The use of these was for future proposal and consensus. Now, did the community reject that? In a sense, yes. If someone proposes that we adopt the use of profitzgrommits, and few if any users have any idea what profitzgrommits are, but someone shouts it down, that they are "voting," or whatever terrible offense might be involved, and nearly everyone says, "Voting? That's a terrible idea, Rejected!" has the communithy rejected profitzgrommits? While it certainly is not clear, the community is responsible for what it actively rejects, even if it is misinformed. From this perspective, the community -- or at least the participating community, which was a tiny percentage of even the admin community --, has rejected delegable proxy, though without having the foggiest notion of what it is. Actually, a couple of users made comments that showed they did have some idea, comments on the order of "interesting idea, of course not good because we don't vote here. In other words, they got the idea, thought it interesting, but thought that the proposal was to use it for voting. Not." --Abd (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, the only reason I call it a "proposal" at this point is that our policy doesn't seem to contemplate this type of animal. What is it? An essay? We don't really have a strong culture of experimentation here, at least not on a formal basis. Care to rewrite WP:PRX to reflect what it really is? Should we even bother on this wiki? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It needs to remain {{rejected}}; it was a proposal, it suggested action, even if the action was only to have the table: plus, the WP:MFD result is very clear. Abd: I have some quibbles with your assertions here but regardless this is not the place. Regardless of exactly how to word the summary, my point remains that the idea can be summarized very succinctly. When it comes time to make WP:PRX more concise, I'll see you at the talk page. Mangojuicetalk 06:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I thank Mangojuice for continuing this discussion on my Talk page, where anyone else interested may see it. Yes, the idea can be summarized very succinctly. That was actually done with the proposal, ultimately, but it got lost in the noise. Note that the result of the MfD does not technically represent a rejection of the idea, and, in fact, the MfD failed, it wasn't deleted. Whenever you present two questions at once, you've got a problem with interpreting the results. Keep/Delete is one result, and Firmly and Permanently Reject/Leave to Future Consensus is another. The fact is that the former is never done, though attempts are made to do it (the only thing worse than doing something foolish is tying yourself up so that you can't do something foolish). So, in any case, we can, in Talk for WP:PRX restate the proposal to make it clear, seek local consensus on that, then hold an RFC if anyone wants it. The fact, though, is that this proposal was something that actually did not need community consensus, it changed or violated no policies, nor can an MfD set policy, no matter what result comes up. Wrong forum. Thus this whole flap was useless. GodKim Bruning tried to tell us, but, no, we didn't listen. Classic problem. Stuffed ears. Wastes a lot of time. --Abd (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep to further document the idea. What is this almost-fear I sense from people? The number of files for this technical trick is irrelevant, and it's nice to let people know what exactly was being proposed here. It's not going to magically spring to life because these files were not deleted. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad you asked. Because that was a bad idea? If the community makes a mistake, should it repeat it? It was a bad idea because it is now much more difficult to understand what Esperanza and AMA actually were, and, to the extent that they were mistakes -- and they were --, not to repeat those mistakes. Indeed, part of the problem now is that those fiascos were not fully documented, that much of the history is actually lost to non-admins and maybe to everyone if it has been fully deleted by developers. A huge amount of editor labor went into those structures. What has been going on is, from my point of view, the "tyranny of democracy," specifically of direct anarchic democracy, which, when the scale gets large, develops an oligarchy through participation bias. It's all predictable. A majority, in this case a supermajority of those participating, sometimes led by demagogues who deceive them, decides that a voluntary association of members for some purpose that does not itself violate policy, is to be prohibited. (If those projects violated policy, it wasn't documented. The usual argument was that it was a "waste of time." Back to work, slaves! No talking! Of course, we aren't slaves, and those who are so commanded may just go away quietly, back to their boring, off-wiki doom.) Wikipedia uses "consensus" in a non-standard way, and it confuses the hell out of people with experience in consensus process, at first. Consensus process usually seeks full consensus. It may have mechanisms for making decisions short of that, but those are considered the exceptions, and disruptive, only to be allowed if the majority considers it an immediate necessity. Basically, Wikipedia is an experiment along the same lines as others which have come before. If you look back, nearly all of these experiments ended with failure, even when fantastically successful at first, except a few found traditions that allowed them to remain coherent for a long time, and Alcoholics Anonymous is one of these. The basic "traditions" which function in AA are actually very much like the Wikipedia guidelines, with some notable exceptions, and it is these exceptions that will kill Wikipedia if they are not addressed. Because Wikipedia is still in a growth phase, the spreading cancer isn't visible, it seems like the project is successful. This has all happened before. Wikipedia is accumulating large reservoirs of burned-out editors and general public disillusioned with the idea, at the same time as very many are discovering it and saying, "What a great idea!" From my analysis, the collapse will come quite rapidly, a surprise to most of us.
Now, as to the files. They aren't important, deleting them as far as I'm concerned, in itself, is harmless. I believe I have copies of them in any case. Far more energy has been wasted trying to delete them than would be wasted in some imaginary future disruption that depends on them. With others above, I ask, "What's the fear?" Mangojuice did not answer that. His answer was essentially, "We did it before, so we should do it now." If this is a precedent, shouldn't it be a guideline? Is there a guideline that suggests "Don't do X," where X is the actual problem with WP:Esperanza, WP:AMA, and now WP:PRX? If not, why not? Since being simply mysterious is disapproved, I'll simply point to User:Abd/Rule 0. These projects either violated Rule 0 or they made it possible for associations of editors to violate Rule 0 collectively. Modern societies have generally learned to not prosecute Rule 0 violations, but ancient democracies and similar structures did so with force, and examples still resound: see Socrates (His crime? "Corrupting the youth" by asking questions. He should have known better.) Usually Wikipedia allows pretty much anything. Except this. What is "this"? I can't tell you, it would violate Rule 0. If Rule 0 is ever made policy, I'd be out of here in a flash. If I'm a rat, as some seem to think, rats know to abandon sinking ships, and societies which enforce Rule 0 are dying, it is only a matter of time, because they become inflexible from the weight of unspoken rules and assumptions that make up Rule 0. The closest we have in policy about Rule 0 is in WP:TROLL. To enforce WP:TROLL -- in situations like this one, as actually happened, -- requires a failure to assume good faith, so Rule 0 enforcement conflicts with explicit policies, down to and including WP:IAR, which is properly known as Rule Number One. Unless protections are in place, however, Rule 0 trumps Rule 1 in any place where a mob can control action. There are some protections, indeed. Not enough, not flexible enough, not coherent enough. Trolling (actual trolling as distinct from what may be called trolling, but the troller was sincere, sincere trolling being an oxymoron) is properly prohibited, but ... it is, as is noted in WP:TROLL, very difficult to enforce without damage, and, in fact, societies have generally abandoned the effort, instead focusing on specific violations of explicit law. This makes the law more and more complex, but WP:IAR remains common law as a protection. Public policy does, in fact, trump all statutory law. This is too long, but I'm tired of going back and removing what isn't necessary at the moment.... --Abd (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
To Manjojuice, I was actually thinking of Esperanza when I wrote that, because even then I thought it was very silly and paranoid that people felt the need to delete so much. Granted I don't feel strongly about this situation, or the pages that were deleted from EA, but my general feeling is to document this rather different idea. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
And only some of the EA subpages were completely deleted. A lot were just made into protected redirects. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think in some cases, people use the deletion process to further a "political" objective of making sure that the decision to shut down something is less easily reversible. After all, it's harder to argue about something that you can't even see. Was it really necessary to delete the Esperanza Charter? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
probably not. -- Ned Scott 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly marked as an inactive page, yet important to maintain understanding of what the policy would have been so that it can be improved upon or avoided in the future. - Chardish (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The funny thing is, Abd struck out his keep vote because he could see the counterproductive nature of the efforts to delete it. If this page remains here as "rejected," there's a chance that if something remotely similar is proposed, someone may point to it and say "Hey, we already rejected that!" But if it's deleted, the whole matter becomes more nebulous, especially as time passes, there's turnover of editors, etc. We already know that in the short term, this type of delegable proxy is not going to happen; that's true whether we delete the page or not. So the only pertinence this really has is for the long term. However, I'm really not sure whether keeping or deleting will benefit the cause more, and therefore am voting to keep mostly because I created these pages and WP:ILIKEIT. Also, they might be useful if people want to borrow some of the technical concepts for completely unrelated purposes. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all of the listed files. There is a valid comparison to the Esperanza stuff. --Stormbay (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not at all. The EA pages that were deleted were targeted because of the bureaucracy tied to them. These pages are parts of a template system, not the actual organization of a group of editors. -- Ned Scott 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.