Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy


 * 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 and move to User:UBX/Delegable proxy - the indefinite block and the rejection of the underlying proposal are not sufficient grounds to delete a userbox. Box should be moved to a non-blocked user page. (non-admin closing) Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy
See WP:MFD. This template was used to support a soundly rejected proposal. It was created by an abusive sockpuppetteer. Charles Stewart (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Charles Stewart (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons expressed in the Delegable proxy MFD. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * which resulted in Keep. So, does this mean that the !vote changes to Keep?--Abd (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC) After all, it's "reasons" which count, not !votes.--Abd (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and find a new home for it. Rejected or not, people can still work on such a proposal and show support for it. -- Ned Scott 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If they want to develop their cool new idea, they can get their own wiki. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, this wasn't a sock puppeteer. That was never established. This was a serial accountant. Literally, he's a CPA. I'll try to make this moot, though, tomorrow, by copying it to my userspace. If, when I look at the actual file, I think it worth keeping. I just get fried by all the false and, in fact, irrelevant ABF charges flying about, and this MfD just came to my attention. I'm astonished by the effort going into trying to erase a "Rejected" proposal. It will all come out in the wash. What was the "abuse"? He dropped a finger image on User:Jehochman's Talk page. That's what he was indef blocked for, the record is blatant. That is not "abusive sock puppetry," everything he did that was actually problematic was done openly, and all the three accounts involved were clearly connected; there was, in fact, only one account change in the relevant period that was not explicitly announced with account creation, and that is not, in itself, any violation of account policy. There was no contentious editing, no warnings issued even, until the very end, when he essentially cracked under the barrage of bad faith charges, and essentially told the community what it could do with its project. And then he apologized. Problem is, Rule 0 violations are the most serious possible, punishable, historically -- off-wiki -- by dismemberment, burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, and a request that the offender drink hemlock and, now, being blocked from participating in the center of the universe. Apologies are not sufficient, all trace of the offense must be expunged and any attempt to bring it up in the future must face immediate and swift punishment. At least it looks that way! Have a cup of Esperanza tea, anyone? --Abd (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the abusive sockpuppeteering has continued. His most recent accounts – that I know of – are  and, who have overlapped their editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, the actions of those accounts is only "abusive" in that he was blocked. If he weren't blocked, nothing they have done would be abusive in itself. If the block were overturned, nothing from these accounts would be cause for block or even a warning. However, obviously, some are really eager to eradicate every trace of this proposal. They failed with the proposal itself, in spite of astonishing wikifuss. (A Deletion Review that reviewed a Keep decision, ever see one of those before?) the MfD was still "Keep" (as status quo, which was -- and is -- Rejected, same as I argued). However, what does all this WP:ABF and WP:SOCK hysteria have to do with whether or not these files should stay? I'm going to put it on my user page, with the file in my own space. Got a problem with that?. Try WP:DR. MfD it, if you like, but, please, don't call me disruptive! MfD of user expressions, unless clearly warranted, is disruptive. Absidy did not violate the sock policy -- or any policy -- until he was indef blocked for something (incivility) that should have gotten him, if that, a 24 hour block. That alone should raise a few suspicions. The only reason I want this kept is that Sarsaparilla deserves credit for being the first to have the courage to make this proposal. When he is unblocked and cleared of the scurrilous sock puppetry charges, then we can restore the user page to its pristine glory. Take a look at who this was, who was blocked, and look to see if he was warned before block and continued anything warnable. (There are then short term continuation accounts, User:Ron Duvall and User:Absidy and, no, they did not simultaneously edit as far as anything I've seen, and, no, they were not warned before a blockable action ignoring the warning. So, be careful of AGF violations, they can come back to bite you.--Abd (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The 'delegable proxy' idea continues to have only two strong proponents: the abusive sockpuppeteer who created this template, and Abd, who has taken credit for coining the neologism 'delegable proxy' and who has a vested interest in promoting its use.  (And who, frankly, has been very stubborn in not taking 'no' for an answer from the community.)  This template has no useful purpose left to be served on Wikipedia; it is designed to promote a dead-beyond-any-resurrection proposal and advertise a soon-to-be-deleted neologism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The AfD for Delegable proxy resulted in Delete. However, I personally don't care about the name. Delegated voting remains. Same procedure (most authors re delegated voting do consider delegations to be transitive, i.e., delegable proxy). Besides, shortly before the AfD closed, Absidy found an academic publication for the method (which called it something like delegated voting.) All this fuss, to try to eradicate an idea. This tactic hasn't worked since the Inquisition, and it worked pretty badly even then. The Delegable proxy article was weakly notable, and it was essentially a developed stub. I did *not* edit that article since 2005, so this campaign is against a world-wide movement, not me or Absidy.... Again, good luck. The proposal here was not about voting. At all. Those of you who thought so have been had. It's still possible to discuss this in Talk for WP:PRX. I am not promoting that proposal, but will be happy to discuss it with anyone. What the community rejected was not the proposal that was made, which leaves the path open for other Wikipedians in the future to make what is essentially the same proposal, but with potential objections clearly answered in the initial draft. It's going to get harder to stop this from happening; ultimately, I suspect, this or something better will be adopted, or Wikipedia will go into the trashbin of history. I not only prefer the former -- greatly --, I predict it. But I can be wrong.--Abd (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I agree that the canvassing use put to this template was not good, people should be allowed to put it on their own userpage. Userboxes are a non-intrusive way of publicizing proposals. If that is not allowed, then it can become a catch-22 in which the proposal cannot catch on because it's not publicized, and it cannot be publicized because it hasn't caught on. If the name is objectionable, then it can be renamed. Any suggestions? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Obuibo Mbstpo has carelessly forgotten to mention here that he is User:Sarsaparilla (and a number of others). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. Thanks for clarifying that. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:19, 4 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.