Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 discussion was: Restore. and infinite protect. That being said, if there is the slightest indication of fuckery again, please ping me and I will delete instead. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Government


Behold the tortured history of this page:


 * Originally, it was an actual proposal for a government that would control certain areas of Wikipedia.
 * Unsurprisingly, it failed spectactularly. For some reason actual discussion of the crazy initial proposal was swept away instead of being archived.
 * Eight months later, I marked it as a failed proposal. This was reverted by the initial author, insisting that he simply hadn’t had time to fix it, even though it was unfixable as the underlying principle had been soundly rejected.
 * There was a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard which led to an MFD.
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government ended with a decision to keep but mark as failed.
 * As I and others attempted to align the page with objective reality, there was a small edit war as the author rejected all such changes.
 * For a while, nothing happened.
 * Two years later, the pages author announced the “revival” of the page at the village pump
 * The pages author insisted they had the right to change it into an essay instead of a failed proposal, and added some more novel theories to it.
 * I walked away and forgot all about it somewhere around there.
 * Nearly five years passed.
 * Something or other reminded me of it the other day and I looked it up. It has had no significant improvements since the “revival” of 2013. It is basically a rambling mess. It still has the “nutshell” from the original rejected proposal, and a section on “bringing admins under government control.”
 * This is not just a train wreck, it is two trains full of flaming radioactive garbage crashing into each other, it hads no place in project space as it is not really an essay, just a bunch of rambling half-baked ideas about a non-existent Wikipedia government.
 * As the principal author has in the past utterly refused to even discuss the idea of userfying (despite the fact that they have shown strong ownership behavior regarding it) I therefore propose deletion as the only sane option. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete failed proposal so time to clewr the decks. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete given the history as described by Beeblebrox. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Project history, important, important for its rejection.  Revert to this version and WP:Protect.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That was in fact the consensus last time we did this, but somehow the primary author got away with just rejecting that and turning it into the slag heap it is now. Admins were perfectly aware he was doing this and for some reason that is unlikely to become clear after all this time let it happe anyway. I would argue that it is not important, because it was such a ridiculous idea, and such a disaster in the end that it would be better to just be rid of it altogether. Despite all the edits it is still basically one user’s musings about a very silly idea and has never should have been in project space. (in the older discussions they actually claimed this wasn’t really a proposal at all even though they published in project space, this is what we’re up against here and deletion would resolve the situation more permamnently) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The decision last time was right. WP:TROUT User:Metropolitan90 for his irresponsibility in unprotecting, and again for leaving it unprotected.  Revert and full protect.  Do not entertain requests for correction.  If that version is the wrong version (disagree that there’s a real issue with it), then consider blanking except for the failed tag.  Notions for an oligarchy will keep resurfacing, records of failed ideas shouldn’t be inaccessible to non-admins. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The practice of overwriting failed proposals with less rigorous more POV essays is very bad. It needs to stop.  It is overtly dishonest. If the Count wants to write an essay, let him, but don’t hide that fact that this was a serious proposal and was rejected.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The pump discussion, Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_105, was not justification. The pumps are overly busy, the number of watchers does reflect the number of people who seriously read it.  Consensus was for protecting, and it should not be unprotected.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Restore and protect failed proposal version per previous MfD. The probability that some admin is going to re-unprotect it again seems low given the history. VQuakr (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If consensus is to restore the failed proposal, the discussion of it, which for whatever reason was also just over written and not archived, should be restored, and I guess all the discussion could then be archived or something? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I found the edit where it was all removed, by a now-inactive admin, with the lame excuse that it would still be in the page history. I don't see how that justifies ignoring the idea of archiving a talk page, so I went ahead and restored it myself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2018 (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.