User talk:Obuibo Mbstpo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

New account

Welcome to your new account. If you only use this account and do not engage in disruption, I agree that you may continue to edit.

To those others who may read this message, I am the administrator who blocked the predecessor account User:Absidy for disruption. I am not going to unblock that account at this time because the user has apparently lost access to it, so they need a new account rather than a rename. Nonetheless, the use of this new account is not block evasion. Please do not reblock them unless they do something new that warrants a block. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I won't let you down. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope not. I thank Jehochman for kindly responding to the request. At least that part of this tangled affair is now starting to be unwound. One problem, though. The prior account was clearly blocked for incivility, not disruption. He was warned for what might be called disruption, but stated he would desist from the specific action about which he was warned (it was called "canvassing." The only new action justifying the block, as far as I've seen, was the placing of an image of a finger on Jehochman's Talk page. It was improper to indef block him for that, and thus all consequential actions were founded on an improper act. Was it trolling? Yes, he wanted to be blocked, he was so upset by the massive, knee-jerk rejection of the proposal he had worked for many days on, that he wanted to be prevented from coming back. As I recall, the block reason was "trolling." But it will all come out in the wash.--Abd (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've restored Model Nonprofit Corporation Act, but it really needs to have some sources.
Frankly, I'm not inclined to restore Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad?. You were trolling, and I don't really see anything good coming from giving you back an essay to support the notion that your (hopefully former) approach was beneficial. If you'd like to add a copy to a personal, off-site blog somewhere, I can undelete your essay to your userspace for a day or two.
Incidentally, you forgot to list your other two account names – User:Thespian Seagull and User:Take You There – on your user page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
You still forgot User:Take You There. I've undeleted to your userspace: User:Obuibo Mbstpo/Wikidrama. I'll probably delete it finally in twenty-four to forty-eight hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm totally sure that user Mbstpo -- couldn't he make it easier to remember? -- will acknowledge all the accounts and edits. As he was blocked, and could not access his original Talk page, having spiked the password, he couldn't respond to his original user Talk, so he created other accounts, as needed, and then also made harmless edits here and there. Nothing I've seen was disruptive, other than the disruption of block evasion. And no serious effort was made to conceal these accounts. --Abd (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back. I'm glad you've "gone legit" this time. Since you've changed accounts you should make sure to take extra steps to avoid confusing other editors. In particular, it would be helpful if, in any continuations of discussions you've previously been involved in, that you identify yourself as such. After a while, when people get used to the new account, it won't be necessary any more. I assume you aren't trying to be confusing, but not everyone is going to always check your user page, which is what they'd need to do to learn the connection now. (Perhaps a note in your signature? It might make it easier to remember.) Mangojuicetalk 03:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed blanking

Could you please provide some discussion why proposed blanking would be useful at all on the talk page? Else we are going to end up with a repetition of moves, I fear. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that a chess metaphor? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
i doubt it. see also MediaZilla:3843 as prerequisite for functionality. here 07:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Well, these blanked pages would presumably have a template like Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion/XD1/Example to note that they were intentionally left blank. I don't see a crucial need for redlinking. In the event of an article being blanked for a permanent issue such as notability concerns, the incoming wikilinks could simply be removed, as we currently do when articles are deleted. If an article is blanked for verifiability or such, that is a temporary issue, and we can leave the incoming wikilinks intact. It probably would not stay blanked for long. It is also quite possible that a redirect would be used in many cases. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to WP:CANVASS

I don't think it was appropriate to edit the guideline page to set up this canvassing permission suggesting, without seeking consensus first. This is a guideline, and it really should be discussed first. I'm going to revert it, on that basis, whether or not it's a good idea. By all means, continue to discuss it in Talk there, and my reversion isn't an opposition to the proposal or action, just to bypassing process for guideline pages. --Abd (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummaging around in Talk for WP:CANVASS I see a recent comment from Jimbo:[1]. And then [2]. Fascinating. I then looked at Talk for Ta bu shi da yu. Those who think everything is peachy-keen, thank you very much, are missing the elephant in the living room. This was a long-term administrator who retired and scrambled his password. Look what led up to it. MfD. What could easily be seen as a very legitimate canvass. He was blocked. His closing statement on his Talk page, posted from IP, was:
Wikipedia, it was fun while it lasted. No sense of community here anymore (unless, of course, by "community" we mean AFD and MFD, but that's not something I want to be part of). I regret saying that I wish I hadn't formed WP:AN. It's a necessary evil. I guess where I was going with this was that I feel that to be part of WP:AN has almost become greater than editing articles on Wikipedia! That is my concern.
Look at Special:Contributions/Ta bu shi da yu. Here is his last RfA, which summarizes his history: [3]. (He was first an administrator in October, 2004. He gave up the bit voluntarily, current practice would be that he could have gotten it back at any time, by request.)
When there is an AfD or MfD, it's legitimate to notify every editor that has edited the page. That's what he did, here, essentially. He was blocked for canvassing, for 1 hour, "to get his attention." That kind of block is highly disapproved. His response was to bail. Not one more edit beyond a brief response to the block notice. Was there any complaint to the admin who blocked him? No. No peep on his Talk page.
I see now there is extended discussion with him, IP editing, at [4].
Here is the discussion that led to the block: [5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talkcontribs) 00:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A little note to myself

I think it would be cool to have status updates a la facebook! It could even have a similar link, which you can click, to update your status. Yes, I will do this as soon as I stop being lazy long enough to implement it. Ah, let me just do it now. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump vs. other pages

My rule of thumb is that if it's something that affects just one policy, it should be discussed at that policy page. If it extends across multiple policies, than the VP is preferable. Generally, whenever possible these things should be discussed at the relevant policy page, since that page is more likely to be watched by people who deal with the relevant policy a lot. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Political questions

It is naive to believe (as I've said many times before and wrote in WP:FAIL) that people can work together effectively without a well-defined structure. In the absence of a social structure, we are nothing more than slightly more intelligent apes.

This naive belief appears to be rooted in 19th century Liberalism and 20th century revivals of it (i.e., Jimmy Wales' belief in Ayn Rand's Objectivism) and Marxism (lots of crazy radical leftists, especially European Socialists). Both groups are clueless about the mechanics of social behavior, because their claims are based on political ideology, not modern science or historical experience, both of which yield a number of reasons why the Wikipedia model shouldn't work. It's basically just Anarcho-Communism on a large scale and that social model has always failed.

When I've made this argument -- and I think it's a pretty solid argument -- I've received the bizarre, silly accusation of being a "defeatist," which is interesting, because the same kind of naive support for the Iraq war is the same kind of naive hope behind Wikipedia.

I support "ignore all rules," sort of the same way that a man under a corrupt government might argue, "ignore all laws." Trolls should be strictly dealt with of course, in clearly defined ways, and policies clarified, but it should always be based on reason by rational, individual editors, not fallacies, like appeals to popularity, appeals to tradition, appeals to existing policy, and so on. Any time an administrator irrationally either ignores policy or enforces policy, that's wrong. It doesn't matter whether policy is ultimately enforced rigidly or loosely, whether it must be read first or can be ignored, whether it should be argued about a lot or not taken too seriously. What is most critical is if the policy itself makes sense. It doesn't, the model itself doesn't make sense, so questions of clarification aren't relevant.

My opinion is that the Wikipedia model has failed, this failure has been empirically established, and the various policy problems will continue, probably getting worse and worse over time, and Wikipedia history -- 10 years from now -- will be a serious joke, with several major and embarrassing controversies each year. Every time, there will be a flood of comments on Jimbo's talkpage, Jimbo will say, "This isn't news," there will be a 10-page thread at Wikipedia Review, and people outside of Wikipedia who read it will gently laugh, "Hah! Another example of how Wikipedia isn't reliable."

For this reason, the current model should be scrapped entirely.

My proposal: Creating a representational democratic association, with a constitution and firm, clearly defined laws, elected officials, and a balance of power. History has shown that representational democracies with the rule of law are generally very effective.

So, instead of this naive idealistic "let's just put the website up and hope for the best," you get an elite team of sociologists, psychologists, game-theorists, and political scientists, and you decide on a system, based on rational discussion.

Once this system is decided, you let it run. The system can also modify itself, the way a democracy can.   Zenwhat (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, you -- or anyone -- may, of course, set up such a system. I can tell you right now, though, that it's likely to be a waste of time. Representative democracy, of the kind that you are accustomed to seeing, is highly inefficient and does not work well for organizing large numbers of people who participate voluntarily. Essentially, when you hold elections, of the ordinary kind, there are losers. Unless the winners actually have the support of those who supported losers (certainly this happens, but ordinary elections don't measure this), you can have winners who only represent a majority of those voting, and who are actually opposed by a majority of members. There are electoral systems which are not so bad in this respect, particularly large-constituency Single transferable vote, but that presents a serious problem when the organization is large: voters must be informed as to the qualifications of many candidates, not just one or two. There is another system which actually goes back to Lewis Carroll, most recently proposed by Warren Smith, Asset voting. Asset voting can be used to create a representative assembly of any desired size, still using secret ballot, but with a penumbra of public voters who might still be able to participate in Direct democracy. I.e., it can be hybrid representative/direct democracy.
But there is something much simpler that we think would be effective with Wikipedia, without going to the trouble of creating a new site. That, to me, would be inefficient. Without something like this, I predict that Wikipedia will fall, and I'd consider that tragic. So we have been working for this, little by little. It started with some descriptions of mine, perhaps, on User:Abd, but I also sent a post to En-L that was taken up by Sarsaparilla (now Mbstpo) and formed into WP:PRX. Which is, of course, a Rejected proposal. However, the vast majority of those voting clearly had no clue what they were voting on. It's not about "voting," though it can be used for that. It's about communication. The proposal proceeds from my analysis of social organization systems, the systems and procedures by which people commuication, cooperate, and coordinate. Government is an application of this, one which typically involves sovereignty and therefore some level of coercion. But my own interest is in NGOs, for, in fact, large NGOs could, if necessary, control governments though consensus. But, quite simply, my question has been, for the last thirty years or so, "How can large numbers of people cooperate efficiently and effectively?" Lot of proposals exist; consensus process, as an example, works quite well in small groups, but breaks down as the scale increases, unless the requirement for consensus is relaxed, and even then, if it remains as a supermajority requirement, the typical solution, the system becomes excessively conservative, the past imprisons the future; whenever the status-quo benefits a sufficiently large minority, we get what is, in effect, minority rule.
All over the world, however, people thinking about this have been coming up with the same basic organizational idea. I came up with it about twenty years ago, but didn't publish anything until roughly 2003. Liquid democracy, the original article for which was AfD'd in 2004, seems to have come up in about 2000. Delegable proxy was my name for the method, that article was just AfD'd. Delegated voting, which was Mikael Nordfors' name, as applied by Demoex in Sweden, still stands, and Mbstpo just found RS for that name, and certainly for a description of the method. Mbstpo has found a whole series of independent inventors.... Nordfors' article was just AfD'd, as well. As you may know, WP:PRX went through a very contentious MfD, with many users apparently so upset by the idea that they wanted to delete the proposal, not merely mark it as Rejected. What was the proposal?
Contrary to what you'd think from the MfD, it wasn't to establish voting. It was not to change or violate any policy or guidelines. In the end, the proposal settled on simply creating a proxy file format, allowing users to place such a file in their user space, and then to list the file in a proxy table. That's it. No powers were assigned to proxies, no right of representation was created. It was purely the linking of users in proxy/client relationships, for experimental purposes.
But, in fact, the medium is the message. Those who do not want to see even the most non-bureaucratic, non-coercive, voluntary organizational structure arise on Wikipedia quite correctly see that this could threaten the status quo, in the long run. Yet such structure is not only necessary, it's inevitable. Here is the basic concept:
Suppose we have an organization in which every user (who wishes to be represented when unable to participate directly, for whatever reason) names a proxy. If we consider proxies delegable, this action will connect sets of users in a hierarchy, created from the bottom (i.e., not the top-down hierarchy that we are accustomed to). There will be loops in this hierarchy, but those loops can be opened and connected with other loops simply by any member of the loop changing their proxy assignment to someone outside the loop, if the loop results in lack of representation.
That's it. What this will do, in any organization that begins to use it, is to connect groups of users into a communication hierarchy, a phone tree, which might literally be a phone tree, not vulnerable to interdiction through control of central communication mechanisms. Culturally, what I'd be aiming for is that proxies must be accepted to be considered to have any weight. That mutuality establishes a permission to communicate. For a proxy to contact a client on a topic of interest wouldn't be canvassing, nor would the reverse. (In fact, the relationship is bidirectional, the proxy serves the client and vice-versa.) This network would be robust. Sock puppetry is often claimed to be a problem, but that only is a problem with voting. I've noted quite a few times that sock puppetry and canvassing are irrelevant if there is no voting. (The only way that socks would affect voting, say with AfDs, under current policy, is where an AfD gets little participation; but, in fact, it's always the decision of the closer that counts, which is supposedly based on arguments, not votes. So where's the beef?)
But, in spite of that Rejected tag, establishing proxy files and proxy tables is not contrary to existing policy or guideline, as long as no violations are solicited or permitted. Limited canvassing is permitted, and, as Jimbo Wales has noted, is actually necessary. We are permitted to inform each other of what we consider important.
I'm reluctant to take any steps, though, to implement any of these ideas unless some additional support appears. In the process of the MfD, some possible supporters appeared. Zenwhat, you, in fact, did express some sense that you got certain possibilities. However, this idea is far deeper then is likely to appear in casual consideration. I've been promoting it for years in various forums, and what I've seen is that, with a population of very bright people, it can take about a year of exposure before a few start to get it. We are, generally, highly suspicious of "utopian ideas," and it is very easy to see this as that. We also are deeply, most of us and especially the more mature of us, cynical about human nature and what is possible with organization. All I can say is that this is truly different, it is truly outside the box of normal expectations.
There are two wings to the idea:
  • The Free Association concept. In summary, Alcoholics Anonymous is the paradigm for free associations; Bill Wilson conciously structured AA to remain one even though the scale got large, by studying what had gone wrong with temperance movements in the past. Don't confuse the Twelve Traditions with the spiritual traditions of AA. The Twelve Traditions are structural, the Twelve Steps, etc., are content. Nearly all peer associations start as Free Associations. They become something else for various reasons, usually involving the problems of scale. The Wikipedia editor community retains many of the FA characteristics, even though the scale has become quite large.
  • Delegable proxy. Preferably this is implemented from the beginning. Problem is, at the beginning, under present conditions, most people will see it as useless. The utility appears later when and if the scale increases. However, just as a phone tree can be useful with a small group, DP can, in fact, be useful even for very small organizations. The problem with introducing it into established larger organizations is that, in such organizations, a power structure has already appeared. With Wikipedia, this is the cabal. It does not exist as a specific organization, it is actually relatively incoherent and inefficient, but it exists nevertheless. This is the core of active editors, and especially active administrators. Basic principle I've come across, it has elsewhere been called the Lomax effect, but I've no attachment to that name; more descriptively, it is the Persistence of Inequitable Power effect. Whenever some subset of the members of an organization have inequitable power, i.e. some advantage over others, they will resist change toward equity, and, because they have this advantage, they are likely to succeed in maintaining it. This effect requires no malicious or greedy intent. It happens in nonprofit organizations as well as in for-profit ones, as well as society in general. It is even functional to a degree. Those who are actively involved, who actually run an organization, quite likely have a better vision of what is good for the organization than relatively uninformed members. However, problem is, there is a conflict of interest. What is good for General Bullmoose is good for the United States. Usually. But not always, and the exceptions can be killers, literally.
What we have almost universally come to is a conclusion that government should be by the consent of the governed, yet we have mostly avoided looking at the implications. If we have an election for representatives, and I did not consent to the election of the winner, I'm not represented. (More accurately, I'm represented by someone appointed by someone else or some group of people, but not by me). Asset Voting and Delegable proxy both solve this, creating a possibility of chosen representation that can nevertheless reduce participation in deliberation to a small group, where all the tools and procedures known to be effective at finding consensus in small groups can be used. Those procedures become impossible when the scale is large. Delegable proxy, with its self-similarity regardless of scale (it creates a fractal as an organizational structure, and has been called "fractal democracy" as a result), appears to be able to accomplish this.
Yes, it's experimental. However, the experiment doesn't cost anything except for those who set it up. It takes little maintenance, there are no meetings involved, except as may be found appropriate *later*. We were proposing to do what can be done without any proposal at all, but merely by agreement between participating users. Unlike WP:Esperanza and WP:AMA, analogous attempts that were cited as reasons for rejecting WP:PRX, no bureaucracy is set up, and no elections. It's efficient: all it does, in fact, is to document a certain kind of user relationship that already exists: there are users who generally trust each other, who will inform each other regarding what they find to be of interest. This simple thing, though, could have far-reaching implications. It might save Wikipedia, making it sufficiently coherent, efficient, and flexible enough to not only begin to address the very serious current problems but also to meet future challenges intelligently and without abandoning core principles and policies, which are, in fact, quite good.:
This requires only that those who see or suspect the value do it. It harms nobody else, unless. Unless enough of us start to use it that this group of users starts to act more efficiently, which will shift power. Many eyes, many hands, with a nascent group intelligence. However, at this point those who start to feel some kind of pinch will have a simple choice to avoid it: name a proxy to help prevent any abuses from some differentially representative body of organized users. That "pinch," though, isn't actually some kind of deprivation. What would be happening would be that decisions would be made, more often, through a genuine and broad consensus, but still based on what you call "reason," and argument. Not voting. Difference is, though, is that behind such decisions would be organized users who are able to, if necessary, verify that there is a real consensus, not just some apparent consensus created through participation bias. The active users, the ones who understand policy and the reasons for policy, would remain the ones who actually participate and make decisions and take action. However, among this group, in the future and at present, there exists difference of opinion, and various active editors may represent various schools of thought about what Wikipedia should be. With a mature system, the participation of these editors will be, I expect, with proxy analysis, weighted to reflect the degree of trust that each enjoys from the broader community, allowing us to estimate consensus efficiently without having to run some process like the MfD for WP:Esperanza. Consensus is important, and we should always aim to maximize it. DP allows the measurement of consensus to become more accurate, because it balances out participation bias *without* incurring the inefficiencies of normal representative systems.
So, Zenwhat, there is a solution. It will probably work. If not, the effort wasted is minimal. This system could work, even, in the face of quite organized and entrenched power, unless that power were to have far more power than I think it does, and be willing to apply it ruthlessly. But this solution does not confront that power; rather, it simply does what we have the right to do: associate freely. We can do it on-wiki or off. I prefer on-wiki, because I prefer open structures, they are less vulnerable to abuse. The only disruption that this creates is what can come from those who want to stop it; we do know that such exist. However, this is not an attack on them, nor does it involve any assumption of bad faith regarding them. If this group desires to prohibit this, to prohibit the use of proxy files and proxy tables, they have an open path: create policy against it. However, in my opinion, such policy is probably not feasible and is, in any case, unenforceable: the structures would merely go off-wiki. Such off-wiki structures already exist and are functioning, typically through mailing lists and IRC channels and personal email.
--Abd (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"you -- or anyone -- may, of course, set up such a system"
Yes, in the same sense that you -- you anyone -- may, of course, run for President of the United States.
This is the same silly argument for Anarchism in the real world.
The people are in poverty, the economy is unstable, and there are roving mobs of marauding gangs (see Somalia), but no worries: Anyone can set up a private defense agency.
How does a private defense agency work? Well, you and I both want security, right?
So, we sit down and have a cup of tea, and say, "I will protect you if you protect me." Working out this rational compromise -- without any outside military or police -- we can actually work out a utopian idealist system of voluntary cooperation and collaboration, without any need for formal institutions (like government). Both radical far-left Anarcho-Communists and radical far-right Libertarians and Objectivists (some of them boring on Fascism) agree on this basic idea.
This, of course, has failed every time it's been tried, is pretty blatant nonsense from historical problems (like the Industrial Revolution and Great Depression, which can't be blamed simply on the boogeymen, "the STATE" or "the CAPITALISTS"), is blatant pseudoscience (can be easily ripped apart based UPon basic knowledge from a diverse array of social sciences), and ought to be ridiculed. This, I think, is why Wikipedia is looked at condescendingly by academia. It has no scientific basis and those few scientists supporting it seem to be radical political ideologues.
For a good idea of why Wikipedia doesn't work, see The Onion's satirical article, Marxists' Apartment A Microcosm Of Why Marxism Doesn't Work   Zenwhat (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Ayn Rand and others look at the Industrial Revolution as being a blossoming, almost golden age in which we were realizing our promise until the Sherman Antitrust Act and subsequent legislation put us on a path to socialism. Actually, though, many people believe the American Civil War was the real turning point. Rand viewed the North as being the capitalist good guys, while Thomas Dilorenzo and others strenuously object to that view. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying skype comments to here (refers to first post in this section by zenwhat):

[17:06:40] … we have a well defined structure btw
[17:06:45] … (looking at only first sentence)
[17:06:48] … it is called a WIKI
[17:07:58] … whether or not your 2nd sentence is true "It is naive ... structure", is either true or false, depending on your definition of social structure
[17:08:24] … the 3rd sentence has 1... no 2, no 3 false assumptions
[17:08:30] … 1: apes have no social structure
[17:08:34] … 2: apes are not intelligent
[17:08:48] … 3: that we have no social structure
[17:09:09] … 4: depending on assumption *what* social structure? synthetic or natural?
[17:09:49] … human beings have a built in social instinct, that can coordinate up to ~150 human beings (see review article by Dunbar, linked from [[Dunbar's number]])
[17:10:14] … no comment on next line. this may or may be true, but I am by now uninterested
[17:10:28] … the next line may be true too
[17:10:51] … the wikipedia wiki model was not designed by ayn rand, marx, or jimmy wales
[17:11:27] … it is not anarcho-communism. Anarchism is not used. communism is REALLY not used, as wikipedia does not have an economic model whatsoever let alone communism
[17:11:40] … the next line may or may not be true, irrelevant
[17:13:24] … Abd's position is alsopotentially  flawed, but less obviously so.
[17:13:36] … I'll copy this to the wiki

--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do wonder what "my position" is. Any position is potentially flawed; in fact, I say that all positions are flawed, period. Reality cannot be known from a single position. One of my favorite metaphors is that, to see the world in depth, we need to see it from at least two positions at the same time. Zenwhat is very confident about what he doesn't understand, and it's clear that he doesn't understand what I've been saying. I don't blame him, few do, the first time around, or even the tenth time around. It seems to take about a year for people to start getting it. Maybe less for some. Maybe I'm getting better at presenting it, or maybe not. However, four years ago, I was almost a lone voice in the wilderness about this. At that point I discovered that others were working on elements of what I see, but nobody had a picture complete enough to actually serve as a blueprint for how to get from here to there. Now there are a fair number who do. But having the blueprint isn't enough. It takes time to build the necessary structures, they don't just pop into existence out of pure thought. There are very specific obstacles, they are pretty clearly understood, and that, again, doesn't remove them. But none of them are insuperable; in fact, they merely represent inertia. Inertia is a double-edged sword. Try to change things, it resists, or so it seems. However, no application of force is lost, and it accumulates.

What makes FA/DP different from most utopian visions is that it isn't a utopian vision. It does not depend on any changes to human nature. In fact, the part of it that is most counter-intuitive is actually the most proven part, the Free Association part. I'm pretty sure that none of the efforts Zenwhat has in mind were Free Associations. Rather, they had an institutional bias; the Onion satire was amusing, but totally off point. FA/DP is not political in the ordinary sense. FAs might possibly have a membership requirement, but every successful one allows members to self-define. So, to bring the matter here, there could be, for example, an Inclusionist FA. If it starts to gain size and strength, we would see, I'm sure, a Deletionist FA. Now, what happens if the wisest, most widely trusted members of each start to actually negotiate with each other? What we'd have, in fact, is a larger FA, that includes both "caucuses."

What happens if they don't? Well, that depends on the relative strength of each. We can't stop them from acting in pursuit of their agenda, particularly not of they do it off-wiki, and particularly not if they are careful to avoid policy violations. However, if they are within range of being balanced, everything is much harder than if they can find consensus. Even if the energy available to one caucus is double that available to the other, we have a net effect that is one-third what it could be if they act on a general consensus.

The ongoing, incredibly wasteful "war" going on between inclusionists and deletionists is maintained precisely because they don't have coherent organization. If either one of these caucuses does organize, it will, I predict, catalyze the organization of the other, and, properly done -- big caveat -- this will create a small group of "leaders" who can negotiate. You can't negotiate with a large amporphous mass.

However, traditional methods of organization aren't like to work on Wikipedia. Consider Esperanza and AMA. Modest efforts. Too much energy to maintain. Enter Delegable Proxy. It is not about voting, proxy, here, merely being a kind of default communications link. The building block of the network is an individual assignment of general trust from one user to another. I would do what I could to encourage direct communication (including off-wiki) between these two users. I would not personally accept a proxy from, nor give a proxy to, a user I can't call up, or at least email. I want somebody I can talk to, and from whom I expect, at least, respectful consideration. Not necessarily agreement.

Take a Free Association (following the pattern formally defined by Alcoholics Anonymous in the Twelve Traditions as modified -- it takes a few words -- for the local purpose), and add delegable proxy to it. In theory, delegable proxy (DP) creates a network (a "directed graph" as Zenwhat noted) that connects groups of users. With a little tweaking, it can connect large numbers of users into what one theorist called "natural caucuses," which have a single proxy as "leader." I put "leader" in quotes because this person has no authority other than what is natural from being generally trusted. However, the person I would choose as my proxy is the user whom I would most trust to make a decent decision, at least as a proposal, in my absence. Assuming that this person is willing to accept me. (I might write him or her a lot of email!)

Often people seeing this, quite correctly, think that people won't bother. However, what is missed is that these networks have very low cost; all that is involved, really, is people talking, in pairs, with each other, about a subject of mutual interest, in this case, Wikipedia. They may also communicate through mailing lists, as an example, for efficiency. (If I have a dozen clients, I'd want to have a mailing list for communication with them.) So the discussions also take place in presumably congenial groups.

Because it is very low cost, the benefits don't have to be large in the beginning. I have, as a little example, started following Mbstpo around, seeing what he is up to; likewise Kim Bruning. And when I see something where I have a personal comment to make, I make it. I'm not a meat puppet for either of them, and certainly Bruning hasn't asked me to follow him around, but, what do you know? I'm usually in pretty solid agreement with Bruning, and Mbstpo as well. If a few users decide to cooperate, they can at the same time specialize and assist each other. Human beings figured this out a long time ago! The way one of the successful FAs puts it: "Together we can do what we could never do alone." This isn't fuzzy-headed liberalism, it's a simple truth. Capitalism on a large scale was made possible by devices for cooperation between investors and entrepreneurs.

I assigned a proxy to Absidy and Absidy assigned his to me. (You can see half of this in the proxy table for WP:PRX, if it's still there. The other half, my proxy assignment to Absidy, was deleted by an administrator and I haven't bothered to get around to complaining. That was a file in my user space, I had created, and I wasn't notified, even, when it was deleted. That's the kind of stuff that is happening around here....

This did create a stronger working relationship than existed before, even though it had no outside significance. I've seen this happen elsewhere. Just two people forming the relationship helps the two people. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

One step at a time, the networks will build. As Zenwhat also noted, these relationships already exist, but by documenting them, we also create ways for new users to join them, to become a part of the community. We create paths for filtered information flow. These paths don't replace the older direct paths, but make possible a growth in scale that cannot be handled with simple direct communication. When people are overwhelmed, they become short and easily angered. DP, in theory, distributes communication burden. The organizational chart created is a fractal, self-similar (mostly) regardless of scale.

It's never before been tried on any large scale. The small scale experiments have just begun; most of them will fail, because most organizational attempts fail. Delegable proxy is not magic, it cannot create a motivation for people to work together. But if that motivation is already there, it can, from my analysis, make it easier to work together, on a large scale. It breaks down the negotiation involved in consensus process into small groups, where it's known to work. The consensus found in the small groups is communicated back through the network, always from someone trusted to someone who trusted, where we can expect rapport to be maximized. The communication can go back and forth quite a number of times. Proxies aren't dictators, and they won't know everything.

I'd much rather demonstrate it that try to describe all the theoretical considerations and implications....--Abd (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your edit summary

In reply to this edit summary, "What's with all the notability challenges? Apparently, you don't think that parliamentary procedure motions automatically count as notable? They're rather important to the conduct of business" Apparently nothing of the sort, to be honest the notability tag was a mistake as was the footnote tag. We all make mistakes at times and I made them in those tags. However, all the other tags are still perfectly relevant. I was not questioning whether the articles should be created or not, if I was doing then I would have placed a deletion tag on the articles, and not tags to improve the articles.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries I do realise that it can be a proverbial pain in the rear when you are creating and editing articles and then users like me come along and place tags on the articles. But I do try to ensure that the tags are there for good reason, in that they notify other users that the article needs some work doing on it to improve it. But when I also mess up by adding an incorrect tag it can't have helped so as I said, no worries, no harm done! Have fun.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

some old article deletions I found

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Liquid Organization Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Liquid Democracy

There may have been some useful sources in those articles....

217.x.x.x is European, RIPE. Given that much work on LD was in Europe, this may indeed have been two separate users.

I love the Delete vote: "I'm a poli sci major and I don't ever recall hearing this term." --Abd (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary proceedure

Thanks; I haven't put my name down, as I don't know how active I'll be; but I'm watching and cheering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How do I join, or did just do so?  :) J. J. in PA (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Chess

Yes, sure. I've set up a game here. Sorry for the late reply, I was in the middle of reprogramming a rather complex template. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Discuss on the merits, don't insult other editors

If you don't wish to discuss the merits of issue, there's no need to post "The other side is stupid" as your sole argument ([6]). Also, we're all pretty well-read around here—it borders on the insulting that you think you need to wikilink to Hanlon's Razor when you mention it, just in case we weren't sufficiently intelligent to know when we're being insulted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, if all you have to contribute to the discussion is bitter sarcasm ([7]), your contribution isn't helpful. Given your past history, perhaps it would be wise not to pick additional fights. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I read that comment [8] as being to me, it was placed after my comment. Perhaps it should have been on my Talk page. I've told this editor before, Don't toss gold coins to a cat, but he doesn't listen. Funny, when I say that (in the English form) in a crowded room, most people nod -- after all, Sermon on the Mount and all that -- and a few get upset. Who gets upset? It is a violation of Rule 0 to explain this. So I won't. By the way, I'd never heard of Hanlon's Razor by that name, though I'd certainly heard of the principle and, in fact, make ample use of it. Consider the hazards of not applying Hanlon's Razor. Stupidity, after all, is not a moral failure, some people just can't help it. There are others, however, who do not understand because they refuse to. We are not allowed, here, to assume this of anyone, so I don't, and, I suggest, any reader of this might consider likewise abstaining. Too many of us, not understanding something, assume malicious intent behind it.

Hence I will assume that "bitter sarcasm" is not a personal attack but merely an accidental projection of emotion, perhaps not carefully considered, that "past history" is not some kind of ominous threat, and that the advice to not "pick additional fights" is sincere and not itself uncivil in intent.--Abd (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment means exactly what it says. I'd appreciate it if you'd ask me on my talk page if you need any clarification, rather than (mis)interpreting my remarks for me. If you think that describing Obuibo/Absidy's bitter sarcasm as "bitter sarcasm" is a personal attack, I must point you to WP:SPADE and also urge you to reread WP:NPA.
I fear I cannot apply Hanlon's Razor to your remarks, Abd, as I cannot find it in me to assume that you're sufficiently foolish to not understand what I've written here. My advice not to pick fights would apply equally to you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"Bitter" is a description of an emotional state. Text isn't "bitter," in itself, that is an interpretation supplied by the reader, and describes the person, not the text or arguments. Sarcasm is also an interpretation; I've not infrequently seen charges of sarcasm when a writer has simply described a situation as they see it. As to the interpretation of your remarks, I'm not aware that I misinterpreted them. Did I? How? As to "picking fights," it generally takes two to create a fight, so, I'd assume, the warnings would apply to all involved. Correct?--Abd (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Parliamentary procedure

I have joined the WikiProject. So, where is the appropriate place to start discussing the issues raised at the AfD page? Should I add them to the WikiProject page itself? Or on the talk page for the WikiProject. I have never participated in a WikiProject before so I am not really sure how it works. I also am going to leave a pointer to this question on NewYorkBrad's talk page. Neutron (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I just created a new article, Motion (parliamentary procedure) because the existing Motion (democracy) had some issues but I did not necessarily want to wipe out the work that others have done. As it stands, this new article is basically an index for the new set of articles that have been created on the major types of motions, but it also has some text, so it is not just a list. Neutron (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Great work! Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

From an old AfD

It's been going on for quite some time. From 2005:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pointless Waste of Time. Aptly named, don't you think. Anyway, I noticed vandalism from User:Sean Gray with an indef block and wondered what the story was. This account had sporadic edits, and for a long time was essentially disruptive. Why? Well, this AfD might have had something to do with it. Or not. Definitely this person was seriously pissed, and for a long time. I also find it interesting how much he did before he was indef blocked. Apparently it depends on whose ox is being gored. Anyway, this was the exchange:

  • Keep. This is a relatively popular website. The forum itself has over 4000 members, and the website has been referenced by Penny Arcade. Check this link and search for "wailing and lamentation." It links to a PWoT article. Sean Gray 11:56, Apr 11, 2005 (EST)
  • Note that Sean Gray's only contribs are in relation to this article. Feco
  • I will openly admit a connection to the site. I don't see how that affects the validity of my argument, however. Sean Gray
Sean: It does not affect the validity of of your argument but it is policy that users who have only contributed to the article under discussion do not carry the full weight when forming a consensus about a proposal of deletion. --Theo (Talk) 01:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was a VfD, they were still called "votes" in those days. And supposedly arguments count, so what is this "weight" business? When we talked about the possibility of "weight" for votes depending on level of trust -- as something that might happen in the future, or that might be considered in some cases by a closer -- there were screams of outrage. Such contradictions are a sign of deep divisions in the community -- which does not negate that there are also functioning unities. Anyway, I've claimed many times that deletion policy is creating a vast and accumulating reservoir of enmity. Here's an example. It's easy to dismiss him as simply a vandal. But, I suggest, we created that. He didn't just go, hey, there's Wikipedia, it would be fun to make trouble for them. He created an account to vote in the AfD, so, like many, he started out SPA. But he also made some constructive edits. Small example:[9]. It's as if we are pissing in the well. Might get away with it for a while, if the flow is great enough. But, as the scale increases.... You and I can -- generally -- take it in stride when an article is AfDd. But not everyone, and probably not most people.--Abd (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they mind weighting votes, but they don't like to call it a "vote" because that implies each "keep" or "delete" carries equal weight; and they don't want to see anything like WP:PRX implemented that would take the decision on how much weight to give each remark out of their hands. They want to control how much each vote counts, based on their own criteria, which vary from case to case and are not explicitly stated, even after-the-fact. Remember that "it's not the votes that count; it's who counts the votes." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Riddick's Rules of Procedure

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Riddick's Rules of Procedure requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LunaRain~ 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Prob}} and {{Dated prob}} up for deletion

TfD nomination of Template:Prob

Template:Prob has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Mangojuicetalk 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obuibo, there are alternate methods for doing all of this that don't require centralization. To do centralization, you really need, should anyone challenge it, community consensus. While in theory WP:BRD should work, it doesn't. Especially not from you, there are those who pretty clearly are following you. You've done nothing sanctionable, in my opinion, but you know how that can go. There are easy alternatives to PROB and easy alternatives to CANVASS. With the latter, the easy alternative is definitely better. There is an ANI report, about to drop off, on another alleged problematic page re AfD and canvassing. Take a look. Then think of the user with the AfD list as your proxy..... If something appears there, you see it, because you have watched the page. No canvassing, voluntary consent to receive communication from specific user only, or from those who post to that page, and continued posting to it contrary to the permission of the user could be considered harassment. And you'd want to know about harrassment of your proxy anyway! --Abd (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Obuibo Mbstpo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jehochman Talk 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this one is worrisome. Apparently proposing new things is serious disruption. My recommendation as to the "canvassing templates" is to totally back off. Quite simply, it isn't that important. The legitimate function can be handled in better ways that do not confront any reasonable interpretation of policy. What you were doing was, within policy, legitimate. Maybe. Grey area. As the old song went, stop on the red and go on the green and don't mess with Mr. In-Between. What actually needs to be done can be done fully within policy, and it is procedurally much simpler. --Abd (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

hah - love this edit summary. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
My opinion, based on reading quite a bit of what he's written, Mbstpo is one of the best writers on Wikipedia.--Abd (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Subversion branching, you will be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake. I redirected it to the wrong page inadvertently. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It looked like a WP:POINT violation, which is why I started at a uw-create3 rather than create1 warning. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No harm, no foul. (Where did that phrase come from, anyway? Baseball or something? I'm going to look that up.)
Basketball, I think. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote

Please don't simply follow another user around to cut/paste a generic vote to the discussions. --OnoremDil 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

He's right. It's offensive. Besides being useless. (Yes, if many users did this, it would disrupt AfD. Which is why it's quite improper.) There is nothing wrong with "following another user around," especially if it is to support that user in some way, and not to harass, but don't add anything to an AfD unless (1) you have an argument to make that hasn't been made, or evidence to present, or (2) that user seems to be alone against a "mob," and you wish to express specific support in that particular context, for the actual arguments th user is presenting. The tool you've come across is a powerful one. Powerful tools can be powerfully abused, and I'd expect the community to respond rapidly to such abuse. Indeed, if you are doing this to make a point, the point might indeed be that abuse of this tool would meet with swift sanctions, i.e., it is not as dangerous as it might appear. Please don't make that point, let somebody else do it, your contributions here are too valuable.
AfDs are the wrong forum to address systemic problems with AfD, unless it is to make it more functional. Which probably means better arguments presented by fewer !voters, not more duplicated and generic !votes.--Abd (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


too much, too fast. talk later. --Abd (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the theory is that we want to get the word out to other users who will begin copying us, as rapidly as possible. It's not unlike an example I read in a book called Justice on Trial about how a prosecutor is like a man with a pistol confronting a mob. If one or two rush at him, he can pick them off, but a concerted rush will overwhelm him.
Would the admins break out the machine guns Soviet-style and start ripping apart this mob? Hard to say. But you don't know till you march down Tiananmen Square and stand in front of that tank. OK, enough mixed metaphors. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you please make one of those big red Stop buttons on your user page? Please read the history of Tiananmen Square, and, if you can find it, my FA/DP comments on that incident. There is an old saying, "If you are going to shoot the king, don't miss." The students weren't prepared for the partial success they experienced, and they went for too much, too fast. At this point, there will be no "concerted rush." There will be, instead, the relatively quiet sound of "squish." Don't try to demonstrate the tool with an abusive demonstration. Use it properly, carefully, selectively. Posting duplicated comments to AfDs is really asking for trouble. Don't. Indeed. Stop entirely, and think about it all. Something is making you act abruptly, I'm serious about the Stop button. Apparently you need one. A day's pause will do no harm. And I would prefer to not have to mop up the mess.
The tank man is indeed a noble metaphor. Now, look at the reality. What happened to him? What happened to his cause? We remember him; what happened in China? If the students had been organized with what I'm proposing, the whole history of China would be different. The radicals would have been properly de-emphasized. Corruption in the government would have been addressed, gradually. The government was negotiating with the students, which was a stunning accomplishment. There were elements in the government sympathetic with them. However, what the government discovered was that there was nobody to negotiate with. The moderates among the students were out-shouted by the radicals, who wanted nothing short of the total humiliation of the government. Anyone who knows China would know that this was not going to fly. But the moderates could do nothing, they had no means of mobilizing the masses coherently. The citizens of Beijing were behind them, they would not let the Army through, and the local army units were quite reluctant to fight "the people." Up against the wall, the government fought back, and brought in ethnic troops that did not speak the local language, who forced their way to the Square, and literally crushed the protest. Setting China back a generation. Yes, the tank man was brave, and he deserves respect for that. But bravery is not enough.
And Wikipedia is not a battleground. It's an encyclopedia project. Try to keep it in perspective. Many have been unable to do this, and many have passed away. You are on the right side, Obuibo, but ... Wikipedia needs structure, and structure requires discipline. Not coercion, but discipline, which is self-maintained, supported by community.--Abd (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And wikipedia does have structures aplenty. Perhaps too many. :-P Mere structure is not enough. Whatever gets added or changed needs to be robust and elegant. Now there's a challenge for you. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and you're not an automaton are you? Else we need to put a stop button on your nose ;-). Take a break for 24 hours, then come back. Ok? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He's no automaton, for sure. His cell phone seems to be off. I had a bit of a rush today myself when I realized that the device discovered and applied today is even more elegant and powerful -- and robust -- than the explicit proxy assignments and tables previously suggested. It implements a similar structure, if used that way. As usual with FA/DP stuff, much of it is already in place. People watch each other's Talk pages. However, that frequently generates too much traffic, so many users drop it. A special announcements file would be far more efficient, and efficiency is essential. In some ways, I prefer the explicit proxy assignments, because it is transparent. (It makes meat puppetry more difficult, not less); however, if security is an issue, few can read the watchlists of users and therefore know who is "subscribing" to a notice page by watching it. Mbstpo was searching for solutions to the Canvassing problem: given the ad-hoc committee !voting approach of Wikipedia, canvassing is a problem because it can distort discussions, and even though votes are not supposed to count, we all know that they do, at least in some ways, or else we would not consider canvassing or sock puppetry such a problem, not in situations where a closer is responsible for the decision and can't palm it off on the number of voters as having controlled it. But, in fact, if we could attract more participation to AfDs and the like, we would get better arguments, more evidence, and make better decisions. While this solution doesn't obviously solve the problem, my theory indicates that, in fact, it will, and I think he sees that.... and then gets so excited that he does what he did, which is way, way, premature. (And, if we do it right, there never will be the "mass rush" to overcome the "machine guns" of the oligarchy. There will just be slow, quiet change, thoughtful and wise improvement. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Actually attempting to use the big stick is generally a failure, and if you think you have to do that, it's probably way premature.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talkcontribs) 01:52, 15 March 2008

Your work on Wikipedia

You are adding a lot of valuable content to the parliamentary procedure articles. I want you to be able to continue doing that and to work with you on that. Please take seriously the advice you are receiving that you slow down in some other areas, so that your ability to continue making your contributions will not be jeopardized. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Prob

Template:Prob has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 15:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Do not disrupt this user to make a point'?

Nobody has vandalize or changed your user page in any way; this looks a little silly. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC) (whose user page has been vandalized repeatedly)

MfD votes

Please stop leaving comments such as this. You are violating WP:POINT and your comment will almost certainly be discounted by the administrator closing the discussion. Hut 8.5 18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a disruption; it's an exercise of suffrage. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a social experiment and MfD discussions are not votes. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hence the title of this talk page section, eh? ;) Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, your comments are pure votes, because they fail/refuse to take into account the unique circumstances of individual nominations. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Not much different than straight-ticket voting, really. One might object to a yellow dog Democrat who does this and say, "Wait, you're not considering the qualifications of the individual candidates." Well, he doesn't have to. Indeed, in the 2006 midterm election, there were some good Republican Congressmen who were turned out of office because the voters wanted to send a message to President Bush. That's their prerogative.
I'll never vote to delete, even if someone creates an attack article about me, saying I'm a scoundrel and everything else. Just blank it, and move on. I'm an extremist on the subject of deletion. I'm sure there are other users who do the same thing, although they're not as upfront about it. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to comment here about your current activities. --Fredrick day 18:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rescind or amend something previously adopted

About your edit concerning a motion to postpone something previously scheduled; I read those pages of RONR and what they seem to say is that the motion to postpone etc. requires the same vote as the motion to rescind, etc. I do not read it to say that it follows all the same rules, which is what your edit seems to say. Is there somewhere else in RONR that is more specific about this? Neutron (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Robert, Henry M.

   Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed., p. 293-294

Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I decided to look it up, and you are correct -- but I think the correct page to cite would be 172 (second paragraph). I won't change it myself for now; please look at it and see if you agree. Neutron (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I fixed it. The problem was that the <ref> and </ref> tags were missing. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)