Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Unbiased Prosecution

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Association for Unbiased Prosecution
Yet another page springing up that's more interested in conducting campaigns against users that its members don't like rather than encouraging the writing of an encyclopaedia, Delete, jguk 11:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not fond of the idea of a prosecutor's office either, but I believe that if we are going to have one&mdash;and it's possible that it would serve the encyclopedia well&mdash;we ought to have one that at least tries to be fair and impartial, not subject to the whim of a self-proclaimed dictator and his hand-picked cronies. So keep as a necessary counterbalance to the other one. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 12:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem keeping it as long as the POV stuff about the Association of Member Investigations is removed. I can't see how it's needed though. Can't Mirv simply request to be admitted to the other Association instead of declaring them dictatorial? I think efforts should be concentrated as much as possible. Abstain for now. -- Mgm|(talk) 14:28, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Mirv does not want to work within an organization run by a dictator who flatly refuses to allow the organization's structure and methods to reflect any views but his own. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 14:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:POINT. Note also that, largely on Mirv's objection, I have changed the position to "director" (I had ben going for humor with "dictator," but apparently it wasn't funny), stripped the director of veto power, demanded the director seek approval of the senior partners for a case, and noted that the directorship is not a permanant position. Snowspinner 16:00, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * . . .left yourself in charge, ensured that the only position you've granted significant power will be stacked with your cronies, ensured that those cronies will be the ones decided who deserves prosecution and who doesn't . . . you left that out. And note that "Wikipedia" and "Snowspinner's schemes" are not synonyms; disrupting the latter does not mean disrupting the former. So take your WP:POINT and sh ov arpen it. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 16:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * He started the thing, it's only fair he's got some kind of control. He still has to follow policy. Mgm|(talk) 20:43, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with the other one; otherwise it's WP:POINT. Davenbelle 17:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The rewrite of the AMI's rules and regulations has made this page obsolete. I will merge and redirect it unless anyone has strong feelings otherwise. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 19:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do. --Michael Snow 21:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, and seriously consider arbitration against its creator. I'm sick of seeing this constant disrespect for basic civility. Ambi 23:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that such a case, regardless of its outcome, would be a perfect vindication of everything I've said all along. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I said the same about that other ridiculous canard. Seek arbitration against the creator of this only if the same is done against everybody who supports the other, too. Wally 01:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Refer the lot of them to the Association for Organisation Deletion. All of them.  WP:AMI WP:AMA WP:DAO WP:SOI WP:AUP and probably a few more as well. Chris 19:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and similar pages. Wincoote 20:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. And similar pages, as the editor above said. WP is not a micronation. Jonathunder 03:25, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
 * Delete pages like that are not condusive to the spirit of Good Wikipedia conduct. Megan1967
 * Delete. Totally redundant as per the AMA. El_C 04:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and similar pages - in effect, a new version of cabal accusation - Skysmith 09:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I should probably point out that part of my reasoning for including WP:AMA in the list for deletion above is mostly in the interests of fairness. Neither side in a dispute should have access to any more or less than the other.  Ultimately, if in a case of one user accusing another of wrongdoing, if the accused shall have the facility of public defence, the accuser should have the facility of public prosecution, rather like the Crown Prosecution Service.  However, introducing an agency to prosecute people will only lead to witch hunts, and an agency to defend people without its opposite number can only lead to people getting away with murder on a technicality. Chris 19:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.