Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 Invalid MFD.

Guidelines and organizations cannot be discussed on MFD, as it is not the correct format, and people are too easily confused and manage to bungle things up :-P. Trying to place such discussions on MFD is considered disruptive, and is technically a blockable offense.

This certainly does not mean that you cannot force closure or termination of such things, of course! Requests for comment is the correct venue to obtain consensus. --Kim Bruning 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Association of Members' Advocates
I was a member of the AMA for the last year and a half and was even a deputy Coordinator for about half that time. The AMA in the past has help many a Wikipedian with their issues there can be no denying that fact however in recent months the AMA has become bogged down in its own red tape which resulted in its Last MfD (I did not support Deletion at that time). That MfD was a near Delete for the AMA but was closed due to No Consensus.

The AMA promised or at least supported the following after the last MfD


 * 1) Removal of the Red tape and bureaucracy (partially done however the new "constitution" and on going meeting and now the call for elections has brought up even more red tape, Wikipedia is driven by consensus not voting)
 * 2) Transparency (This really has had little progress in my opinion)
 * 3) Simplification of the AMA Request System (not done nor discussed in the "Meeting")
 * 4) Allowing the "average" Wikipedian to make changes to the AMA (not done)
 * 5) Stop trying to impose itself in ArbCom (I believe this was done)
 * 6) Define what an advocate is (sort of done more have been added)

As you can see most of this was not done or made little headway and the project has become VERY inactive (some like myself because of IRL and other because of loss of interest)

Since the AMA has had more than enough time to restructure and improve but hasn't yet done so to the level that the community asked us to conform to, I believe that the AMA is the damaged beyond repair. I propose therefore that the following be done


 * 1) Tag the AMA main page as historical and leave a summary of what the AMA was, what the goals were and how it failed (Kim Bruning has already tagged it) basically ion a nutshell Esperanza it
 * 2) Deletion of all other pages, template ect and redirecting them to the AMA main page

I had high hopes for this project when I joined and I was hoping it could be saved after the MfD however others and I must face reality on this one. I'm sorry to all AMA members who feel that this is wrong but I stand by this very hard choice Æon  Insanity Now!  16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(For courtesy here is the link to the last MfD (MfD Link)

Comment I have removed the Historical Tag for the MfD as it has been disputed on the AMA talk page and there is still soem activity on some levels of this project. Æon Insanity Now!  18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - the AMA is tagged inactive. Unless someone de-tags it, there's no need for this. Moreschi Talk 17:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to Esperanzify it, do it yourself. Be bold. If you want some admin help, I'll be happy to oblige. No need for the full MfD palaver. Moreschi Talk 17:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * there is a problem with the tag however and several AMA member are disputing it on teh Talk page so I figure this would be the best way to go abotu closing it down for good.  Æon  Insanity Now!  17:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tagged historical is ok. If there are cases that are genuinely ongoing, not just technically open, I don't see any reason to rush into deleting everything. Generally, I would suggest progressively redirecting the sub pages to the main AMA page. Addhoc 17:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again I can see that however I also didn't want to end up in a dispute over it either.  Of course if you all feel this is pointless then cool however there will be ones that will oppose the historical tag and such.   Æon  Insanity Now!  17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Whee, let's do this all over again, it's so much fun, and so constructive and contributory. How long does it take mediation, arbitration, mediation cabal, etc., etc. to reform? A lot longer than two months, that's for sure. AMA has a structure, a tiny one, but one nonetheless. I do believe AMA's coordinator was an elected role even before Arbs were elected. After an admin and former arb nabbed that role, the group slid, despite initial expecations, and became fodder for bureaucratic entryists. They need to go, there's no doubt about it. These forces spent the past two months expecting to solve the problems through -- yep, you guessed it -- process and bureaucracy. It's clear that this needs to stop and this element be replaced. The best solution, as oftentimes is in *FD, is improve, not delete. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The AMA has ceased to function. It has devolved itself into petty squabbles with WP:ASSIST, and has spent an exorbitant amount of time drafting a new constitution.... what a way to reduce bureaucracy!  Whilst doing all of this policy wrangling, not one case was taken.  As of last week, no cases had been taken by any AMA members for 2 months!  This is ridiculous - the members of AMA are now declaring that they need a new leader, and propose an election.  Of course, that is going to help to reduce the case backlog?!  Since the page was marked historical, proposals for elections have commenced (after about 3 weeks of dicussion dearth) - do we want this organisation distracting our leading users from the real tasks on Wikipedia - not taking a partisan role in resolving a dispute?  I, for one, don't.  Esperanzify per nom is, therefore, my !vote to go with the comment. Martinp23 18:42, 24 May 2007 (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.