Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office

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 keep by slim margin (ie no consensus). – ABCD 02:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office (Now moved to Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations)

If we should not have one organization administrated by a self-proclaimed dictator and devoted to identifying and rooting out problematic users (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sacred Office of the Inquisition), then we shouldn't have any. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Article has changed alot since it's noimination --Hoovernj 02:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Update: The rewrite addresses most of my concerns with this page (not all, but enough); however, if it is not to be a bully squad run by a dictator and dedicated to persecuting "problem users", if it is to be just a place to turn for help in the dispute resolution process, then it is redundant with the well-established and well-regarded Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates and should be subsumed into that organization. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Update update: The further rewrites have addressed the remaining serious concerns. The issue of merger with the AMA doesn't require a VFD. Unless there are objections, I withdraw this vote. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: As of 03:25, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC), the page has been heavily rewritten from the nominated version.

• Delete Dictator... wtf? Wikipedia should not be adversarial between editors in good standing. We already have mechanisms (WP:AN, WP:VIP) for the real problem users. This page is nothing more than a way to justify intimidation and persecution, without giving proper and fair dispute resolution a chance. -- Netoholic @ 19:04, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  • The DAO isn't about "intimidation" or "persecution". It's meant to help the dispute resolution process. We are meant to help users compile cases against users they are having problems with. Compiling an RfC, or ArbCom request, can be awfully challenging to someone who's never done it before. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The WP:AMA group already offers these services. If someone needs help with any step of a dispute, they can get assistance. This is open to both sides (i.e. both parties can get an Advocate). The DAO is nothing less than a vigilante body, picking and choosing its own persecution targets. -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Your "organisation" isn't about investigating "problem users", it's about investigating "heretics". I think that the DAO can fill a real void here. Either way, people should give it a chance before they make assumptions about its value. Keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Heretics are a subset of problem users, and perhaps the worst, since they don't always commit offenses against current policy. I think the SOI can fill a real void. People should give it a chance. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • God, your behaviour is fucking obnoxious. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Your choice to respond to my arguments with irritation and condescension is unfortunate. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • You aren't making arguments; you are being sarcastic and impertinent and destructive. BLANKFAZE | (что??)
      • Sarcasm can be an effective tool of argument. Your choice of the word "impertinent" says a lot about your attitude. Some things ought to be destroyed. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One such office could prove very effective; I'm open to renaming. — Davenbelle 19:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Because its aims are vague and there are processes in place to deal with the sorts of problems so poorly alluded to in its mission statement. Why don't you boys just measure penis size and declare a winner? I mean, these revert wars and "Did not!" "Did too!" postings are making Wikipedia look like a sandbox with too much server space to fill up. If you don't have the self-awareness to be ashamed of your behavior, I'll set aside a few minutes each day to be ashamed on your behalf. That goes for BOTH sides in this progressively circus-like dispute. KingOfAllPaperboys 19:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete arrogant self promotion at worst, going over the heads of established proceedures at best. --InShaneee 19:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Move to User:Snowspinner/Association of Member Investigations. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I am assuming good faith on the part of the people who created this page, though it bears close watching to see where this is going, and a different page title might be suggested. Unfortunately, it is harder to assume good faith on the part of the proposer, who prior to this Vfd proposal vandalized the page in question, with both edit vandalism and pagemove vandalism, despite being an admin. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sacred Office of the Inquisition and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for more discussion of this. -- Curps 19:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Let us be clear: I believe that by "vandalized", Curps means "made changes with which other people disagreed". Readers are free to review my actions, to compare them to the definitions in Wikipedia:Vandalism, and to draw their own conclusions. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • No I mean cut-and-dry vandalism and pagemove vandalism. At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I find no mention of editing a page to become a parody of itself, or moving it to a parody title as an acceptable means of resolving a dispute. This conduct did not reflect well on you, and your disingenuous bad-faith "justification" of this conduct only makes things worse. A newbie user doing such things probably would have been blocked without a second thought. -- Curps 20:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I can find no mention of declaring oneself a dictator, or calling disagreement with one's pronouncements "vandalism", as acceptable methods of resolving a dispute. The conduct of those who set up a bully squad and reflexively prevent any dissent or any explicit statement of things they would rather leave unsaid, reflects just as poorly on them. If I saw a newbie blocked for disagreeing with a self-proclaimed dictator, with false claims of "vandalism" as the reason, I would probably unblock that newbie. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Let the record show that I have already asked Curps to explain which definition in Wikipedia:Vandalism applies to my edits. He has not answered that question but has continued to insist that my changes were vandalism. I will ask once again, and if Curps cannot answer this question I ask that he retract and apologize for all his accusations of vandalism: Which definition put forth in Wikipedia:Vandalism applies to the changes I made? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • How about
          • silly vandalism: "replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles"
          • attention-seeking vandalism: "replacing articles with jokes"
          • page move vandalism: "moving pages to nonsense names"

        But what's the point... you will simply issue yet another disingenuous "justification", and pretend that what you were doing was perfectly normal. So let's just skip it. As a third party I've already wasted far too much time on this. A plague on both your houses. In hindsight, will you at least admit that you could have gone directly to this VfD proposal and skipped all the childish pranks? Your talk page indicates that you strongly dislike the 3RR process. I can hardly wait for you to rename Wikipedia:Three revert rule to Wikipedia:Legalistic bullshit and add inquisition-related content to it. -- Curps 21:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Diffs, please? I find it hard to assume good faith when someone makes serious accusations without providing evidence. --Carnildo 00:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The complete list of edits and reverts made by Mirv is: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Many of the above changes fall under the category of silly vandalism ("adding silly jokes to existing articles"), for instance the reference to "Cardinal Charles P. Ximenez", a name also given at Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition. The pagemove vandalism ("moving pages to nonsense names") consisted of renaming this article to Wikipedia:Congregatio pro Doctrina Vicipediae and then when it was renamed back, renaming it again to Wikipedia:Torquemada Brigade. After re-renaming, the former now redirects to Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition and the latter has been deleted. As you know, no diffs or logs are available for page moves... it was in "Recent changes" at the time.
    • Once again, this was not some earthshaking vandalism that rocked Wikipedia to the core, nobody's calling for an RfC as far as I know, it was quite trivial, but it is indeed vandalism as per the definitions at Wikipedia:Vandalism, and he kept it up long after the joke wore off. It's just minor silly childish pranks that an admin should not be doing, setting a bad example and wasting everyone's time. And the whole thing was compounded by his disingenuous after-the-fact "justification" that these were legitimate edits, that Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition is a legitimate independent article rather than a parody, and that pagemove vandalism doesn't count unless you move 50 pages at a time like Willy on Wheels... actually this smug stonewalling denial bugs me a lot more than the initial pranks. Does he take us all for fools? If he had skipped all the games and gone ahead with proposing this Vfd in the first place, no one would have objected. -- Curps 01:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Yes, it's a pretty clear-cut case of "silly vandalism". I suggest a penalty of being required to track down new Iasson/Faethon sockpuppets. --Carnildo 03:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete And a warning - these constant attempts by some Wikipedians to make our dispute resolution process like a lawsuit will only end up with us getting sued in real life sometime. The proposal is an unreasonable attempt by some users, including one Arbitrator!, to hound users they personally dislike. This is a dangerous step forward - we should be developing an encyclopaedia, not an archocracy, jguk 19:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in the strongest possible terms. If we keep moving in this direction, the only people left to contribute will be the miniature dictators, because everyone else will be driven away, either by force or out of disgust...unfortunately, it's "everyone else" who actually writes the vast majority of our content, and the mini-dictators just spend their time harassing them. Everyking 21:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We are supposed to be working together. Other users should not act as if they own the Wikipedia. Mike H 21:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is an obvious retalitory nomination following the nomination of the Sacred Office of the Inquisition, as can be seen from the nominator's comments. Also, I don't see cause to delete as this page adheres to policy, if you want to see their process changed, you can start a discussion. -- Mgm|^(talk) 21:57, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keep. --Neutrality^talk 22:07, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Userful function, bogus nomination made to make a point. RickK 22:23, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if it is to make a point, it is not disruption of Wikipedia. Don't misuse WP:POINT. -- Netoholic @ 22:30, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Delete unless renamed. If some folks want to get together and help people prepare RfAr's, they certainly have a right to do so. They even have a right to set up an organization and structure it as a dictatorship. This project, however, crosses the line by using a name that conveys a very strong impression of an official imprimatur for their status. It's somewhat like the Association of Members' Advocates, and, like that group, should use "Association" or "Society" or some such in the name. JamesMLane 22:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Dan | Talk 22:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:The universe does not revolve around you. Advice that all would-be prosecutors, inquisitors, dictators, and assorted other petty lordlings, along with all those seeking to dethrone such, would do well to heed. Also suggest that the Arbitration Committee try out one of its nice new remedies and order the major participants to write 1,000-word essays on the importance of WikiLove. --Michael Snow 22:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason for article deletion given. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and move to userspaces. Seems to me this is more of a "law firm" than a "DA" anyway. If they want to help users bring cases to Arbcom who might not be too savy with WP policies then that's fine, but it shouldn't be presented as an official arm of wikipedia administration. Announce this in your personal userspaces, not here. -R. fiend 23:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive, abrasive, provocative. Cannot do Wikipedia any good. Snowspinner has made his point, now let's erase the blackboard. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Dpbsmith, Mike H, and Netoholic (especially re redundancy) said. Second choice rename and re-focus (and probably userfy per R. fiend)--the project's aims, as stated in this discussion, are different (more constructive, among other things) than those stated on the actual page. Niteowlneils 23:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm an Association of Members' Advocates (AMA) member and as far I know we are not a counterpart of this thing and, somehow, we're 'recognized' by the ArbCom. --Neigel von Teighen 23:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I've changed my comment (not my vote) because my non-native English made me say something I didn't wanted. Apologize me --Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useful function, but I think WP:AMA already covers most of the functions of this body. Keep. It serves a useful purpose. --Carnildo 00:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because arbcom members pretty much invited Snowspinner to do this sort of thing, and removing the page wouldn't change that (except to make the process less visible, which would be a Bad Thing). --iMb~Meow 01:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though maybe change the name. Law & Order: Wikipedia? WAG (Wikipedia Advocate General)? --Calton | Talk 01:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Move to User:Snowspinner/District Attorney's Office, and delete the redirect. There is a place on Wikipedia for pages with self-described dictators, but it's the user pages, not the Wikipedia: namespace. - Mustafaa 01:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in light of the rewrite's failure to address the most central issue: that this page has a self-appointed dictator, in blatant contradiction of the Wiki ideal. - Mustafaa 01:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Americanism. Dmn / Դմն 01:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, rantish, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, noting specific requests from three arbitrators to create exactly such an office, and the membership of a fourth in said office. Snowspinner 02:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Curps. I'm not sure about the concept of this page, but it shouldn't be deleted.-gadfium 03:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a micronation. Jonathunder 03:24, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
• Keep. Debate over this page should be a policy debate, not a VfD debate. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:41, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for now. Agree with the anon above -- the VfD process is not the appropriate way to deal with a policy issue such as this. As to the policy matter, I'm leaning towards letting this live. Having dealt with three different chronic problem users through the ArbCom process -- all of whom wound up with long-term bans -- I think it could be very useful to have volunteers willing to take such cases on. RadicalSubversiv E 06:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a joke which took on a life of its own. Agreed w/ Jonathunder and Megan1967 among others. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep With the new name (Wikipedia:Office of Investigations), and probably some more tweaking of the wording and structure, I think that it could be a useful organization for the Wikipedia. We should at least see how it develops, and if necessary, hold a regular poll on the organization, rather than deleting it though the VfD process. BlankVerse ∅ 11:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep тəzєті 18:38, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. We have the AMA to defend people before the ArbCom - a prosecutorial office is the natural counterpart to this, and I'm not the only arbitrator to be fully in support of this measure. Ambi 01:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete and possibly send the participants to arbitration. In the current form I cannot believe that this is what the arbcom envisioned. The organisation structure specifically is not designed along the lines of the rest of the wiki.

An association of investigations is great. But not in this form. Wikipedia is not a nomic, we're trying to write an encyclopedia. Badly designed proposals like this one and RFDA are capable of dealing real damage to wikipedia data, editors and reputation. Kim Bruning 09:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) Since mirv and snowspinner are now on talking terms, I suggest we return this page to regular consensus forming again. Kim Bruning 20:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we are trying to write an encyclopedia. While the original proposal may have been poorly written, it's abundantly clear now. Writing an encyclopedia in this manner involves playing well with others. Some people won't, or can't. Thus we, as a community - if we're not to have plenty of people who can play well with others walk away in frustration - need to do our best to encourage troubled users to reform. Arbitration is a part of that, and this is designed to make it easier on the participants that the AMA leaves out. Ambi 11:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's at best an unfunny joke; various people have said above what it is at worst. All those people who think that it's a good idea: are you sure that that's not because the problem users mentioned are the usual suspects? How will you feel when you're listed? I notice among the keep-voters a number of names of people who would be considered by many to be problem users (I can think of one or two people who might think of me that way). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Processcruft. What Jonathunder said. Noisy | Talk 10:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Whilst I can think of a number of users I'd like to have "investigated", it would also be terrible if my own name appeared on such a list. This whiffs of the McCartney witch trials and I don't think we can condoln this. We shouldn't let disruptive individuals, like WHEELER, drive us to such measures. I would prefer we use a calmer and reasonable organisation like the AMA. --Axon 17:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. ✏ OvenFresh² 18:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — this gives me the goddamn heebie-jeebies. Which one of you is the McCarthyite who came up with this? Bad enough I live in America with the CIA — I don't need a WIA to go with it. Wally 01:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vacuum c 15:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
• 'KEEP - Where the heck is the structured list for this voting process? I am not worried about any vendettas and bullying. Looks like a fine addition, to Wikipedia to me. -- John Gohde 20:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well obviously if the Wikipedia bureaucracy has become so complex that ordinary people can't work out how to negotiate it, the answer is to add yet another inscrutable new layer of bureacracy. I've been away for a while, and just returned. I hardly recognise the place. Wikipedia is now like a totalitarian nightmare from Kafka. I think we should permanently delete ALL the Wikipedia namespace articles, and see what happens. We could hardly be any worse off than we are now. GrahamN 00:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant (i.e.AMA), and Orwellian. El_C 04:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reminds me of the Sungusungu. --Viriditas | Talk 05:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, don't see justification for deleting the page of a Wiki informal organization, but I do recommend chucking the Orwellian name. --MPerel^{( talk | contrib)} 08:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reminds me of the Shinsengumi. gK ¿? 14:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a voluntary association of wikipedians, and last I checked complete stupidity, an utter lack of need, Orwellian idiocy, and an complete lack of tact weren't valid reasons to delete their article. siafu 15:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - mav 02:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless moved to new title or user space to make clear that it is unofficial, as I believe has been suggested by JamesMLane, TacoDeposit, and R. fiend. -Willmcw 06:24, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, are you making this stipulation about the "DAO" title as was, or about the current "AMI" title? (I don't think the latter is ideal, as it's still describing supposed function, as opposed to membership self-description, but it's a considerable improvement.) Alai 03:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedians are allowed to create voluntary associations. VfD is not the place to raise a dispute against such collaborative project, unless it is obviously trolling (like Iasson's attempt to create an "Association of Public Accounts" for his sockpuppets). DAO was founded by few long-time Wikipedians after encouragement from several arbitrators. Furthermore, nominator did not supply a valid reason (from the deletion policy) for deletion. jni 08:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - William M. Connolley 11:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Tally

The list of votes is so bloody long and convoluted, I figured making a tally would be a good idea. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:41, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Delete (24)

1. Netoholic
2. KingOfAllPaperboys
3. InShaneee
4. Jguk
5. Everyking
6. Mike H
7. JamesMLane unless renamed
8. Dpbsmith
9. Niteowlneils
10. Neigel von Teighen
11. Mustafaa
12. Dmn
13. Megan1967
14. Jonathunder
15. Wile E. Heresiarch
16. Mel Etitis
17. Noisy
18. Axon
19. Wally
20. Vacuum
21. GrahamN
22. El_C
23. WHEELER
24. gK ¿?

Keep (27)

1. Blankfaze
2. Davenbelle
3. Curps
4. Mgm
5. User:Neutrality
6. RickK
7. Rdsmith4
8. Jayjg
9. Carnildo
10. IMeowbot
11. Calton
12. Snowspinner
13. Gadfium
14. Ingoolemo
15. RadicalSubversiv
16. BlankVerse
17. Tezeti
18. Ambi
19. OvenFresh
20. John Gohde
21. Viriditas
22. MPerel
23. Variable
24. mav
25. Hoovernj
26. jni
27. William M. Connolley

Move to userspace (3)

1. TacoDeposit
2. R. fiend
3. user:Willmcw, or otherwise change name to reflect unofficial status

Merge and redirect (1)

1. Michael Snow to Wikipedia:The universe does not revolve around you

Neutral

1. Kim Bruning "I withdrew my vote. (ie. don't count it) Kim Bruning 09:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

[edit] Comments

As a note, I think a lot of the criticisms are well placed. The original version of this was more hostile than it needed to be, and what I had intended as an amusing comment was (understandably) misread as a totalitarian powermad. I've scaled it down considerably to better reflect what I wanted this office to be - a place where people who are feeling harassed and who feel like they're dealing with a problem user and a deliberately hostile editor to ask for help navigating the outlets Wikipedia has set up to help with that. Snowspinner 03:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think that whatever title you choose for yourself, the point of this page is still to persecute, rather than truly solve problems. Try joining WP:AMA, which already has a well-respected and supported process for assisting people with disputes and resolution. -- Netoholic @ 03:21, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I, mirabile dictu, fully agree with Netoholic. Further comments on Wikipedia talk:Office of Investigations. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, disagree. The two complement each other nicely - the AMA exists as an organisation for the defence of people put before arbitration. It does a somewhat functioning job in that role - assisting people who need to put a case before arbitration is something altogether different. Calling it persecution is simply propaganda - it's a step that will prevent good editors leaving by allowing someone experienced to assist with one of the more painful processes on Wikipedia. Ambi 11:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What the "Ding-Dong" is going on here at Wikipedia?
This is absolutely ludicrious!!!!!!!!!!! We want to "create" prosecutorial bodies on Wikipedia to drive "our" thorns from our side so we can have ideological purity on Wikipedia before ever considering the establishment of professional boards for each subject on Wikipedia? Kevin M. Marshall, 13 years of Latin and Greek has pointed out where my contributions are well-researched and cited. Yet, my work comes up for frequent deletion. My edits are constantly reverted check out the history of Arete (excellence) and Ochlocracy where other wikipedians delete valuable information for what purpose? And then charge me with being "disruptive"? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. The system itself brings on trouble!!! On Wikinfo, One can write a SPOV article and another writes a "Criticism" of the SPOV article. People stay out of each other's hair. If the rules were changed or there were EXPERTS in each field to decide probelms, there wouldn't be any need for this stupid "Association of Member Investigations".

You people have got your priorities ALL WRONG! Not everyone can edit in the "classical field" yet with this "democracy" you have got ignorant people editing articles they have no clue in. This is sooo stupid. What does Snowspinner and SimonP et al. who have no sense of the classical world CONTROL articles in the classical world? and then put me up for arbitration? This is stupid!WHEELER 16:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputing validity

I am uncertain by what element of the deletion policy things that are essentially equivalent to Wikiprojects can be deleted. I would have thought informal member associations were pretty much allowed regardless. Snowspinner 23:29, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Care to make that point over on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sacred Office of the Inquisition? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Poor form, Mirv. Ambi 11:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How's that, Ambi? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 12:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We should be debating on policy pages whether or not this particular Wikipedian organisation should be shut down, not whether it's page should be deleted. Half of the delete votes above have nothing to do with deletion policy, and everything to do with what they think of the organisation. The two are completely unrelated, until deletion policy changes. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:41, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

[edit] Move to close

As the page has been rewritten twice, renamed four times, and has minimal resemblance at this point to the page that was nominated and has been heavily voted on, I suggest that this VfD be terminated and, should Mirv continue to object, he relist the page. I further suggest this as an example of why working towards consensus is a better approach to a page with elements that you don't like than vandalizing it a bunch and then listing it on VfD while making a bunch of personal attacks against its creator. Snowspinner 17:17, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

And I suggest that when your housemates decide to start farming king cobras in the living room, finding a forked stick and a pair of pliers should be your very first priority. I further suggest that quick radical action is sometimes necessary to effect quick radical change. I am content with the new face of the organization and will work to address the only substantive issue I see remaining—overlap with the AMA—as suggested. I will close this VfD soon unless anyone objects. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Object then. Some people are voting delete even after all the changes, and I for one still want to see Snowspinner's micronation deleted. -- Netoholic @ 02:25, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

At the moment there are 21 delete votes and 17 keep votes. That is, there is a majority in favour of deleting the proposal - so there is no chance of the proposal actually passing. It is also clearly a very divisive proposal. This appears to be an attempt by Snowspinner to keep the proposal alive longer - and I have to oppose that. What would be more welcome would be Snowspinner withdrawing his page, which already has taken up hours of time that others could have spent editing articles, jguk 08:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I miss where informal groupings of Wikipedians required policy approval? You know there's a whole bunch of unauthorized Wikiprojects to delete, right? Snowspinner 19:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Can we start with Project Pokecruft? Huh? Can we? Can we? </energetic puppy> -- this text placed here by by User:Carnildo but he forgot to sign :-) Kim Bruning 09:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Using your numbers: 21 deletes (vs 17 keeps) is only 55%. That's pretty divided, I wouldn't count that as a consensus to delete. Kim Bruning 19:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nor the 2/3 needed (I'm guessing) for it to pass. What to do, what to do... El_C 04:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pass? This is a VFD. What does "pass" have to do with anything? --Calton | Talk 05:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I noticed. But I see it also as a policy proposal (to have such an entity), so if it is not voted for deletion, what becomes of its status? Please let me know if I'm missing something emberassing here. El_C 05:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The AMI isn't a policy proposal to have 'such an entity'. I'm pretty sure this is a voluntary association of Wikipedians. It was intended to be an arm of the ArbCom; several arbiters said they wanted some sort of prosecutorial position. However, the project page makes no reference to this fact, so it must be treated as an independent association until demonstrated that it is not. If a significant number of people agree that AMI should be shut down forcibly, then it should be. Obviously, Wikipedia cannot allow associations of Wikipedians that would be demonstrably damaging to the project (such as vandal or POVwarrior networks). Outside of these circumstances, associations do not need community approval.
Furthermore, VfD is not the appropriate place to deal with policy disputes. What becomes of this page's status — and the status of the AMI — is as follows. If the Wikipedia community decides that AMI is a policy, then a discussion can take place on the AMI talk page, and if the policy fails then it will be archived. If the Wikipedia community decides to treat it as a Wikipedian organisation, then those who oppose it can take their case to the ArbCom, who will then decide whether or not to take action.
:) I hope this helps you, →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:06, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the comprehensive answer. El_C 06:08, 28 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.