Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (3rd 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 far too soon for another MfD, given that there was a previous MfD deemed invalid just yesterday. If you've a problem with the original closure, please seek deletion review gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

This is a non functional process that no-one uses anymore. In the past, it has caused more harm than good and just creates bureaucracy. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have an open and active case[1] that is making slow and steady progress with the daily assistance of my AMA Neigel von Teighen. I also acknowledged my AMA's helpfulness when I was awarded this barnstar[2] on April 29 for building consensus. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 02:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I have had quite a few spurious cases involving me opened by problematic users, and they still remain open, "under investigation" and unresolved despite the banning or departure of said users. Moreover, since the system doesn't work without mutual agreement, a case that is obviously an attempt to create bureaucracy sits and wastes the time of the advocates and the other parties. There are other enforceable dispute resolution schemes in place, and they don't always take months to sort out. MSJapan 02:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Important Comment - The AMA, as shown in the last MfD, has saved ArbCom and MedCom hundreds of documented hours of frustration and work. But now, due to things like this and people who prefer to live in the past, it has been bullied into the ground in bad faith and incivility. As the Coordinator, I've given up. Naysayers with agendas are too much to manage and I will not allow the AMA to be a scapegoat to point a finger at anymore when people shout "bureaucracy!". It is better off disbanded. MfDs like this and its predecessor, too many administrators, and complicated social niches make Wikipedia a political, bureaucratic animal that everyone here is a part of whether they like to think of it in those terms or not. I've already withdrawn my active editing on the English Wikipedia. This has all really gone too far and I have better things to do with my time. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 02:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think this organization has real potential. It goes back to early 2004. There are a variety of conflict resolution strategies which wikipedia needs and doesn't have. Further I think many of the issues this organization stood for should have become policy. I've thought about joining and helping to blow the embers back to life. jbolden1517 ^Talk 02:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from CyclePat

Keep Comment from CyclePat: Previously nominated on 29 March 2007 at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. Please take note that WP:AMA has previously been nominated for deletion. Perhaps user Ryan Postelhwaite could have utilized an advocate to properly word this nomination. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that what he is looking for is to build gauge the communities consensus on whether WP:AMA is still being used by anyone. In fact the AMA is being used by a few editors who are trying to actively and constructively build a better community. As is my case, I receive almost 90% of my cases via email. (as discussed in the previous mfd). Now bit by bit, some users from EA have taken it upon them to make changes to AMA. These changes have changed the structure and have eliminated the way I used to work (via email). I'm sure this happened with other user and hence a backlog was observed at AMA. Overflow in cases... and sabotage with lack of good leadership (or faith from a leader), as clearly demonstrated up above, have dimished the integretity of this association. Recently we have attempted to communicate on the discussion board regarding an ELECTION at WP:AMA BUT CAN't because some people want to mark this as historical. No mater the case I think the AMA should be preserved. No page should be disturbingly redirected as it currently appears. Furthermore, the opinion of "non-functional... that no-one uses anymore" is preciselly that... an opinion. In fact the if you look at the WP:AMA discussion board there was even talk of having new elections at the AMA for a coordinator. Our belief is that AMA could use an election for a new coordinator. --CyclePat 03:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Subpages Also Mark the main page as historical. This particular program, by its nature, is divisive to the project. We have an entire community willing to assist new users in the areas within the scope of AMA, I do not believe a program dedicated to this is needed or healthy. We have an encyclopedia to write. This, AMA, is not the way. Also of note, in response to the above comment, not all naysayers have an agenda. Best regards, Navou 03:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.