Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

MFD is the incorrect venue for project closure. Try the talk pages for AMA itself. The 2 Esperanza MFDs were contrary to process, but had advanced too far by the time I found them at least. Please don't use MFD for this. It's not what it's for, and MFD cannot support the level of discussion required for long lived projects such as AMA.

• Long lived pages in the project namespace are tagged historical
• projects are not affected by page deletion at all.

As such, MFD (which simply deletes pages) , cannot provide the service you require.

--Kim Bruning 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct venue, this is what the community appears to want per suggestions. I would the esperanza set a precedent. Please revert your closure. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WP:MFD page, "Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for five days; then are either deleted by an administrator, using community consensus (determined from the discussion) as a guideline, or kept."

The nomination is based on this being a problematic page in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. and is therefore in the appropriate venue. Historical tagging is included in this mix, and is in fact quite common practice when someone brings some long-dead project page up for review here. --tjstrf talk 17:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot delete a long standing project or policy at all. It must be marked historical, based on consensus at the page itself. Else how can we learn from past mistakes? :-) This is wikipedia guidelines 101! ^^;; --Kim Bruning 17:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} --kingboyk 17:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then vote tag historical. --tjstrf talk 17:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't vote for that. *sigh*. The reference you are looking for is {{historical}}. That's what it's for eh? Note especially that MFD is not required. --Kim Bruning 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason" is somewhat different from a "problematic page in the namespaces outside of the main article namespace, that aren't already covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas". --kingboyk 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case you still get to pick {{rejected}}. Either of which do not require MFD. Once again, it's not a good idea to delete historical projects. We are supposed to mark them historical... for some reason. :-) Note that people have already started the "historical" debate over at WP:AMA, so this MFD is now redundant. --Kim Bruning 17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. And thanks for keeping calm under pressure, somewhat inspirational :) --kingboyk 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated several projects, generally inactive ones, for deletion on this page recently, including the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tulips, some of which have already been deleted. Not addressing the quality or importance of this project/group at all, I would greatly appreciate it is guidelines were established as to when and if a WikiProject or similar group can be proposed for deletion. John Carter 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that they simply cannot be. It would be silly to do so, since then we'd lose our historic record (and be doomed to repeat our mistakes). And in fact you don't need to nominate pages at MFD, you can jut mark them with the {{historic}}, after all.

At any rate, I think it's a good idea to send people to the AMA talk pages. Worst case we still get the same result as here, but perhaps people will listen to each other there, and likely create a more useful compromise than is possible in the tight confines of an MFD. (including possible merges, or improvements to the system). --Kim Bruning 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the counter-argument is that if we keep all this old crap lying around Wikipedia will be like a junk yard. (General point, not talking about this specific instance). --kingboyk 18:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The for deletion in "* for Deletion" doesn't necessarily mean that the only outcome of these discussions is deletion. AfDs and other xfDs frequently result in merges, renames, or redirects. MfD is a fine venue, as it garners more attention from the community as a whole than a discussion on the project's talk page would. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is silly too, what's with process for the sake of process --Kim Bruning 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, when exactly did we lose so much site of what we are here for? Why the need for process for the sake of process? Who cares if it's the "correct", wiki-lawyer approved venue. Let's just decide on what needs to be done, and use this page to do it, since it's already here. - Taxman ^Talk 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah duh, that's my argument! ;-) You can already just mark stuff {{tl|hisorical}] or {{rejected}} by simple consensus, without all this opening, voting, closing, counting, keep, delete and all that mess. Sheesh! ;-) --Kim Bruning 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not practical, coz you get reverted and the community isn't around to back you up. This way, we get to hear what the community actually wants. If there had been no Esperanza MfD, it would still be a monkey on our backs. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think you have the community at your back here? --Kim Bruning 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what I said is very far from what your argument was. Your argument was one based on venue, ie a technicality. - Taxman ^Talk 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, that's because the venue is nukular overkill. --Kim Bruning 12:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC) and the collateral damage has to be seen to be believed ;-)[reply]

So, like, after 150k of "technicalities" ... you were saying? ;-) --Kim Bruning 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I've never been accused of mere ruleslawyering before. REVENGE! O:-) --Kim Bruning[reply]

I think the Esperanza precedent was good. This is a perfectly valid place to hold the discussion. First, it is a deletion of a project, whether or not the deletion is governed by the deletion of the pages or the community consensus to remove the project. Second, MfD doesn't get a great deal of pages, so the traffic the discussion generates is not disruptive at MfD. Third, this is preferrable to having a separate forum to discuss the termination of projects—since that forum would get very little traffic, it wouldn't tend to generate adequate exposure for gauging community consensus. And finally, the nature of the MfD process establishes a timeframe for the discussion, yields a definitive decision, and has appeal process (DRV)—all things we don't need to create separately for projects by holding the discussion here. —Doug Bell 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same argument holds here as for the perennial proposal for "requests for de-adminship." - Too easily abused. --Kim Bruning 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (How much would you like to bet on odds for an attempted MFD of WP:RFAr before the end of the year? O:-) )[reply]

OK, let's calm down: if now we find that this is not the procedure it has to be used, then I'll kill somebody for this time waste. Please, somebody can provide a link to policy/guidelines about this? If not, then, consider being honest and withdraw this MfD until you find or create (with community's consensus) a suitable process. If you want to delete AMA because it is a fork to break policy, just don't delete it breaking policy too. Be coherent and honest, please. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 07:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, it's simple, you just use the historical tag at the page itself, and bold revert discuss until the dust settles. This is simple, scales really well, and wastes the time of only a limited number of people (if even that). When this gets closed as no consensus, folks will likely go ahead and do that anyway. :-P --Kim Bruning 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, I would like to try that on some things and have before but just get reverted and flamed. It's not fun. :-( MfD, though technically the incorrect venue, has asserted jurisdiction over historifying projects before. --Iamunknown 16:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim - I had the same thought. No one really cares about deleting the AMA pages, its the AMA project that is in question. When they tried to delete the Wikipedia:Rewards Board proposed policy, A Man In Black closed the MfD in April 2006 with, "After 48K and five days, nobody has offered a single reason this policy proposal should be deleted; instead, nearly every "delete" comment has instead offered a reason that the proposal should be rejected. Wikipedia talk:Now Hiring is the place to debate the appropriateness of accepting this proposal." As it turned out, all those who participate in the Wikipedia:Rewards Board MfD were in the wrong venue and no one was WP:BOLD enough to move the procedure to the proper venue. Doug makes some good points about MfD. We obviously need to formally revise one of the deletion processes (e.g., MfD) to handle project deletions.-- Jreferee 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please note that a couple of folks posted opinions in the short period of time after the first closure was reverted, which are now sitting in the edit history. New section break to avoid e/c. --kingboyk 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouw, I have no idea if anything even got reverted or what... too much edit conflicts as a lot of people stampeded over here. I think people want to slow down and think about things for a second. You're supposed to participate in consensus discussions with a clear mind. ^^;;; --Kim Bruning 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was clear :P However, my stomach is empty, whopper calling my name. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I was edit conflicted but didn't know I was edit conflicting against a closure :) I don't mind, leave my edit in the history unless this gets reopened in which case it can be restored. --kingboyk 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion might best continue on the Association of members advocates talk page, I think. --Kim Bruning 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great way to bring the issue up to AMA members. But I think that we need to bring this up the community at large, by using MFD as a venue. Just my 2 cents, though. Gracenotes^T § 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think AMA deserves a decent discussion on the matter, rather than just keep, delete, etc. If things really break down at the AMA talk page for some reason, well we could always consider MFD... but maybe not even then, you can just mark things historial or rejected anyway, after all. The esperanza MFD was a big drama. Trying this a different way can't hurt much ^^:; --Kim Bruning 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA has been discussed repeatedly. Off and on, over and over and over. XfDs are discussions, but they're also more decisive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was any of those discussions about marking as historical? (Diffs would be great :-) ) --Kim Bruning 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall anything that major, no. The last discussion I can recall petered out and went nowhere, which is exactly what an MfD won't do. And no, I can't find it; please don't be angry if it's a false memory ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question - Do you think you could help me in my advocee request for an answer for me? My case has been open/closed/opened and then put "under investigation" since November with no communication with me for almost two months now, not since I requested an explanation and update re the "investigation" (which I never asked for and don't know what is being investigated -- except that some of the sockpuppets after me had Advocates) from the AMA Coordinator investigator and was told I was whining and to calm down. Sincerely, Mattisse 11:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse, although this is not the right place to talk about this, I'm not AMA Coordinator and just can't take a case another AMA has taken... unless someone wants me to overthrow Steve and take the Coordination. But I'll inmediately contact Steve. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 11:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::::For the record, Steve is not coordinator in question. Guess there is no way to get answer. He is the coordinator, so thanks! Mattisse 11:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the next five days... I user:CyclePat propose that all AMA members be requested to drop their current advocacy case. Advocates should direct their advocacee's that the due to a deletion discussion concerning AMA that they may no longer help them out. In fact, all pending cases on AMA should be advised that because of the AMA deletion we are AMA members should temporarily refuse their case. I also request that AMA members and the people whome they are helping be asked to comment on the MFD (deletion process) concerning WP:AMA and how the process was usefull. If the AMA is deleted I further suggest that AMA members still do not assist anyone until the deletion appeal is complete. After that everyone is invited to come to user:CyclePat/AMA and start it up where they shouldn't be able to touch us! --CyclePat 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have a position in this, but MfD deletes user pages all the time, so moving to user space is a flawed strategy. —Doug Bell 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, it could simply be speedied as WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G12. --Iamunknown 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, at the risk of stuffing beans up our collective noses, they can still take things off-wiki, and use e-mail or irc for instance. In practice, it is a fact that you cannot shut down a process using deletion. (I do believe I mentioned that earlier though :-/ )

CyclePat: Please don't do that though, you're not helping your case at all! --Kim Bruning 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, I just checked some survey forms AMA folks have been asking people to fill out. After everything I've read here, I'd have thought that they might score just above average, but... on a random sample, they seem to be getting really high marks. I wonder if there's some statistical law that's causing that, or if maybe our perceptions are flawed somehow. Ut oh. :-/ --Kim Bruning 00:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat: don't make advocees part of this. If we want to show what we are worth, we must show how strong we are by ourselves, bot using tricks. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 13:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If advocees think we have done a good job for them, then we have value to them, at least. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Wikibreak, and haven't got long. Popped in to register my Keep opinion, but haven't a clue where to put it. The main debate page is a real mess and very off-putting. My 2p worth is that the AMA is very valuable for people who use it and should therefore be retained. Check the recent work by User:The Transhumanist for a great example of keeping things cool and working toward consensus with two opposing factions. I also think it could do with a rename to "Advisors", rather than the misleadingly lawyerly and POVish "Advocates". --Dweller 11:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mess, yes. The easiest option is to put your opinion at the bottom. Do you want me to place it on the page for you? --kingboyk 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not only an AMA, but also a Harmonious editing club member. I can list this page in the club's "watchlist" if you want (or maybe, you can do it by yourself too!... c'mon, this is a wiki) --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 13:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. --kingboyk 14:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That HEC members mantain the order in the page by refactoring it when necessary. Of course, here no archiving can be done, but for exapmple, deleting those threads that turn too personal or do whatever is necessary to keep an ordered page and so, have a better and clearer discussion. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 14:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please place my comment at an appropriate place on the page. Thanks. --Dweller 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --kingboyk 10:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... what comment? The fisrt one on this thread? I haven't found anything else. If your intention is to vote, you should do it by yourself first so there's no doubt that it was your vote (and no doubt that I'm not voting twice). After you have placed your vote wherever you can, I'll be able to place it on the right place... Actually, just vote on the bottom of the page. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 07:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFD is not a vote it's a discussion. --kingboyk 10:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not merely a vote: It's vote+discussion aimed to get consensus... the "vote" component does exist: why people put a delete/keep/merge in bold? Alright, votes are not exactly counted and always discussion is more important, but there are votes!... maybe "opinion votes" could be a good term to describe the excepcional thing XfDs are. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 11:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Request - Neigel von Teighen, perhaps you or someone could supply me with an answer. My AMA case has been open since November. It has been "Under Investigation" since February 6, though I do not know what is being investigated. To this day I have not received any Advocate feedback, even though I requested tips for getting along on Wikipedia, advice, and interchange with an Advocate in my original application. The AMA coordinator said on a talk page recently that all the Advocates disliked me and that all my problems were my fault. Is this true? If so, is it possible that I can learn why and how to change? No Advocate since my application in November 2006 has initiated contact with me, except for a welcoming message. I have asked by email and my Advocate talk pages for feedback multiple times and have been ignored or told I was being a pest. I have asked on other talk pages. This is a last ditch effort to get a response. It is true that two Advocates have apologised to me (you being one of them even though you were not my Advocate) and I greatly appreciate and am thankful to you and the other Advocate for that kindness. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sincerely, I don't know what can be so long "investigated"... surely, nothing. But don't worry: I'll close your case under my own responsability if you agree. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 15:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about the scope of a replacement project. (Assuming that we just don't want to refer to people to help desk/adopt a user). IMHO, if people want to continue the (laudable) goal of assisting confused/new/frustrated users with dispute resolution, it's not crazy to have a project, but any project:

1. Must be clearly focused on dispute resolution, not on advocacy for one side of a dispute. IMHO, it's reasonable for a troubled editor to understand that a particular editor is his advisor, or big brother, or whatever. In many cases, that's helpful, as it allows the troubled editor to share confidential information, or to trust that a particular editor has his best interests at heart. However, it's also essential that the troubled editor and the community understand that we're here for dispute resolution, not pure advocacy per se.
2. Should have a bar to entry, oversight, and continuing focus on attaining our overall goals. This will increase bureaucracy, which was one of Esperanza's cardinal sins, and will increase wait time, but will reduce the total number of "runaway advocacies."
3. Ideally, will continue to benefit from automation. The current AMA has some great automation, ranging from satisfaction surveys to an alert system. Hopefully, if this process doesn't turn off the developers, a follow up project could incorporate similar tech where appropriate.

Thoughts? Thanks! TheronJ 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a proposal (though not necessarily as a replacement, I think it would serve a good purpose even if AMA is ultimately kept here) at WP:ASSIST. What do you think? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work - that's pretty close to what I had in mind. If I get some time clear this week, I will try to make some suggestions. TheronJ 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another month, another Wikipedia namespace (project space) set of pages gets nominated for deletion at MfD. <sigh> Another huge page of comments to read. What was that someone was saying about a scale problem again? :-( I'm glad to see that Kim and others are waving the archivists/historical flag, and that following the Esperanza debate on those issues, this seems a bit clearer and popular this time round. Maybe when WP:RfArb gets MfD'd then people will all be voting historical rather than delete... :-) Of course, what is needed is for the nominator to say up front that they are nominating a set of project pages with a long history, and that any delete votes will be counted as being a vote for tagging historical. Anyway, in closing I will point out once again what Brion said about deletion. See this diff. Someone else pointed this out recently with the comment: "it is a common misconception that deleted pages are kept forever, this is not so.) Such scavanging of harddisk resources is delayed a long time, and it seems that way, but a deleted page does eventually go away forever per Brion Viber". The misconception that the history of the project can be retrieved from the deleted pages archive needs to be stamped out. Historical pages must be archived, not deleted. (Sure, someone else might be archiving it anyway, but we should at least pretend we are organised enough to do our own archiving - we even have the software that can do it for us...) Carcharoth 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]