Wikipedia talk:Association of Member Investigations

message: I just wanted to explain the changes made to this structure so far, in the hopes of clarifying why many of the objections seem to me to be moot by now. First of all, there is no dictator. There is a director. "Dictator" was meant as a joke. It was apparently not funny. For those objecting to the past usage of the term, I suggest you also object to Raul's position as Featured Article Director, which was previously Featured Article Dictator as well. Regardless, there is no longer a dictator.
Furthermore, there are powers specifically denied to the director. He does not have veto power. He merely has the power to elevate people to senior partner. They then have the veto power. This goes hand in hand with another change, which is to demand that the director and senior partners seek approval before starting a case.
Finally, I have noted that the directorship is a finite position. I will not always run this association. Snowspinner 16:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
:The director doesn't have veto power, but he gets to pick those who do. Those holding the veto power will be his cronies. Thus he manages to give the appearance of devolving power while ensuring that things will go his way anyway. The director and senior partners are supposed to ask for review, but note that only the senior partners may veto cases; partners can voice their disapproval, but so what?
:Changing an infinite term to an indefinite one means little, especially when no mechanism exists for picking a new director. (My guess: the new director will be chosen from among the senior partners, who were, guess what, hand-picked by the old director.) Spread the opprobrium but keep the power, eh? —Charles P. (Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 16:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made

message: That's a pretty good question after the schoolyard catfight that accompanied the creation of this group. Almost everybody has behaved rather disgracefully and they should be ashamed of themselves. Before this association was created I probably would have said that I liked the idea and something like it should be created. After that unseemly display, however, I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus to delete this article over at WP:VFD. Even if this association survives the VFD vote, you are probably going to have serious problems having anyone take the AMI seriously. Your best bet would be to chose someone less controversial and less stubborn than Snowspinner as your figurehead, especially during the initial startup period where you will need the most support from the general Wikipedian citizenry for it to become an effective organization.
I really do believe that something like this organization is needed on the Wikipedia to handle problems that the WP:AMA really isn't set up to handle. There are a very small number of Wikipedia editors (probably less than ten) who are constantly involved in small edit and revert wars, who are involved in regular personal attacks, and who often break other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They are smart enough that their behavior related to any one article or individual is usually not enough to file an WP:RFC over, but the totality of their actions on the Wikipedia spread over dozens of articles and individuals can be much worse than someone who spends all of their time edit warring over a single article like circumcision. If nobody digs into the Contributions for an editor that they have had problems with, they would never know that the editor had been causing problems on dozens of articles. (A suggestion: The AMI should consider WP:RFC and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance as part of an early warning system and should look to see who the participants in each article dispute are. They should also be alert to the fact that it might be the difficult editor who is the one who filed the RFC.) gK ¿? 14:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not the AMI?

message: On 24 March 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep or no consensus. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office for a record of the discussion. – ABCD 02:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD

message: Can I just say it's a shame to see this Wikipedian organisation go so unmaintained. ComputerJoe 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. -- Netoholic @ 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say find Snowspinner and see if there's still a reason for this to be here.  If not, I'd consolidate their role into the AMA and be done with it. CQJ 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmaintained