Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposal

This is a proposal for the revitalisation of the AMA. It goes into detail on how things should work.

Tasks undertaken by the AMA

1. Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties find a solution to their dispute)
2. Neutral Evaluation (stating an opinion)
3. Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
4. Appeals (to blocks and/or ArbCom decisions)

Application process

• Tasks 1 and 2 above will require consent from all parties.
• Applications will be made on the page where they are made now, and should be made using a standard template.

==Example Application==
===Requested service===
===Involved parties====
===Brief description of circumstances (with word limit)===
===Evidence of all parties' consent (if applicable)===

• If an application has not been accepted within 72 hours, it will be rejected. The parties can reapply no earlier than one week from date of rejection.
• Acceptance by an advocate will be done by notification on all parties talk pages.
• An advocate may not withdraw from a case that he/she has accepted except in the following circumstances:
  • The advocate has given seven day's notice of his intention to withdraw to all parties and on the discussion page of the requests page.
  • Three days before the advocate actually withdraws, the original request must be re-entered on to the requests page and will remain there for the full 72 hours or until another advocate accepts the case.
  • The applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to such an extent that it would be unfair for him/her to withdraw his/her services.
    • "Services" includes future services which the advocate has agreed to supply by accepting the case.
    • It is presumed that the applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to the said extent. This presumption is reversed once evidence to the contrary is produced.
• Failure to comply with these regulations will be subject to comments from the Association membership and may result in suspension of membership or expulsion from the Association.
• Perfect service and the desired result of the parties can not be guaranteed.

Member votes

• The sole decision making process for the AMA is a member vote.
• Member votes may be called by any member.
• Member votes last for a set period of time and only the votes of advocates who have chosen to participate will be taken into account.
• The sole criterion for eligibility to vote is to be a member of at least ten days standing.
• Member votes work on a first past the post basis.

Coordination

• The AMA is a democratic organisation and all decisions about its operation are made by members of at least ten days standing.
• The nominal head of the AMA is the Coordinator.
• The Coordinator is assisted by two Deputy-Coordinators who may take his place, should he/she be absent when his presence is required.

Elections

• The Coordinator and the Deputy Coordinators are elected by direct vote of all eligible members.
  • Eligible members are members of at least ten days standing.
• In the election each member has one vote.
• The candidate who receives the most votes is elected Coordinator.
• The two candidates with the most votes after the Coordinator are elected Deputy Coordinators

Acquisition, suspension and termination of membership

• Membership is open to anyone except those who have explicitly been excluded by a member vote.
• Membership can be suspended by a member vote.
• Membership can be terminated by a member vote.
• Membership can be terminated on the request (i.e. removing one's name from the list).

Miscellaneous provisions

• A user should decline to act as mediator in a case where the user has previously acted as an advocate.
• A user should decline to act as advocate in a case where the user has previously acted as a mediator.
• A user should decline to act as a mediator if that user has recently acted as an advocate for or against one of the parties in the mediation.
• When participating in mediation, users who are both advocates and mediators should state clearly the capacity in which they are acting.
• Users who are also arbitrators should not serve as advocates while they are members of the Arbitration Committee.

Poll (CLOSED) - (10/10/0)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was

With the expiry of the polling, the results are that at ten votes in favor, with ten against, and no abstentions, this proposal does not meet consensus. Wally 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This poll works on a first past the post basis and will close at 21:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~.

The only requirement to vote is membership of the association that pre-dates 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Support

1. Support this will revitalize the AMA and would no longer prohibit members from providing commonly requested services (mediation, opinion work). I'm totally on board and don't see why, fis ome members want to perfrom certain services (without hacing to join anotehr group that is not getting the same requests as we are here), why they should be prohibited from doing so. So what if AMA stands for advocates it's just a name! and "advocate" can be interpreted to encompass mediation/opinion work. Now's not the time to be opposed tochange. BE BOLD.Gator (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support -- Pakaran 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Regrettably, up to this point I haven't been active in the group. However, I feel that this new proposal will breath life into a necessary and helpful organization. Soltak | Talk 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - I joined the AMA rather excitedly but have done little for lack of understanding exactly what, when and how I should be doing things. This would make things a lot easier for new members. - Jord 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support - revitalisation is required. This is by no means a perfect solution, but it will do. Oliver Keenan 15:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Should really open doors. Deltabeignet 07:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Weak Support - I support this, I do see the good in implementing these changes, I just do feel that this might be overkill for an informal process, but I am willing to support this and see what comes out of it. Conradrock 00:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Izehar 17:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Good ideas that will work --Neigel von Teighen 13:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• What I don't like very much is make the AMA a place for mediation too, but to oppose to the whole proposal only because of that is not fair. --Neigel von Teighen 13:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I (and Gator) added mediations to the proposal because that is what most of the requests are asking for (eg "this user's being rude, have a word with him"). It is very rare to find a request for advocacy. Izehar 15:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a proper place to go for that. We are called the Association of Members' Advocates. Advocates carries a connotation that is pretty hard to miss. If people ask for something that is not in our business to provide, so much the better — we can turn the case over to MedCom or MedCabal and let them handle it. And it is quite fair, IMHO, to consider an outline that does not even recognize what our job is and is not as unacceptable based on that. Wally 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And this is why I continue to point out that you and Gator seemingly don't understand what the AMA is. Our job is to help people through the process, not perform the process for them. If this proposal were an article on Advocacy, it would be subject to a split-and-merge. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: we worked very hard on this, would you care to enlighten us with a sentence or two? Thanks.Gator (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Oops. I meant to give a reason! I feel it would make the organization overly bureaucratic, especially the parts where it lets people be kicked out of AMA. I also especially don't like the idea of automatically rejecting cases after 72 hours, though I'd like to not see them sit longer than that, to be honest. I do like the tasks part, but I don't think we should provide mediation; Wikipedia already has two mediation groups, one informal, and anyone can provide informal mediation. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   If you don't want to mediate, then don't; withdrawal of membership is a safeguard to quality and I think that the chances of that happening without a good reason are extremely unlikely, and the 72 hours limit is intended to prevent a backlog. Anyway, the applicants are allowed to resubmit their application a week later. Izehar 22:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Wally 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

   I have been absent for some time, despite my earlier participation in reform processes, and would not vote save that my opinion was sought via a message on my talk page: thus I cast a ballot. I find the proposals not only too ambitious and broad-based but I also feel that they step on the toes of other organizations. To my mind we have a mediation crew here to mediate — albeit one even less effective than we are — and we have arbitrators to give opinions on application of Wikipedian policies. They idea that we might fulfill either of these roles, mediative or advisory, is offensive to those organizations.

   Furthermore, when we have such trouble coordinating ourselves now, how are we to assign ourselves more responsibility? And who are we to do so? The comments below, by an Arbitrator no less, should capture the need for increased emphasis on training and standards rather than on reckless self-aggrandizement. I fear this is an effort, though well-meaning, fuelled more by dreams than capability.

   I would also like further input from our Coordinator on his thoughts about this.

3. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

   Far, far too formalized and rigid. Rejection of request after 3 days is a joke considering how badly the current requests page tends to be neglected. Doesn't mention at all the simple task of helping others through the DR process. This isn't limited to representation. Being well-versed in the DR process and being able to show others the way through it is what I mean. A lot of requests need only this. Removes ability of members to work in a Wikian, self-directed way and instead injects decisions of the entire AMA into their activity or continued membership. Increases the duties of AMA, mainly including the need to vote on so many procedural issues. Don't forget, some of us like to edit articles too from time to time. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ PS, judging from the support votes, this feels a lot like entryism. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Wgfinley 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Regarding Tasks Undertaken by the AMA

   • "Informal mediation" is currently handled by The Mediation Cabal which is quite alive, well, and active. I would encourage users who have an interest in mediation to sign up over there, anyone can join.
   • "Neutral mediation" is currently handled by The Mediation Committee which is also quite alive, well, and active. I would encourage members who would like to be a mediator apply to be a mediator over there.
   • The remaining tasks are what the AMA should focus and concentrate on as there are no other groups in Wikipedia that perform these services.

   • Regrading Application Process

   • Instruction creep -- mainly Procedural steps are popular to add but unpopular to follow, mainly due to the amount of work required to actually follow the complex procedures..

   • Regarding Member Votes

   • Wikipedia is not a democracy -- This organization only needs to vote on very limited number of things -- a coordinator when we need one and ithat's about it. I don't understand how we can be an advocate for someone and help them reach consensus on their issues when we don't practice consensus building amongst ourselves.

   • Regarding Coordination

   • I don't believe "deputy coordinators" are necessary, I don't think more chiefs is what is needed. Alex has said he's more than happy to turn over the reins when someone wants to step up and be Coordinator as he just doesn't have the time for it, I think replacing Alex with someone who has the time to give is the main thing needed. I've been considering it.

   • Regarding Membership

   • More instruction creep, I believe this section could be wrapped up with one sentence "Membership in the AMA is open to anyone but suspension or revocation of an individual's membership is subject to the consensus of the membership.

   • Regarding Miscellaneous provisions

   • No issues.

   Finally, let me say that I take exception to this vote being put to the group with a closing time and an implication that action will be taken then. There was no provision for this when the group was formed. Any changes to the group should be done by consensus and I believe there were many long time members who stated their issues with this proposal so to put it to a vote, in my mind, is trying to bypass consensus building.

   Now, members are being told if they don't want to mediate they don't have to or they should leave? This group has never had a proviso regarding mediation and I frankly don't understand why some are insisting to push this through, it's like me barging my way into your living room and telling you I don't like your TV and you should go buy a new one. Since many other members have introduced their concerns I haven't seen a single change to this proposal and to me, that doesn't show that you worked very hard on it. --Wgfinley 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, one more thing, I think the folks proposing this mean well (another important reference and lesson in instruction creep) but have gotten a bit wrapped up in this.

5. Strong Oppose I absolutely oppose allowing people who have never advocated having any say. I also oppose removing members who do things. Non-active members could be removed, I guess, but who cares? I do like the fact that you guys want to do something (how about advocating?), and I agree some organisation needs to occur. Rather than a commitee, we need to delegate tasks. For example, I'd be willing to contact members on their talk pages in regards to work that needs done. Someone should have the job of being the ambassador to the other committees (prob our co-ordinator). Someone else should be given the job of maintaining our AMA pages, someone else the job of mentoring new advocates, and so forth. We also need to give recognition to members who have successfully completed cases. Branching into mediation or other things is fine, but lets do that AFTER our requests for assistance page is empty, and we've run out of things to do, eh? Sam Spade 08:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

   Hear, hear. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose, too bureaucratic for no good reason. If people aren't participating much now, why would anyone think having a rigid formal procedure is going to improve this? Friday (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose, with request to split the proposal -- a democracy as the "sole decision making process," with the provision that "any member may call a vote." What's to stop a person to call a vote to just call a vote? Then, to be suspended for pulling said voting stunt, the suspension must go through another vote. Too many votes. I agree with Wgfinley, in that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Too much red tape to cut through. I'd probably support if not so bureaucratic (or if split). Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC) || replaced vote, 03:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC) I Formatted so that numbering would be intact Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) || and again, 04:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC) || and again, 04:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, with request to split the proposal. This is a change from a neutral vote making this request. Ian here seems to have the right idea. Consider this the equivalent of voting against a bill because I don't like a rider on it. This proposal is simply too broad to be such a black and white issue. --BDD 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose until my changes below are made, similiar to BDD. When in doubt, filibuster. karmafist 04:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
10. ClockworkSoul 12:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) – though this is definitely a step in the right direction, I must weakly oppose for the following reasons
    • The unconventional voting system: drop the first past the post; it's "un-wiki".
    • I would prefer that only members who have actually served as an advocate contribute to some or all votes.

Abstain/Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Will switch to support if the section Acquisition, suspension and termination of membership is clarified: are all votes simple majority, 2/3, 3/4? – ClockworkSoul 22:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, all votes are for an absolute majority. The idea is that all members are presumed not to be sockpuppets and that they are all reasonable. If something unreasonable is proposed, then it's presumed that more than 50% will oppose. Izehar 22:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   If the proposition can be ammended to state that, I will be very happy to offer my support. – ClockworkSoul 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   I added the links to the definition - I think that that should do. I don't really feel comfortable changing the proposal after some members have already voted though. Izehar 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral See above here's my ideas...
   • Arbitrators shouldn't be allowed in AMA except as "on hiatus" members not only because of potential bias, but because until there's some reform of the system, they'll be too damn busy to be effective. Don't even pose the option, it'll be a nuisance.
   • Change "should" to "cannot", unless they want to do it independently. It'll give the AMA far more credibility.
   • Ditch first past the post thinking, it doesn't jibe with Wikipedia. Instead, make a clear level for consensus, i'll create a simple formula after my break if you'd like.
   • Make an addendum regarding if there are no advocates available after 72 hours. A person's case may be worthy, but there might not be enough advocates, something that person should not be penalized for. karmafist 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
3. (Moved to neutral because I'm ineligible to vote) Please see my comments below; my primary concern is that informal mediation is already handled by the WP:MEDCAB, and if informal mediation is included in the purview of the AMA then there will be duplication of effort. Secondly, one cannot both advocate and mediate simultaneously; being an advocate involves assisting a user in arguing a particular case, whereas mediation involves providing a neutral negotiation forum between multiple parties. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral (vote being changed --BDD 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)) Could we split the question? I support the idea of making this a more democratic body, even if Wikipedia as a whole is not . However, I also respect the requests from other arbitrators not to infringe upon their domain. I would like to see some coordination between the AMA and such organizations, but as much as I would like to belong to a group that maintains an oligarchic hold on conflict resolution within the community, I would rather not aggrandize the scope of our duties as such. I wouldn't feel quite right voting for or against the proposal, and hope my request to vote on seperate parts of it is given due consideration. Respectfully, --BDD 02:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, the poll should be split. Probably into as many as three pieces -- increased democracy, role of the organization, and the rest. Criteria for voting also seems to be arbitrary. Ought to at minimum be limited to those who have performed some advocacy task under the existing definition of AMA roles. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral, with reservations -- a democracy as the "sole decision making process," with the provision that "any member may call a vote." What's to stop a person to call a vote to just call a vote? Then, to be suspended for pulling said voting stunt, the suspension must go through another vote. Too many votes. I agree with Wgfinley, in that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Too much red tape to cut through. I'd probably support if not so bureaucratic. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed objections with my voting (Sam Spade's first sentence: "I absolutely oppose allowing people who have never advocated having any say"), and will abstain from this vote until further notice. Although, I have discussed with Phroziac about activeness. I am, and have always been, open to accept cases, provided they contacted me via e-mail or by talk page as originally implied on Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries:

"Some members of the AMA who are currently accepting inquiries regarding new cases are listed below. You may alternatively place your request on the Requests for Assistance page (see link to the right).

If you wish to contact any of the below advocates please contact them on their talk page or leave them an email through the link on their respective talk pages"

Any questions, please contact me. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC) || redid some language, 23:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You can vote if you like. The poll is open to all members per the standard above. Sam's just... prickly. ;) Wally 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Replaced vote, edited a little to be less confusing. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 03:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatted so that numbering would be intact Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) || and again, 04:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

I don't agree with this thing under "application process" about all parties consenting: it doesn't matter whether or not all parties consent to one of the parties being represented by an AMA member. The only person who has to consent is the person who is seeking representation (where consent is implicit). --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 22:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the only tasks which require consent are tasks 1 and 2 (Mediation and Neutral Evaluation). That requirement is not applicable to Advocacy and Appeals. The idea is that mediation or neutral evaluation would be futile if not all disputing parties wanted to negotiate in this way. Izehar 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Right, mediation that we shouldn't be doing to start with. Wally 03:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who are also arbitrators

I have some ideas, but I would like to know for sure: what is the rationale for this? – ClockworkSoul 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is to avoid conflict of interest. If an arbitrator supports one side of a dispute and then that case is brought to arbitration then than arbitrator would have to rescue. Rescuing, means that the ArbCom has less expertese and diversity of opinion - we want to avoid that. Izehar 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment

As an Arbitrator, I obviously have an interest in the possibility that the AMA might someday be of some use. Unfortunately, the AMA has a very poor reputation -- I have heard my fellow Arbitrators comment many times that "No AMA advocate has ever been in any way helpful on any case ever", and in the cases I've been personally involved in which had an AMA advocate, the advocate has been at best worthless and at worst obstructionary and irritating. (There have been helpful advocates, but none of them were AMA members.)

So, with that background out of the way, I look forward to a revitalization of the AMA, converting it into a useful entity that will prove helpful in the dispute resolution process. Unfortunately, I think the "instruction creep" that is laid out in the above proposals will do nothing to further that. Rather, I think you people need to think about what makes an effective advocate in the Wikipedia community, and try to select members who have those characteristics. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that you've figured out what those characteristics are (don't worry, neither have I). But I think writing a bunch of procedural folderol for elections and dismissals and such not is not the right first step toward that. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of anyone ever complaining about AMA advocates being "obstructionary and irritating". If this is so, then perhaps this organization should be disbanded. It was never meant to be a policing organization or yet another arm of the Wikipedia bureaucracy. It was meant to be a place were people who were anti-bureacracy could help other individuals, not become self styled "Wikipedia lawyers-in-waiting". As the first elected coordinator I tried to get people interesting in having conferences and discussion the work of an advocate, but this does not seem to interest people who are interested in having their names listed as being members of a group but who don't really want to work at improving the group. I also agree with you Kelly, the way to improve it is not to have yet another reorganization. Reminds me of what they say about Canadians when they die and go to heaven (and I can say this because I am a Canadian), they organize a conference. Never really want to do anything, just want to discuss it. I think this organization should be disbanded, if people want to start yet another group, fine, but don't add it to the mantle of a disfunctional group, just start your own. Alex756 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I was also a bit taken aback by Kelly's comment and am wondering which ArbCom members she talked to! I received several private messages from ArbCom members during my cases that I was doing a very good job. I think there is an important component of assisting on Arb cases for those who are not experienced in them, I think this task of "lawyers-in-waiting" was taken on as a response to the District Attorney's Office which went on to become The Association of Member Investigations. I think Alex is right though and we need to get back to our roots and what this group is supposed to be about, not take on additional tasks when we already have issues. --Wgfinley 01:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wgfinley, your service as an advocate before the ArbCom was before my tenure on the Committee, and it may not have been noticed that you were an AMA member by the Committee at the time. It has also occured to me that one or more of the effective advocates may have actually been members of the AMA, but they never presented themselves as such. On the other hand, whenever we (the ArbCom) see someone pop up in an RfAr as "so-and-so's Advocate from the AMA" we all groan, knowing that what will come next is a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or a redundant cross-filing, or some other procedural annoyance that will ultimately come to nothing but which will force us to deal with extra noise that adds nothing to the Arbitration process.

A useful advocate, from the ArbCom's perspective (or at least my perspective, as a member of the ArbCom), will refrain from "wikilawyering", and will instead present a consistent and coherent explication of the evidence that demonstrates that his client should not be censured, or that his client's nemesis should be censured, or both. Advocates should also assist in the Arbitration process by proposing reasonable principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement measures on the workshop page of the arbitration case. Special attention should be given to writing principles which reflect our core values and which can stand universally as precedent; findings of fact should be specific to the case, be supported by evidence (generally, edit diffs), and should only be offered to the extent that they are required to justify a remedy or enforcement. Advocates should avoid arguing directly with the other parties of the case (at least on the Arbitration page) as that just tends to make the arbitration pages longer and more fractious. Advocates are strongly encouraged to control their clients and to encourage them to refrain from posting in the arbitration itself. (In the most recent case I dealt with that involved an advocate, the party made far more posts to the arbitration pages than the advocate did. I was sorely tempted at the end of that case to recommend a remedy forbidding that advocate from representing any person before the Arbitration Committee for a period of one year.)

I can't speak for what sort of representation would be helpful to the Mediation Committee or the Mediation Cabal. It would behoove this organization to find out what these other bodies in the dispute resolution process would find most helpful from an advocate representing someone involved in their processes, and seek to develop methods to help deliver those services to the betterment of the community, and thereby the encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this proposal is to stop the group being dysfunctional by laying down:

• What we do;
• How we do it;
• How our services may be obtained;
• How we work; and
• To establish a few membership rules.

IMO a bit of red tape is necessary here. If one were to check the requests page it would become abundantly clear that the people who need our services have no idea what this association is and the fact that no advocates respond indicates that most advocates, on joining, had no idea what would be expected of them. Now, assuming this passes, everyone will know what we do, how we do it etc. Most requests are complaints of abusive behaviour with newbie expectations of immediate bans - advocates cannot help with that kind of thing. All we can do is help resolve disputes. This proposal emerged after lengthy discussions and detailed examination of each clause, in an attempt to revive this association. We had become stuck in a rut and very few, if any, members actually accepted any requests. If anyone can think of a better way than the above proposal, let's hear it. This is the best I (and a few other members) can think of. Izehar 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I served for some months with the Mediation Cabal before becoming an Arbitrator. MedCab provides several of the same services that you're proposing to provide, without the organizational structure. The problem, as I see it, with having a lot of organizational structure is that you get status-seekers joining for the sake of being a member, without any committment to the function of the organization. The MedCab avoids this largely by having no membership requirements, and thus there is no status to gain by joining.

If you want my opinion, you should scrap all membership rules, allow open membership, and concentrate on providing resources for members and the community. The way you avoid the problem with people asking for things they can't have is to have clear resources that explain to people what they can have. The reason you have members who don't respond to requests is that many of them joined for status, rather than to help, or because they don't know how to help; you eliminate the first by taking away the status and the second by teaching them how to help (note: teach, not tell; there's a difference). But that's just my opinion.

I'd really like it if an effective organization of advocates -- one that the ArbCom can rely on -- were available, for those cases where one party or the other really does need an advocate (an unfortunately common occurrence). How about helping out Wikipedia by creating that organization? Kelly Martin (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly's complaints appear to be directed towards myself, and specifically this matter. I direct her towards the record of my successful cases, and caution my fellow members that she is a temporary and controversial appointee unlikely to remain in office past the upcoming vote, widely unpopular due to statements and actions opposed by at least 130 members of the community and should be understood as such. Sam Spade 08:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Sam, I wasn't even thinking of you. I won't name names, but I will state that I had already formed a solid impression of the AMA's "uselessness" (as a fellow Arbitrator described it once) even before the Silverback case was filed. But nice job of shooting the messenger, there. And exactly the sort of thing that a good advocate should avoid doing, as it is never wise to antagonize the decisionmaker by attacking them, as you did me in the Silverback case then and as you are doing right now. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, Sam, the advice is more than valid. I have found in my experience that rare is the occasion that an arbitrator will recuse themselves, and then it is almost always at the very beginning of the process notwithstanding a request. I have also found that so-called "wiki-lawyering" is indeed viewed very dimly by the ArbCom — perhaps my skill is less than yours, but Lord Dennings these people are not. It may indeed be my opinion that a little more concern for process and jurisdiction would serve the ArbCom well; but that is not theirs. We serve our clients best by working under the structure the Committee sets up for us, not by trying to stick it to them — that's usually what turns minor issues into ridiculous dog-and-pony shows in the first place. Wally 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't worked with Sam, but I've seen a lot of wikilawyering and frankly poor decisions from AMA advocates. Take a look at the current Benjamin Gatti case, where I'm not a party did try to help synthesize an honest finding for arbcom, to see baseless and litigious nonsense from an AMA advocate. Perhaps there ought to be a vetting process (ie, people shouldn't join AMA the same day they're welcomed, for one...) Dmcdevit·t 21:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My God, I just read Benjamin Gatti's demand that the ArbCom case be removed to US Federal Court based on the terms of the Mr. Magoo Act or whatever it was, and I don't know if that was ironic or sarcastic or just plain weird, but it is the funniest damned thing I have seen in some while. Offtopic, but I owe Dmc a WikiCookie for giving me a good laugh. Wally 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was damned funny. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll freely admit I am helping Ben Gatti out on this case and I admit that as it is my first case that I'm not doing brilliant. However, since I am working in ADDITION to Ben no harm has came to his case. However, I would strongly disagree with the assertion of anything I've done as being "baseless" or "litigitious". I feel that this notion was started when I merely asked for more time to look into the case.

And for the record I didn't advise the "US Supreme Court move" and the request for was before I took on the case.

As far as my handling of the case goes, well it is simple. Ben is reasonably new to Wikipedia with strong views on certain topics. He read the "be bold" argument and was so. However, he merely needs to tone down his views and remember to maintain a NPOV. However, the blame for this matter coming to the ArbCom doesn't lie solely with Benjamin Gatti, it lies substantially with the complainants who seem keen to ignore the underlying issue. Additionally, any problems ben has caused could easily be solved with admonishment and mentorship. The absurd 1 year ban being proposed by the complainants in the case is barbaric and unjust. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 23:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make this a discussion of that case, and though many of things you say are wrong on their face, there's no sense in responding here. My point is that perhaps it would make sense to have some kind of selection process. Wikilawyering in itself shows an inherent wrong priority; you should never have to appeal to technicality of policy rather than the encyclopedia itself (which is wikilawyering), because even as a mediator or an advocate I expect the encyclopedia to always be your top priority. If that is the case, then obstruction per wikilawyering is counterproductive. Dmcdevit·t 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I know from hard experience never to count an advocate's behavior to themselves in the context of a case, but to look first at the client. Besides, I remember how poorly I did in my first ArbCom case. I remember how poorly I did in my last one. Don't worry too much about it. Wally 03:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I object to Kelly Martin's comments. We all have our opinions about whether or not the justice process at WP should be a kangaroo court, as it is today, or should be something which at minimum respects basic principles such as a rule of law or no crime, no punishment. If bringing up basic principles of simple justice is seen as "obstructionist" by the ArbCom, then that speaks volumes about the problems of arbitration at WP. And as far as I know, AMA stands for Association of Member's Advocates, not Association of ArbCom Assistants. (And if that is what the current proposal is aimed at bringing about, it is deplorable.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You can object to them all you like, but your objections will not change the nature of the Arbitration Committee. The ArbCom is not a court of law, and its purpose is not to dispense justice. The ArbCom's purpose is to clear the deck of troublemakers so that the rest of us can get on with writing an encyclopedia. If your client is before ArbCom, it's because s/he has been involved in a disruption which is interfering with writing the encyclopedia. Your task should be to explain how your client is not at fault for the disruption (or that there was no disruption, but that's pretty unlikely to be the case or the case would have been rejected in the first place), or else to admit blame for the disruption and state how your client will alter his or her behavior to avoid future disruption. If your argument is instead based on externally-derived "principles of simple justice" without any thought as to how those principles relate to writing an encyclopedia, then you're wikilawyering, an act which is in itself disruption, and by so doing actually make whatever situation your client is in even worse. If you see your role as an advocate to "get the best possible result for your client", then it behooves you to not do things that will annoy the people who decide what result your client gets -- whether you agree with them or not -- and it certainly behooves you not to create further disruptions for the sake of standing on a irrelevant point of principle. (In fact, we have a policy prohibiting exactly that.) Kelly Martin (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would also behoove Mrs. Martin to step lightly lest she put herself on the wrong side of justice, eh? I said before that it is best to do what is possible not to ruffle the committee's feathers and endanger clients — that is so. However that certainly does not mean bending over backwards to appease the ArbCom or any single arbitrator. The idea that any point of principle is "irrelevant", or that a "principle of simple justice" can be construed as "disruptive", is not only farcical but morally reprehensible. The reason people take cases to the ArbCom is to seek justice, and to gain a remedy for wrongs — not, I should hope, in order to cull people they don't like from the encyclopedia. If that is the attitude amongst the majority of the Committee then perhaps there is indeed a cancer of which some speak.

In any case, I see now why people objected to Jimbo Wales' recess appointments, and the appointees themselves. Your first comments seemed reasonable enough to me; this response to Keith Tyler, whom I know personally to care very much about what he does, is anything but. You've lost more than reason, though — today you've lost my vote. Wally 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Losing your vote matters little to me, especially as I've withdrawn from the race, but I'm sad to see that the AMA is more interested in pursuing a set of ideals, whether or not those set of ideals benefit the encyclopedia, than in trying to respond to the community and provide a service that will benefit that community. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This encyclopedia represents a set of ideals. Justice, of the social, economic and even the 'simple' kind, rank high amongst them. We're not doing just for the sake of doing it — that's not what I signed on for. I signed on to do something that would make knowledge freely available to all who would have it. Arbitration is, at best, a very miniscule part of that — but a part not exempt from the demands of the ideals themselves. Wally 00:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Such as, say, upholding and adhering to the consensual process? - KeithTyler 17:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A note re. proposed branching into mediation

Dear AMA Members: I've been maintaining the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for some months now, after having taken it over from User:Kim Bruning, and indeed, recently the Mediation Cabal has become fully functional and effective in performing informal mediation. Our primary purpose is to provide mediation assistance where it is requested, not "accepting" or "rejecting" requests but rather providing help where requested. We don't actually have any formal process, nor do we have any kind of fixed mandate, which means our mediators have quite a free rein to do what they think is best for those asking for help from us.

Really, our primary role here has been to try to staunch issues before they get to a point where they require official intervention, and provide a friendly hand to assist in cases where required. I invite members of the AMA to take a look at this initiative; you will notice that we are indeed alive and well, as Kelly points out, and handling cases. Personally I think we should avoid duplicating each other's efforts; the Mediation Cabal can't really provide the services of an advocate, and likewise the role of an advocate is not the same as an informal mediator. We are so informal that we don't even have a selection or joining process for prospective mediators - people just help out.

Thus, I respectfully recommend that the AMA not branch into informal mediation, simply because the Mediation Cabal and the AMA will otherwise end up duplicating each other's work rather than focusing on our individual areas of expertise. Indeed, the provision of advocates is I believe absolutely essential to the course of dispute resolution, and I feel that the AMA would do far better to allocate their resources towards building a proper system for the request of user advocates and implementing that system to make advocates available to all members. I believe that many disputes, even some being actively mediated, would greatly benefit from advocates being readily available to provide advice and support to users involved in active disputes. It is always best, I feel, for Wikipedia initiatives to concentrate specifically on a single focus - especially with dispute resolution - and that is what I have done my best to maintain on the Mediation Cabal. I thus highly recommend that the AMA do likewise.

If there is any way I can assist the AMA further, please do not hesistate to ask.

Best regards,

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Coordinator, The Mediation Cabal - WP:MEDCAB

I fully agree with what Nicholas said above. Bonaparte talk 07:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Wally 20:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This can be a first step into a cooperative work with the MedCab, isn't it? Isn't it better that the MedCab mediate and we, advocate? I think it is. --Neigel von Teighen 13:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

An Alternative Proposal

Due to the contentious nature of the proposal underway now, and the serious questions that have been raised about this organization's future operation, I propose the following:

1. An election should be held within the next two weeks to elect a Coordinator, a Deputy Coordinator for Operations (i.e. clearing out the cases on our backlog) and a Deputy Coordinator for Policy, per the original proposal. The election for each should proceed using the simplest procedure possible. The term should be minimal, as these positions would be interim until we sort ourselves out. Suffrage, for members, is universal.
2. All proposals as to the nature of the AMA's duties and the way they are conducted are placed on hold pending this election.
3. Following the election, a policy review should be conducted by the DCP, engaging the participation of all advocates who have been involved in at least one case. This should be taken inclusively — if you helped someone solve a dispute pre-mediation, or in mediation, or in arbitration, or solved your own dispute, then you are qualified.
4. Following the election, an operational review should be conducted by the DCO, to discuss how AMA advocates act, styles of advocacy, what works, what doesn't, what helps those needing advocacy and what doesn't, etc. Same guidelines as above. Both reviews are under the Coordinator's direction and
5. Meetings or discussions of some sort should be held either monthly or semi-monthly from here out, in which all members can attend, discuss business, raise issues, etc.

Thoughts? I am particularly interested in what Gator and Izehar might have to say, as they seem to be the main force behind the main proposal to which this, hopefully, might be an acceptable halfway point. Wally 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) || fixed numbering — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My thought is that we need to deal with one thing at a time. Let's get through the first propsal first and then we can deal with this idea if its not moot. The fact is that a majority of voters are in favor of our plan. If our plan was being overwhelmingly defeated that'd be oe thign, but the voters, so far, are at least split over the issue (more in favor of ours position), so let's that process proceed to its finish first. That's my thought on this.

I'm glad to see other propsal being offered though and there is interest in actually doing something to revitalize the project by people otehr than myself and Izehar. Ideas being shot down with no coutner offers was getting old, so thanks.Gator (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that an AMA coordinator election has long since been overdue, I propose that the requirement of participating in such an election be membership prior to the date the election should have been held. This is a bit of a "do-over", I suppose, but it will repair AMA's lapses in a way that best matches the way they should have happened. After that point, one elections are back on track, future elections would hold such a bar in relation to the dates they are scheduled to be held. I think that a lot of people who have recently joined and haven't really gotten involved with what currently are the AMA's functions need to consider whether they really understand what the AMA is or was when they joined.

I would avoid overly formal positions in addition to coordinator. IMO positions such as your DCP and DCO could be volunteer positions done with approval of the coordinator or the AMA body. And their role should be as facilitators to specific internal functions, namely the reviews.

AMA holds the distinction of having been the first WP organization to hold elections. There is some value in continuing to set the standard of Wikielection by not overdoing it and keeping it Wikian. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, guys.

While I find "your" proposal admirable, Gator, the fact that there is so much disagreement, and the fact that there is such a divide between the "old guard", as it were, and some of our newer members, makes it rather untenable. Plus your proposal makes demands of the organization that our outside the boundaries of its mission. That being said, I feel that you're right to take steps to help revitalize the AMA, and this proposal is not an effort to belittle that — indeed, I mean to salute it by making efforts at reform a permanent and integral part of the organization.

This proposal, unlike yours, is intended merely as a stopgap while we all sit down and review what it is exactly we want the organization to do. It is a middle of the road idea that I feel would be acceptable to the greatest number of us and would continue with our former processes while taking steps to bring them around to something more workable. That is what I have in mind. It's not about "getting through" anything; the point of this proposal is to substitute the first one, not succeed it. Wally 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment Wally but I don't think we need a layer of bureaucracy in this group, I don't see it helping anything. The fact of the matter is anyone could step up and help deal with issues on the requests page, etc, and yet I've been the only one to go through and reorganize, move, archive things for more than a year. These are simple tasks that anyone could help with.

Finally, I don't want to come off has hostile or nitpicking but the truth of the matter is the majority of those who have voted to this point do not support the proposal as it currently stands, 6 oppose it and 5 are neutral stating their reservations. This is why I don't think we needed a vote on this and why I think it's a bad idea, there are issues with the proposal that were raised, nothing was changed in it and it was put forward anyway. Changes to this group should be by consensus as I stated in my vote. --Wgfinley 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why I'm trying to bring this up as a "third way," so to speak. Although numerically it doesn't fit. :P Wally 02:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Counting neutal votes as oppose votes in unfair. If they were opposed tot he measure they would ahve voted that way and igf they were for it thy would have voted that way. They voted neutral for a reason and for their vote to be counted in any other way is unfair. It's 9-9 right now. Not being defeated overwhelmingly and should nto be stopped before the deadline unless hat changes (and it might). I notice that those whoa re in favor of suspending the vote and looking tot he alternative propsal also happen to have voted oppose. Finish one thing first and then I will gladly support the alternative proposal. I'd love to hear what Izehar has to say, but at this point, I am not willing to withdraw the motion that is on the table as it were. Let's stay organized andf fair and just finish voting.Gator (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be voting on anything right now except for a new coordinator, which is way overdue. You're taking advantage of a power vacuum. It stinks. And BTW, 9-9 or even 9-7 is not Wikipedia:Consensus. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is much better than the first one: it's simplier and it is easy to get it working. I like the idea of first clearly organize the AMA with a new election and then, discuss the AMA policy. Please, in no country the laws are made whilr there isn't a legislative branche (called it Congress, Legislature, Bundestag, Parliament or King!). Let's set a "schedule":

1. Order ourselves by electing a new Coordination and both Deputies.
2. Let the DCP and the Coordinator work into a policy proposal.
3. Discuss and vote on the DCP and Coordinator's proposed policy. If this proposal is not approved, the current policy stays as it is.

The main idea is that we focus on advocating rather than in discussing legislation... It's better that only these two DCP and Coord create a proposal by their own and discuss it between them before it's "launched" to public discussion. --Neigel von Teighen 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not render my personal opinion on the new proposal. I just think that the proposal that was first put forth needs to be addressed 'first before moving on to alternatives when a good number of people are in favor of. I don't want ot be accussed of throwing votes away when the figures are so evenly split. Let's just finish this process first and then move on. I agree 9-9 or 9-7 is not conensus so unless something amazing happesn, you will get to have your alternative put forth, so just be patient, there's no hurry. And if the consensus says yes to ur propsal, then that's the consensus. That's my opinion.Gator (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As it stands

Neigel has proposed to go through with just part 1 of the above, amended to elect just the Coordinator. I agree with that, and suggest that suffrage be extended to anyone eligible to vote in the first poll. I suggest it be an acting position with a limited term, ex. 1 month, during which time the Coordinator can work with the member body to develop a simple mission statement and structure (possibly, but not necessarily, using or including parts of proposals heretofore put) so we can get ourselves moving again. The Coordinator could also come up with a standard of membership (or perhaps certification?) to use in the future, and we could agree to election procedures — with the advice and consent of all of us in discussion being a basic element.

Anyone object to going forward on that, and that alone? Wally 17:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that that's over

I support wally's proposal, but strongly believe the only qualifications to vote should be being an AMA member before the election takes place. Anytrhing else smakcs of elitism to me and woudl alienate many memebrs, including myself.Gator (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps suffrage could be maintained per the standards in the first vote? I.E. anyone who was a member at the time allotted above can vote? Wally 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Being that there are currently no barriers to entry in AMA, this means that anyone could simply join up and vote. Anyone wanting to sway the vote only has to go find people to do nothing more than add their name to the List of Active Members before the date of polling. Not good. - KeithTyler 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wally, the standard for the first vote are fine. Hate to see brand new memebers beign shut out and I for one will not check backgrounds to enforce this, but it's a good compromise. I also am in favor of moving forward to elect a new coordinator and nothgin else for now.Gator (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by the standard in the first vote was that exact standard, that all members could vote who satisfied the specific criteria put forth in the first poll. Therefore the voter base is exactly the same as in the first proposal, since by that standard it cannot have expanded. I think this fair. Wally 18:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I understnad, I just hate seeing memebers who joined after the deadlien int he first vote not being able to participate, but Im willing to compromise.Gator (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's move forth!

I'm tired from all this discussions that lead into nowhere. Let's move forth! There is something that anyone here agrees: we need a new Coordinator. Then, let's vote a new one now. So, any suspicions of taking advantages of this power vacuum will end. We need someone that directs this discussio into some place.

I'm avaliable to arbitrate the election, since I won't candidate and I'm not interested in being AMA Coordinator. Obviously, if you want me to monitor the election process, I won't be able to vote, but I don't care.

Election procedure: Anyone can nominate someone (except me) or himself and users vote supporting (not opposing, so this is simplier and faster) the candidate (called approval vote). The new coordinator will be the user having a the absolute majority (50% + 1) of the votes. If this doesn't happen, then the two most voted candidates should go into a ballotage where the user with most votes wins. The vote should be done in a RfA-style page with subpages for each candidate.

This vote should be only for coordinator. The voting of both proposed DCP and DCO can wait (although I agree with it) after we have a Coordinator. --Neigel von Teighen 18:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW the prior election was facilitated by mediators, i.e. outside parties. IMO outside parties might be better for numerous reasons. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We should take input from everyone - but perhaps Nicholas Turnbull might be willing to volunteer himself as an impartial arbitrator?

Also, would we have in mind the election of Deputy Coordinators per my proposal above? Wally 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO we should keep that out of mind for now. Let's get to coordinator, and then get to the next steps. I think we need to hammer out what we would want for those roles. I agree they serve necessary needs. - KeithTyler 18:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop the voting already!

We have hardly any active members! If we voted now, it'd be mayhem, w too much chance for something foolish getting rammed thru by new members. I donno who I'd vote for, if I'd want to be a candidate, or for what. How about we just find out what we agree on, and do it? My bottom line is I don't want members w/o a single case under their belt telling me what to do!

More meritocracy, less bureaucracy/ochlocracy!

Sam Spade 08:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

9/10 are in favor of the plan, so unless there is clear consensus to stop the voting from a good number of those supporters, we have NO business doign that. Be patient, waituntil the 23d and then we'll see where we stand. You're clearly trying to win this thing by other means otehr than your oppose vote. Rely on that. it wills erve you well enough. I for one oppose stopping this vote until its completed properly. Just my OP. Jump on me if you wish. Much love.Gator (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, here's where I ahve the problem. Izehar and I talked and talked aboutt his issue for some time on the talk page and we received alot o feedback from the very same people who ar ein favor of stopping the voting before its completed and moving on to a new issue. They had pletny of opportnities to say, hey, let's vote ona corrdinator FIRST and then see where we stand, but that didn't happen. Instead they wait untila majority of people support the proposal they oppose (9-7 at the time) and then they put forth this idea and literlaly demand that the vote be stopped in favor of their proposal. That's not right. Obviously, that's not right.

Like I said, if tis prosla were going down in falmes, I'd be with you, but it now has only 1 more oppose than support and we have plenty of time left to gain a consensus. This needs to be handled first and then tha next prosal should be heard, unless support folks start changin their vote. That's only fair. For a few opposers to get together and demand that the vote on the issue that they oppsoe anyway be stopped inf avor of thei new idea is just another way for their opposition to suceed and it'snot right. Be patient. Be fair. Be calm. And let the first issue be handled first and in an orderly fashion. I hope this is the last you'll hear from me on this.Gator (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My comment wasn't specific to your vote, which is clearly not going to gain consensus (Read Wikipedia:Consensus, its how we do things here, not this first past the post foolishness). Instead my comment was aimed at those who desire vote after vote until something finially gets forced thru when people get bored or fail to understand whats going on.

Please, your obviously full of energy, devote that to advocating for someone, will ya? Those like myself who advocated long before the AMA was created and have untold cases under our belts have little patience for those who have never advocated at all dreaming up rules to restrict us with, and votes to waste our time. Lets do something we can all agree with, like advocating. I agree to some better organisation and delegation of duties, but not to to what has been proposed, or the votes regarding it. Sam Spade 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not clear at all! There is still over a week before the 23d and with so little votes, consesnus could easily be obtained. That's my point, if it were clear, I wouldn't oppose abandoning it yet. That's for the clarification though. I appreciate that.Gator (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care if you've lost patience with me. You don't own the AMA and your opinion matters as much as anyone else's no matter how much "seniority" you may or may not have. Don't try and pull rank here.

Gator, check the parameters above. This vote closes on 13 January at 21:46. Forgive me, but there's nothing to wait for.

As for you, Sam, make a suggestion then. You whine about wanting meritocracy, without saying how we go about it. How do we do that? Simple number of cases tried doesn't work, and success in ArbCom cases — especially the ones we get — are often very difficult to verify, as it can range from getting the client off to getting them a better deal than they'd otherwise have to just convincing them to back off. Do you want to dredge through everyone's case history and make a call? +

If you're so indecisive about choosing a leader or about being one, for that matter — well, that's unfortunate. No one's trying to force through votes; we're trying to improve the structure of the organization, and to do it quickly. You offer no way of doing that, nor do I recall you having ever. Everybody else here, no matter what their stance on the first proposal, is at least trying to work to get the organization back up. I applaud that: and I throw down the gauntlet to you as well. Either make an alternative proposal that we all can chew on to set up a system you feel would be best, or stop jingoistically name-dropping demands for meritocracy every five minutes. Wally 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks. I will now consider the alternative proposal.Gator (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't whine, and if you insult me like that again I'll simply ignore you in the future. Sam Spade 16:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I simply state my opinion, and insult was not intended. I'd merely like you to be involved in the process here, instead of just sniping at it. Wally 17:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to criticise my ideas, or to request my provision of them. It is the attacks on my way of speaking, the belittling of my position as "sniping" or "whining" with which I take issue. Sam Spade 12:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Might I say it would be really sad to have to get the AMA talk page on WP:RFP. Let's play nice and get on with picking a new coordinator, which is really, really overdue, not to mention kind of embarrassing. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Something informs me that this proposal is not going to succeed, so "lets move forth". I have't read you proposal yet Wally, so give me a few minutes before commenting. Izehar 17:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

2006 Coordinator Election

As it turns out, a review of past materials on AMA elections (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) indicate a few details, but also a few loose ends.

Details:

• For the first (and only) election, there was a 5-day nomination period.
• Two mediators were enlisted to manage the electoral process.
• Voting was done by secret ballot, using a set-up email address as voting box, and confirmation of vote receipt via email. (Note that the email address used then appears to be disabled now.) Abstention was mandatory, though in practice only one person did this.
• The only seemingly agreed-upon definition of the Coordinator is to connect those needing advocacy with those giving advocacy, including monitoring Requests for advocacy.
• The first vote seems to have run for two weeks, "from April 16 to 30, 2004"
• Suffrage was granted to anyone signed up to the AMA prior to the opening of voting.

Loose ends:

• The term of the coordinator was never set. One proposal said 6 months. In January 2005, 8 months after the first election, the AMA membership at the time agreed by 10-1 to hold another election. However, this did not occur, and the election was postponed indefinitely in favor of a series of meetings to assess AMA direction and efficacy.
• A number of other things considered defining about the coordinator and the election were actually in a proposal that was never voted on.

I guess the questions are:

• Do we agree to continue the practices laid out in the details above?
• How can/should we settle the loose ends, specifically the term of office?

IMO:

• Maintain the 5-day nomination period.
• The election period should be shortened to a week.
• Suffrage should be limited to something before opening of vote. I accept Wally's compromise proposal of those who were eligible to vote on Gator's proposal. Since AMA membership is voluntary, I also think former members should be eligible.
• We should maintain secret ballot, with some confirmation process. I don't know about mandatory abstention. Seems to me a good vote-confirmation method would make that unnecessary.
• Term of coordinator should be extended to one year, though we shouldn't probably decide that now. Perhaps the candidates should indicate what terms they are open to accepting if elected.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with former members being eligible. If we're going to have a standard that all those who are members at time X are eligible, it's hardly appropriate to go and rope in those who do not meet that standard in any way, be it recruiting new members or drafting withdrawn ones. Plus, having withdrawn membership shows rather a lack of commitment to the organization and its goals.

I also feel that the Coordinator's term should be negligable at this point, and that it should be merely an acting position, at least until we conclude a universal procedural standard and organization. I would support anything up to and including three months, but nothing longer.

Secret ballot is a must. This ArbCom election, for example, was farcical; not only was it more difficult to vote using the open method, promoting ballot fatigue, but it also forced everyone to show their hand, so to speak. It's bad for the voters and bad for the candidates. Something tells me it was set up that way...

Don't worry about abstention. The standard should simply be the number of votes in favor divided by the number of votes cast. We are to proceed by approval method, yes? So we merely have everyone either vote for or not vote for each candidate they find acceptable. The candidate with broadest acceptability wins. Wally 19:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, as a side note, if this election proposal meets consensus might we engage a member of the MedCab to run it (I already wondered aloud if Nicholas Turnbull might be prevailed upon)? I think that would be the best way to proceed; of course any outside honest broker would do. Wally 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to consider individuals who may have left due to the inactivity and power vacuum that has occured, as well as those who didn't intend to leave for good but just for a hiatus, not knowing that by doing so they would be excluded from this sort of thing. And I wasn't suggesting we track old members down. I guess I was saying that, if a former member came across the page after the cutoff point for suffrage, and was encouraged to rejoin AMA as a result of seeing this, that they should be invited into the process as part of our quest for revitalization.

I didn't entirely mean to make an election proposal, but I guess I did. I was hoping more that we could come to consensus without too much explicit voting.

Given movement on WP and AMA and the items ahead of us after the election, I would say 3 months is too short and will lead us into another election before we are ready. I.e., chaos. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But I do not believe we are ready for a full Coordinator yet. We want to rebuild the organization first, set up its systems of leadership and standard operating procedures second, and execute the above third. A full Coordinator election seems like too much, too fast. However this is not to say our new Acting Coordinator would be restricted to a three month term: I merely mean to set a definite timeframe within which work on the restructuring of this organization be completed, after which the leader submit themselves for reelection. While I am generally opposed to incumbents being allowed to reseek seats, this would be a clear instance where that would be desirable.

An Acting Coordinator could also appoint deputies rather than submit them for election during this interim to engage in some of the review that I mentioned above. This would again be proper because an election would necessarily occur at the end of the interim period. Obviously they would still need to get member support for any actions; it would nevertheless just emphasize the stopgap nature of the post. Wally 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Forgot to add that, although I could not support one year, and I find three months my preferable option, if consensus emerges for a longer period I would not stand in the way of a middle ground. Wally 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

Might I perhaps be permitted to make a suggestion? Rather than electing a coordinator at this point, someone should simply jump in and make themselves Interim Coordinator, without an election, to serve whilst the plans are being drawn up. This would remove the need of an outside party to adjudicate the election, would involve only one as opposed to two ballots, and would permit policy making and discussion to take place with a central command of authority. Ballots should be conducted after one has the road-map, in my experience, never before. Just my opinion, of course. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds ok, depending on who it is... Sam Spade 20:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. Someone cannot just "jump in" and make themselves Coordinator; we all have an equal right to lay claim to the post if there is no mechanism for deciding who would have it, and it would still involve discussion to make sure only one person took the job. I believe that it would be best if we could all unite around a single candidate; however no one can be denied the opportunity to try, and a coronation without universal consent would do just that. A vote is simple, quick — and legitimate. Wally 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats obviously not true wally, look at how much time has been wasted over simply choosing a successor to Alex. Nobody has declared a desire for his position, and a vote in such a circumstance is not only against wiki-norms, its against common sense. Democracy for its own sake is no answer to a power vacuum, and gives no special legitimacy.

How about we make a list of the jobs that need doing, and volunteer for doing them. if 2 people want the same job they can both do it. Lets stop wasting time squabbling over petty symbolic status, there's work to be done. Sam Spade 23:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me make clear what I feel should be the intention behind the reform of this organization. We all will, indeed, must, have an integral part in it. The post of an (acting?) Coordinator is, at this point, merely going to arbit the discussion we are just now beginning about the future of the AMA and, when it has reached a natural endpoint or concurrence, coalesce it into firm policy about what we do and how we do it.

Had I my druthers I would suggest that most of the policy writing be delegated to other users — for instance I know you have an interest in that area, Sam. I don't know how the person elected would like to do it, however, and since that person will certainly not be me I am hardly the one to say. My point is, though, that a volunteer will lack authority and legitimacy. The time spent on a simple process is not time wasted, and the amount required will be negligable. Right now we have one job that needs doing, and it's a job too important to leave to the random chance and lackluster effort of a volunteer. Let's do this, quickly and right. Wally 00:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The only reason why I suggested the "jump-in coordination" method is because, well, it seemed to work on the Mediation Cabal (which, when I came to it, was in a similar state that the AMA is in now, although perhaps it had less active members) and I just jumped in and took control. Admittedly we don't operate elections and we aren't a democratic organisation (as our name suggests, obviously) but nonetheless I do think that in times where organisations are faltering it is usually far better for a single person to simply take control, not necessarily after being asked. We do, after all, have a "be bold" culture here on Wikipedia, and I think that extends to the way we operate our organisations to further our aims.

And after all, if that person does not perform adequately as self-appointed dictator, the mob can simply strip him of his dictatorship by the force of the masses. I consider such a process to be generally more fruitful than ballots. However, I recognise the AMA does things differently, and hope that you have a smooth election below. Best regards, NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see the logic in that. However, like you said, we have more active members, and a strong history of participation. That would make having a sort of benevolent dictator all the more difficult, and all the less effective, in my opinion. Wally 03:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

To Sam: No one has expressed interest because we are not at a nomination state yet. But... Expressing interest and even nominating is not even truly necessary; in an approval voting scheme, just put down the name of all members you think would be acceptable. If the winner declines, then it falls to the person with the next broadest support. The only difference that would arise from someone not being a candidate would be that no one would put them on their list, which in this model would have the same outcome. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

An election proposal... (CLOSED 9-1-1)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In the interests of moving things along, I propose the following:

• An election for Coordinator immediately be held. A nomination period of four days, following by an election of one week, should begin should this proposal reach consensus (I would consider consensus to be fifteen votes, considering the turnout in the last proposal; otherwise about 75% should more or less vote).

• Nominations can be submitted by any member for themselves or any other member. Members have a right to decline.

• Voting will be by approval and secret ballot. Once an impartial mediator is appointed, all members eligible to vote in the first proposal will be able to cast a vote in favor of as many candidates as they like. The candidate who gains the broadest approval (decided by votes cast for them divided by total members voting) will be declared elected. In the event of only one candidate, that candidate shall be declared elected.

• The Coordinator should direct discussion on various issues of importance to the AMA, in which all members must be allowed to voice opinions. The Coordinator will be empowered to write up a mission statement and such guidelines (such as ethical, or suggested procedures for advocates, etc.) given appropiate discussion. The Coordinator can delegate this duty to any member they choose. The mission statement must be presented for amendment and approved by a consensus vote, as must any body of guidelines. The Coordinator can appoint deputies to assist them if they choose.

• The Coordinator will be acting, and will serve not less than four and not more than eight months.

Amendments

Votes in favor (please state reasoning)

1. Support — this is bare bones and gets us started off on the right foot, with moderated discussion. It leaves plenty of time to deal with any grey areas. Wally 00:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support; Wally has taken us in the right direction by actually proposing this thing and getting it off of the ground. It'd be a shame to waste this proposal, as it strictly outlines what said coordinator will do, gets rid of first past the post crap, and sets a timeline for elected coordinator to do said duties assigned to them. If they haven't gotten this organization running in 8 months, they'll be out. One question though... if the Coordinator doesn't give any noticeable effort after, say a month or so, could there be an election or proposal to upheave the Coordinator, and get a new one? Besides that, I'm fine with the proposal... — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 01:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

   A situation like that would have to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis; we want to guarantee security of office as much as possible, as that is a basic part of motivating effort. A leader who thinks they are in danger of being removed will not be bold. Wally 02:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Support -- I think a coordinator is needed to help organize and direct the discussion regarding some revision of the group's objectives. --Wgfinley 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Keith D. Tyler ¶ 06:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. It's better than my own proposal! (And it seems that I don't have to be Election Officer after all, so I will be able to vote...) --Neigel von Teighen 16:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support good move forward.Gator (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Jord 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Streamlining, efficiency, and most of all, effectiveness. Deltabeignet 03:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. Let's get it started. Please. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Votes against (please state reasoning)

1. I am tired of voting and prefer the suggestion i made above. I will be more agreeable to a vote if people express an interest in the position, and we agree to some method of preventing further referendums. Sam Spade 11:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
   • That is, in essence, exactly what we are trying to kickstart here. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Abstaining votes (please state reasoning)

1. Hi I'm user:CyclePat and I'm new. I don't want to vote right now because I'm ignorant to these procedures. --CyclePat 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
2. (Abstain, since I do not have suffrage) - If this was a vote for coordinator I would consider it a worthwhile effort; however, holding a vote on a vote strikes me (with no intention to impugn the work of its architects, I might add) as bureaucracy in its essence. Unless the AMA does something proactive, it shall be stuck in an endless loop of voting ad infinitum - and since the provision of advocates is so vital to Wikipedia, I think that the AMA should concentrate on advocation first and foremost, and organisational administration second (if at all). A question that may be an interesting one to consider is "Does this vote have any bearing on the service we are offering to individuals seeking an advocate?" --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

   To my mind we are voting on an election procedure, and the idea of even having an election (since it has been opposed by some); not voting to vote, as such. A motion to the previous question implies inevitability. Wally 18:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

   The first paragraph says an election should immediately be held; therefore presumably upon determining consensus we would begin the process. Unfortunately since this poll has no end date, that is a little grey. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

   To answer Nicholas, the problem is that we have not provided ourselves with a means by which to hold an election. So, the idea of having an election must be bootstrapped by defining the election process. I personally abhor ad hoc organization and election. Even WP has a few hard policies. But you're right if you feel like we've been doing a lot of proposing and voting lately, but such is the process of reaching consensus sometimes. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3. I abstain on the basis of a prolonged period of absence from wikipedia, although in principle the proposals seem to be sound, I'm not really happy to give them my backing because I don't have experience of AMA work recently. Oliver Keenan 10:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Since the term of office is defined with a variable length, I presume that this means we would not raise the matter until such time as someone calls for an election after the four month point or upon the eight month point? I.e.:

• No election in the four months. Maybe at this time we work out a term -- for subsequent elections.
• After the four month point, it is possible to start considering an election.
• At the eight month point, if we have not already decided to hold an election, we have to hold one.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking. Wally 06:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• If no one objects, I think we should set a close date for the poll for 20 January. At this point the vote is 9-1-1, and it seems consensus will be reached. All those who've not voted for this who took part in the last poll have been contacted, and will have time to cast a ballot. Wally 23:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just a note from the outgoing AMA Coordinator

Just want to let you know that I have just resigned as Coordinator of the AMA opening the way for an election. If you want to see my statement check the Coodinator's page: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator. I hope the members understand the meaning of my resignation and see it as a proactive step in allowing the democratic process to work. While some of you may not think I have been particuarly active recently I think there was good reason for this inactivity and I do not see it as an indication that the AMA is not fulfilling the role that it had under the mandate given to me as the first elected Coordinator. Be that as it may we definitely should have an election and since the term of office of the coordinator was never clearly set resignation is clearly the way to call an election under our present system. Alex756 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers for the Coordinator! Wally 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Huzzah!! Alex, you did a wonderful job getting the group started and as someone who corresponded with you time to time I realize that RL can come and bite you in the arse sometimes and take away what otherwise would be wiki-bliss!! Again, thanks for the great job. --Wgfinley 01:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(answering Wally's request for 3 cheers): Hoorrah! Hoorrah! Hoorrah! (Alex, there is a song called The Third Horrah, by Jethro Tull. You can play it and these written 'hoorrahs' will suddenly be really said!)... Getting serious: you did a great job! Thank you! --Neigel von Teighen 13:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Interim Coordinator

I don't wish to steal Alex's day from him but in the best tradition of "the King is dead, long live the King!" I thought I should make my announcement. I've been considering this for a while, I wanted to make sure I was going to have the time to do it. Despite being recently appointed to my local school board (a return engagement for me) I have decided this is something I would really like to do and would like your consideration for interim coordinator.

I think this position should be filled ASAP so that we can move on with getting things rearranged. I realize I may have not been as welcoming with open arms of the "new blood" we have but I think I've been constructive in my criticism and tried to see the good points of the proposals presented. I've been an editor here (with an account) for a year and a half, I was recently elevated to Admin and I have formally advocated on two Arbcom cases as well as in many other instances that didn't involve Arbcom. Despite being on my local school board (twice now) as its vice-president I was also state chairman of the Libertarian Party of Illinois. Now, if any of you know anything about Libertarians let me just tell you that trying to lead Libertarians is a lot like trying to herd kittens!! So, I'm used to broad ranges of very independent and vocal individuals.

It's my belief that dispute resolution is one of the biggest issues facing our community right now. We have wheel warring, cabal accusations, an Arbcom docket a mile long, a contentious Arbcom election underway and a number of other issues that all pertain to dispute resolution. The community needs a healthy AMA now more than ever and I would like to help see us get there.

As part of this, I propose the following:

• The interim term will be six months from appointment, if I still want the job at that point I have to run again.
• I will resign from The Mediation Cabal so as not to create any undue burden on my time or create a conflict of interest.
• During the six months more formal rules or bylaws for this group will be drawn up, I will attempt to lead us to that point.
• I will listen to all points of view on the creation of these bylaws and will see that all voices are heard in their creation, the goal is consensus.
• Coordinator job duties, additional coordinators, term of office, and elections will be part of the bylaws.
• I would like to see more online live meetings using IRC if we choose that or maybe something a bit more available and user friendly like Skype, I believe this will cut down on the number of problems we seem to have right now with voting, etc.
• The three main areas of focus will be maintaining the requests page, training and mentorship for new advocates, and better establishing ourselves within the dispute resolution process.

There you have it, I hope I have covered it all. I would welcome your comments, questions, or your support if you are so disposed already.

--Wgfinley 02:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we hold on just a bit to ensure that we've agreed upon an election procedure? We've not consensus on that yet. Wally 06:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Several members have indicated they think this is getting bogged down in procedure. I agree to n extent, it appears we're having votes to have votes and everything is grinding to a halt. Meanwhile we have a lot of things we could be doing that aren't getting done. The position is interim and is meant to get us moving to the point where we can come up with what an election for the permanent position(s) would be. So while I support the idea Wally I think we need to get a move on. So, my announcing my intention is to try to get the ball rolling a bit quicker in deference to those who have said we should get going. If the group decides we want to wait and go through this then just consider this my announcement that I intend to run, whichever way it pans out. --Wgfinley 06:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

We are getting going, and it can be done far more quickly in the long run if we do it right. Had we agreed to parameters in the first Coordinator election, it wouldn't have been so long until we were able to effect a second. There is a difference, I think between advisable and inadvisable speed. And there is a difference between a coronation and an election. Wally 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I really, really fail to see how piling on yet another proposal while one is already being considered is supposed to solve the problem you state. Your proposal doesn't do any better in terms of moving things along as the current one does. It really bothers me that the AMA seems to be averse to propriety and basic procedure in its own operation. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

First off for Keith, this group is mired in its own procedure. What other organization do you know of that the president/chair resigns and there is no immediate successor on at least an interim basis? To conclude we can go another few weeks to vote on how we're going to vote and just leave it vacant indicates we're not very important.

And to Wally when he points to the last non-election as a reason why "we should wait", I just draw the opposite conclusion on. First, they never specified what Alex's term of office would be but elected him to the position, the same thing exists here (with a vague "not less than and not more than" which causes me to ponder what will happen when some think it should be sooner than later and vice versa). That left a sizable period of time where because of RL Alex was unable to participate much yet there was nothing in place to replace him so he more or less begged for someone to step up and replace him. At the time I hesitated because I had a heavy "case load" and was still pretty new then.

Second, they wrangled so long on election procedure and whatnot the second time around no vote took place. People simply got tired of it and walked away which is the point I believe many of us are reaching and what people who used to look for help from AMA are reaching. Finally, there's no close date, no indication of when we will close this vote so when are we assuming a consensus is reached on it? After 15 vote for it? What if it never gets to 15? After two weeks of being up there then? After more testimony from ArbCom members that our organization is completely ineffective? After another month's worth of people don't have their cases responded to because we're fiddling while Rome burns?

This is an interim position, it should be no big deal, I'm willing to step up and work on it and we can settle all the specifics of normal elections when we work on our bylaws in their entirety. There's nothing undemocratic about appointing an interim coordinator by acclimation while we work out new procedures for the organization as a whole. I think that if I went on some tyrannical raid of some sort (which I don't think there's any evidence to support) that members would step up and say I should no longer be interim as someone else has already said. Let's get on with helping those who who need it who wait while we wrangle about procedure in a committee. --Wgfinley 14:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why make things so complicated? In a couple of days, we could post a poll with the names and statements of whoever is interested. The person after a week or two with the most votes is the next co-ordinator. Easy. Self-appointment is not a good thing when there's other interested parties. Ambi 15:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

• I support WGfinley and oppose an election. I further support others appointing themselves to various tasks needing done. Sam Spade 11:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• More of an objection to consideration than a technical oppose, but so be it. I don't like the idea that, as the first WP group to hold an election (see Alex's comments), we would sidestep attempts to ensure the maintenance and integrity of that practice for ourselves. Should all of those considering to take the role of Coordinator put up their own, competing proposals? Expect my own self-aggrandizing proposal soon, then. What a bloody, bloddy mess this is going to be. It will not help or expedite the AMA, only hurt and overwhelm it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Per above. Wally 03:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While I like Wgfinley personally, the AMA badly needs an election to make sure this is done properly. In more than two years, the AMA has never had an effect on the outcome of a case, as stated by several arbitrators. It's a good idea, but it's never been done properly, and has completely failed to achieve its stated objectives. It needs to be providing effective assistance to those who need it, rather than wasting the advocates time, the arbitration committee's time, and the time of the people they are supposed to be helping because the advocates don't know what they should be doing to actually have an effect.

It's because of that that I would like the chance to put myself up as an alternative co-ordinator. I've served as an arbitrator, so I know what arbitrators look for, but I've also had a pretty good record as an unofficial advocate, having achieved results in quite a few cases. If I was given a few months as AMA co-ordinator, I think we may well be able to set up an effective group of advocates that provide timely and meaningful assistance, and actually succeed in getting results for the people they intend to help. I've got no interest in sticking around beyond six months, but I would really like the opportunity to get this up and running successfully. Ambi 13:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"In more than two years, the AMA has never had an effect on the outcome of a case"

That is an ugly lie. Please review. If you are so overwhelmingly ignorant of our activity, the idea of you co-ordinating our actions is absurd. Sam Spade 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I was aware of Sam's "detective agency"; I was referring to advocacy done under the AMA banner, as that page fairly clearly sets itself out as Sam's personal effort. In any case, Sam's efforts are purely prosecutorial. A user who finds themselves up before the ArbCom still has nowhere to go for effective help - if they can get themselves an advocate (which, depending on the time of year, they may or not be able to do), there's virtually no chance that they'll get an advocate who will actually make any difference on their case. Above all, it is that that I'd like to end. Ambi 13:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There has never been any advocacy done under the "AMA banner." That is not how the group works. It is just a clearinghouse, not a pro bono law firm. How can anyone even make a statement that advocates have never helped anyone? They are information resources, not television trial lawyers. They are to help the individual editor faced with the dispute resolution process and they are not just for people accused of something wrong as Sam points out. I do not think that one could know if an advocate made a difference because the work of an advocate is mostly undocumented, hopefully, as it should be and remain. Advocates are not going to necessarily change the outcome of ArbCom cases, just make the process more accessible to people who do not understand it, but any such comment is wholely unscientific and, in my opinion, and bordering on libel as it is offered without any reasonable hope of proof in an effort to disparage our group of volunteers on this public page who, I sincerely beleive, really do help the dispute resolution process. Alex756 16:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a clearinghouse that is simply not doing its job. It hooks people up with advocates who more often than not simply waste the time of all parties involved because they don't know how to be an effective advocate, and on quite a few occasions (Everyking being a prime example), the process fails to hook a user up with an advocate at all. The arbitration committee continually sees cases where a user gets an AMA advocate in the hope of helping them put across their side of the case, only to see that advocate stuff around with technicalities instead of actually helping them present said case. While I'm sure there are some cases when advocates on this page have been asked and been able to explain the process to people, but it is the times when they need to actively step in and participate that AMA advocates so regularly utterly fail. Ambi 21:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

How is that any different from the regular failures of the ARBCOM and the spectacu;ar failure of the MEDCOM? Your insults are gaining you no favour here, I assure you. Sam Spade 21:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm specifically singling out the AMA as the cause of all problems here - the medication committee is equally broken, and for quite similar reasons. The reason I pop up here is because I believe that, unlike the mediation committee's, the AMA's issues could be fairly easily fixed.

And that is what I also believe 100% which is why one of my three goals was to improve "our standing" the main thought being how AMA is perceived by members of ArbCom. I've asked a few members about it and they backed Kelly's statement up that their perception was not very positive. I think we've done a lot of good and that perception is not very fair and something I want (wanted?) to change. --Wgfinley 17:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In any case, while participation and pluralism are certainly good, Ambi is ineligible to run, not being a member of the AMA. And this is all jumping the gun , I cannot help but point out. Wally 19:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I was a member of the AMA for a very long time before having to resign due to the potential conflict of interest that being an arbitrator would create. That I haven't re-signed my name is simply an oversight. Ambi 21:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not a member, plain and simple. Sam Spade 21:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bah, semantics. Ambi 21:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

... perhaps don't let's exclude people simply on such bases. Ambi was a member, in good standing, and resigned per AMA policy. Following that, there may be eligibility; I am uncertain if there is any specific policy on that score. My proposal merely restricts the franchise for the vote, not the eligibility for nomination; while perhaps an oversight, an honest broker for the interim period might not be a terrible idea. I tend towards a "let the votes speak as they may" attitude. Wally 04:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

Even in the administration of Wikipedia, reckless POV rears its ugly head.

It's reaffirming to me to hear an arbitrator state that advocates have little effect on arbitration cases. It saves me the trouble of going through and trying to prove it myself.

Ambi, as I would expect from an arbitrator, blames that lack of effect on AMA and the advocates. I, in turn, blame the arbitrators.

An advocate cannot reverse the preconceptions, loyalties, and as Sam said, occasional hero worship that taints the arbitration process. The process, its social tendencies, and its management lead to a situation that is stacked against an accused. Argument of principle, whether legal or non-legal, is useless (any argument of principle is labeled as "wikilawyering"). Acceptable edit history weighs much less than challenged edit history. Being an admin, and/or being the person to bring a case, works in ones favor. These are the perceptions of the ArbCom from those who have dealt with the process personally from the defense standpoint. It does not interest itself in any solid principle of evenhandedness, it can change policy affecting its operation at will, it elevates restrictive policy over empowering policy, and it even goes so far as to restrict a user from doing something that it has agreed is not against policy if the body is already predisposed against the user.

The Arbitration Committee is a kangaroo court, plain and simple. It is not Wikian, it is instead a manifestation of the tyranny of the majority. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You could first start by assuming good faith. The main issue here, which I believe many of the AMA advocates have never understood, is that the arbitration committee is not a court of law. If there is evidence that suggests that their continuing editing is of more harm than good to the project, then their advocate needs to explain why it's in the interests of the project to keep them around. Adding clear evidence, reasoning with people, and helping some users communicate in what can be a particularly stressful situation can and will have quite an effect on cases. Snowspinner and Sam Spade both understand the above, which is why they've been so successful in a prosecutorial role. While it was a fair while ago, I've also been able to be fairly successful in a defensive role for that reason.

Being an admin or the person to bring a case has nothing to do with how arbitration works out. Admins regularly do end up being sanctioned if they've crossed the line, and the person to bring a case often winds up in just as much trouble if they've been equally in the wrong. "Arguments of principle" are indeed not helpful - the arbitrators want to know how said user helps the project, and in a system that is not a court, trying to get the user off on some technicality instead of taking the time to explain that just wastes the time of everyone involved.

Being a reasonably effective advocate was what got me elected to the arbitration committee in the first place. I could and did see changes made in quite a number of cases, including quite a few where users were up for some form of sanction or another. I did that by convincing the arbitrators that said sanction was not a good idea and was not beneficial to the project - not by trying to tie them up in technicalities. I'd really like to see the rest of the AMA learn this point, and suspect we would see advocates playing a far greater and more successful role in the arbitration process if this actually occurred. Ambi 21:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I was with you until that "technicality" remark. In my experience when someone refers to a legal argument as a "technicality" it's a code word for "I don't understand your arguments so I will ignore and ridicule it." Unfortunate.Gator (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Quasi-legal arguments have no place in something that is not a court of law. All too many times I've seen advocates spout nonsense about jurisdiction, or trying to pull some other stunt so that the committee will not hear the case. It just doesn't work that way - it's a process that thrives on rational discussion.

Might I say that this is a discussion whose place is after we elect a Coordinator - not before. If Ambi was a member before, then eligibility to run may exist. This must be investigated. Anything else is a red herring. Wally 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

An advocate could present the evidence for their client in an organized way, emphasizing the most important points. They could demonstrate by diffs that the assertions of the opponent were not true, or not important. They could suggest appropriate remedies. No advocate has done so yet. Fred Bauder 14:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No advocate has convinced you yet, there is a difference.Gator (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions & Comments

• Before I vote supporting or opposing you, I 'd like to say this: I understand that an Interim Cordinator could be needed now that the scenario has changed with Alex's resignation and that would be the main reason for me to change myopinion of helding an election now. But, on the other hand, we were working in another plan and I think we should try with it first. I like Wgfinley as a new AMA coordinator and I'm sure that he'll do it very well, but it's quite unserious and useless to be changing proposals each day. But I also understand that we need someone that lead this mess so we can vote... In summary, I'm a bit confused, so I prefer to wait before voting until this gets a bit clearer to me --Neigel von Teighen 13:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds wise. The worst case scenario is us being rushed and making a foolish decision w all of these complicated votes. Sam Spade 16:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain; I will not vote here or there until Wally's proposal gets a consensus. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

TINAC

This process is taking too long. Are we going to have a working AMA this week?

<very innocent look>

Kim Bruning 15:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The AMA is working, it has been working and it does work. It is the members that make it work. The job of the members is to provide help to people. IF you want the AMA to work, I suggest you try to be more proactive. The role of the coordinator was never to "fix" the organization is was just to have someone available who can deal with problems. If you think an election is going to "fix" anything, you will be disappointed, in my opinion. This group is not about titles, adding things to Wikipedia pages or about getting publicity; it is about the members directly helping people who are faced with the complex dispute resolution process; not some new additional bureacratic structure within Wikipedia. If you sincerely think the organization is "broken" perhaps all the pages should be listed for deletion, i.e., the group be disbanded and advocates can just help people directly as they have been doing and I hope they will continue to do even if these pages do not exist. Alex756 16:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The AMA has never worked. I see the role of a coordinator as someone who can speedily make sure people who need an advocate get one and that the advocates basically know what they're doing, not as some hereditary title. I'm not saying the group should be about publicity, bureaucratic structure or titles, and I don't think it's broken to the point of needing deletion. I do, however, think it could and should be much more effective. unsigned comment

Ah sorry. My impression of AMA is mostly from seeing a lack of them at the mediation committee/cabal and arbitration committee pages. Where should I be looking instead? Kim Bruning 16:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

ARBCOM cases? User talk pages? email? ;) Sam Spade 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen you for sure, but isn't that in your detective agency capacity? Kim Bruning 18:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

All that detective agency is is a play on my name designed to help me w my role as an advocate and wikipedian. It frankly hasn't been very helpful at all. Sam Spade 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I for my part was helping others long before the AMA came about, and will be helping others (on and off the wiki) regardless of if I continue being a member of AMA or not. Presently all these elections and uninsightful comments seem to be doing is getting in the way of my doing that, rather than assisting me. Sam Spade 16:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So was I. I do believe, however, that it should be easier for people to find advocates, and for new advocates to get involved effectively. Ambi 21:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding prosecution

However offensively, Ambi brought up a rather insightful point regarding my successes. They were nearly all (w the exception of User:WHEELER, a mixed result) prosecutorial in nature. Why is that?

I do what works. The ARBCOM is terrifically disinterested in the positive article improvements of editors. They tend to ignore evidence in general, even admitting to such w some regularity. What can one do?

Keep it short, simple, and concentrate on the attack. Dig up dirt. Make the opposition out to be right scoundrels, a menace to our encyclopedia. Is that the right thing to do? Does it result in a better encyclopedia. No, indeed it does not. But it works, nearly all of the time.

The only exception I know of was the recent case involving User:Cberlet, whom the arbiters admitted a great deal of "hero worship" towards, and even personal dealings with. In that matter no amount of evidence did us any good, and the only workable solution I am aware of would have been Cberlet's approach: come across well to the arbiters outside of the wiki. As it was 5 editors were lined up and shot disciplined based on a conspiracy theory advanced by Chip Berlet, in accordance w his (and others) political biases. Sam Spade 16:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The committee is most certainly not disinterested in the positive article improvements of editors - indeed, I wish this was something advocates brought up more regularly. It's a crucial part of getting across the side of the person up before the committee, and it's one of the things advocates (not to mention users themselves) forget to do all too often.

The committee doesn't ignore evidence, but parties often provide screens and screens and screens of material, which makes it very hard to try and get a grasp of the situation. Helping to get this down to a manageable size, so that it doesn't take weeks to work out who's really at fault, is a great way for advocates to help, but again, is another thing that gets overlooked.

In the end, the goal is to make a better encyclopedia, so show how the user is helping to make a better encyclopedia. Again, this is something that advocates all too often forget to do, to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be helping. "Concentrating on the attack" may be a way of driving your opponents off the wiki, but I'm more interested in making sure every person has access to the assistance of advocates who will actually help their case. Ambi 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Election Board

As it seems the election proposal is closing on attaining consensus (which was set at fifteen votes in the proposal with twenty people voting; at this moment we have eleven valid votes cast, nine in favor), I wanted to put forward a suggestion about how it'll be moderated. I suggest it be run by someone outside the organization, without suffrage, and when the vote is conducted the count should be confirmed by two voting AMA members who were not themselves candidates. As an extension of the election I think we can kind of "voice vote" this part; else we can just have the one returning officer from outside AMA. Wally 19:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems awfully complicated. Why do we need someone to run it? Why do we need someone to confirm the count? Why do we need a returning officer? Just because we have a vote doesn't mean we need loads of bureaucracy. Ambi 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

And just because were members of an organisation doesn't mean we have to vote on things. Sam Spade 23:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as it seems to be going the proposal under consideration now will pass. Which means we will vote on this, by secret ballot, despite any objections. And bureaucracy is neither an inherent evil nor is it something that should be used as a straw man attack. Fairness takes effort and it takes a check or too, and I was merely floating this as an idea for it. This whole process would move faster if everyone involved would simply reconcile the fact that we will not have a grandee simply assume the powers of office in this organization, but will rather act with the thoughtfulness and consideration that has always characterized the AMA. That means things don't just happen.

Honestly, there is a degree of organizational leadership that's required here that I think some do not quite appreciate. Wally 23:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh, oh? You mean me? :-) Kim Bruning 02:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wally: I would, with all due respect, point out that there is a difference between organisational leadership that is required, as you put it, and that which is desired by some of the organisation's participants. In my opinion, there may be a desire for such leadership, but I cannot see any persuasive reason why it is actually required for the efficient running of an advocates' service for Wikipedians. Indeed, I am of the view that probably the AMA would work perfectly well without any of this organisational folderol; however, whether it would work optimally, or in the best interests of service users and members, would be another matter. I would, however, aver that such bureaucracy and being bent on the task of being an organisation as evidenced on this talk page recently, versus advocating on behalf of people, is far from required, and should be brought to a just ending as promptly as possible. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I spoke too quickly. How about we ask our outgoing Coordinator to handle the election? Otherwise, does anyone have any names they might float? Wally 19:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please!!!!

This is getting absurd! Now we're discussing if the ArbCom is doing its job and not what we shuld do! Sam, please stop your discussions with Ambi. I'm wondering if the best would be a de facto Coordinator and end all this endless discussion... --Neigel von Teighen 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do this, nominate yourself or anyother user (excepting me) for candidating:

(sign with ~~~~ to add youself)

1. Wgfinley.Dammit, why not you?!? Ok ok, How about Wgfinley, he wants the job, and is capable and trustworthy. Sam Spade 11:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Accepted. "de facto" interim' coordinator was what I was after before. --Wgfinley 13:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Ambi (self-nomin) I'd certainly be interested. I know I was perhaps a bit acerbic when I brought this up, but I think I may be able to help make things a bit more effective. Ambi 11:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Kim Bruning. I would wonder whether perhaps Kim Bruning might be prevailed upon to be AMA coordinator; he does have a particular talent for the organisation of dispute resolution processes, and I'm sure he might be able to whip the AMA into shape suitably, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Keith D. Tyler He has been very involved on the AMA revival processes, both in Jan 2005 and now. I think we need a bit of experience on these discussions to get a solution. --Neigel von Teighen 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Accept.

5. Neigel von Teighen even though he has indicated he will decline; he is probably the most level head around here, and is earnest, sincere, and supportive of a positive direction, so I'd feel remiss in not including him. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Keith, but I again say that I reject this. If I'm who's running the election process (de facto), I can't be candidate. Sorry... --Neigel von Teighen 13:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Little comment: I have put the (self-)nominated members in bold before the comment you wrote so it's easier to know who's already candidate. So, we avoid double nominations. Ah, this "process" should last until 3 days after the last candidate has been entered. If afterwards more time is needed, we can extend the period in reasonable way, I think. --Neigel von Teighen 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that there's no consensus as to whether or not Ambi is eligible, and Nick Turnball cannot nominate. Wally 17:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Wally; I was not aware it was a formal vote. But surely suggesting candidates should be allowed from anyone, regardless of their involvement? (And I am on the AMA members' list now, after having added myself.) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a vote, just nominations. And I have no objection to hearing nominations from all corners, nor do I have one to Ambi running, for example. But that may not be the only view. In any event this nomination page will work as the vote seems ready to pass come the 20th. Wally 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Justify.

Can anyone justify the continued operation of this project? I have seen nothing positive from an AMA advocate operating in their role due to an AMA request - not once has an AMA advocate worked to inform users who come seeking assistance how better to operate within the system - rather, the standard practice appears to be agressively taking their designed advocatees side and using every single wikilawyering, debate-society tactic in the book to "win."

This does not include advocates who run various things on the side - see Sam Spade, for example, whose prosecutorial whatever appears to be wholy unconnected from this project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact I have responded to requests and specifically directed their requestors with sincere advice. As have Neigel and others. Dispute resolution in WP is difficult; there's more requests than there are advocates free to field them. A heated dispute can occupy an advocate's AMA plate for a while. Note that advocacy does not mean immediately pushing a situation towards MedCom or ArbCom. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Examples, please? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I intend to put this up for MFD within the next month unless someone can justify the existance of this project with examples that do not include assisting troublesome users in their wikilawyering. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone here could ever convince you of not filing the MFD in that 3 week time span, so just go ahead and do it now. We all know what the end result will be anyway, so let's not waste time. No offense intended. Gator (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

One example of an AMA advocate operating within the spirit (not the rules) of Wikipedia to assist a new user in improving the encyclopedia would be more than enough to convince me of the merits of this project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we both know that no matter what the example, it won't satisfy you, so please go ahead and file the MFD. We are in the midst of attempting to elect a new interim coordinator in order to reform the association, so it's really a bad time to be doing this. I seriously doubt anyone here will go out of their way to justify the AMA to you or anyone right now and they know an MFD will certainly fail, so it's really best if you jsut file it now instead of waiting three weeks and getting little no responses. People will, at least, be forced to argue for the AMA in an MFD, so let's just cut to the chase. Just my opinion.Gator (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Counselor, this is not a court of law. I am happy to be wrong. Please provide one example of an AMA advocate operating within the spirit (not the rules) of Wikipedia to assist a new user in improving the encyclopedia. I would not be so certain that an MFD would fail, if I were you. If all of ArbCom shows up and opines negatively, how much more do you think it would take? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time and no on here owes you a justification. Take it to MFD and see what happens. Good luck.Gator (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, there's no reason why this project can't be valuable. I'll {{sofixit}}. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Good to have you. I think you'll be an asset to the association.Gator (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what evidence you demand. It sounds like you confuse advocacy with training. I refer you to Wiktionary: for more study. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've helped users, I just don't drag it through the courts. This group is valuable in that it allows users to contact people willing to help when they need it. We don't need a lot of discussion about it. Different users need different kinds of help. You don't need to be a lawyer to help someone, and there's no need to prove this group is of value. If you don't need an advocate, that's fine, if you do, we're here. Pedant 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Poll Closed

With a vote of 9-1-1, and having reached the expiration date latterly set at 20 January, the poll meets consensus and an election will occur at the earliest possible moment.

The proposal called for four days of nomination, followed by a secret ballot vote on the approval system. If no one minds, since there's already a nomination section, that could be retroactively counted towards the four day period in order to move this along quicker.

Nominees thus far are:

KeithTyler (nominated, accepted) and Wgfinley (nominated, accepted). Possible nominees pending acceptance or community consensus are Ambi, Kim Bruning and Neigel von Teighen. Wally 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure and Wikipedia:AMA 2006 Coordinator Election for more, especially if you are a confirmed nominee. Candidate statements are welcome. Wally 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not a nominee! I have said clearly that any nomination for me would be invalid. --Neigel von Teighen 13:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi

Does anyone have an objection to Ambi contesting the position of AMA Coordinator? My personal opinion is that resumption of membership should be automatic following the expiry of a term as Arbitrator, making the fact that she is not presently on the member list irrelevant. If there is significan objection to this, it should be heard; otherwise, I feel she should be considered nominated for the position. Wally 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Else you're going to have very few candidates :-) Kim Bruning 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you've been nominated. What say you? Wally 02:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Since no one's cared to object, Ambi is nominated. Wally 02:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I decline.Kim Bruning 15:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Nomination period CLOSING

It's been more than five days since the nomination period opened. Thus far nominees are Wgfinley, KeithTyler and, since no one objected when I put the question, Ambi. Does anyone else have a desire to run, or nominate someone else to? Otherwise we ought to get this election started. Wally 02:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's start it, Wally. By the way, you did great job here ordering my de facto nomination proposal into something that works. But, who will mediate the elections? I have said I was able to do it, but unfortunately, I have a trip on friday, so I can no longer... --Neigel von Teighen 13:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I nominate myself. My platform is a massive reform of the mission and methods of advocates, with a specific eye to cutting the amount of wikilawyering down to zero, and a critical eye to steering the often problematic users who come here to change their behavior to conform to standards rather than to futily try to push their damaging opinions through avenues of power. I will agressivly monitor each and every advocates advocacy to determine that they are acting both in the interest of their "client" and in the interest of the encyclopedia, which is what this project is designed to protect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were planning to enlist someone from outside of the organization. You know, like a NPOV party. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No I think Hipocrite was nominating himself to be a coordinator.Gator (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What was the consensus regarding who was eligible to run and vote?Gator (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There were no listed requirements regarding eligibility to run - I do not have suffrage to vote for myself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Eligibility for suffrage was membership as of 21:46 on 6 January, same as with the first proposal vote. There was no discussion on eligibility for candidates, hence Ambi was able to run by consensus. However, I have objections to Hipocrite running; Ambi was a member beforehand and was automatically removed (but NOT automatically reinstated) per AMA guidelines. Hipocrite only signed up today, however. Hipocrite does have a point that nothing was listed, however, so if any member in good standing is willing to support his right to run I'll not stand in the way. Wally 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As for election agents, I'm still trying to find someone, and preferably outside the organization. If anyone has any ideas to unobjectionable candidates, please say so and query them. Wally 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support Kim, Ambi or Kelly as all have shown interest in our group but are outside of it (oh wait, is Ambi in still??). If any one of those three are interested I'd support it. Since I'm running myself I don't want to comment on who should or shouldn't be able to run, I have saved my comments about it on my statement for who I think people should vote for. --Wgfinley 20:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if you're looking for a member in good standing to support Hipocrite's nomination, count me out. He just joined today right (after threatening to move to delete the AMA) and he can't vote in the election due to his recent membership, so it should be implied that, without consensus, only those with sufferage should be able to run. Or else we're being kind of cotnradictory. No right to vote but can run, but not vote for yourself... Just my thought on the matter. If the consensus is to allow him to run, I'm fine with that. To be clear though, he should be able to run and vote for a permanent coordinator however. Gator (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you that terrified I'll win? The above is an example of wikilawyering that I would crush ruthlessly if I were elected and it were presented by by an advocate for a client. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm worried you'll win...you got me again. Anyway, you can label it whatever you want (and thereby free yourself from actually having to respond), it's just my opinion. I'm now also of the opinion (based on your "crush ruthlessly" comment) that you're not a serious candidate and don't really want to do this. You're true intentions? I wouldn't specualate, but I doubt they have anything to do with actually wanting to help the AMA and be a good coordinator. My opinion is stronger than it was before.Gator (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may say so, I think Gator's more worried about the "crush ruthlessly" part than the "wikilawyering" part. Wally 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree with that. lol. Hey, if others support his nomination, that's fine, but I don't.Gator (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If and when I am coordinator, wikilawyering will not be tolerated. If you wish something softer than an iron fist on wikilawyering, I suggest you support a different candidate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he's not serious. I move that the slate be: Wgfinley, KeithTyler and, Ambi (the three suers who got their nominations made in a timely manner I may add) with Theresa Knott running the election. Let's move on. We've wasted enough time already.Gator (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you review WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I assure you that I am quite serious, and that I will not accept being removed from your "slate" of candidates. If the members in good standing want me to serve, then I will win. If the members in good standing do not want me to server, then I will lose. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm more familair with those polcies than you are, I'm sure. You've amde your true intentiosn re: the AMA quite clear, so I doubt you've had a change of heart in less than 5 hours. It's not about AGF, it's about common sense. If no one else is with me, that's fine, but I wanted to make my opinion clear. Based on today's edits, you're intentions are...vague at best.Gator (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My intentions are quite clear. I posted a request that someone justify the existance of this project on January 19th, after having watched three AMA advocates "help" clients disrupt the encyclopedia via wikilawyering, and viewing a talk page that was filled with garbage about election policies and procedures - leading me to believe this was nothing more than a Nomic support group. On the 20th of January, one of the AMA advocates replied that he did good work. On the 20th of January, I asked for examples. I waited 5 days, but none were forthcoming. On the 25th of January, I asked that someone justify the continued existance of this project, with the statement that if no one could do so, I would MFD it. You then responded that you were certain that any evidence of good actions by AMA would be ignored by me - you did not, however, provide any such evidence. In fact, when I insisted that you give me evidence of this project helping the encyclopedia, you wrote that "I'm not going to waste my time and no on here owes you a justification." I decided that instead of killing what might be a usefull project because a user with a substantial grudge against me was going to be troublesome, I was going to fix the project. To do so, I nominated myself for coordinator and wrote a strongly reformist platform. You decided that this was unacceptable, and, instead of allowing people to decide what they prefered, you attempted to invalidate my platform. My intention is to make this encyclopedia better. If that means deleting this project, then that's the answer. If that means me running this project, that's the answer. If that means me making sure the next coordinator is actually doing something to fix the project, that's the answer. I can promise you, however, that you trying to wikilawyer someone out of an election because you don't like them or what they stand for is NOT the answer. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, I have no power to "allow" or disallow anyone from voting for you, I'm merely arguing that you shouldn be allowed to run and that is acceptable adn I wasn;t the only one. Call that "wikilawyering" (assuming you have a definiton for that, other than arguments that you prefer not to respond to, but you seem to throw it around qyuite a bit, so I bet you have a incredibnyl vague subjective definition) if you want to, but I don't care. As of now, no one else seems to care if you run or not, so feel free. And rest assured, that I hold no grude against you fro anything you've done or said to me in the past.....you offer plenty of reasons to oppose you by the new thigns you say every day. Good luck and have fun.Gator (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It appeared that you proposed that individuals not be allowed to vote for or against me. This would appare to be denying people the right to vote for me. My definition of wikilawyering is quite simple: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering - "a pejorative term that asserts that certain arguments made in one's self-defense are, regardless of the specifics, based in an improper technical interpretation of policy, rather than on the underlying principles expressed by Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines." Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It was (is) just like you said, a proposal. That's not "denying" anybody, anything, I have no such power. Get off it. Not anyone should be allowed to run in my opinion, including you. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Thanks for the vague subjective definition...like I expected. What one person thinks is "an improper technical interpretation of policy" anotehr person thinsk are sound arguments. I've said this before, the people who usually lable things as "technicalities" are just covering for the fct that the arguments are over their head, but isntead of educating themself and responding to the argument in a logial manner, they label it a "technicality" or, in your case, "wikilawyering" and libeate themself from the obligation to respond. Look, run if you want and no one else is opposed, that's fine. I'm tired of all of this. Again, good luck.Gator (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked Theresa Knott to run the election for us. I hope this meets with no objections; I hope also that she accepts. Wally 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Theresa is also a good choice, I support. --Wgfinley 21:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt she has the time, but she is about as good a judge as we can expect to find. Sam Spade 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If by running the election you mean counting the votes, then yes I have the time. If you want me to do anything that involves any kind of judgement call then I'm not sure that i'm the best person for the job. As an arbitrator I have a views on how the AMA should be and so i'm not a neutral third party. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty much restricted to counting the votes. We'll sort out the rest of the mess in as civilized a fashion as possible.

Also, do you have an e-mail address to which the votes should be sent? Wally 08:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite

There is not consensus as to whether you shall be allowed candidacy, given that he's been a member of this organization for the past five hours. I propose that his candidacy not be allowed, as the exception for Ambi was due to prior membership erroneously unrestored, not for lack of membership. I will withdraw this if anyone supports Hipocrite; however, if not, he will be removed from the candidate page. Wally 23:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be ok w his candidacy if he wasn't being belligerant. If anyone supports him I say we allow him in, but I can't see why anyone would, or why he'd get any votes. I hope you are all becoming aware of why I prefer only advocates who have actually advocated to be allowed sufferage. Sam Spade 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As a further datapoint, Hipocrite just today posted a personal attack[1] on my talk page. There have been other conflicts as well, relating to a dispute that I am having with DreamGuy. Hipocrite appeared rather suddenly (and negatively) in the discussion, and has also been making what (IMHO) are "less than good faith" edits to my official bio article[2]. The combination of the attack, as well as applying for this position, somewhat bewilders me, though the discussion here at the AMA does help shed a bit more light on the matter. I'd agree that there's entryism, but is this also perhaps an example of trolling? Elonka 10:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I reaffirm my previous motion to remove his nomination from the Election page unless someone feels he should be able to run.Gator (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

So, of the four candidates, one has withdrawn, one has never accepted, one has not written a platform except to call Arbcom a kangaroo court and one is being disqualified because he's too new - and this is the body that is supposed to help people speak truth to power without getting mired down in useless nit-picking. I accepted a request for assistance today - perhaps some of the other people on this page should do so as well. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like :wikilawyering" to me. Opinion unchanged.Gator (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Without objection, then, Hipocrite's candidacy is invalid. Wally 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wgfinley's Withdrawal & Resignation

I am withdrawing from the coordinator election as I am resigning from AMA. There's a major event behind this but things here at AMA have been bugging me for a few weeks now so it made the other decision rather easy. This group used to be very loose and committed to helping people, now it seems more in love with its own process and procedure than anything else. By running for coordinator I was hopeful that I could nudge things in the right direction o get AMA back on track. I'm not sure if that's possible anymore and I'm not sure if rehabilitating AMA is possible right now.

I was one of the founders of MedCab and when I came back from wikivacation it was in very good hands so I intended to focus my efforts here on AMA. Now MedCab is without a coordinator and I don't want to see things fall apart there so I have elected to take over as MedCab coordinator. I think what that group does is very important and it has always had a flair for being informal, something I very much like.

So, I am resigning from AMA at this time. I leave with but one bit of advice and that is to LOOSEN UP. This group is falling over itself with policy and procedure and policy and procedure for policy and procedure. This isn't helping people which was the goal of AMA when it was founded -- to help people that needed it. I don't see a lot of that going on and it's sorely needed. So, I wish you all the best, I really hope you can get things turned around. If you are serious about mediation I invite you to come join, you don't have to quit here to do so. Audi alteram partem. --Wgfinley 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

While I do not agree with everything you say, Guy, I'm damn glad you were here to say it. You will be missed, sorely, and I hope we rapidly build the organization that you want to rejoin, and that does helpin exactly the way it needs to. Wally 05:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree w everything finley said, and am now very disturbed at the upcoming election. Who the heck am I supposed to support? Do I have to run myself to have any hope for the AMA's future? Jiminy Christmas! Sam Spade 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Neigel von Teighen's resignation

Wgfinley has make me take a decision I was thinking of since all this mess began. I tried to do my best by starting a nomination process that had now led into the dissaster we have now. Damned be that post ([3]) which began all this "revival" process that ended with AMA's agony. Sorry for beginning the nomination process without consensus and try to install "de facto" an election. Bye!

Wgfinley, I'll think about being part of the MedCab, though I don't like informal mediations. Maybe I'll do it as a step unto the MedCom, in which I always wanted to be. --Neigel von Teighen 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I ask that you reconsider. We are moving a bit slowly, but steadily, towards our goal of a full and fair election. It is absolutely crucial that good members stay with us during this time, and it would be difficult for the organization to get on without you — although it will if it must. Wally 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Doing it right.

I know how we can fix all this and eliminate all this silly propriety and legitimacy that is driving people away due to AMA's movement being so slow in comparison to all the other projects on WP. (I dunno where people estimate this from... I've been trying to get a mass move going on for months which is still stalled in interference, and an AFD I posed days ago has no comments. But I digress; there must be some other metric for measuring what is "Wikipedia time".)

Anyway. The solution is clearly this: Wally assume Benevolent Dictator, load up the List of AMA members, close his eyes, and poke the screen with his finger. Whomever his finger lies upon will be the new AMA coordinator. Since holding a consensus poll on this idea would only aggravate people, he should just go ahead and do that right now.

That would eliminate all of the grief and exasperation lodged against the other AMA members who appreciate AMA's electoral legacy in WP and think they owe it to the rest of WP to do it right and proper, and not simply ad hoc and devolving into anarchy, with competing Coordinators vying for the role.

You know, the Coordinator as it stands today doesn't have much actual power except in terms of a title and a badge of electoral merit. Having or not having a Coordinator doesn't really affect anyone's ability to advocate. It doesn't prevent anyone from visiting the Requests page or trolling new ArbCom cases or whatever it is you do. The fact that things in AMA got so stagnant after the lack of a Coordinator is really quite unexplainable, considering few people seemed to mind at the time. (I for one was very vocal about the endless IRC meetings for months in lieu of a coordinator election, which among other coincidences led to my decrease in involvement.) What AMA does is explained on the main page, and there are currently no barriers to joining. But clearly, in order for its members to operate, AMA needs a Coordinator, for some reason. And that person will undoubtedly be expected to breathe some sort of life into this motley group, somehow; even though, really, it doesn't require any coordinating; it just requires a willingness to find, and then assist, in disputes.

The AMA, in its role, has the potential to be a number of things beyond just a group of advocates. I'm not saying the AMA needs to have additional roles in its definition. But what I am saying is that, in theory, we have a very good understanding of what the DR process is like for most people, as opposed to those people mired in roles in the mechanics of the process (Arbs/Meds/etc.). But to potentially start such initiatives, we need to make sure we are organized.

Now, someone find please find a third party to handle the receipt and tally of coordinator votes, so we can do this thing, and appease the patience of those unsatisfied with the average speed of communication in WP.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, Keith, but I could not oppose that idea more. I will not be any sort of dictator for any period of time, benevolent or otherwise — and neither will anyone else, while I am here.

As we have been unsuccessful in finding an election coordinator thus far and there is interest in moving along quickly, I offer two alternatives.

• An open ballot, on the election page.
• I will resign from the AMA, and run the election myself.

If anyone else has better ideas, or has an election agent we could use, please say so. But we're at last resort time, I think. Wally 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but I do not trust you to count ballots unless I am copied on all of them, which I would consider not-acceptable for obvious reasons. The entire concept of an election here is silly, as there's only one candidate currently. Perhaps this time and effort would be better spent fixing the project. Are there any objections to clearing the multiple redundant membership pages and starting afresh? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose wally having any special influence. Sam Spade 00:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As do I; obviously I would not trust me to do it either. What about an open vote (although I am still trying to find someone to run the election)? Wally 01:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil, and this is no time for it. Sam Spade 01:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I don't want to hear your anti-everything rants right now. This is the method that has been agreed upon and it will be followed. You can be productive and try to help it along, or you can say nothing. And I assure you a period of silence from you now would be most welcome. I am doing my best, and I would like to do it with you instead of despite you. But I will do it in any event. Wally 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

These hyperbolic power plays are killing the AMA, not helping us advocate. We are losing members hand over fist, being criticised on all sides, our co-ordinator has just resigned, and this is no time for an election. Sam Spade 12:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As such, Ambi should be the coordinator, now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hell no. That said, if we are going to have an election, who are the candidates? Ambi and Keith D. Tyler? I want to hear where they stand and what they intend to do, and would STRONGLY prefer if someone else entered as a candidate. Sam Spade 19:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd consider it, but the nomination period has closed and it would wrong for me to step in now. It's only for an interim coordinator after all, so that's good.Gator (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Theresa knott has agreed to mediate the election. The nomination period is now closed. Ambi and Keith Tyler are the candidates. Sam seems to have forgotten that the Coodinator's resignation was part and parcel of the process to get a new one, and that two members is hardly 'losing them hand over fist', especially when one left simply because another job opened. Talk about hyperbole. Wally 19:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine by me. I just want to be clear who the candidates are and are not. If it weren;t for the fact that I know that Hipocrite would revert and start a fight, I would remove his hollow nomination myself, but he turns every little issue with me into a war, so I won't.Gator (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Don't be surprised if reverts , claming he has not withdrawn after all. Fair warning.Gator (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If we just need another candidate, I'll nominate myself. Or someone else can do it. Pedant 05:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm just waiting to finalize how Theresa wants to go forth procedurally. As soon as that's done the election will be called. Wally 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted

I deleted the entirety of the bloated membership page and replaced it with the people who have commented on this talk page to date and new joiners in the month of January. Please feel free to re-add yourself to the project if I deleted your entry in error - it was nothing more than an error. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to do that. I'm restoring the membership list. We do not simply purge people here. Wally 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The member list, as it stands, is useless. For example, on the list, right now, is: User:telekenetix. I know you hate me and everything I stand for, but this project is currently not working. Pruning the membership list to only include people who want to be on the project is a good thing, and I hope you will revert your reversion of my attempts to fix things. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the inactive users, I refactored the list into active - accepting cases, active - caseload full and inactive. People who are miscategorized should move themselves. Is this a reasonable compromise? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again...everything has to be a war. Just knock it off.Gator (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am talking. My edit summary said all that needed to be said. "people have been free to declare themselves active or inactive and that system works fine. Please stop messing around with this at such an early stage of membership"

I won't revert again and will let someone else ahve the honors, but you're out of line here. Just leave it alone. Big changes like this ened to be discussed here first and reach a consensus. You;re jsut unilaterally doing what you want. please stop.Gator (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Conversation does not take place in edit summaries, especially not blind reverts.
2. I am happy to have a conversation with anyone about why this version, or some other version of the member list is better. That conversation does not entail someone saying "leave it alone, you are new." Provide some sort of reason why the old list - which was filled with people that cannot, have not, and will not advocate at any point is better than the new list, which puts people who are willing, ready and able to help at the top and people who are none of the above at the bottom. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you are new and obviously have little knowledge or regard of the traditions and rules of this organization. You obviously also don't understand that, as we are about to elect new leadership, it is in poor form to start making changes to the main pages of this website with neither discussion nor stated reason. If you change this page one more time I will speak to an administrator. Wally 21:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you do so. Please do not violate the 3rr on this project page, and instead discuss with me about why refactoring the user list is either good or bad. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have consensus here and I'm not going to waste 1/2 hour of my life explaining this to you. Just leave it alone (for now).Gator (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't willing to discuss why one version is better than another, than please don't revert. Reversion wars are silly. I don't know what problems exist that I can fix - I solved the problem of not removing members by keeping all members in the new version of the list. Is there another concrete problem I can solve? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I care or else I wouldn't be reverting you, but I do not care to cater to your whims and demands and have to explain to you something that seems obviosu to others and that (Ithink) you understand byut just like to cause trouble. Without consensus (that you clearly do not have) you cannot be making these changes. Stop.Gator (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Gator, let it go. I'm having the page protected. Wally 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel that there are any improvements that could be made to the member list? Perhaps we could remove the people who are clearly no longer editing the wiki? Perhaps we could have a seperate section at the top for people who are currently taking cases? Perhaps we could standardize the signature form (getting rid of the stylizied signatures that are currently there?) Do you have any changes that you think would be helpful? Would you like to discuss my proposed changes, or only revert them? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is room for improvements (not yours) but now is not the time. Just be patient and stop causing trouble.Gator (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What changes would you like to see made to the member list, which is where I'm starting. I think we should get rid of people who have not edited the wiki for a substantial period (they can readd themselves, obviously, and would not be removed again), and people who have struck themselves. Your thoughts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There should be no changes made a week before we have a new Coordinator. There is no reason this must happen now, and it is disruptive if it proceeds. Also, we do not inactivate members unless they do it themselves, as we lack sufficient information at this time to judge. Wally 21:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there is always room for change but I haven't given this issue much thought as I've been focused on the AMA as a whole and getting anew coordinator in place first. Once that settles down, I promise that this issue can be discussed and that I'll give it my full attention at that time.Gator (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your thoughts on declaring *EVERYONE* inactive untill they move themselves to the active column? That was my initial thought (actually, my initial thought was blank everyone, let people add themselves back), and saves us from the hassle of evaluating peoples active/inactive status? It has been weeks since this stupid election has started, and this project is stagnant. That needs to stop, now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

See above. Now is not the time and I'd definately be opposed to that no matter what. Just be patient.Gator (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been a week and a half, and for less than a third of that time have you been here! Just who exactly do you think you are to try to railroad a process on which we've all agreed, and which is finally proceeding apace despite your opposition? Wally 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since the AMA = MEDCAB proposal showed up. Belive you me, I've been here for far longer than that. I'm going to do what I think is best to help this encyclopedia, as I've said before above. Your thoughts on fixing the member list so that when someone wants help and starts mailing members at random it dosen't take him days to get help? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

A discussion of an advocacy action

[4] was the entirety of the resolution of this case. It is not appropriate to give advice via edit summary, which many people do not see. I would have responded to the IP addresses talk page that added the request, and on the talk page of the name that was signed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack? Thanks for the advice Hip, we're all impressed with how you would ahve done it....unbelievable.Gator (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you have gone way past any leeway you might've had. Enough is enough. Wally 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How would you have handled the request in question? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps differently. But that is no excuse for an attack. Wally 22:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no attack. I saw an example of a case handled badly, and I pointed it out. *YOU* know the case was handled badly. *I* know the case was handled badly. Mistakes made should not just be corrected, they should be pointed out so they are not repeated. People who want to be advocates should not have thin skin. I'm not calling the advocate who responded to the case stupid, a bad advocate, or whatever. I'm pointing it out as a teaching oppourtunity. I know that you are all used to this page being a morass of procedural nonsense and elections and votes, but that must and will change.

On an additional note, was my summary of the appropriate action correct? I wonder if it was appropriate to comment on the talk page of both the IP and the signed name, but it seems like such an odd way of impersonating someone that I thought better safe than sorry. Your thoughts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bull. You think it was handled badly, ut I stand by it, there was nothing to it and it was given the attention it needed. You only think it was handled badly because you have a grudge against me. It was an cheap attack and I want it removed.Gator (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets have a discussion. Do you think it would have been better to put the notice you put in the edit summary on the talk pages(s) of the user in question? Why or why not? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We're not in court and I don't owe you or anyone else an explanation. I stand by my work. I don't know who you think you are...(I'm not responding for fear that it will only appear gain in a future RFA).Gator (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't inted to file a request for anything against anyone - you have confused me for the wikilawyers that I'm trying to get rid of. Obviously, you don't owe me anything - but I think that the way I handled the case in these diffs: [5] [6] was better than your method. I know you're really really angry at me for my actions regarding the election, and the membership page and all the changes that I'm trying to make here, and that's your right - but this is an attempt to improve everyone's advocacy, which, I believe, is the purpose of this talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you handled your cases better than me. Wow...who provides diffs and says that? Unbelievable. Thanks for th elesson in advocacy, I'm glad that you've become a teacher so quickly after becoming a member/ P.S. I'm not angry at you...annoyed, but not angry, don;t worry about that.Gator (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the requests page

The requests page needs to be fixed. Finished request should be moved to an archive page, rather than an archive sections. Unanswerd requests at this point should be deleted. Going forward, new requests need to be taken within 48 hours. I know, I know, wait till after the stupid procedural dumbass election garbage, so I'm not going to make the change, but if you don't want that change made the second whoever the new "coordinator" is is elected, this is the place to discus reasons and alternatives. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Member statements are useless

Is there any reason to have the member statements page? Is there a single statement that provides anything of value to a client? This is part of my strategy of making people advocate more and deal with meta-bullshit less. The statements page is worthless, and should go. Again, I know, I know, wait till after the stupid procedural dumbass election garbage, so I'm not going to make the change, but if you don't want that change made the second whoever the new "coordinator" is is elected, this is the place to discus reasons and alternatives. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you won't make any change on your own without consensus. Beyond that we'll see if the members agree with you. I personally do not. Wally 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think my member statement provides value. Feel free to copy it if you feel that yours doesn't. Pedant 05:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Your member statement is, I believe, a statement that should be made by each and every advocate here. I find it admirable and valuable. It is nearly unique in that aspect. Please evaluate the page as a whole and consider what value it adds? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you have opinions. There will be ample opportunity to express them when we do policy review. Wally 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The main page is too long

The thing people are reading for on the main page is how to get help. Most everthing else needs to go. I also suggest that the first paragraph BEGS people to wikilawyer. If we're devoted to protecting "due process," we might as well kill ourselves now, because "due process" here is "due what helps the encyclopedia."

The following sections are better on talk page or a new "member information" sction: Resignation of Coordinator AMA Membership Meeting Call for election Rules of the Association AMA Userbox template

Again, I know, I know, wait till after the stupid procedural dumbass election garbage, so I'm not going to make the change, but if you don't want that change made the second whoever the new "coordinator" is is elected, this is the place to discus reasons and alternatives. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comment above. Wally 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want people to listen to you...

Calling something they're trying to do "stupid procedural dumbass election garbage" is not the way to do it. If you're just trying to cause trouble and get people to react badly so that you can use that against them later (RFA for example) then you're doing great. I for one will not react to you so you cna jsut give up, but I've also decided not to waste too much time listening to you either, so it's OK.Gator (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed my attack on the election. Would you like to comment on my substantive proposals? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would. maybe not exactly when you want me to, but....you're not going to always get people to do what you want, when you want it. Good life lesson I think.Gator (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?

• User:Hipocrite/AMAs

Sam Spade 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Gator pointed that out to me. I was going to list it on VFD before I remembered that it was on his user page, and thus it's rather more difficult to deal with than a normal page on the Wikispace. Wally 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I can draft whatever I want in my userspace. FFS. It's a thought on an alternative, or a replacement for what's currently there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not true. The limits are broader — but the discretion is not wholly yours. Rest assured that issue will be dealt with following the election, whoever our Coordinator may be. Wally 07:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

ELECTION STARTING

I've word from Theresa, and we're officially ready to go.

Here is how it will work:

• The election begins on Friday, 3 February 2006 at 0000 hours UTC. It will last for one week; or, until Friday, 10 February 2006, at 0000 hours UTC.

• Votes will be e-mailed to Theresa knott at Theresaknott@gmail.com. The phrase AMA Coordinator Election Ballot must be in the title. Within the e-mail, you must specify your username and list the candidate(s) you choose. Failure to do so will have your ballot rejected.

• You may pick either candidate or both. As voting functions by approval method, you simply put down the names of any candidates which you find acceptable. Write-in votes are allowed; however, in the unlikely event a write-in candidate should prove victorious, they would have to first accept the office. Candidates who have already rejected nomination (Neigel von Teighen), accepted but subsequently withdrew (WGFinley), or been found ineligible (Hipocrite) will be automatically discounted, and the next-highest vote-winner elected, should they win.

• A list of those members with suffrage is available on the 2006 Coordinator Election AMA page, as well as on the procedure page. The criteria for suffrage is membership as of 21:46 on 6 January 2006. Members who do not reach that criteria may not cast a ballot. Those who were members at that time but have since removed their names from the member list are likewise discounted.

• All members who possess suffrage — they are seventy in number — will be informed of the election within the next day on their talk pages. Anyone who would like to volunteer to assist me in passing on the word is welcome to pick part of the list and do so; but all members must be informed by the start of voting.

Good luck to the candidates and to the organization! Further questions to User:Theresa knott.

Wally 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Should reference these instructions from the election page. Users are directed to the 2006 election page which does not lay this out or link to it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nor was banning write-in candidates discussed anywhere. I no longer care (this either gets fixed or replaced, I think), but you've certainly done a lot of things to stop people from voting for me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Write-in candidates weren't banned — in fact, they were specifically allowed. Candidates who have already been determined by community consensus to be ineligible are excluded. If so many people were going to vote for you, then there would have been no consensus for excluding you from the race. I remind you that I asked for a single member to back your candidacy in order that it might be allowed, and not a single member was willing to do so. I do not consider it my fault that your heavy-handedness and arrogance have excluded you from this race — that, and the spirit of the rules by which this organization is run. Wally 05:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Template for election

Here's the message I'm posting on talk pages:

Dear AMA Member,

You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!

Wally 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All members have been notified. Wally 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Election started

Just as it says. Check the requisite pages for voting details and instructions. Wally 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I voted! *get a sticker*

Just to help get an impression as to preliminary returns, everyone who's voted say so here (note: don't mention who you voted for, just that you voted).

1. Wally 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Brian | (Talk) 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Ambi 06:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Gator (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Sam Spade 14:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Pedant 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Advocacy Question: Ethics

I just reviewed the list of outstanding requests for advocacy. What should I do if I think, based on a review of the history, that the editor is a sock-puppet for an ArbCom banned user? I have not been in touch with the editor in question, so that I am not expected to represent or advocate for the editor. Am I free to request admin or ArbCom assistance in dealing with this banned user, or does the fact that I became aware of the case through a request for advocacy mean that I should leave the issue alone? Robert McClenon 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is the sort of question that we intended to have a staff change in order to address; we've no clear policy on a situation like this.

I would argue that it would be consistent with AMA policy to ignore anything incriminating placed on the AMA requests for assistance page. Users there, however misguided, are seeking representation, and we are thus bound under a moral equivalent of attorney-client privilege as soon as their request appears (even if it is public — the ArbCom would probably whine about wikilawyering if this was brought up in a case). I don't know if there's consensus on this or what; simply my opinion. This does not preclude you from investigating further and taking action on the basis of something on a page in the mainspace, however. Wally 02:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have no issue with reporting said user to WP:ANI. We're here to help good-faith users negotiate their way through a difficult system, not to turn a blind eye to games from those who have already had their due process. Ambi 08:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Its statements like that which underscore what advocating does not include. I don't want to be a part of the sort of organisation you seem to be envisioning. Have you thought about simply becomming a clerk? That would seem to be more suited towards your outlook... What sort of advocating have you done btw, Ambi? Sam Spade 14:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is not a judicial process where we try to "get off" users who are having a massively net negative effect on the project. I see the role of the AMA as to help all good-faith (or even potentially good-faith where this is not clear) users negotiate their way through the process, so we get to retain good editors that might be lost otherwise, and can work out issues with editors who might otherwise have been banned before it gets that far. That does not mean that we're under some quasi-legal restriction to ignore that someone has already had their due process and been banned accordingly.

To answer your other question, I did quite a bit of advocacy (and influenced quite a few cases) before I ran for the Arbitration Committee - it's how I made enough of a name for myself to get elected in the first place. And for the record, I have absolutely no interest in clerking (I hated those tasks as an arbitrator, which was a large part of the reason why I resigned, why would I want to do them now?). Ambi 04:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is up to that editor's opponents to report him to WP:ANI. I posted a note to his talk page declining to act as his advocate because I saw that his first two edits appeared to be vandalism. If it had not been for the vandalism, I would probably have worked with him in what otherwise appeared to be a content dispute. Robert McClenon 14:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why it's crucial to have an Arbitrator first. Wally 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why it is critical to have an arbitrator first before what? I don't whether the user in question is a sock-puppet of the banned user. I think it illustrates that it is important to review the user's contribution history. I, for one, am willing to advocate for a user who is uncivil or an edit warrior (they learn), but not for a user who has been a vandal. Robert McClenon 23:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No no no, sorry. I mistyped; I meant, for policy reasons, that this was why it was important to have a Coordinator first. We have no gold standard for how to deal with these issues. I apologize for the error. Wally 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The particular incident that resulted in this question is overtaken by events. The editor who was requesting an advocate has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the previously banned user. There is still a general question about what to do about "bad" requesters. My conclusion is that an advocate should research the history at least briefly before agreeing to represent someone. Robert McClenon 20:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Election closed

The election officially ended at 0:00 UTC this morning. Theresa will announce the result in short order. A final good luck! Wally 02:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Election reopened for one day

I'm not sure if you had any plan for a tie situation, but in the interests of expediency I'm reopening the election for a further day. Anyone who has not voted so far should do so immediately. I will close the election at 0:00 UTC Saturday morning. Anyone who has a change of heart about a previous vote should email me straight away. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Results

Well that didn't solve the matter. The results are:

Ambi                9 votes
Keith Tyler         9 votes

Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What Next?

What do we do now? It appears that the vote turnout was too small. The election announcement stated that 70 advocates had suffrage, but only 18 voted. I see two possible ways out. First, the franchise could be expanded by changing the date of active membership. (Disclosure: I am not disinterested.) Second, someone, such as Theresa, could cast a tie-breaking vote. Robert McClenon 19:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to both ideas, and suggest a dual co-ordination. We need to get things done, not get mired in democracy for its own sake. Our organisation has only had 1 co-ordinator before, a co-chair would be a fine precedent. Sam Spade 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't suppose we could do rock-paper-scissors, could we?

I disagree with the idea of Co-Coordinators. The reason we are here is because the Coordinator did not have an active enough role in shaping the organization (although no disrespect to Alex is intended). Having two people running things, with different ideologies will just muddy the issue further.

The extension of suffrage is, I think, a fox that won't run. We have procedures for a reason, and they ought to be followed. Extending the election further could be possible, but if people haven't voted yet I highly doubt they will, save from electioneering. A tie-breaking vote also won't work; no one has the authority to cast such a ballot. With perhaps one exception — our past Coordinator.

I do not know if he cast a ballot — he was indeed eligible — but I would suggest that, if he did not, we request that Alex break the tie. He is the only one with something approaching the authority necessary to make that legitimate.

Otherwise, perhaps all those who voted for both candidates (this was approval, remember) could be asked to go back and choose. This, however, would alter the system ex post facto and is in my opinion a poor idea. I mention it merely for the mentioning. Wally 20:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Alex could and perhaps should cast the deciding vote. Sam Spade 20:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL Sam — I think if you and I can agree on anything, the position must be right! Wally 21:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(For the record, Alex posted a message on my talk page several days ago saying that he endorsed me for coordinator (it's in my last archive, IIRC). I didn't make anything of it during the election, and don't have any particular opinion on how to resolve this deadlock.) Ambi 04:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if we proceed with this course, a past endorsement will be insufficient. While the result may well be the same our Coordinator Emeritus would need to come to a conclusion in this situation, given the result. Wally 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

FTR, I'm still here, and paying attention. I've followed an entirely self-imposed quiet period and allowed my recent statements to speak for me. Just so everyone knows I'm still around. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want you all the know that I did not vote during the election. I thought that the voting ending on the 13th not the 10th and apparently I waited too long, really one week is a very short window for a busy person to get around to it. My endorsement of Ambi still stands and but for my own mistake I would have voted for her had I not missed the deadline. Alex756 01:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may say so, then, I believe in the interests of closure that there is that. Wally 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Ethics Question

I am acting as the advocate for some of the parties in the Shiloh Shepherd Dog dispute, which is before the ArbCom. Some of them are filing incident reports at WP:ANI against other parties. This is both undermining my ability to advocate for them and messing up the case by being argued in two places at once. Does someone have advice? Robert McClenon 20:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I usually refuse to represent people who refuse to take my advice. I'm abit dubious about people making a big fuss over adog article in the first place... Sam Spade 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just a content dispute. The case is about personal attacks and harassment. The reason that they are making a big fuss about it is an old-fashioned one: Money. Money is a perfectly common reason to make a big fuss. At least one of the parties is a breeder. The content dispute involves various kennels and registries (records of pedigrees). Your suggestion not to represent people who refuse to cooperate, however, is an entirely reasonable one. Robert McClenon 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I now understand why their so emotional about it. I guess I could get worked up if my cat had a wiki article... I think he's a russian blue... ;)

Sam Spade 00:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cats are more assertive of their own rights than dogs. If your cat had an article, your cat could post to it. I have known many people whose cats posted. I have never known anyone whose dog posted. I prefer cats, but, in a more important sense, my preference is for (human) women. Cats should be given more liberty than dogs, because they demand and can use it better. Humans domesticated wolves into dogs. Humans did not domesticate cats. Cats wandered in to tents in North Africa and domesticated themselves because it was a good place to live. Dogs are loyal, and are good wolves. Cats are smart. Robert McClenon 02:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As there is not yet a settlement

I wonder if perhaps another idea might be hit upon to close the election issue, since the election did not close it on its own. This is not a proposal; rather, it is simply food for thought, and I would like to hear reactions.

I conjecture:

• A Governing Committee, made up of five, seven, or nine governing members (on a voluntary basis) to be co-chaired by Ambi and KeithTyler;

• This Committee will be responsible for reforms, with a focus on developing advocacy guidelines, clearing away requests backlogs and developing a system for future Coordinators and their installation;

• This Committee will dissolve itself at the point at which a full-time Coordinator will be elected or otherwise chosen.

Anyone?

While I respect the attempt to come to a middle ground, this strikes me as unnecessarily bureaucratic. There's an argument for why we need a convenor at all (which I agree with), but even that much is disputed - I see little gain for either the AMA or the broader encyclopedia in adding instruction creep. Ambi 08:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well we need to do something. Let's not call things "instruction creep" as a heuristic; rather let's consider the idea on its own merits. We have to solve the impasse here one way or the other, and neither of you seem on the point of yielding to the other. Wally 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See section immediately below. ;-) Kim Bruning 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Old fashioned resolution

Oh fook it, kids these days.

• Heads: Keith Tyler
• Tails: Ambi

<grabs a nickle>
<flips>
<comes up tails>

FWIW. (I hope you'll take my word and don't request photographic evidence in triplicate, as I've put the nickle away again.)

Kim Bruning 11:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC) You mean a U.S. 5-cent coin right? That's commonly called a nickel Pedant

The Main Page Is Too Long

There, the election is over. Moving on

The thing people are reading for on the main page is how to get help. Most everthing else needs to go. I also suggest that the first paragraph BEGS people to wikilawyer. If we're devoted to protecting "due process," we might as well kill ourselves now, because "due process" here is "due what helps the encyclopedia."

The following sections are better on talk page or a new "member information" sction:

• Resignation of Coordinator
• AMA Membership Meeting
• Call for election
• Rules of the Association
• AMA Userbox template

Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I strongly support the rewrite already done to the intro paragraph. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Tnx. Sam Spade 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No objections here on both counts. Ambi 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The membership list is filled with people who don't care

Can we please require that people reaffirm their membership or be removed from the main page? It's not a valuable resource. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I second that... but I don't think I can affirm that because the last vote only certain members that where there for a longer time could vote. Wouldn't be hipocrital if we aloud my seconding of the proposition? Meuh! I second that anyway. --CyclePat 14:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think only active advocates should be considered members. Sam Spade 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Get back to us on what qualifies as active. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Having ever had a case, being available if someone needs help, engaged in the affairs of the association. Sam Spade 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we ought to have some system to determine membership; perhaps even a "bar exam" that all members need to pass to be qualified as advocates, so that we can provide a minimum level of training so that they will be able to helpfully and effectively represent their clients. Wally 19:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we can go about easier than that really - perhaps just requring people to give a wannabe-advocate the nod first (so as to prevent clearly unsuitable candidates), and then keeping an eye on newbie advocates and helping them find useful mentors where necessary. Ambi 10:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've only recently joined, so I haven't actually done any advocacy yet. I'd be more than happy to take on a case if there's anything available, or would it be better if I simply accept one of the requests on the requests page? --bainer (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would just grab a request on the page and go about it as best you can. We're here on the talk page to answer questions you might have; the Guide to Advocacy, albeit in an elder form, is also available. Apart from that, good luck and look after your client! Wally 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing broad agreement, I will blank the memberlist except for people who have been active recently shortly. This is a blanking without prejudice - if you are still active, please resign yourself up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, please don't. We're still talking about how we want to go about things - blanking everything is inappropriate. And you're not the person to do it in any case. Wally 22:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

be bold so they say... WP:BOLD... is the moto of wiki. If you take them off we should at least leave a mesage on their user page. better yet. We should make it so that all members have an email or something so we can easilly send everyone a message (mass email... or quick message on their user page.)!! Not only would that re-affirm their existance but it would also make for faster communication between users and it may even encourage some new case to be formed. Unless of course their's some other solution for quick and effective communication and affirming our affiliation with AMA. ... (a scouts pledges?) (Or a chain of contact... so and so contacts 5 users. and so and so contacts 5 more... etc?) dunno.. I'm just throwing silly ideas in the air! --CyclePat 00:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Hipocrite on this one. If we have a great list of people who've never done anything but whack their name on a list and don't even watch this page at all, we're little more than a social club. If we're actually going to link people up with advocates, we need the list to be of people who are actually prepared to do the work. If we blank it now, anyone who is still interested could be perfectly welcome to add their name back, and thus ensuring that we get rid of people who lost interest a year ago. Ambi 03:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree; but I believe that membership ought to be based on more than simple self-selection, hence why it's so important to establish guidelines and some sort of advocate training. Wally 04:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a start, I think. We can move towards some approval mechanism as the next step. Ambi 04:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as that's in the dock, why not? Wally 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanked, readd anyone you feel was removed in error. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The requests page is overburdened

The requests for assistance page is too long to be useful. It should be archived entirely. All requests that are not accepted should be rejected, as they are all old. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree. Any requests made before February 2006 should be archived. There is at least one case that does appear to be open. There is also a long unsigned statement that should be deleted because it is not signed.

Proposal: I didn't even know we had a requests page. I was waiting for someone to contact me. Maybe instead of just sitting around we should have an assignments desk! A crew of let's say 5 that quickly categorize, chooses and filters the cases (of course anyone could help out!)(or better yet the user complaining should do that!). Then a supervisors crew (1 supervisor for every 5-10 members) that assign cases to our specialize AMA members. supervisor must be knowledgeable of about the qualities and faults of their crew. Every AMA member must have at least one category that they specialize in and are willing to take a case. The assignments desk will have handed down to the supervisors crew what it feels is appropriate. What the expected delay should be? How much time should be spent, etc...? etc. etc.... Then give it to the specialized user... (Of course ensuring that it is fairly distributed and that the AMA member is not over worked). If the AMA member (specialize unit) refuses without a valid reason several (I dunno? 4 or 5) or simply doesn't respond to the supervisors request then, as Donald Trump would say... "you're fired!" He must then redo the AMA application process if he wishes to remain a member. --CyclePat 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much need for this. All we need is someone to regularly prune the list and to seek that requests are attended to promptly (as well as perhaps making the requests page more prominent). This is a job best served by the convenor, which is why we need this standoff settled now. Ambi 06:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no opposition to my proposal to let Alex settle it. He did. We might as well consider that done. Of course, the Coordinator will need assistance in both policy and operations; Keith Tyler would be an excellent candidate for either or both such positions. Wally 06:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is silence agreement? I think Keith could clarify what is going on here, he is really the only one that could object to your proposal Wally, but he has not come forward and made any indicationof his position. This is just another example of the apathy in this group that frustrated me so much when I was Coordinator. This just proves to me that the whole idea of having an election and trying to get something going here was a bad idea. Everyone wants to express their opinion but when it comes to getting anything done (I had lots of proposals to have conferences, put together educational materials, create exams for advocates for quality control, etc.) but when it came to anything more than talk, well, I couldn't get anyone to help me. Ha! Good luck guys; maybe I should also be removed as a member because it seems to me that membership in the AMA means practically nothing to most of the members. If anyone wants my help, they know how to get in touch with me. Alex756 15:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I already stated that I was maintaining a silent neutrality re the issues of the election procedure during its operation. Why neither you nor Ambi can understand why a candidate might do that is both beyond me and not my problem. It was my own principle, and I followed it. It shouldn't be up to the candidates how they get chosen. It should be up to the membership. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex756 wrote: Good luck guys; maybe I should also be removed as a member because it seems to me that membership in the AMA means practically nothing to most of the members. Do you mean that it means very little to most of the AMA members, or that it means very little to most Wikipedians? I agree with the latter. I disagree with the former, but I think that every member of the AMA has a different idea of what membership means. (For instance, it may be a way of protesting against the Cabal, or of trying to become a member of the Cabal. It may be a way of ensuring that process, which is important, is followed, or it may be a way of ensuring that the Right Thing is done even if process is bypassed.) Robert McClenon 16:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, who should be responsible for archiving? Is perhaps the real function of archiving to give advocates a right to complain about something? Robert McClenon 16:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Alex, I'm sorry we just couldn't have made you dictator-for-life because it seems to have been what you wanted — especially for that spell towards the middle, and the end, where you disappeared. This would've happened a year ago but for your resistance; now, at least, it's done and we can move on. I don't know what about legitimacy and process offends people here, but I'm not going to try to cater to it. Wally 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, who should be responsible for archiving? Robert McClenon 00:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Exchange of Unpleasant Comments

I must respond to Wally's personal attack on me. I will use the third person, because I do not think I should respond to him directly. I did not want to be dictator for life. I know that there was an attempt to have a previous election and I suggested that just having elections was not going to resolve the issues that the AMA had. I think this election has proven me right. The fact of the matter is that the election is was a tie. There was a suggestion by two people that because of this, I should have the deciding vote. There really was no discussion about this, certainly the people who had voted except for Ambi, Wally and Sam Spade said nothing. I cannot see this as a consensus. If Ambi and Keith cannot work together to resolve this state of uncertainty why should I? I do not think attacking me personally is going to resolve it either. There is obviously a systemic problem with this organization. BTW I never "disappeared". Certainly I did not make a lot of edits, but I logged onto WP every week and I also got emails from people. No one suggested that I had "disappeared" until now. I have been operating out of the same physical and email address for more than seven years; how could anyone suggest that I have disappeared! All this means is that no one bothered to contact me! Just remember, as they say, he who casts the first stone should be guiltless. That does not seem to be the situation here. I have asked for discussions and activites over and over again and people have just ignored me. That is not being a dictator, even a benevolent one which seems to be the fate of Wikipedia land. The bottom line is that most advocates do not care about the AMA, not to help increase the value of the advocacy work that is being done, nor to participate in the organization. Maybe there are too many Americans involved. Alex756 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that there was an attempt to have a previous election and I suggested that just having elections was not going to resolve the issues that the AMA had. It wasn't until Neigel and I raised the matter that elections were due did you make any indication that the AMA needed to have a rash of meetings to solve its problems, or that you saw any problems at all. There were no proclamations of problems or any formation of any projects or initiatives. Not, that is, before the election issue was raised in Jan 2005. On the Coordinator's Desk, it says On this page the coordinator will post concerns., but none were ever posted. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You were offered as a deciding factor in order to offer a settlement. I did not think it was an optimal way for disposing of the situation; however, there is the issue of the amount of time this transitory process has occurred, to which I am not blind. It was already apparent that neither side was willing to concede, so out of a number of third options only that met without resistance.

As for your "availability," I have found it spotty at best, and many messages I have sent you have met without response over a period of several months. I would be committing a sin of omission if I did not wonder whether it were intentional or not; further, I think of our core group, little apathy can be found. Sam cares, I care, Keith cares, Gator cares. Even some of our newest members, Hipocrite and Robert McClenon, have been some of the most active. However, since the meetings held at the first election suggestion, more than a year ago, you've done nothing with the organization and had in many ways left it to simply stew. You did not continue trying to hold meetings once the election proposal got stuck in the mud, and took no part in contacting members or spurring discussion, as the talk page here suggests. Complaining that someone left you out of the loop is disingenuous — as the Coordinator, it was precisely your job to monitor, organize, and know. Call it a personal attack if you like, but I'm quite frankly tired of having the efforts to have some transfer of authority and reconstruction of this organization, in which I and others have done so much work already and prepare to do so much more, savaged by people who themselves could hardly care less. Your abrogation of your duties is no excuse to attack the election that replaced you with, I can only hope, someone who gives a damn. Wally 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is funny that you bring this up now Wally after waffling in this whole election fiasco. First you suggest that I caste the tie breaking vote, then you suggest that there is no "settlement" and suggest that a committee be formed. You never left a message on my talk page stating that I was not responding to you. You never sent me an email. I actively monitor that email account as I am on several confidential internal Wikimedia email lists (as I assist the board and am part of the Wikimedia Legal Department). You cannot blame me for the apathy of the other members. I held three meetings and asked other members to become involved. No one came forward to assist me. You are now just complaining because you can't face up to the fact that the membership of this association IS apathetic. It is not my fault and I do not think it is my job to force people to volunteer just because I thought up this project. If you want to leave this association then do. I have decided to remove my name from the membership list because I think it is dangerous to be involved in an association that has members that attack someone who only had good hopes for what we were doing here, I would rather not be associated with this group. Alex756 04:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not desire an extended pissing contest, so I'll be brief. I offered several alternatives to settle the dispute in the hopes that the two disputants would both accept one of them. From the beginning I endorsed having you cast a deciding vote, and re-endorsed it in the end as a consensus measure, after which it was adopted.

I never left a message on your talk page stating that you weren't replying to me, this is true, mostly due to your failure to reply to my initial talk page messages. Leaving more hardly seemed any sort of solution. I did not send any e-mails because I did not think it propritous.

I do not blame you for member apathy; you are quite right that it is not your fault. I blame you for Coordinator apathy, and for doing nothing more than holding meetings in lieu of just holding the damn election a year ago like we all wanted. I offered proposals to bring some reform to this organization, as did others. You refused to hear any of them and instead baubled on about meetings, until we all just got fed up. Hence the problem of member apathy: there was no way we could get anything changed, or even done. You were the Coordinator; you did not coordinate. Hence my criticism.

However, I am happy with the result of the election, and continue to endorse having you cast the deciding vote as the most appropriate solution to the impasse. Anything else is just bullshit, I suppose. Wally 09:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Hipocrite said that the requests page was overburdened and should be archived. I tried to discuss the details of its archiving. Then there was an uncivil personal exchange. I would like to go back to the original topic. Who should do the archiving? I would suggest that requests that have been made in February 2006 should not be archived unless they have been accepted or overtaken by events. (In one case, for instance, the requester was blocked as a sockpuppet.) Who should do the archiving?

Archived. Please return anything I archived innapropriately to the main page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Civility

BE CIVIL is a basic Wikipedia policy. As advocates, we will work with editors who have been uncivil, and will try to speak on their behalf. We should set an example for them and others of civility rather than arguing about the history of this association. Robert McClenon 12:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How Do Requests Get Made?

I know of two ways that editors can request Advocate assistance. The obvious one is by posting to the Requests talk page. The other way is, of course, by contacting the advocate directly (e.g., via his talk page or email address), possibly because the advocate has been involved in the dispute. Are there any other undocumented back doors that get Advocates assigned to people? (I have a reason for asking this, but will be discreet about it.) Robert McClenon 19:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There are none, to my knowledge, simply because that's those ways satisfy all conditions. On the requests page gets it taken care of more broadly and quickly; asking an individual advocate makes it more private. That can be done via talk-page or e-mail. Another way, I suppose, is through a third party, though that's not a situation I've encountered. Wally 23:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What Wally said. Could this be clarified on the main page at all? Ambi 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The main original duty of the coordinator is to keep an eye on the requests page, and help connect requests to advocates. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Cabal

Dear Advocates: I have recently founded a new initiative, Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal, and I thought it best to inform the advocates here that I have done so; any feedback on this new initiative, or indeed assistance as advocates, would be greatly welcomed. Thank you, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I rememebr there being resistance to us doing any soirt of mediation work becuase of the mediation cabal. It doesn;t look like we're being afforded the same monopoly.

I ask, now that we have new coordinator, that we revisit the proposal put forth my Izehar adn myself regarding revamping the AMA.Gator (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, it wasn't that I resisted the AMA doing mediation work because the Medcab was already doing it; it was because the AMA was meant to be to provide advocates, not generalised dispute resolution, and never did I state that either the Medcab or Medcom had monopoly over mediation. Remember, after all, that the Medcab was created after the Medcom was already in existence; the Arbcab is merely intended to provide a less formal avenue for requesting an advocate, which is actually quite a different service to what the AMA is providing. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of would-be advocates who wouldn't wish to be involved in all the political folderol involved with the AMA. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for revitalising the AMA

This prosal faield to gain consens last time by avote of 10-10 after it was suggested that it should not be done until after a new coordinator is elected. Now that that is done, I woud ask that we revisit this well thought and thoroughly discussed proposla for reforming the AMA.Gator (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

This is a proposal for the revitalisation of the AMA. It goes into detail on how things should work.

Tasks undertaken by the AMA

1. Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties find a solution to their dispute)
2. Neutral Evaluation (stating an opinion)
3. Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
4. Appeals (to blocks and/or ArbCom decisions)

Application process

• Tasks 1 and 2 above will require consent from all parties.
• Applications will be made on the page where they are made now, and should be made using a standard template.

==Example Application==
===Requested service===
===Involved parties====
===Brief description of circumstances (with word limit)===
===Evidence of all parties' consent (if applicable)===

• If an application has not been accepted within 72 hours, it will be rejected. The parties can reapply no earlier than one week from date of rejection.
• Acceptance by an advocate will be done by notification on all parties talk pages.
• An advocate may not withdraw from a case that he/she has accepted except in the following circumstances:
  • The advocate has given seven day's notice of his intention to withdraw to all parties and on the discussion page of the requests page.
  • Three days before the advocate actually withdraws, the original request must be re-entered on to the requests page and will remain there for the full 72 hours or until another advocate accepts the case.
  • The applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to such an extent that it would be unfair for him/her to withdraw his/her services.
    • "Services" includes future services which the advocate has agreed to supply by accepting the case.
    • It is presumed that the applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to the said extent. This presumption is reversed once evidence to the contrary is produced.
• Failure to comply with these regulations will be subject to comments from the Association membership and may result in suspension of membership or expulsion from the Association.
• Perfect service and the desired result of the parties can not be guaranteed.

Member votes

• The sole decision making process for the AMA is a member vote.
• Member votes may be called by any member.
• Member votes last for a set period of time and only the votes of advocates who have chosen to participate will be taken into account.
• The sole criterion for eligibility to vote is to be a member of at least ten days standing.
• Member votes work on a first past the post basis.

Coordination

• The AMA is a democratic organisation and all decisions about its operation are made by members of at least ten days standing.
• The nominal head of the AMA is the Coordinator.
• The Coordinator is assisted by two Deputy-Coordinators who may take his place, should he/she be absent when his presence is required.

Elections

• The Coordinator and the Deputy Coordinators are elected by direct vote of all eligible members.
  • Eligible members are members of at least ten days standing.
• In the election each member has one vote.
• The candidate who receives the most votes is elected Coordinator.
• The two candidates with the most votes after the Coordinator are elected Deputy Coordinators

Acquisition, suspension and termination of membership

• Membership is open to anyone except those who have explicitly been excluded by a member vote.
• Membership can be suspended by a member vote.
• Membership can be terminated by a member vote.
• Membership can be terminated on the request (i.e. removing one's name from the list).

Miscellaneous provisions

• A user should decline to act as mediator in a case where the user has previously acted as an advocate.
• A user should decline to act as advocate in a case where the user has previously acted as a mediator.
• A user should decline to act as a mediator if that user has recently acted as an advocate for or against one of the parties in the mediation.
• When participating in mediation, users who are both advocates and mediators should state clearly the capacity in which they are acting.
• Users who are also arbitrators should not serve as advocates while they are members of the Arbitration Committee.

Support

1. Well obviously I do.Gator (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Informal Mediation and Neutral Evaluation are handled elsewhere.
2. I have no objection to informal mediation or to neutral evaluation, which are functions that any editor can provide. However, the withdrawal provisions are too rigid, and can leave an advocate "stuck" with an uncooperative client. Robert McClenon 15:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Per Robert. I also feel that there's too much toe-stepping involved in our undertaking mediation — even if Nicholas Turnbull feels no such compunctions of his own. Wally 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

   The only reason that I started the Advocate Cabal was because of all this voting ad infinitum which didn't appear to be coming to any sort of resolution. I would have otherwise gladly worked as an AMA advocate were it not that I have an inherent distaste for wikipolitics. NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

4. I oppose for reasons unrelated to the others opposing, such as the move towards democracy proposed. Sam Spade 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
5. m:Instruction creep. I favor a very loose AMA with few (if any) restrictions. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
6. oppose, i feel he same here the association should lean towards cabalism rather than anything elseBenon 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Per Robert. A shorter timeframe for withdrawing, perhaps? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
8. oppose- per above reasions Brian | (Talk) 01:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

1. Despite the above, I might be willing to support this proposal if there were more stringent requirements for membership. I really think we ought to refashion ourselves more like a guild than a voluntary organization that people use to make themselves look more active, as it were. Plus, if we introduce a training element to advocacy, advocates will be better prepared to deal with the ArbCom and with steps in the dispute resolution process. I remember when I took my first case, I didn't even know the steps in dispute resolution, and had to learn them as I went along. That should not be what younger members need to go through. Perhaps apprenticeship?
2. I agree with the spirit of the above unsigned comment, but would never agree to some aspects opf the proposed policy. Sam Spade 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; the comment was from me, and I intended to sign it. I do so now. Wally 06:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

1. After my experiences with the Mediation Cabal, I concur with Wally. Disorganization and open-door policies don't help anyone except those who don't really need help. There needs to be some sort of standard, or at least, some sort of training or review. Maybe amateur good samaritans can help mop up the fatuous calls for help, but there are real issues that need real assistance. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I probably should have done this sooner, but I just spammed the members in order to get more input. Just thought that ya'll would like to know. Sorry about that.Gator (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancillary Proposal Regarding Membership Criteria

Since we have people coming round due to Gator's postings, I propose that:

Membership in the Association remain voluntary but no longer be merely limited to affiliation — that is, we should define membership more stringently than simply all those who sign-up;

Those interested in membership will thenceforth be compelled to gain it by the following process:

First, a prospective member should apply for an apprenticeship to an AMA member in good standing. No application for apprenticeship will be denied, save if the prospective member is determined to be a nuisance or uncivil or has a reputation thereof, via the ratification board set up to handle their application detailed in point three. In the case of no member in good standing being available, the Coordinator will take steps to ensure the prospective member receives training;

Second, a prospective member will be apprenticed to an AMA member in good standing for a period of not less than three months and not more than six, during which they shall assist the member in their duties;

Third, a prospective member will, upon completing this training period, have their appointment as a full AMA member go before a ratification board, to consist of an odd number of AMA members chaired by the Coordinator. This ratification board will be responsible for all aspects of a particular candidates' case, including their initial application for apprenticeship, and their accession to full member status.

Fourth, a prospective member will be administered an examination of some sort on their familiarity with AMA and ArbCom procedures and also good advocate behavior, as determined by forthcoming advocate guidelines. The answers to this examination will be made available to the ratification board, which will grade them as a whole and take them into account. A prospective member will further be asked to offer a short statement, in their own words, why they feel they're ready to be considered a member in good standing, which the board will also take into account.

Fifth, the AMA member to which the prospective member is apprenticed will offer a confidential written statement to the ratification board with their thoughts on the prospective member and their suitability to serve as an advocate. The ratification board will take this into account.

Sixth, the ratification board will vote on the prospective member. A majority vote will suffice to have the advocate declared an AMA member. The Coordinator's vote must either be supportive or abstinant; should they vote against a prospective member, they will be vetoed. Should this occur, or should the ratification board vote down the prospective member, they may with the support of two AMA members in good standing appeal to the AMA as a whole, who will vote on the member, two-thirds in favor (of those voting, not of all members) sufficing to override the board.

Present AMA members will be grandfathered into the organization, and may take advantage of this via either substantial activity within the organization or having been engaged as an advocate in at least one case (this case need not necessarily have gone before the ArbCom). Those who do not or cannot do so may reapply for admission via the method above.

AMA members have the right and duty to serve on ratification boards. Members will serve at least once in six months. Members are obligated to serve on a ratification board should the Coordinator or an appointed deputy request it; though they may exercise one "free deferral" per year. In addition, everytime a member volunteers to serve on a ratification board and does so, they may receive an additional deferral.

AMA members may not be compelled to take any cases; however, members the Coordinator judges to be "malingering," or declining cases simply out of sloth or the desire to be a member of the organization but not to participate in it, may be suspended at their discretion for no longer than three months. The Coordinator may never dismiss a member on their own authority, however; only a two-thirds vote of the organization may do this. Members have the right to take leave of absences at any time, for a period up to and including eight months a year.

Any member in good standing has the right to hold any position within the organization should their peers judge them worthy; no further criteria than that for membership may be asked or considered.

I'm going to be unorthodox and, before asking for a vote, request amendments and comments. If you have an amendment, please specify the section to which it might go.

Comments

Any proposal to define membership criteria as being anything other than "Put your name here" and "show up when you can" is a bad idea. There is a disturbing trend--not just on Wikipedia, but in society at large--to formalize and instutionalize phenonema that were previously spontaneous and informal. Too much order reduces flexibility and makes things less fun.

An individual who only wants to represent someone every now and then should not be forbidden from participating in our organization. People have different schedules and levels of commitment, and as long as the work they do do is good, why should we care how much work they do? Kurt Weber 12:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not here to have fun; we're here to produce an encyclopedia and ensure that it's done well, while in the process entertaining every viewpoint available on a subject, mainstream or not. If one has fun doing that, so much the better — if not they ought to get involved in something else.

Also, the proposal above specifically makes reference to the fact that an advocate would not even need to be available to work for eight of the twelve months of the year, and there's no requirement that they be participating even then. However, your point is still a valid one — care to offer an amendment? :) Wally 21:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do care to offer an amendment, and it consists of removing the entire thing. You appear to be applying the woefully incorrect Tony Sidaway school thought to the AMA--that it's not just enough that people do good work when they do any work at all; they must be doing a certain amount of work and they must be doing it for the "right" reasons. This is absurd. Why do you care how much work people do as long as the work they do do is good? There are several legitimate reasons to "decline cases out of sloth", first and foremost of which is THIS IS NOBODY'S DAY JOB. It is a hobby. If nobody's enjoying it, no one's going to do it. It's ridiculous to have to follow a Byzantine maze of rules and codes to take some time off from participating on a fucking website (or one particular part of it). Kurt Weber 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why, what a productive comment. Someone can write a "good" article that is hopelessly biased. Check out the circumcision articles if you don't believe me. Motive is important, and if you intend to be in this organization how much you do is as important as what and why if this is to be anymore than a dysfunctional resume credit. Wally 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment against instruction creep, I also think that some standards and structure are important to an organization such as this. As far as fun, I don't think that doing work for the mission of AMA is done for fun, but done because it improves the encyclopedia. Which, perhaps, improves the fun for everyone as an effect. WP:DR is generally not fun at all, but that doesn't make it unnecessary. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm available to help any wikipedian in any way they need help to become a better editor or to resolve any sort of difficulty they are having. I oppose any rules or regulations which would restrict my ability to do so. I oppose any other qualifications to AMA membership besides the willingness to help editors to become a better editor or to resolve any sort of difficulty they are having. I propose that we try to simplify the process of running the AMA as much as possible.Pedant 04:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's already simple. The problem is that it's not working. We're here to help our clients, not to ensure we have an easy time helping. Wally 19:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

So what qualifies as a "member in good standing"? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I purposely left that open. What do you think? Wally 05:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I think that would need to be defined first. I am highly ambivalent on such notions. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite

I noticed that you have retired your user name. Is it OK if we remove that name from the members list as we are now only including active members? We won't do anything unless we don't hear from you, but if you'd like to include your new user name and continue your membership that'd be great. Let us know.Gator (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is our new Coordinator?

Anyone? Wally 22:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I've had a really busy bout of real life, and most of what wikitime I've had has been taken up with dealing with one particularly querulous sockpuppeteer, though thankfully that's just been dealt with. I know I haven't been living up to what I said I'd do, and if you want to replace me I entirely understand, but I will try to do better. Ambi 02:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No one's replacing anybody, or talking about it. You were elected per an agreed upon procedure, which stated in part that your term would be not less than four months while we got back on our feet.

I just wanted to encourage you to comment on some of the proposals that have been offered, and perhaps to promulgate some so we can keep moving. Real life is hardly avoidable simply because of Wikipedian commitments, and we can't fault you for it. However, perhaps a deputy might help the cause? Keith is still floating about, if I recall. Wally 03:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The AMA needs all the help it can get, from the co-ordinator on down. I'd like to see Keith as invlved as possible. Sam Spade 22:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Meeting proposal

Since the proposals offered so far have been nonstarters and the reform is not getting underway, I propose we have an IRC meeting of the sort we've had before, with one caveat — everyone must come with a proposal, no matter how sketchy or nebulous, about how to improve the organization. We'll vote on each at the meeting, and those that pass will gain implementation. Hopefully that might allow for some work to be done.

Anyone have a specific date that might be good? I'm in Eastern Time, US, and can meet pretty much whenever on any Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Wally 19:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, me too...just not weekdays from 6am-5pm. --Osbus 14:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no preference on what time we should meet on Fri/Sat/Sun. Preferably later in the night, Eastern time USA. But that is only because I'm up that late on the weekends. I dunno what I'll bring idea-wise, but I'll try and come up with something. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A complaint

I keep getting requests for an advocate, even though I have not been an AMA member for at least 2 years. I note that my name does not appear on the list of members. Miguel 11:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly would you like us to do about it? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I wonder whether a list of "former members" wouldn't make matters even worse, even with a disclaimer to not contact us about mediation. I am really puzzled as to where all these requests [just two in 2006 actually, but rather puzzling since I have all but vanishe dfrom the 'pedia over the last 18 months] are coming from. Miguel 23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you were recommended... ;) --Osbus 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Outside :EN?

What are members' feelings on how to handle requests involving disputes on non-:en WPs? Some things come to mind:

• We are primarily EN and are not officially qualified to work in other languages
• Other WPs have their own DR procedures (do these tend to differ from EN's?)
• Leave it up to the other WPs to have their own specific AMAs
• Leave it open depending on whether a language-capable advocate exists, but no guarantees (not that there are any anyway)

Other thoughts? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think if we individually want to handle it, of course we should, but not in any affiliation with the AMA. --Osbus 02:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Formation

This is to tell you that the Wikipedia:Justice Court has been set up to maintain a list of bad admins and act as a early warning system. We are accepting application for personnel here.Geo.plrd 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Justice Court ~Kylu (u|t) 03:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

---

There appears to be an administrator using a wiki-tool that's designed to remove vandalism instances, for personal uses. Evidence pertinent to a Cabal session has vanished from pages and history.

See: Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Meditation cabal request

Can someone investigate? Signed, anonoumous.

Resignation

I think it's about time I did the right thing and threw in the towel here. I was really keen to help improve the AMA's services a few months ago, but personal life changed dramatically (including with it a curtailing of internet access) and I simply haven't had the opportunity or desire to do what I should have since. As such, I'm resigning as AMA coordinator effective immediately. I think it's only fair that KeithTyler should, if still interested, take over as of now. Rebecca 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

With Rebecca's resignation, and the pages here going silent and somewhat discombobulated, I'd say it's more than time for the AMA to pick itself up by the bootstraps. A lot of cleaning up needs to be done here, and we need to band back together and see if we can get this organization more organized :-) I'm taking it upon myself to send a message to each AMA member listed a talk page message to see if we can get a roll call as to who is still "active," so we can update the list. Once we know who's here and working, I strongly suggest that we hold an election to get a new Coordinator and designate our Deputies. People need Advocates. What does everyone think? אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea Steve. I'm all for it Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm sad to see Ambi/rebbeca leave us here, i think that the AMA needs a large re-structuring including the designating of a new codinator Benon 22:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for new Coordinator

I think it is time to elect the new Coordinator. I nominate Steve Caruso for the now vacant spot. He taken charge of the AMA redo and has rose to the occassion wonderfully Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am truly honored by your nomination, Aeon. :-) If no one objects and we are concretely on our way towards a new election, I accept. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 03:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, kid. You're gonna need it. Wally 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the nomination and move to install Steve Caruso as the interim Coordinator. Geo. 20:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Election Where should it be held?

Should we do the election here on this talk page, creat a new one or have it at the Cooradinators Desk? Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Aeon Resigning

Hello you all. I became a member of the Mediation Cabal and therefore think that I should resign from the AMA for the time being. It has ben cool and in I may return in the future to be an advocate again but I feel that my skills would be better put to use has an informal Mediator instead. Well see you around the Wiki. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Logo Looks Like AA?

Anyone notice that the "M" of the AMA, since it is taken up by the two "A's", causes the logo to read AA when glanced at? In fact, it may be advisable to provide alcohol abstension advice to wikipedians, so that an assumption that the logo is for Alcoholics_Anonymous would also be correct. Scytheml 03:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)