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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Although there has been a huge amount of comment here on this MfD, more recently that comment has not been germane to the question as to whether this page is deleted. There has been much personal comment and argument entirely unrelated to the question, and it is frankly impossible for this discussion (given its current length) to yield any valuable purpose. Thus, I am closing this discussion now as is clear this discussion is no longer serving the purpose of gaining consensus. Although the simple majority for this discussion was Delete/Esperanzify, there is insufficient evidence for Wikipedia consensus to do so. As a consequence, for the time being, I will undertake no closing administrative action regarding these pages. I leave the question to others as to what the next course of action to take will be; I personally feel MfD is probably not the place to discuss this. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates 1.1 You didn't see this heading, right? 1.2 Oops, H5 did it again 1.3 <Insert witty title here> 1.4 section break 1.5 Comment by CyclePat 1.6 Arbitrary section break 1.7 Section break -- substance 1.8 Checking actual performance 1.9 section break 1.10 Editor Assistance proposal 1.11 Fork speedy deleted 1.12 Very Helpful 1.13 Extended invitation 1.14 What we actually do at the AMA 1.15 Votestacking 1.16 Editor assistance 1.17 "Redo from Start" (MS-DOS-derived doctrine) 1.18 Show me the evidence against the AMA

[edit] Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

This MfD was suggested by multiple people on WP:AN. Specific reasons include the beauracratic and lawyerish nature of the AMA, and that the most useful of its functions can be served by the help desk. The AMA tends to be more divisive than anything. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider the subpages, related categories, and templates to be part of this. If you believe any specific subpages should be kept/deleted/changed, please comment to that effect. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For full discussion see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

• Delete and Subpages Also. This particular program, by its nature, is divisive to the project. We have an entire community willing to assist new users in the areas within the scope of AMA, I do not believe a program dedicated to this is needed or healthy. We have an encyclopedia to write. This, AMA, is not the way. Best regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Request for clarification: Please given an example or fuller explanation of how AMA is "divisive". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• The very definition of advocacy states that one would argue for a case. In order to argue or plead, there must be an adversarial environment. Advisor would not be divisive, advocacy, is by nature and definition. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tag historical. There is no reason to delete Wikipedia-space project pages with significant history, but I agree with the sentiment that the AMA is rather like Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiLawyering. --tjstrf talk 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • See What Advocacy is NOT : "Advocates should at all times stand against WikiLawyering." User:Pedant 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • also this from the AMA Advocacy Handbook, under 'How to be a good advocate':

      "Don't abuse your tools

      "Being a good Advocate requires you to know Wikipedia policy, guidelines and customs. Think of policies as tools and know what tools are at your disposal, but don't abuse them. Nobody likes to be hammered on by a wikilawyer quoting policy to them.

      "Advocacy is a voluntary process, and just as you are donating your time, so is everyone else. Nobody has to talk to you, or help you, or even acknowlege you, so while being firm, be gentle as well. Remember WP:JERK."

    • --User:Pedant 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'd be interested in that project. As long as there's a demand for it, people will "wikilawyer". Just H 01:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Request for clarification: Please given an example of how AMA has wikilawyered. E.g., can you cite a particular ArbCom case in which AMA was disruptive? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Esperanzify. The AMA has a long and entirely infamous record of wikilawyering and pettifogging when it comes to Arbitration in particular, and a similar record when it comes to the rest of the project in general. Anything useful it does do - i.e bringing the occasional newbie in line with policy - could be done by a help desk. Too often, this has been a support network for trolls, which we don't need. More later. Concordia and Esperanza were shut down via MfD: plenty of Wikiprojects have been deleted via MfD. This is the right venue. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Some more - That nicely sums up what is wrong with the AMA: advocates only care about winning disputes, not getting the right outcome, how wrong is that - this comment by an Arbitrator confirms just what a disaster the AMA has been at ArbCom, this thread yields this comment:

    "Advocates have no formal status during arbitration (or, stated another way - they are the same as everybody else). In the past, they have shown themselves clearly and conclusively to be impediments to the arbitration process. In cannot think of a single case they have helped in any way. In short, the AMA is useless. Raul654 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)".

    Then we have this disruptive farce on behalf of a community-banned troll, stuff like this surpasses even Esperanza's worst bureaucracy. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • See this: a stated goal of the AMA is to resolve disputes without further dispute resolution procedures such as arbitration, rather than to disrupt an arbitration. User:Pedant 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Meeting/December 2006 makes for interesting reading doesn't it. There was even a proposal (rejected, in fairness) for a Bar Association. --kingboyk 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Esperanzify including subpages and template. I didn't intend for my post to result in an MFD. Apologies to the "advocates" who actually took the time to write to me and explain their position in a nice way; this is in no way retaliation. Disclaimer out of the way, I don't believe this is healthy for Wikipedia. We have channels for helping newbies, we have dispute resolution processes, we even have something resembling a court. This "WikiProject" seems far too divisive and quasi-legal to me; indeed, it's name suggests lawyers and courtrooms, with "desired outcomes" and what have you. I know from my experiences today that some of the folks involved have very good faith, but this just isn't what Wikipedia should be about. --kingboyk 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is totally absurd to think AMA people would try to get the desired result of the requester unconditionally. I've seen cases when AMA rejected outrightly those disruptive users, such as this. Wooyi 01:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Several people have said that this should be tagged historical rather than deleted, so that Wikipedians may in the future learn from mistakes of this project and I think there's some validity in that. My suggestion is that an archive of selected cases could be kept. It's really the infrastructure that needs to go imho. --kingboyk 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge with adopt-a-user. Largely agree with the beauracratic comment, medcab operates using significantly fewer pages and with continuous discussion, instead of quarterly meetings. However, in my view, this is fairly trivial and could be resolved quickly. Regarding the other criticism, also concur, the AMA is slightly lawyerish in tone. Merging with adopt-a-use would hopefully resolve this. Addhoc 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Esperanzafy, that is, mark this historical, stub or delete subpages. AMA involvement in cases has, in my experience, been one of two things: useless, or actively unhelpful. I am sure we need a system of some sort, but this is not it. Check through past cases, you will see well-meaning and enthusiastic AMA advocates (a word which in itself is as un-Wikipedia as you get, they should be assistants not advocates) taking up cases on behalf of trolls, and in the process pissing off people who thought they had dealt with the troll, only to find it popping up again with reinforcements. AMA involvement in ArbCom cases has never, as far as I can tell, yielded a good result. I have sent people the way of AMA, and I profoundly regret it. Yes, we undoubtedly need a place where people can go to be assisted through difficult times, but that is not what AMA does, what AMA all too often does is to advocate for problem users rather than explain to them why their behaviour is a problem. Please, please shut it down. Esperanza was Mostly Harmless but distracting; AMA is in many cases actively harmful. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Request for clarification: Please given an example of how AMA has wikilawyered and been "useless, or actively unhelpful". E.g., can you cite a particular ArbCom case in which AMA was disruptive? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Esperanzafy unhelpful to the encyclopedia per JzG. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As this, sadly, is not the pile on it should have been, allow me to present some reasons. I attempted to solve the AMA approximately a year ago, ironically, just around the time that there was a proposal to introduce furious wikilawyering. You can find the majority of my efforts at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive3 and Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive2. I was first told to wait until after their "coordinator" "election" was over. I was deemed "ineligible" for their coordinator election because I had not joined the group early enough. The intransigence to providing positive examples was just as prevalent then - see Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive2#Justify. This institution is nothing but an enabler for disruptive users like User:CyclePat to play in the MMORPE - the Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Encyclopedia - the user I refer to is so off his rocker that he believes he was helpful to the encyclopedia due to his assistance in getting MONGO desysoped for cplot. In fact, during that arbitration, CyclePat made it perfectly clear that after that he should have been banned indefinently as a meatpuppet of a banned user - he harassed MONGO across the encyclopedia, taunting him. If that's the "success," I'd hate to see the "failure." Like I asked a year ago - "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." 19:31, 19 January 2006." Status - unch. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    "not once has an AMA advocate worked to inform users who come seeking assistance how better to operate within the system"

    • Not true, see this:

      "As your advocate, my official advice to you is to cool down a bit and behave appropriately. I cannot represent you well if you are doing the same thing you are complaining about others doing to you. In fact it would be very worthwhile for you to apologise to anyone to whom you have behaved rudely, and to take great care to act appropriately."

    • and: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Chuck Marean:

      "Category:Categories is the page I think you are looking for, (if you want the top category with descending categories inside it) Special:Categories is automatically compiled by alphabetical order, and is not intended as "the top of the category tree" (because every single category, subcategory and sub-sub-sub-subcategory on wikipedia is in Special:Categories is "on the root")... in fact categories on wikipedia do not and are not intended to form a tree, they form a 'more general directed acyclic graph' (sort of) and dozens of category structures coexist.

      "For instance, if you want a category tree, you can use this:<categorytree>Categories</categorytree>.

      "Would you please read WP:Categories before we go further, it will help us both with our discussion. I'm going to spend a couple days researching this, so take your time and read that whole page, please.

      "If you want to change how categories work on wikipedia, like if you have an idea to make them better, Wikipedia talk:Categorization is the place to discuss it with all the editors involved in making categories work better. I can work with you on the civility issues, that's simple, but your edits to try to improve the category structure aren't doing what I think you want them to do. So you really need to read up a bit on that, after you do it will be simpler for me to help you with that issue as well.

      "Meanwhile, try not to get in any fights with other editors, it will make it easier on me. Thanks User:Pedant 05:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)]"

    • and:This short page which pretty much covers what a good advocacy case looks like when the advocee is in the wrong.
    • The main thing I started doing advocacy for (before it was even called that, I just called it 'helping' and I'll continue to help where I can regardless of changes to Wikipedia) was to help "inform users who come seeking assistance how better to operate within the system" as you put it. User:Pedant 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You didn't see this heading, right?

• Keep for now. There is no need to rush to delete here, it has existed long enough to warrant some discussion by its members on how to make the organization work for the benefit of Wikipedia. As with the first MfD of Esperanza, we should not close the organization, but give an opportunity for the organization members to find a useful purpose or structure for itself. After a reasonable time, if it fails to do this, we can have a second MfD, similar to the 2nd and final Esperanza MfD in which deletion was supported by those both within and without the organization. A decision to delete now just seems a bit premature. NoSeptember 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that the original idea of the project may prevent it from improving. An advocate, as it seems to be understood, is very nearly a lawyer. If the project were to properly correct this, it really would be something completely different from the AMA (i.e. a wholly different project). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't care what the original idea was. We have a group of people who I assume want to have a useful project. I say give them a chance to figure out how to do that. If they can't figure it out, then I expect the members themselves will support a future MfD, just as most Esperanzans did the second MfD for that organization. Not rushing may produce a better resolution either way. NoSeptember 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: (1) I would be willing to delete AMA in favor of a superior alternative, but in the interim, it's an important place where disaffected users can go to get advice about resolving their disputes within Wikipedia norms. For examples, see my advocacies for Doc Halloween or OMaHTLD -- relatively trivial, but examples of the AMA's unrecognized successes -- new users who needed hand-holding to cool down and understand their options in an ongoing dispute. Even my least successful advocacy -- WikiWoo was, IMHO, a worthwhile attempt to cool down the editor and help him resolve his disputes. If the AMA is gone, what's the alternative? A hope that similar users might ask the help desk? (2) The AMA could use a couple cautionary notes against Wikilawyering and towards dispute resolution, and there should be a community understanding that advocates do not receive any special privileges. (3) This MFD is arbcomm-centric, which is understandable, because arbcomm is where most of us see the AMA. However, I would prefer to see a more systematic analysis of how AMA does in the dozens of other requests it receives each month before deleting it. Thanks, TheronJ 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  (I am switching to Esperanza-fy - I'll put a new entry at the bottom of the page) TheronJ 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This MFD is offensive and disgusting. Members deserve the freedom to have experienced advocates instead of surrogate parents assigned by elites. And I tire, very much tire, of the pejorative term "wikilawyering" to describe when advocates make reasoned, logical arguments that arbs don't want to be bothered with in their kangaroo courts. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think, for many, you just summed up why the AMA should go. We cannot have an organization purporting to help with DR at such drastic odds from the ArbCom, the final stage of dispute resolution. "Kangaroo courts"? The ArbCom enjoys great respect. The AMA does not. For the AMA to describe the ArbCom as a kangaroo court while trying to interfere in arbitration...if that isn't counterproductive, I don't know what is. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment And you sum up the problem that I see. The ArbCom always has the ball. They aren't tied to any rule of law, and can even change their own policies at will. The Arbs want advocates to put a leash on members and whap them on the nose and say "bad member" so that all those messy arbitrations can be railroaded through with minimal trouble. That, of course, isn't advocacy, and never was. Yes, DR will be faster without meddling member's advocates. It will be easier for the arbs, easier for the admins bringing cases, etc. That in no way implies that it is good for the project. Imagine just how American justice would go if we shot all the lawyers. It would be nice and fast. But not good, and definitely not fair. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • A main reason for the existence of the AMA is to resolve disputes by consensus and without resort to escalation to an arbitration. This does 2 things:
        1. relieves some of the load from the ArbCom, which should hopefully allow them to spend the time necessary to arbitrate fairly and
        2. (most importantly) Arbitration is arbitrary and is not a community consensus process. Consensus is a core, immutable policy of the community and has been so from the beginning. Advocates work towards a consensus resolution of most problems 'before they reach arbitration', and it is entirely unfair to judge the AMA by what happens during arbitration. Disputes that can be resolved without arbitration have a closer adherence to the core policy of a consensus-driven open source project. Arbitary decisions imposed by the ArbCom are by their very nature not open source consensus decisions. Dispute resolutions at early stages of dispute are superior to resolutions at later stages. This is why the AMA exists. from the from the Guide to Advocacy: "Generally, an advocate can be considered the second step in an escalating series of steps which make up the dispute resolution process (the first step of course being making a good faith effort to resolve the issue in question, or preferably, to attempt to work without conflict in the first place). In many cases, formal dispute resolution processes are not necessary when parties make a good faith effort at resolution through the advocacy process. In a best-case scenario (which is actually not uncommon), the Advocate will -- using their good judgement, patience, and tact -- facilitate a satisfactory resolution without the need for further escalation." That sums it up. User:Pedant 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Esperanzify. The only reason Wikipedia exists is to build a high quality encyclopedia. AMA is very far from that — so far, in fact, that it doesn't even have sight of it anymore. This and many other WP space pages need to be sent to permanent archive. All efforts should be redirected as directly as possible into improving articles. The above is a great example of why. - Taxman ^Talk 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't believe that the quality of any project or organization is improved or benefited by an arbitrary authority that is left unchallenged. Quality does not lie simply in the domain of the finished product, but in every single structure in its development and management from the top down. AMA is an important part of the overall quality of the project; not just the content of articles in mainspace. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. When did AMA appoint itself as the 'check and balance' to the arbcom and community? Or am I misreading your comment? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No one is being appointed anything. But I stand by my past assertions that a non-admin user is at a huge disadvantage in an ArbCom proceeding. Who is there to help them? AMA is the only body that does so. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • • WP:5P. It doesn't take much to get a grasp of things. We don't need lawyers, we just need people to do a little reading. Admins don't have any inherent advantage over other users. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tag historical. I smell a neologism. bibliomaniac15 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Stong Keep This is a project that has helped a lot with solving disputes. --James, La gloria è a dio 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Any examples, given that everyone (including me) has at least one to the contrary? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've cited some examples that were very straightforward and easy to understand above. The thing is, a lot of what advocates do as advocates is 'below the radar' and never becomes any sort of formal "dispute", members are commonly contacted by email and the issue never even gets logged as a 'request' for assistance, the problem is just solved quietly and informally with no disruption to the Wikipedia. We're writing an encyclopedia after all, not establishing a new system of government. The cases that are handled as requests from the AMA are commonly handled almost invisibly as well. For instance, a content dispute generates a request for assistance, then advocates and non-advocates spot the issue, see that a good solution would be to edit the article in question in a way that both sides of the dispute find satisfactory. The edited text is then a stable edit. Later on, the case is closed, or not. At any rate, the dispute is resolved. Editing continuse normally. The encyclopedia is improved. Nobody notices that this is because there is a place for someone to ask for help with a dispute. Remember, it's what happens in the article namespace that is what matters, not what sort of things are going on backstage, the reason we have wikipedia is because we are writing an encyclopedia. All else is secondary, the AMA, the ArbCom, deletions outside of the article namespace, none of that really matters. Any group working to improve the content of the article namespace has a better claim to being right, within the goals and core policies by which this institution was founded, than a group that is not working to improve the article namespace. User:Pedant 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• AMA is not being nice to me i know that

Well i got no email notifacation of why my Case was Removed OR why I was Kicked off of AMA OR when.1337 H4XZ0R 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Esperanzify I recently had a case/request where I was a sort of party. My impression was that it seems too bureaucratic and pointless in the regard that the helpdesk is better suited for most of it's functions. Garion96 (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, or Esperanzanify per Guy above. My only experience with AMA has been negative, with an advocate working hard on behalf of a notorious troll. This does not contribute to either writing the encyclopedia, or helping the community that does so.Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - My experience with AMA has been negative also, and also with an advocate working on the behalf of a sockpuppet/meatpuppet ring and making inappropriate entries in Arbitration that had to be removed. Mattisse 21:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I am so sorry to hear that. At least give AMA some time to reform itself. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Mattisse, I'd have to remind you the principle of presumption of innocence, AMA is supposed to advocate for a person who requested for help unless the user is proven to be sock/meatpuppet. In my knowledge some alleged sock/meatpuppets are wrongly accused. Wooyi 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment, but again, this isn't a court of law. Advocates should be able to judge when a troll is obviously a troll, and drop it. Advocates should offer advice and act on policy, not try to defend their 'clients' with all their might. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment I agree with you that there are some advocates that are really screwed up on these. But it doesn't mean the whole project should be thrown out. Any project/institution/groups on Wikipedia may have screwed up users in them. When an administrator does something wrong, he personally would be warned/desysoped, but it has nothing to do with all other admins. Same for the advocates. If any advocate in AMA acts unreasonably, the AMA should evict him, not shut down itself. Wooyi 01:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment - the advocate in question above emailed me yesterday that he saw his job as to advocate for his client and AGF and nothing more. This is a receipt for aiding and abetting a sock puppet. The Advocate took his client at face value -- a person who had been editing only a few weeks and was immediately on the AFD pages, moving categories around, embroiled in controversy with established and respected editors, and showed a sophisticated knowledge of Wikipedia, posting complaints frequently on ANI. After the advocate "sprung" his client from arbitration, he did no follow up on the client and did not even know the client had "left" because of subsequent sock puppet charges and a pending ban almost immediately after. In fact, some two months later when the arbitration closed, he sent his client a note of congratulations. To me, this seems irresponsible. --Mattisse 16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes I noticed it in my talk page, I'm still looking into more stuff myself, and might change opinions later. Thank you! Currently I think the Wikipedia:Editor assistance may replace AMA one day and will not indiscriminately "advocate" for bad users, and it is a good idea. So on the condition the editor assistance to be established, I will not object tagging AMA historical. Wooyi 16:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oops, H5 did it again

• Esperanzify or delete, whichever is closest. My only personal experience was someone wasting my time and theirs by asking me about a blocking which was obviously correct and had become irrelevant weeks ago anyway, and this seems to have been about the same for everyone at every level, even up to Arbcom. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Esperanzate If someone has a better idea fine but in this form it's pretty useless. We already have venues for policy help and mediation between editors. In this case it's organizing for organizing's sake, in other words, making a bureaucracy that replicates functions that already exists elsewhere. RxS 22:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Esperanzize, never ever delete things like this. I'm sure some good does come of this, but it is far outweighed by the problems which come from treating processes as things where you need an advocate to help you present your case. And that doesn't even consider the problem that if a troll requests advocacy, someone will accept it on the grounds of "well, everyone deserves an experienced advocate!" Oh, and people being advocates for anything which doesn't touch on user conduct is just completely absurd. -Amarkov moo! 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  Oh, and there's the problem that advocates will not give up a case if they are convinced that the position they supported was wrong. Rational people admit error, but advocates can not do that, because they're too busy being advocates for one particular editor. -Amarkov moo! 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• EsperanzifyId have to agree Esper.1337 H4XZ0R 09:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• What Moreschi said above pretty much sums up my position, actually. The AMA cares not about truth, but about winning. That is bad, period. -Amarkov moo! 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Way to stereotype, and WP:ABF. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Question: Mr. Tyler, would you consider "kangaroo courts" an example of assuming good faith? Would you consider that phrase, applied to ArbCom in general, to be precise in each case, or stereotyping? Amarkov's comments appear to be based on multiple cited examples from a number of experienced editors, and don't appear to be countered by any evidence except brief mentions of advocates' being helpful in trivial cases. Some of your comments in this discussion have showed far more assumptions of bad faith. Barno 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  It's not a matter of intention by the Arbs. The arbs act in good faith. But I think it's partially misguided. The tendency is to favor admins, to eschew reasoned debate, to selectively ignore or end-run written policy in the name of expediency and "spirit" of policy -- which I find to be a rather subjective yardstick. Intention aside, those are attributes of a kangaroo court, not one that respects a rule of law or objectivity. IME, it's not uncommon for arbs to enter a case with a preconception. I don't believe that they are usually neutral on a case, and moreover, it's not expected of them. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  ArbCom isn't a kangaroo court because it's not a court at all. It's about solving disputes, not following rules of law and adhering to policies. If it appears that ArbCom favors admins, it's probably because the ArbCom favors trusted users who usually act appropriately. Non-admins who demonstrate these attributes will also likely be "favored" by the ArbCom, especially over individuals who disrupt the project. ChazBeckett 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  Allow me to quote the Wikipedia article on rule of law: The rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedure. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. Emphasis mine. The notion of a rule of law is expressly designed to improve and balance a system of dispute resolution. That article is good reading. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  You know what's even better reading? WP:NOT a system of law. Chris cheese whine 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It seems that this project is extremely counter-productive. Arkon 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Tag Historical This is, by its very name, not dispute resolution: it is advocacy. Advocacy is "the act of arguing on behalf of a particular issue, idea or person" not the act of resolving anything; nor ensuring key policies are followed; nor ensuring anything else which could possibly benefit the encyclopedia. Rather, an advocate takes a "side" and argues that side - fine for debate club, damaging to the encyclopedia. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment By all means, name a reference work that is damaged by debate and persistence. Or rather, name one that succeeds without it. I don't think "debate is damaging to the encyclopedia" has merit. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Here is an example of an AMA problem: User:Jefferson Anderson requests an AMA Advocate for another blocked user, User: Frater Xyzzy here. Opening request for another user Shortly after they are accused of being sockpuppets. User:Jefferson Anderson leaves before he is blocked/banned because of Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson. User:Jefferson Anderson had an advocate who got him out of an Arbitration case shortly before the above request. Continuing harassment by Jefferson Anderson He would have been blocked in Arbitration if he had not left. User: Frater Xyzzy was blocked indefinitely. Mattisse 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Esperanzize I don't have a strong preference as long as AMA ceases to exist. It's not the worth the time, effort or hassle to try to overhaul the current system. Far easier to create something new from the ground up. ChazBeckett 00:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] <Insert witty title here>

• Historic-ize I disagree that this is detrimental, but if nobody wants to do it, I don't see the reason to keep it around, and I don't have enough interest to disagree with the consensus above that this is a dying project. Better to learn from the past than sweep it under the rug, even if it is the past rather than the present. Just H 01:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Esperanzify I agree with the arguments for this, but more importantly, how many times in my life will I ever haver recourse to use the word "Esperanzify"? :) YechielMan 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - For newer users involved in disputes, this is a great service. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Esperanzafy extensive history should be kept as an important part of 'pedia history, as well as something to point to when someone asks why wikilawyering is so bad. This should have been closed down long ago. -M^ask 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Can be quite helpful, good safety valve for people who need advice. Advocates don't always formally represent people, sometimes they just give advice. If you think there should be limits on what advocates can do, I would reccomend proposing them. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's very hard to limit what advocates can do, because that entails limiting anyone from doing them. There's no reasonable way to selectively limit people who belong to a certain group. -Amarkov moo! 04:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Mark it historical or as Esperanza. Ever since I joined Wikipedia, I've seen the AMA do absolutely nothing in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Horrible implementation of an imperfect idea. Ral315 » 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Esparanzafy/Whatever with deep regret. Not necessarily a bad idea in principle which could perhaps be made to work at some point in the future, but I think that it has so lost its way per above that it would be easier to just start again. David Mestel^(Talk) 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Shoot it, burn it, bury it, and salt the earth afterwards. Raul654 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Esperanzify, Esperanzafy, Esperanzize, Esperanzate, whatever you want to call it. No valid use. – Chacor 05:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Deleting the AMA pages won't kill the bogeyman of the "wikilawyer". No doubt there will continue to be people willing to help others through the DR process and even help them present evidence and arguments in Med and Arb. That can only be done via a consensus change in policy that turns arb cases into closed proceedings. That being said, it ought to be acceptable for those people who do take it upon themselves to help Wikipedia members in that way to have a place in Wikipedia to coordinate, much like any other group of members with a common project purpose. WINP. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's perfectly acceptable to help people out in the dispute resolution process. That doesn't make acceptable to assign advocates to a person, who will support that person and that person alone, not the entire community. For instance, consider the example given somewhere above, where instead of doing the thing which would help Wikipedia as a whole, an advocate helped an abusive user avoid a ban. That is not good, but if an advocate ends up getting an abusive user, that's what is expected. -Amarkov moo! 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • How does this notion apply to adopt-a-member or mentorship? Regardless, advocate-assigning isn't universal. Some advocates pick and choose from the open requests. AFAIK it was only after a lot of requests were being left behind that some people volunteered to be assigned. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, so "assigned" was the wrong word. That is completely not the substance of my argument, so why you chose to respond to it I don't know. -Amarkov moo! 22:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Esperanzify Per the many examples above of this being used as a troll enabling service. --Folantin 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Terminate. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we do not need an organization that promotes wikilawyering. By which I mean delete every subpage and replace the main page with a short essay explaining what happened, like on ESP. >Radiant< 08:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Ok, I am an AMA advocate, I'm not happy with our performances neither at arbitration and that's the reason why we founded the Arb-Team; to improve ourselves. But I must remind yourself that no complaints have been issued by MedCom, nor MedCab. If we were so bad, useless, etc., mediators would have said it already. A deletion of AMA would mean to lose an attempt to regularize collaboration at disputes, and the proliferation of trolls. The sad fact is that currently we don't have the former support by ArbCom (yes, we were supported by ArbCom at such a point that one of a coordinators that led us was an arbitrator: User:Ambi).
• We do mistakes, we're humans, but not useless idiots; not because an administrator has banned someone wrongly means that the whole "administrator" concept should be deleted. I find this MfD one of the worst attacks against us, some votes corrosive ("Esperanzify", as if Esperanza's deletion would have been something good...) and it's quite annoying that an arbitrator like you, Raul654, make a comment like "Shoot it, burn it, bury it, and salt the earth afterwards"... what does "salt the earth afterwards"? A ban to all prominent members? If you fear that someone will recreate the AMA with another name, you don't know who we are: we respect consensus decisions because we respect WP's "laws".
• Ok, maybe I should calm down a bit. If the final decision happens to be a deletion, I please beg to respect the advocees' requests. I.e. to delete us after having answered the requests that remain unanswered (and obviously, in such a cse, we would not accept any new request).
• Hopefully, Wikipedia's community will know what to do, as nearly always does; but I please ask for no more offenses nor corrosive comments; just express your legitime opinions. If AMA is deleted, maybe I return to MedCab. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 08:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "If you fear that someone will recreate the AMA with another name, you don't know who we are: we respect consensus decisions because we respect WP's "laws". - So much for respecting consensus... Raul654 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I disagree that the abolition of the AMA will lead to the proliferation of trolls. The AMA's big problem is that it has been used as a free wikilawyer service by the trolls. Minus the AMA, we'll be able to kick the trolls out minus what they perceive as their Court of Appeal - and way too many advocates have been quite happy to wikilawyer on behalf of the trolls! Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section break

• Make Inactive Mark with {{historical}} as it has been the subject of deletions in the past, possibly apply full protection if the consensus is delete, this to prevent recreation.Tellyaddict 09:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I have contacted Jimbo asking for his opinion. No, just for his opinion and knowing that there is 50% that he might also be against AMA. But I want to know whatever he thinks on this.
• Message to all AMA advocates in the discussion: If, regretly, AMA is deleted, we must compromise ourselves to respect the MfD result and not try to recreate with another name. We were born from WP's consensus and we can die because of WP's consensus too. Sorry, these are the rules of this game. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • MFD is the wrong way to do it. The pro-delete sentiment as I read it here is not that there is something wrong with the page itself, but with advocacy, particularly in arbitration. This whole MFD exemplifies to me why advocacy is important -- people abusing the wrong process to end-run proper consensus, because process is bad. If it is advocacy that is the problem, then what they really should do is get a policy change barring third parties from speaking on behalf of a member in any WP:DR process (or just ArbCom). That'll probably never fly, but an MFD on the project page of the group doing it is easier. Divide and conquer. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This statement above is the perfect embodiment of how the AMA goes about presenting a case. Notice that Keith doesn't actually attempt to respond to the numerous and accurate complaints about the AMA, but instead (a) complains that this is the wrong venue, and (b) makes unsubstantiated/outright ludicrous complaints that this is an end-run around consensus when it is quite clear what the consensus is. The problem is not advocacy. Advocacy implies presenting substantive arguments that address the facts of the matter, and that's something the AMA just doesn't do. Raul654 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I personally don't have time to respond to uncited anecdotal stories of isolated incidents that somehow prove how all advocacy is always bad. Should AMA start digging up Arb cases that were unfair, and then submit MFD for RFAr? (No, of course not, that would be deemed WP:POINT.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There are lots of cases - both cited and uncited - on this page, neither of which have been responded to. As to the arbcom - the arbcom gets it right more often than not. The same cannot be said of the AMA, which (per my previous comment, during the last time the AMA tried to insinuite its way into the arbitration process) has yet to be anything but an impediment. Raul654 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Esperanzify needless, non-constructive pettifogging bureaucracy. Good riddance.--cj | talk 09:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Disband and reform. It's obvious at this point that AMA is going to be disbanded, barring something absolutely exceptional occurring. The complaints regarding bureaucracy, lawyering, helping problem users who are obviously unwilling to reform, and other problems are, I believe, well-founded. However, I believe that AMA does offer some good which the help desk cannot, in terms of one-on-one help for newer users who are not intending to be trolls or disruptive, but may be in a bit over their head in a debate or other situation. In these cases, an experienced user helping to guide the user through what can often be a confusing combination of policies, procedures, and unwritten expectations can prevent frustration, disruption, and missteps rather than solving them. In that vein, I've proposed a solution which I think will cut out the bad and disruptive parts while retaining the good aspects. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, if needed tag as historical. But this is in wikipedia space with a substanial history, there is no great need for outright deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 10:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep, advocacy is very important. We need much more of it, actually. Everyking 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Useful for members who need assistance and have difficulty making their voices heard. Jeffpw 10:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you cite a few examples of users who had difficulty making their voices heard and were assisted by AMA? ChazBeckett 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not sure this was ever a lot of help to anyone, though I give credit to some of those that offered their services to try and aide others. We have evolved beyond the point that this is helpful.--MONGO 13:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comm.: makes me this fall into the "helpful"? I know, it is a diff from a time in which Arbitration process was different (without Workshop). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - That "helpful" diff is from over two years ago. It is dated February 4, 2005. Mattisse 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Tag as historical, delete subpages per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and per the preponderance of evidence of the association's effects. I must disagree with Everyking and opine that Wikipedia needs less advocacy, and more cited factual information that isn't C-list celebrity trivia. Barno 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know what C-list celebrity trivia has to do with it, but I assure you that I am in favor of more cited factual information as well. It is perplexing that you'd present the two as if they're in conflict. Everyking 14:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That goes back to when we had frequent AfD conflicts in which you consistently voted "Keep" for breakout articles of "C-list celebrity trivia" which often were sourced only from press releases or unreliable scandal-sheet newspapers. You frequently advocated for inclusion against policy, without providing policy-based reasons or succeeding in changing the policies. Now you claimed that advocacy is very important and that WP needs more, without providing a policy-based reason or a set of practical experiences like Neigel von Teighen or Moreschi or Hipocrite or Mattisse did. If I'd seen you make some detailed arguments as to "why we need more" on past policy-discussion pages or on this one, your comment would carry more weight; but chiming in with "Strong keep, WP:ILIKEIT" is no more helpful here than in a discussion about some bleachjob starlet's weekly record sales charts. Barno 14:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Clearly, this project serves a useful purpose for many users and it is of long standing. I'm very disturbed by the notion that asking for the rules to be consistently applied is "wikilawyering" and the related concept that any unpopular user is a "troll." These concepts, both of which violate WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, are widely abused and should probably be eliminated from our wikivocabulary over time. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I asked above, could you provide a few examples of AMA advocacy serving a useful purpose? ChazBeckett 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Previously active process. If we want to shut it down (I have no opinion of whether it should be), we should tag it as historical. But there is no point deleting this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you have an objection to Esperanzifing it? ChazBeckett
    • I do object to deleting the subpages, even if AMA is shut down. I know that advocates were used in some arbitration requests, and the subpages serve a purpose as a historical record. This was not merely a social club. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - To reiterate ChazBeckett's two requests above, could you provide a few examples of AMA advocacy serving a useful purpose? Mattisse 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. My main experience with AMA involved an arbitration. The ArbCom is able to see through wikilawyering, so that wasn't a real problem. However, it was helpful in that the advocee would have made much fuss about favoritism toward more experienced or familiar editors. As this character's Advocate played every angle on his behalf, most claims he could make of a biased arbitration were exhausted — from this, I suspect the effect of AMA is to reduce trolling substantially, as trolls prefer to rage against unfair elites. I cannot comment about Advocates in other situations, and I see how advocates can try one's patience, but in my experience AMA is in net a strong positive. / edgarde 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - A troll may prefer to rage, but when his Advocate is doing the talking for him in Arbitration, as happened in a recent Arbitration case, the troll/sockpuppet's true style is hidden. He seemed reasonable and was allowed to leave the Arbitration. Mattisse 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Trolls just like to troll. Wikipedia doesn't have an unfair elite either. In fact, it's ridiculously easy to become an admin and part of the "elite" here. Just follow the rules and guidelines, put some time and effort in, get to know the other admins, and you're in. Piece of cake. --kingboyk 16:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Disband and reform/merge with adopt a user. AMA is probably damaged beyond repair. Even when advocates are trying their best to act in good faith/properly, the immediate assumption is that they are Wikilawyers trying to butt in and assert some sort of authority. With all the problems that have occurred (which seem to be continuing), it's probably best to either start over with some sort of reform to address the big problems or merge it into an existing group, perhaps using the merger to expand the scope of the group it's merged into for the better. It's probably a good idea that we do everything possible to steer away from a group that sounds like a bunch of Wikilawyers. As lame as it sounds, I was thinking something on the lines of "Peer Tutors or "Peer Helpers" or something. Words like "advocate" put people off too much. Seraphimblade's idea sounds good. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - As a deputy co-ordinator of the AMA until Wednesday, I can see where both lines of opinion have been formed, both arguing for deletion and equally for the retaining of the AMA. Let's get this straight, the AMA exists to help other users, to step in and help solve disputes editors may have about certain parts of articles and how best they're written. The trouble is, the AMA can seem to be falling into the trap of becoming beaurocratic, mired in red tape as it were. With the benefit of hindsight, looking at the last meeting, held in December 2006, I can see where mistakes were made: a third deputy co-ordinator may not have been necessary, while I persoanlly am glad a bar council was never agreed on. I agree with the point that advocates may be seen as acting in the position of lawyers, something that was always raised at meetings. Advocates do a fantastic job, dispute resolution can be an incredibly demanding experience and to volunteer to help as such should be commended. I do however feel that the AMA should be retained, though seriously cleaned up, slimmed down, whatever it takes to make it an efficient and useful part of Wikipedia. Improving links with the Arbcom to create a good partnership is in my view essential. For the most part, a clear direction needs to be decided, and acted upon. Wikiwoohoo 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Tag historical The bottom line is that AMA does not work the way it is currently structured and it never will work under the current arbitration system (which I don't see changing anytime soon). I don't see a reason to completely wipe all record of AMA out of existence though. That said, Seraphimblade may have a good idea and certainly a conversation of some sort of "helper" system could be explored, but the current AMA structure is far enough from that to make a start from scratch a fairly good idea.--Isotope23 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep we have no need to get rid of a longstanding Wikipedia institution. At least if we want to shut it down we need to have consent from the members of that institution. There are some institutions on Wikipedia that some people think they are unnecessary, but many people have some sort of attachment to those institutions like AMA they belong to, like many of us feel toward the Wikipedia:Department of Fun. Also, this project is very useful as many users who have grievance can get help when admins ignore their issues. Wooyi 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Support the above suggestion Tag historical. Although I already voted to delete above, I subsequently used an AMA diff to demonstrate a sockpuppet's manipulation of AMA. Therefore, I support keeping the pages available fo use as evidence. Mattisse 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep: The way to fix alleged wikilawyering or other problems, is to address those problems with the users who are being problematic, not with attacking a Wikiproject out of hand (and what the heck is all this Esperanzify business? Since when did the Big Green E wikiproject become a !vote in and of itself? Anyway, the real point of my S.k. !vote here is taht AMA does a lot more than actually helping individuals in specific ArbCom cases. I turned to AMA simply for advice, on the proper dispute resolution path/steps, and got it fairly promptly (the dispute in question is now in fact being mediated by the Mediation Cabal, and I think everyone has found that very helpful. Wouldn't happened probably if I hadn't gotten advice from AMA on whether to go that route, or Mediation Committee (who I now know would have refused to take the case because it is a policy page), and so on. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Tag historical as per Isotope23 and others above. DES ^(talk) 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Whatever action is required, shut down. Wikipedia is not a system of law, so we don't need lawyers. Chris cheese whine 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by CyclePat

(the above section was created to help users find and add comments)

Keep, what I am about to do is advocacy. What seems to be happening is an editorial dispute. As per wikipolicy WP:DEL, It is inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution. The only possible reason I could see deletion is if we take to extreme the wording of WP:DEL, which states, "content is not attributable to a reliable source, especially if the content is negative in tone." However I fail to see a negative tone for AMA and to see any violations of WP:DEL. We must move on to WP:MFD. The nomination for deletion, per WP:MFD is justified. It is stated:

This process (MFD) is also sometimes used to discuss shutting down undesirable projects on Wikipedia, although this is rare and used in extreme cases only. Sometimes when such projects are shut down, their pages are kept for historical reasons.

What I fail to see is why this would be an extreme case and "what is undesirable" about AMA? As AMA advocates we should be able to list plenty of "desirable" outcomes.

• I have personally enjoyed the benefits of gaining some fair knowledge of wikirules and guiding wikipedians towards understanding these rules.
• I have created fair debates on wiki policy and rules which have lead some administrators to think twice.
• I fight for the rights of some users that have been blocked... as a non-administrator I have helped unblock 2 users.
• Recently I have helped establish a teams section and within that section a Arb-com team was formed.
• AMA is a discussion area where we can help people understand the rules. If we are called to delete this area we must have a better reason than WP:BURO, because than we could consider WP:AN to be a bureaucracy.

I personally see this as a backwards ass step and couldn't believe that this was being nominated for deletion. This is one step of those "deletionist" and "arb-com" administrators to try and grab more power. Be forwarned that "One should try to locate power at the extreme of its exercise, where it is always less legal in character... One needs to be nominalistic, no doubt: power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society."

Michel Foucault (). History of Sexuality, p.93.

If disbanded I invite all members, as per userpage policy, to utilize my user-subpage in continuing the effort to help others advocate their rights. The link will be user:CyclePat/AMA. Secondly... Obviously I am not happy on how this ended up here. As per WP:CON wikipedia is built on concensus... a dispute on AMA content should probably go somewhere else where may have an inteligent discussion on how to perhaps improve AMA and wikipedia instead of destroying it. --CyclePat 19:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On a further note: I find it highly prejudicial, discrimanatory and hypocritical to say that AMA members are wikilawering and helping out trolls or sockpuppets. I find it offencive and lacking in WP:AGF. In fact there is nothing wrong in having a legitimate sockpuppet if you read up on the rules. However, I for one faced a difficult case several months ago... I call it big brother. I told this user what he can do and he failed to listen. One user/admin asked me if I could send the IP information from his email. Mind you, this was very stressfull time but it worked out fine. In sending the IP the admin was able to determine via checkuser. Essentially, I killed my own "client" for those of you that want to call me a wikilawyer. This exemple demonstrates my willingness to comply and "to serve and find the truth" (Servitum et veritas). Ever since then, it appears that some administrators have had an issue with AMA trying to help people out. I am not a troll. I am not here to be someones puppet. I am here to represent the common concensus that exist on wikipedia which is expressed and discussed in wikipolicies. Admin's should generally use a little common sense to evaluate what we are saying because we may be a little off topic, but in short we are advocating what the community believes and has agreed upon. An AMA is really only there to remind you of the rules and concensus which has been established in wikipedia and instead of being stuburn in some of your decission perhaps taking a second would be constructive to community. The more rules... the more complicated it gets... the more you need an advocate --CyclePat 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That explains why you were trying to help out User:Cplot...you were defending a troll and your efforts to do so against me were harassment, not advocacy. Not once did you publically advise him on how to better adapt to wiki culture, instead you supported his harassment and enjoined in it yourself. Personally, I suspect with oddball lone votes such as this one, one wonders what your purpose here really is.--MONGO 14:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"The more rules... the more complicated it gets... the more you need" someone who will give you a fair and balanced opinion, help you when you are confused, and suggest all of your options and recommend your next course. An "advocate" (a person who speaks or writes in support or defense of a person, cause, etc. dictionary.com) does not convey such a sense; instead, it conveys, "I'll support and defend you no matter that what you are doing may be plain wrong and contrary to policy." And, in most but not all of the AMA cases I've examined, that is exactly what the filing user expected to get. When he or she did not get that, he or she just never spoke to the "advocate" again. Sounds pretty redundant, bureaucratic, and a waste of time and effort expended in good faith by said "advocates". BTW, your repost of content is a copyright violation and thus eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12 and is a repost and thus eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4. --Iamunknown 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right... advocates are called to support a cause. Not everyone supports necessarilly a person. In my case I support wikirules. That means I am supporting the opinion of many people. Some users are sometimes blocked and have no clue where to go and require assistance to vocalize their need for help. AMA has proven itself usefull and has an AMA track log to show for it's previous cases. Can you please explain the copyright violation of WP:CSD#G12 and WP:CSD#G4. In fact #12 says something along the line that if it has the same copyrules as wikipedia then it should be okay... and section WP:CSD#G4 states that if the content is being userfied it is perfectly okay! I though at first you were refering to my afformentioned quote about "power" but I think perhaps you are refering to user:CyclePat/AMA? --CyclePat 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

G12 because you haven't met the licensing requirement of the GFDL, G4 because you userfied the content, not the closing administrator. --Iamunknown 03:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That list at the top makes it sound like that Esperanza thing that was closed down -- like some kind of clubhouse for AMA members and lists all the fun things you do, but does not say much about helping Wikipedia. A lot of "I have"s. Hope you weren't the one responsible for unblocking the sockpuppets we've been having trouble with. I know of at least one sockpuppet that has appealed to you to be unblocked and was consequently unblocked briefly. Mattisse 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza was indeed closed down. You may to view relevant information at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza/Archive1, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza (the two deletion discussions) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-02/Experanza. Nah, I did not unblock any sockpuppets; I'm not an administrator and cannot do that. --Iamunknown 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Usually Advocates harass an Admin into doing it or know an Admin who they are friendly with and will comply with such requests. Advocates are usually good at wording a request in such a way that it sounds plausible to an Admin, especially an Admin with not too much experience. --Mattisse 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not personally a "deletionist arbcom administrator", and find that label mildly annoying. I do think that this should be deleted outright. Not stepped around, not mended, but nuked. We don't need advocates at all. Arbcom is not a court of law, nor is any process here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by old windy bear moved to the bottom so that it may be chronological and also receive due attention. --Iamunknown 03:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

• Note to closing admin, this revision was live on Template:AMA alerts from 17:42 to 19:20, when I submitted this revision. --Iamunknown 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also Keith Tyler has been informing certain users about this MfD on their talk pages [1]. Many of them seem to be members of the AMA. Whether this violates WP:CANVASS or not I don't know, but it's worth mentioning. Perhaps some clarification might be helpful. --Folantin 19:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • See WP:ANI for discussion about the canvassing. Don't think that's on. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • We are members of AMA and in such... anyone that has become a member has accepted that he may be contacted by another AMA members regarding any issue. There are only a couple users that have expressed that they do not wish to be contacted and we respect their wishes. --CyclePat 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • From WP:CANVASS: "Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote". No, in fact, contacting AMA members in this manner is especially bad, per the guideline. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • AMA members are part of the WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice. They have subscribed to be advised on issues pertaining to AMA. Furthermore, your theory is flawed, as per WP:MFD, explained in my afformentioned comment section, "This process is also sometimes used to discuss shutting down undesirable projects." You may raise a valide point but in fact, I direct you toward WP:Voting is evil and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and would like to inform you and the clossing admin, that we are supposed to be having a discussion not a vote. I believe my friend may have raised a valid point for a deletion appeal... there is a mis-interpretation on what this process is trully supposed to be. Furthermore another flaw is that AMA members have their own disctinc opinions... you fail to elaborate to common denominator of all the members except for the fact that they are all members. If you look at the members section you will see that we have some users that support deletionist and some that support inclusionists. Nevertheless, more importantly, if the above users are not aware that this is supposed to be a discussion perhaps we should restart this entire vote/discussion and ensure that the users are aware that they should not be voting. --CyclePat 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict w/Tom) CyclePat, I would sincerely appreciate if your tone could be a little less nasty. Suggesting that this discussion is a "mockery" and a "vote/discussion" without providing any suggestions on how to move forward is unproductive, insulting to those who are offering their suggestions in good faith but may simply disagree with you and simply nasty and unnecessarily provocative. It is a discussion; just because some contributors to the discussion disagree with you does not make it anything other than a discussion in which you disagree with some contributors. Oh, and no need to reply to this; I really do not intend to continue this thread because I feel that XfD is the most similar to a and most appropriate discussion we can maintain on wiki and, unless you suggest some alternative, any further discussion is moot. --Iamunknown 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Please accept my appologies if I have insult you with my previous smirk comment on the deletion process. My head was stuck in the sand... my lack of perception and perhaps WP:AGF failed to regonize that the comments provided after the bold keep and delete are generally agreed upon to be fair comments. XfD is probably a fair thread to continue a discussion of such a nature but AMA has a board of directors and is perfectly capable of calling a meeting. RfC is a procedure that could be used to gather incites on how to improve AMA and perhaps (as it appears many have suggested, merge with another entity). All I'm saying is that having a referendum isn't always the best way... and dispute resolution may have even been a way of resolving any issues someone had or has with AMA. --CyclePat 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not bipartisan to send a bunch of notices only to AMA members. Any amount of process arguments don't nullify that. An MfD is a discussion, and I don't see too many "Blah per Some Guy" "votes". -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • An RfC would be partisan right and would allow for more time to make any appropriate suggested changes and implementation which could be discussed within an AMA meeting. If implentation fails then I myself would even vote to archive and disband AMA. --CyclePat 22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It is sometimes acceptable to contact a limited group of editors with regard to a specific issue as long as it does not become disruptive. This is more acceptable if they have made an unsolicited request to be kept informed, And each of the members I commented to have "Available" on their AMA member status page. So this is covered -- and cleared -- by WP:CANVASS. Yet, my act of doing so was reported on in three different places. Now I really feel picked on. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 04:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, if you will have nothing more to do with AMA in any capacity I will reconsider my support for deleting it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom, that's an interesting proposal. Can you explain in further details why you would reconsider your original opinion if I was no longer an AMA member? --CyclePat 22:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because your persistent advocacy of Cplot did the project no good and some harm, and I have no doubt you would do the same thing again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I forgot what his name was, thank you. The Cplot was a difficult case to handle, it was my first stuburn sock and a somewhat difficult user. My afformentioned comments, concerning having to kill my client, were actually concerning that case. Despite my warnings and explanation on what to do... and even a request for assistance by other advocates to advise Cplot on what to do, he persited to disrupt. We may have had a case, but really you can't always milk a stone. I believe my investigation of the situation was pretty intense. Because of this investigation I was called to leave a comment in an Arbcom which, my testimony probably did not help user:Mongo. He lost his administrator privileges. That case was a real chalenge and discusting! Now I am glad I listened to the AMA coordinator, I filed an AMA request. My conclusion may be found here. Personnally, I think I tamed Cplot a couple times and probably helped distract him from other possible destructive issues. But I am interested to know why you believe my advocacy for Cplot did some harm? --CyclePat 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your advocacy encouraged him and let him present a cover of legitimancy for his vandalism, trolling, and abuse. Your work on his behalf helped him continue long after he was banned, and I think longer than he otherwise would have. If you want to brag about helping Cplot get Mongo desysopped, go ahead. Your reply can be the last word. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Overly-bureaucratic organization running on the loose? Need a way to dispose of it without modifying history? Introducing the MessedRocker Solution, new old from Galoob Messedrocker! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 00:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break -- substance

Anecdotes can be very powerful. There's no question that a single compelling story can have a very powerful effect on people. A key difficulty with discussing this MfD reasonably is that when the AMA is helpful -- when a dispute gets resolved, or a potential troll is calmed down -- nobody notices; it's just not likely to get on people's radar screens or be something visible. But when there's a problem -- a person given another chance turns out to be a serious troll and does something really disruptive -- it's a huge problem, and everyone notices, and it seems to characterize the whole situation. This situation happens a lot in our ordinary life. We don't notice the firefighters when fires never happen. We don't notice the babies born healthy, but we notice and are very angry at the doctors when a birth is or seems botched. If there is not a person able to bring some sort of calm to the situation and to provide some sort of voice of reason that enables the ocean of invisible good as well as well as droplets of visible bad to be noticed, our decisions can become very distorted. Attempting to provide that balance is a useful function. I would invite the community to look, in a serious way, at a bigger picture, before making a final judgment. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's easily solved by showing us some successful cases. The singular failure to do so far tends to speak volumes does it not? (We are, after all, dealing with advocates; they know how to make a case but so far they're not imho making a much of a case against deletion/closure of the AMA).

On the other hand, just about every admin it seems has a sob or horror story to tell about their involvement with the project. --kingboyk 21:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The above comment and reply was first posted on the talk page. It was later double posted here and the following discussion began. Note that initial commentators here didn't see my comment, which was pasted in at: --kingboyk 23:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To some degree, I might tend to agree though. How often is someone going to post to ANI with "Hey, AMA helped someone out, they did great, no problems, they helped defuse the situation and get the person calmed down."? It's kind of like posting there about admins, for that matter-you're going to hear about the one time they screwed up, not the thousand previous times that they didn't. I think pointing out that selection bias is actually a very fair point. It's the 50-car pileup that makes the evening news, even though millions of people drove that day and didn't get in that wreck. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict with Seraphimblade) I support the afformentioned views of Shirahadasha. --CyclePat 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out here that some people have done this, so please don't start assuming that anyone who doesn't want it deleted hasn't looked hard enough. -Amarkov moo! 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sometimes hard facts are even better than substance. Here is a list of closed cases by AMA. --CyclePat 22:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Here are also some more examples of cases which AMA deals with. Some of them in this category have been closed but are not properly filed. --CyclePat 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The removal of all these pages seems rediculous to me and is perhaps an attempt for someone quickly grap the material we have published and put it as their own. --CyclePat 23:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Lololol. Not only is that an immensely amusing suggestion, it's a mile away from the spirit of WP:AGF. --kingboyk 23:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, now that I look at it... LOL. But you must admit I do have an imaginative brain. Thank God, taking material from a wikipedia article and put it as their own isn't considered malicious... right? If it is then, I shamefully appologize again for my hypothesises : 1) Conspiracy to grab more power by certain administrators. 2) Conspiracy to steal our work (remember if deleted all our edits and attributions are gone... as well as probably creating a big gap in the number of edits many users have made. --CyclePat 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, what humbug - this is a shameful waste of time. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've voted keep but I have some additional things to say. We should not shut down or tag historical, because this project is crucial for wrongly accused vandal/troll/sockpuppet. Whenever an ANI/ArbCom incident happens, and a wrongly accused user is overwhelming attacked without knowing how to explain/defend himself, there must be some place like AMA to speak on behalf of them. We don't need "lawyers" on Wikipedia, but a balancing voice is needed. Also, WP:LAWYER is only an essay, not policy or guidelines, so there is no point to accuse AMA being "wikilawyering" as the term is only used in an essay and not based on a real policy. Wooyi 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Another comment And please never think AMA would accept any case presented by socks/trolls. Look at this one right here, the AMA outrightly rejected a disruptive blocked user. Wooyi 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Another another comment - Not true! Look at Opening request for another user. The case was accepted and the user was unblocked briefly thanks to these efforts but then blocked indefinitely with a notice not to unblock without consulting with the blocking admin. Mattisse 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - Not true again! See this Sockpuppet requests AMA help for blocked sockpuppet Mattisse 17:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checking actual performance

• Comment only: Checked Category:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Closed , there are 131 closed cases. A nice thing about these cases is that each has a quick survey form attached, which allows us to view user happiness with the AMA. I don't really want to walk through all 131 cases. Does anyone have some time to make a summary? Or does such a summary exist? --Kim Bruning 00:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, that's odd! Possibly a selection bias the other way, but ... a random sample of the survey forms that have been filled out shows that people using AMA are generally fairly happy with the process. Maybe my sample is flawed somehow, but so far, that doesn't seem to match up with what's being said here on MFD. <puzzeled look> Any Ideas? --Kim Bruning 00:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering that only 1 of the first 10 (alphabetically) actually responded, I think there's likely some bias due to self-selection. ChazBeckett 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • In addition, is it really valid to judge the process based on how the advocee rates the process? For example, if an advocate wikilawyers a disruptive user out of a ban, and the user gives the process high marks, is this really a success? ChazBeckett 00:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I looked through the first 10 cases. Only one even answer the survey. He gave high ratings but when asked if he would deal with a similar dispute in the future differently, he said he did not know. (My view) He does not sound as if he learned anything but rather that the dispute was settled in his favor. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I looked at about 20 cases at random. If everyone looks at the same first 10, they'll all see the same cases, which won't help much.:-P If everyone grabs say 10 at random, chances are we'll learn something new. I do agree that not everyone fills in the form. In my sample only ~1/4 (or less) of the people actually filled in the forms. --Kim Bruning 00:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, out of the last 15 cases, 2 responded to the survey. As I mentioned above, the response rate is too low and the chance of self-selection bias too high to consider this a valid method of evaluating AMA. ChazBeckett 00:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I looked at 20 cases at random. Less than 10% (3 out of 20) even answered the survey. Of the ones that answered 3 were satisfied but only 2 out of 3 said they would handle the situation differently in the future. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I took another 9 at random (you get strange results if you take any kind of non-random sampling). In this sample, 1/3 had answered the forms, which might possibly be a fluke, if I compare with samples from ChasBeckett and Mattisse --Kim Bruning 00:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
            • (Guess) The only ones who answered were the ones that were satisfied or somewhat satisfied. Many cases seemed to have been closed with no action being taken at all. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Tried another 10. Only 1 answered the form, and was not entirely happy with advocate performance. Several of the non-answered cases were rapidly closed because they had been started by trolls. --Kim Bruning 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Hmmm, Tried another 10, this time, half responded, half didn't. Of the responses, one was only partial, one was all 1's (terrible performance), 2 were ok, and one was all high scores. --Kim Bruning 00:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Kim, selecting based on a username's order in the alphabet is random, since a user's name has no correlation with how likely they are to respond. But it doesn't really matter whether the response rate is 5%, 10% or 33%. Users choose whether they want to respond and this introduces self-selection bias. It's reasonable to assume that users who believe they advanced their position with help from an advocate would give the process a good rating. Whether the advancement of their position actually benefits Wikipedia is a completely different matter. ChazBeckett 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • • I agree with you mostly there. You do have to take selection bias into account. It's not true that there are only positive responses though. I've also seen very negative evaluations now. --Kim Bruning 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Hmmm, By the same argument, this MFD might have some selection bias too. I think someone brought that up earlier
              • So far: I'm guessing that the 10-20% answered level would probably be correct, (there might be 20-30 answered forms total). And now I've been finding more varied replies, including people saying that the AMA sucks. I guess it's a normal survey then (most surveys have low response rates). Possibly someone who is good at analysing statistical data might be able to wring some more info out of this. --Kim Bruning 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Looked through another 10 random cases. 4 answered the survey. 3 were satisfied but only 2 would do anythihg different (one being to ask for an Advocate again). One was extremely unhappy -- extremely. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• (guessing again) I think only somewhat satisfied users, or dissatisfied users bother to answer the survey. On most nothing seems to have happened in the Advocay process. I would take someone about an hour or so to go through all the cases and roughly sort them into something like Satisfied, Disatisfied, Did not answer. I'm not sure it is worth it as the pattern is clear. Few seemed to have learned anything useful. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting outcome, in and of itself. Perhaps several current processes could be tweaked so that users learn more from them. (This would help with the acculturation problems we've been having) --Kim Bruning 01:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There should be more emphasis on teaching. I know with my (first) advocate he did an excellent job, but I only found his interventions by accident, and he never informed me of what he was doing and why. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone criticised me somewhere about not having AFG but I can't figure out how to answer them. AFG protects sockpuppets -- this has been my frequent experience. More emphasis on really helping by teaching removes the AFG issue. Also, it removes the "winning" issue. If AMA educated (I know this is what I asked for in my application) then it could be quite beneficial, in my opinion, without getting into AGF and winning. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not required to AGF in the face of evidence to the contrary. An advocate should not divert attention from this fact. Chris cheese whine 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, Advocates do not investigate. I found out the hard way that this is true. They accept whatever superficial explanation is offered. Sock puppets know how to offer plausible accounts of their behavior with expertise. Advocates accept this and act on it. This does great damage as I have witnessed. Many advocates seem much more inexperienced than the Advotee. Requiring only 3 months experience on Wikipedia to be an Advocate is pitiful. Such a person is in no position to understand the underlying complexities of almost every conflict. Thus well meaning Advocates are easily manipulated. Those users that succeed in this are probably the "satisfied" user. I know that the sockpuppet released from Arbitration because he uttered not a word as his Advocate skillfully spoke for him was extremely satisfied in his questionnaire. Sincere;u. Mattisse 02:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me which sockpuppet it is? Thanks! No meaning to badger you or anything, just inquiring. Wooyi 02:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes. Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Jefferson Anderson Sincerely, Mattisse

• (added later) I should have linked you to this: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson - my mistake - sorry! --Mattisse 13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh thanks. But in that page it was indicated that Jeff Anderson was not a sock according to checkuser, can you explain? Wooyi 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

{unindent) Yes. This has been gone over many places. Jefferson Anderson/Hanuman Das himself called checkuser "pixie dust" when his checkuser against me failed as it showed I was not a sock. One place you can consult is the following - the Arbitration he managed to escape through his Advocate. You can wade through the pages of evidence but the easiest way is to consult the Arbitrators decision: (based on evidence, the crux of which is repeated in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson if you read it carefully.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision
• Decision 2 endorsed by Arbitrators: 2) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same geographic area are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity. Editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of disruptive edits may be treated as a single editor. In the Arbitration Evidence and Workshop there is elaborate analysis that the sockpuppets edited almost exclusively the same articles, edited in complementary time frames, tag-teamed each other to harass other editors, used the same style of editing and the same language etc. Hopes this helps! I can point the exact evidence if you want. It's in the MANY Starwood Arbitration pages. --Mattisse 13:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional quote fromWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson

A checkuser has already been done here. This is a bald attempt to neutralize two out of three parties on the opposing side of a content dispute on Obligations in Freemasonry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jefferson Anderson 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As ALR has noted with the AFD diffs, the situation was peculiar enough to me to warrant an RFCU. The purpose of said RFCU had absolutely nothing to do with Jefferson Anderson; it was to establish a link between the anon IP and Frater Xyzzy, which the user did himself on the RFCU page, because he thought it would get him unblocked. Nevertheless, while the IP claimed not to be hiding, diffs show he rm'ed a prod on the article (by reversion, not removal), then claimed COI on the AfD without disclosing that he was the original "author" (rather, copy and paster) of the article. Given the result, requesting the RFCU was prudent. MSJapan 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you are replying to my comment, I'll respond here. There is no restriction in WP:PROD that prohibits the author of the article from removing the prod tag. It happens all the time on prods that I place. You're not supposed to put the prod back. I always either immediately AfD it or tag it in some other way to get attention. Jefferson Anderson 21:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In context of the previous allegations of sockpuppetry /meatpuppetry involving the tag-team harassment of participants of the Starwood Arb, I suggest that Blnguyen and Thatcher131 be contacted for their opinions before acting, as this is hardly the first time this issue has come up. Same exact behaviour, different articles and editors.- WeniWidiWiki 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You should note that Thatcher131 concluded that no harassment existed. That all the edits and comments were appropriate to address COI issues, "The good news is that, except for the sockpuppetry (both accounts editing several AfDs and the Celtic Paganism article), the edits were (in my unofficial opinion) more or less reasonable as to questioning the appropriateness of the CR Faq as a source", and that the issue was thus dropped from the Starwood arbitration as having nothing whatsoever to do with it. Jefferson Anderson 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That is an improper characterization of events. You left out this part from the same comment:

"The bad news is that while I was analyzing the case I became convinced that Frater and Anderson are the same editor. It may not be proveable in a court, but the evidence is much stronger than is normally required on Wikipedia..." Diff

She should probably speak for herself, though. - WeniWidiWiki 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Which was disproven by checkuser, here. Your following me around with these accusations is probably harassment and I will be taking it to WP:AN/I. Stalker. Jefferson Anderson 22:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Groan.. This is what the second or third time you've made that allegation against other users today? My contrib history speaks for itself - we have very little overlap or even interaction. - WeniWidiWiki 22:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no, I haven't. Point to these accusations if they exist. You are just trying to tar me with a broad brush for reasons of your own. Jefferson Anderson 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

How about MSJapan's userpage? Diff The talk page of Jahbulon HERE? ANI? Diff1, Diff2 Filing an AMA "complaint"? Diff - WeniWidiWiki 23:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, asking another user to be more civil is distinctly different from what you are accusing me of. As for AN/I, MSJapan provably went admin shopping to get Frater Xyzzy blocked again, and his buddy ALR is now trying to silence me in the same way. Pretty low way of trying to win a content dispute, if you ask me. Jefferson Anderson 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

Frater Xyzzy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ekajati. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson Anderson has apparently left Wikipedia ([2]), and at any rate the alleged sockpuppetry is part of an ongoing arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood), so I'm closing this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section break

When I first came on wikipedia I did not know my hat from a tree stump on how to edit, and more importantly, how to discuss the disputed edits, and seek consensus. This particular process, and CyclePat in particular, were absolutely vital in getting my issues resolved, and making me what I hope is a good contributing editor. (someone must think so, I won an assistant coordinator's position in the military project the last six month period, and was asked to run again - the only reason I did not was heart trouble) I cannot overstate how important this particular process was in intervening in constant edit conflicts, (which degenerated into personal nastiness of a degree that is really awful, including threats against my life, et al) Cycle Pat was able to use this to defuse the situation, and worked quietly with me to teach me "wikidpedia Etiquette" in addition to the rules. It is a valuable, and needed, tool. Please keep it. Again, anyone who wishes to check the edit logs can verify how useful this process was in resolving my situation, and helping make me into a competant editor. old windy bear 03:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep he said exactly what I was about to. Keep the Association of Members Advocates for the good of most wikipedians, not just wise ones. --Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 04:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• n.b. If you have come here to offer your thoughts, whether "delete" or "keep" or "Esperanza-ify", stop and consider whether the AMA should be deprecated and Editor Assistance should supersede it. --Iamunknown 04:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep "We have an encyclopedia to write. This, AMA, is not the way." Wrong. We have an encyclopedia to write, and maintain. AMA has proven again and again, this is the way. Dfrg.msc 05:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But would Editor Assistance perform a better job and give off a more appropriate image? --Iamunknown 05:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Why to stop voting I.am.un.known, remember, this is an MFD, voting is approved and you cannot protest. AMA shouldn't be deprecated(again)--Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 05:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Walter, I'm confused. Since when is MfD a vote? Did you notice that template at the top of the page that said "This is not a vote"? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Consensus? When was AMA already deprecated? Why can't I protest? Please, I'm confused, and would appreciate answers to these questions. You'll notice that I have not yet offered my opinion on whether or not AMA should be deleted. I'm trying to decide and would appreciate a discussion with you. --Iamunknown 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Many of the problems being raised here are more a problem of perception than a problem of action. AMA is an informal setup that allows people to find neutral (in their dispute), experienced people who can help two sides come to a solution. There's some debate as to whether it's like having a lawyer, or like having a helper - I am an AMA advocate and frequently get emails from people who see my name on there, and am able to advise them on the best way to proceed. In many cases they've gotten themselves into a muddle through not knowing policy, so it's an excellent chance for me to explain how policy works to them, and often find a way for them to achieve their original aim entirely within policy so as not to upset the balance in the community. In other cases I'm acting fairly neutrally with both sides of a debate, doing research and making calls to decide how to move forward on an article which has become stalled in development because of some minor dispute. I see dealing with these things before they get to RFC (and hopefully, instead of getting to RFC) as being a positive thing. edit: As my comments however indicate, I would support its disposal if Editor Assistance as raised by Iamunknown could be elevated to project space. In effect that was how I saw the AMA's aims anyway. Orderinchaos78 07:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment: that's right: an AMA also advices. Mostly, advice people where to go; and mostly those users try it on their own. But I agree that AMA must reform itself into a descentralized entity based on "specialized" teams. An AMA would be rather a "brand"; each team would decide how to organize itself (if it wants to). Of course, teams will co-op betweem them, share experiences and "train" advocates to help them not to do the mistakes we do right now (I'm proposing this since nearly one year ago). But we need AMA, there must be a place where people can get help for disputes; to merge AMA with another group like Help Desk will decrease Help Desk's efficiency and also advocates'. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: User:Mattisse has presented many records and evidences on this case both there and on my talk page. I read through them and will further look for more evidences to review. Later I may give my final opinion on this. Wooyi 16:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I was requested to work on an article where two editors were revert warring. One went to AMA to get advice. While the advice he was given was good, it did not help him as he did not want to follow it. I suggested he go back and get more advice from AMA but he did not want to. The article was abandoned by everyone involved in frustration. Mattisse 17:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Is there still activity in this WikiProject? If so, keep; simple as that. I'll admit that I'm not happy that the AMA sometimes enables troublemakers on Wikipedia, but I have not seen any evidence that its members are engaged in a clear campaign to harm Wikipedia. And even if they were, this is not the place to decide that issue. -- llywrch 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Assistance proposal

• Comment As the Editor Assistance proposal has seemed to have some approval, I've moved it into project space at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Any thoughts, improvements, or comments are very welcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent proposal! That is how AMA should have worked. Much more informal and less emphasis on "taking sides". I've created a new section heading to encourage discussion on this proposal. ChazBeckett 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal and will not object that EA can supersede AMA. Wooyi 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• It will destroy both EA and AMA. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - the AMA has a clear function on Wikipedia. It is to provide advice to a party in a dispute, in a less formal setting than mediation, and, if necessary, to negotiate with other users on the advocee's behalf. It's often the first stop for new users who've got into a content dispute and are confused by having unfamiliar policies and guidelines quoted in their face by belligerent established users. As to "wikilawyering", that's utterly inaccurate. An advocate is not necessarily there to take the side of their advocee, but to provide fair and neutral advice and to help people. To be honest, I'm really getting fed up with the recent spate of MfDs on various things. When projectspace includes completely useless pages like Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout, which has never been MfD'd, why is everyone so eager to delete miscellaneous pages that do have a practical function? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's very hard for pointless things to do harm, so there's really no hurry to MfD them. Things like this may be doing harm, so people who think they are want to MfD them. Oh, and as for advocates not necessarily being there to take the side of their advocee, you'll have to tell quite a few people about that; many people insist that doing whatever you can to defend your advocee is your duty. -Amarkov moo! 17:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fork speedy deleted

CyclePat's copy-fork of the AMA were tagged for speedy by Hipocrite under g12 and g4, after which there ensued an edit war on multiple pages of editors removing and replacing the tags. Pending outcome of this Mfd, I have deleted the fork in its entirety. In addition to the speedy criteria referenced in the tags, it makes no sense to have a serious Mfd if one of the participants is going to do an end-run around process and continue to run the project proposed here for deletion from his/her userspace. Should the Mfd close as a delete, of course anyone may request Rfu for userfying. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The last thing I know was that I placed {{hangong}} tag... And now it is deleted. I think perhaps you may have skips a couple steps in the deletion of those pages. For those of you wondering, I made an exact copy of the WP:AMA... as per WP:GFDL I have all the rights to copy word for word any GFDL material and republish it under the same licence. The content was properly cited and your ambitious actions, entertained by the idea that this MFD effects those laws via perhaps removing the original copy, are fairly pre-emptive to fact. Furthermore the backup copies which I currently hold will be printed out and perhaps the list of edit saved in pdf format. My plans to republish all the editors names, information will conform GFDL info... (perhaps a link on my personal webspace)... should be sufficient for GFDL. Again, I see no problem with the copyright and ask you to please follow a proper deletion procedure. Finally, I strongly believe you had no right to remove that content from my user page. If what you say is true, the idea of edit waring, then I imagine some users had already begun making a derivitive work... which means we where talking about an new work under GFDL. That's an entire new section. I am asking you to please put all the content back and perhaps we may have a discussion during a regular deletion process in the proper location. (note to others: The content was displayed on my talk page). --CyclePat 05:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Assides from all my afformentioned rhetoric, Wait a minute... I'll probably be able to get a full version. Humm... that would be better but why can't we just Rfu right now? --CyclePat 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a common misconception that one's own user space is the personally property of the person and, as such, they may simply do with it what they will; unfortunately, that is not the case. User space is graciously hosted for you and I at the expense of the Wikimedia Foundation. If what we do with our user space is deemed unacceptable, it is unacceptable and may be deleted. And about the GFDL, you don't have "all the rights to copy word for word any GFDL material and republish it under the same licence," unless you provide due credit to the contributors involved in the work. --Iamunknown 06:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeping a backup does not seem to be a bad idea. Several people have stated they might want to create a viable process that helps people deal with wikipedia. It would be very useful to be able to learn from the past, to be able to do that. --Kim Bruning 12:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very Helpful

• Strong keep As an AMA user I have found it very helpful to me in resolving disputes. The advocates who have worked with me have helped me seek common ground and helped de-escalate volitile editing situations. I have not found them to encourage disputing or lawyering-like behavior. Furthermore, I found the help so useful in calming situations down that I became and advocate myself and work with users to find common ground, help them see how they might be contributing to a dispute and what they can do to enact a more cooperative and collaborative process to build consensus. DPeterson^talk 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per the AMA's own documents we are against wikilawyering, and only exist to help resolve disputes. Very much of the function of the Association's work goes on behind the scenes, we work towards accomplishing a stable consensus edit out of edit wars, and an end to strife toward the goal of producing a better/the best encyclopedia. I cite this section of our documentation as a summary of what we do and how it is best done. If this project is deleted, many of the former members will continue to act as advocates, as we have done since long before the project existed. We believe in helping to resolve disputes, and we work towards a better encyclopedia, with stable text that has been agreed by consensus and nothing more. This project does no harm, and does much good, and should not be deleted. User:Pedant 19:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (a member of the AMA who has helped resolve disputes since before the existence of the AMA and will continue after it is gone.)

• Comment The entirety of the arguments against AMA have to do with arb cases that didn't go the way people wanted them to. What this focus on arb cases does is take away from AMA's work in the other levels of DR. Granted, members are probably more likely to ask for an advocate in ArbCom than at any other step, because they realise how serious Arb actions are, and may even recognize how demanding they are. But AMA does a lot more than provide real, dedicated support to unpopular members in arb cases. They also help in mediations, submit RFCs, polls, present arguments in article debates, etc. WP:DR is not a simple process; each level was designed independently and have their own particular nuances and rigamarole. AMA is dedicated to helping with all levels of that process. Basing its elimination on one's own POV of how certain Arb cases have turned out brushes over its other values to the less-supported members of the community. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Historical and lock I can't stress how strongly I disagree with the statement above. The cases AND actions of AMA editors presented above have shown that AMA has decided that even troll, sockpuppets and vandals need a voice too, and aided in the disruption of WP. They have also repeatedly tried to insinuate them into the RfARB process. The AMA process is no longer useful, if it ever was. SirFozzie 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the process can be very useful, especially for new members who may not understand various Wikipedia conventions. I have found that just bring a neutral/advocate POV to a dispute can help the newbie calm down and become much more collaborative and work to build consensus. DPeterson^talk 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • My final opinion: I've heard many things regarding to this case, and personally analyzed some evidences, even one of the Starwood arbcom. Of course, the misuse of AMA cannot be ignored, but the other side cannot be ignored as well. In my wiki experience I've confronted vandals myself, so I do feel the sentiment underlying the MFD. While it may sound like a good idea to close it down, we cannot assume bad faith on the personnel of AMA either. The institution and rules of AMA may be flawed. So I think the best thing to do is to close down the AMA project page and tag it historical, while establishing the "editor assistance" thing, and the former advocates on AMA would be welcome to join the new project. Sounds like a compromise, good enough? Wooyi 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Wooyi, I too am convinced that editor assistance should supersede AMA as well and would be willing to assist other editors via it. I suggest that we start it regardless the decision made at this MfD. --Iamunknown 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The AMA provides a necessary service. Geo. Talk to me 05:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extended invitation

If worse comes to worse, I extend an invitation to AMA members to continue working at CyclePat.ca. I only have one blog dedicated for electric bicycles but I'm sure we can figure something out. My company will gladly provide the necessary web-hosting. We can discuss how to this on my user talk page. Hopefully though, we won't have to come to that! --CyclePat 05:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• CyclePat, I understand that you really want to maintain the integrity of the AMA. Please understand that most of those who are recommending a view contrary to keeping are not recommending that it be deleted, just that it be tagged as historical and superseded by a more neutral organization. Have you considered the details of Wikipedia:Editor assistance? What do you think of the proposal? --Iamunknown 05:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Since we have so many people giving out their arguments on the subject... Perhaps now would be a good time to try and get some sugestions on how to improve some issues that may exist! I believe for example you or someone mentioned that they believe some Advocates are not that experienced. Perhaps we should have a disctinction bewteen the rockies and the elite adocates? Any suggestions? Maybe the idea of using those darn AMA forms which I don't personally enjoy but will add some more transparency? --CyclePat 01:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to disagree with this. In particular, from WP:ASSIST: What not to expect from assistance -- An assistant will not always "take your side". The point of an advocate is to take your side, help you refine it and present it. It seems to me that WP:ASSIST is more of a form of mentorship than of advocacy. Under AMA, if an advocate can't take your side, s/he shouldn't be advocating for you. Also, AMA is specifically focused on DR, not general assistance, though that does sometimes end up being a valuable ability. Maybe -- maybe -- WP:ASSIST without the "wont' take your side" disclaimer and a division that specifically focuses on DR -- would be close. But -- if that were to happen... why not just keep, and reform if necessary (although not simply at the whims of its detractors), AMA as that group? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason that I put that in there is because one of the complaints about AMA (which is sometimes valid) is that they "take the side" of advocees, even to the detriment of the project as a whole. It's one thing to ask people to ease off of someone because they made an honest mistake, it's a different situation entirely if an intentionally disruptive editor is being helped, intentionally or unintentionally, to cause more disruption. There does come a time to say "You're not using the offer of help in good faith, so you don't get any more." I think it could do with some clarification though, in terms that in a content dispute, the assistant certainly should help the editor in presenting his or her side, even if the assistant personally disagrees with the position taken. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Taking someones side can not disruptive to the project. If it is, that's a bigger problem than AMA ever will be, and I've just been horribly misled and need to go. That's not a threat, that's my expression of a realization that this is not a community, despite constant mention of "the wikipedia community". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 02:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • An advocate is to take your side? Thanks for clarifying. My decision is unaequivocally to delete or historify AMA. That is shocking and disturbing. If a advocee is in an unacceptable position, the advocate should him or her that and recommend the next proper course of action, not take his side. Despicable. --Iamunknown 07:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, duh. An advocate isn't forced to take anyone's side. Maybe some newer members have believed that, I don't know why. If the advocate doesn't feel that there is merit to the position of the person they're advocating for, then I don't know how they could be a good advocate. That being said, just because an admin or a majority of interested parties doesn't like someone doesn't mean that they are a troll or a negative impact on the project. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the response, Keith. It definitely galvanized my support to delete all of the subpages and historify the project. I am shocked that the advocates are supposed to take "anyone's" side and am further shocked at the general disdain expressed on multiple occasions by members of the AMA against administrators and arbitrators. They really do have the best interests for the project and shouldn't be regarded so...disdainfully. I know that I would personally prefer to have someone tell me when I'm wrong, suggest what I should do next even if it is contrary to what I thought I should, and generally tell me the truth when I come asking questions. But, to each his one, I guess I can see where someone lying to me could have its advantage. --Iamunknown 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually... as an advocate I don't have to take anyones side. I am there to help someone understand the rules and understand the other persons point of view. obviously I start out from the point of view of who ever contacted me... but if I see, for exemple that my user is holding a POV and slugging down an article I, ethically, advize him of this as well. I advise them of their options. Most of my cases involve simply regurgitating the rules in a different way so they can understand. Everyone learns differently... I am more like a mediator and a teacher. If for exemple Bob Fink calls me up and says "Pat" I'm having trouble with the Trio Theory, and someone deleting perfectly cited information. I check it out. I offer a third opinion. I go to my Univesity Library and get Bob Finks books. I ask what the problem is with the inclusion of this information into the article. I ask him to keep cool. To ask why an editor believes his sourced information doesn't belong. I explain to Bob, that his material not as popular as other "widely available information." That means, it is less popular and probably should have less weith in an article that doesn't specifically deal with the Trio Theory. Taaa daah! That's a 30 minutes of advocacy. Or I get a phone call from the bahamas where some artist says he's having trouble with... or another one from Florida... Wow Now that I think about it, I could open up a business doing this. 1-900-cyc-lepat (Just kidding!). Hummm.... --CyclePat 00:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The fundamental ethical justification for acting as an attorney is to help the client say what he would say for himself but doesn't know how--essentially as a translator into an elaborate system that requires time and experience for mastery. The attorney is still expected to do this with in the rules of the system, in our terms, not give advice on how best to evade checkuser. The effect is to decrease some of the hostility felt in person to person conflict, and to restrain the people involved from overstating their case, further insulting their opponents, and saying things that will prove much to their detriment. Any RfA will show examples, and will show how people would probably do much better with a counselor.
• It is understandable that both sides in a litigator may feel they got the worst of it, and an advocate can help people come to terms with the decision. I hope never to need this process or be cited in the process, and I hope to remain far enough away from personal involvement in an RfA to get the experience to help others there, but RfA is the top of the iceberg, and I think I could advise people on what do best do to avoid that resort. We need people working along the lines of Seraphimblade's Editor Assistance, and I think I would feel at home there. But I would like to know that this is available should I need it.
• People who are involved in WP process early on here need help, and, given their inexperience, may need advocacy. We should try to see that even those who leave us, leave with a good impression. In 18th century English law, criminal defendants did not have the right to the assistance of attorneys--the judge was supposed to advise them fairly. A more democratic period realised the essential unfairness of it.
• If some AMA's have been wikilawyering too aggressively, perhaps this discussion will serve as an alert about how their tactics are perceived. I suggest that the MfD be suspended for a few months, As no consensus, and see how people will learn. DGG 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't necessarily intend the assistance proposal as a replacement proposal anyway. If AMA does end up disbanded, I think it could certainly serve as such, but even if not I believe it would have value. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If the very nature is to take the side of the Advocee no matter what. I certainly understand individuals may have problems representing there view point either by virtue of not understanding the process or limited skills of expression. That requires help and assistance, not blind agreement. Indeed given that advocates apparently neutral parties, I would suggest that in instances where the advocate has encouraged or supported disruptive behaviour they should also be subject to suitable sanctions. --pgk 09:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well i had no idea that they did that much badish things but why did I get kicked off it im not even in old members section, I followed the rules i read the handbook and faq on it and was being nice to everyone except a random spammer of pointless unneded flamewar provoking thangs.Im just confused on that Also everything i said to him got "Deleted" and i was slightly leaning towards he was right.Any way they seem like theyll problably get shutdown anyway,guess thats what I get for helping while following the rules didn't know we wern't supposed to.1337 H4XZ0R 09:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Again, Strong Keep While the advocate may "take the side" of the person the advocate is helping, in practice do advocates really help, encourage and facilitate obvious vandals and disruptors? I certainly do not. When I've acted as an advovcate I've tried to calm the situation down...often suggesting we take a few days break and generally looking for consensus. I do try to represent the view of the person I am helping and also help that person realize that if their view really is only one view, that compromise is essential. I never help anyone be disruptive or act in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia policies, procedures, or prractices. I also suspect that what I have described as my approach is not a minority view and probably is the way most advoctes function. DPeterson^talk 18:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for being involved in this conversation, DPeterson. Even though it is not a vote, in order to make clear the formatting, you should not express in bold your opinion "strong keep" twice. If you would like to reformat your opinion as an additional comment, feel free to do so. --Iamunknown 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  The above comment was striked-out... (a ligne going through). I removed the trike-out. --CyclePat 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  And I re-struck it out. You may be unfamiliar with XfD discussions. It is general practice; really. If a user offers a vote twice, the latter one is struck out. You can see DPeterson's other vote just up the page. --Iamunknown 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What we actually do at the AMA

• Comment - I'm going to show you some examples of how we actually conduct ourselves at the AMA.
  1. Recently, User:Boeye34, a new user, asked me for some advice on how to resolve an article that he/she saw as biased. See request for advice here. I responded on Boeye34's talk page. My response did not say "Hey, Boeye, this is how we can use Wikipolicy to demolish your opponents!" Instead, I tried to explain the relevant policies to Boeye, including why he/she shouldn't describe the other users' edits as "vandalism".
  2. A little earlier, User:SDas asked me for advice on my talkpage here, in my capacity as an AMA advocate. I responded here, attempting to give fair and neutral advice without attacking other users involved in the dispute. Here, another user expressed the opinion that I was giving SDas "very good advice". A little later, here, the advocee decided to accept the advice given, and thanked me for being "fair and neutral". Not "a good wikilawyer" - "fair and neutral".
• I hope that clears up any misunderstanding over what we in the AMA actually do. We're not wikilawyers or edit-war-mercenaries. We don't quote policy in people's faces. All those things only occur in the RL legal system because so much money is involved. On Wikipedia, no money whatsoever is involved. So "wikilawyering" is a myth, as I was trying to explain above. And I doubt anyone can provide diffs of any instance where an AMA advocate has behaved in a non-neutral manner. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How does that differ from what is available from the helpdesk or Editor Assistance in substance. The problem to me is not that some of AMA isn't good, some of the goals aren't good or indeed that advocates aren't doing a good job. It's the poor situations which people remember, it seems apparent from the comments above of other involved in AMA that some see it as a political system to fight against the formal dispute resolution systems which they (presumably) see as flawed. It's those who seem to believe that being effective in helping someone through a dispute means taking their side. In some instances this could be contrary to our basic principle in building consensus (losing a content dispute, article getting deleted via AFD, come to AMA to get someone to push your opinion?). In others it may mean encouraging people in goals pretty much contrary to our basic goal of building a free npov encyclopedia, this won't actually help and in some cases will actually make the situation worse. --pgk 12:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The ideal would be that advocates choose wisely whom to help. But there will always exist a failure rate as there also exists in mediations and other processes. It is rather falacious to think that bad advocates makes the whole project worth to be deleted. What should be done is to build tight and constant connections with ArbCom and MedCom to reduce the amount of trolls being helped. AMA is a great idea but that has lost its route. Let's correct it, not get rid of it. Deletion of AMA is not to solve, but to avoid solving the Advocacy Problem. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 15:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sometimes it is actually better to start with a clean sheet. If those involved in the organisation don't see the problems or don't have the will to address them it'll just drag on endlessly. One of the issues with Esperanza was that after it's initial reprieve the internal attempts to move forward failed. AMA has been aware of some if not many of the concerns expressed for a while yet there appears little movement in trying to resolve them. --pgk 16:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok, I understand. And I agree in beginning from a clean sheet... not in throwing the whole book away. If AMA is kept, I'll run for Coordination and, if elected, 1) Dissolve bureaucracy, 2) All inactive members out, 3) All active members in small teams, 4) Any member not in a team, out of AMA, 5) Asking ArbCom and MedCom for help: we must be honest and recognize we need it, 6) Resign from Coordination. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Agree I agree with the descriptions above of how an advocate works...see my comments in the previous section. DPeterson^talk 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep-Despite its organization, WP:AMA is the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal where the mediator takes a side. Deleting in would be telling policy-unexperienced Wikipedia users, "You'll have to fend and learn policy for your conflict by your self. You may ask individual questions on the WP:HD. No one will guide you through the processes to resolve your dispute". If this is how we Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, vote delete.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  And what if the person on the other side of the dispute is a new user too? Isn't one side getting an advocate (an apparent authority to a new user) to take their side unfair on the other? Helping people through a dispute and guiding them through policy doesn't mean a side has to be taken. If anything making people believe that on wikipedia issues are resolved by getting "your mates" to gang up and help out seems quite contrary to our basic principles. --pgk 12:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  On the other hand, that might mean there's too much policy. :-) --Kim Bruning 12:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Resp Pgk: I think ganging up with your mates to help solve problems is one of the core organizing principles on the internet. Mind you, that's to solve problems, "solve"ing people is right out. :-P --Kim Bruning 13:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Any responsible advocte will help find a decent resolution to conflicts in a manner consistent with Wiki practice and policies...that is certainly how I operate. DPeterson^talk 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: OK, if AMA is deleted, what will happen next? Deletion of MedCab per giving informal mediations and permitting people to go before ArbCom without having an official mediation first? Guys, AMA is an established part of the dispute resolution system. To merge it with another project (WP:ASSIST) is ridiculous: at the end, ex-AMA will have to take the control of Editor Assistance as we are experienced on this kind of projects... at the end, an AMA with another name and no changes? Then, why his MfD? If, instead, you want to get rid of advocacy, there will be another group of users that, knowing or not AMA, will have the same idea on the future (advocacy and advice are recurrent ideas). This MfD is based on absolutely nothing reasonable; yes, maybe we're useless, but this MfD won't solve anything. Why to keep AMA? I agree that the current structure of AMA is a dissaster and must be simplified, but we are a (bad) firewall for ArbCom and MedCom to prevent trolls be helping other trolls. Yes, maybe we are naive users helping trolls, but 1 trolls is better than 2 associated, isn't it? What would be the most reasonable way to solve this? An agreement between AMA with ArbCom & MedCom to make us the only official advocacy instance. Wikipedia's official committees must recognize that we are also a relevant part of DR. "Say no more, loco" (Charly García) --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an excellent of why this AMA needs to be tagged historical. Saying that ex-AMA will have to take the control of Editor Assistance is so unwiki that I wonder if they understand how Wikipedia is run. The experience claimed here is shared by hundreds if not thousands of editors all over Wikipedia, AMA has no exclusive ability to provide assistance. You don't have to be a member of a club to help other editors, and the desire to make AMA "the only official advocacy instance" says all there is to say about why it needs to be tagged historical or deleted. RxS 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - but Neigel von Teighen, not only did you get a sockpuppet off the hook in Arbitration, in the same Arbitration you asked one of his sock puppets (who had been harassing and stalking me for 6 months) to email you if he wanted to know more about me! (You were requested to remove the offer as totally inappropriate.) Did you see this [3]? Your Advocee filed an AMA naming that arbitrator as the problem. Then when the Arbitration ended you sent your Advocee a note of congratulations,[4] even though he left Wikipedia Feb 5 because his was about to be blocked or banned because of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson. If I am ever involved in an Arbitration again and an AMA advocate inserts himself into the process, I shall vigorously object, using the Starwood episode as my basis. --Mattisse 19:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To be clear, not only were you not a firewall to screen out trolls, you were the one helping and enabling the trolls. --Mattisse 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Hello, it seems to me that a lot of discussion participants are presenting one or the other of two scenarios as the paradigm AMA case:

  Scenario A: User:Sweet Innocent is being attacked by User:Evil Sockpuppet. User:Sweet Innocent doesn't know what to do because of lack of familiarity with policy. AMA comes to the rescue.

  Scenario B: User:Sweet Innocent is being attacked by User:Evil Sockpuppet. The AMA helps user:Evil Sockpuppet delay mediation in order to get another kick or two at User:Sweet Innocent, then manages to get User:Evil Sockpuppet on probation rather than banned at Arbcom, after which User:Evil Sockpuppet goes on a vandalism rage and trashes everything User:Sweet Innocent worked on.

• I'm deliberately exaggerating here, of course. But it seems that most folks have and are attempting to communicate one or the other general impression of what the AMA does. I think most people would consider Scenario A to be a useful function and Scenario B to be a disruptive function. I'm going to point out that these two extremes are exaggerations, they don't represent the only possibilities or the typical case. Alternative to these two extremes pictures, and to the two proposals of either completely disbanding the AMA or unlimited advocacy, are possible. One possibility would be to establish some rules and create some boundaries, which hopefully the AMA could be able to handle internally. One possible scenario would be to withdraw or provide advice on ploicy only (help mentor rather than advocate before others) in cases in which the advocee is blatantly continuing to abuse/violate rules after having requested an advocate. Another would be to have an internal vetting procedure in which fuller advocacy roles are assigned to users who more closely resemble Scenario A and mentor-like roles assigned to other users. The vetting would be friendly and err more on the side of leniency than Arbcom, the advocate/mentor would give a sympathetic ear and a friendly tone even if unable to dispense full advocacy (still a different role from arbcom who can impose sanctions or a mediator who has to appear neutral), and Arbcom shouldn't be informed of the vetting results (one shouldn't lose by coming to the AMA). Thus, with appropriate boundaries, it might be possible to assist novice users and provide friendly guidance to problem users that might possibly steer them towards being more cooperative, and avoid scenarios people are painting of Wikilawyering for hardcore vandals and attack artists. Will be on WP:Wikibreak and unable to respond to comments. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Good cop/bad cop A lot of systems benefit from a good cop/bad cop scenario, in which one cop is always the accused's friend and helpful, and the other cop represents "the system". I'm definitely not suggesting the AMA work for Arbcom or only pretend to help. But I am suggesting that having a genuine (not faked) "good cop" role is an intrinsically valuable aid to a rule-based system. To the extent there can be an organization that can play that role, and in addition help users get their side of the story across based on substance -- evidence and fair readings of policy -- this is a useful role to have. --Shirahadasha 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Funny you should mention that. I am considering writing (yet another) "we actually have no rules" text. As if the Ignore All Rules policy isn't clear enough, or in fact "Wikipedia Is Not A Bureaucracy". :-) --Kim Bruning 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The way to deal with perceived abuses is when they happen, and with the particular individuals involved, not by deleting the project. Matchups 02:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (who is not an AMA member nor has ever been involved in a dispute where AMA was involved)

[edit] Votestacking

• Comment - The AMA alerts template generally is placed at the top of an AMA Advocate's talk page.[5] The template presently resides on about 80 to 90 talk pages.[6] (List reproduced here.) From 17:42, 30 March 2007 and on, the AMA alerts template template was modified to include a notice that the Association of Members' Advocates has been submitted for deletion at this MfD. Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. It seems to me that AMA Advocate's are on the record with the specific opinion of keeping the AMA as an ongoing Wikipedia association through their positions of being AMA Advocate's. I cannot get past the idea that contacting 80+ AMA Advocates having the AMA alerts template on their talk page about this MfD is anything other than votestacking. The AMA alerts template is on my talk page and the solicitation of my opinion for this MfD is what brought me here. Of course I want to keep the AMA -- I had the AMA alerts template on my talk page -- but I believe that it would be wrong to provide my opinion as part of this discussion because I would be participating in votestacking. In this regard, should those reasonings posted in this MfD discussion on or after 17:42, 30 March 2007 by some or all on this list be discounted by the closing admin? -- Jreferee 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely yes. People don't seem to realize that the guideline on canvassing expressly forbids you to solicit votes from members' of a specific project. Note the template at the top of the page, "This is not a vote. If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here. While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of all Wikipedia; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss...." (emphasis changed) It is interesting that most of the posts before the message were delete/esperanzify and most after were keep. I hope that the closing administrator takes this into account. --Iamunknown 21:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that members of a project should be informed that the project is being considered for deletion. That's called WP:DUH. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • They should also know that is up for deletion by visiting WP:AMA. Duh. --Iamunknown 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Except AMA is not that kind of project. Most attention would not be on the main page, but on the requests page. Besides. If most attention were on the main page, that would be because it had fallen into a state of focusing more on its structure than on its purpose. A bit of a chicken-and-egg here. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Um... if you expect them to visit the page to see that, why does it matter if they are informed another way too? -Amarkov moore cowbell! 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Again It's ok to imform AMA members from this threat, the bad thing is to canvass others. cheers again --Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
            • It is not okay. The attempt of any XfD discussion is to "gauge consensus of all Wikipedia" ... that means not just members of the AMA. Of course the members will notice it any in their watchlists or when they visit the AMA site, but any other message is simply votestacking. --Iamunknown 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Sincerely I really don't know where your 1st quote came from. On the following sentence you're proposing a way users ought to be informed, but it's your opinion, not by consensus. (april fools cheers) --Emperor Walter Humala 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
                • We have the freedom to communicate with other users we know on Wikipedia. We also have the right to be informed. If one of the project I'm involved in is up to deletion, I have the right to know it. Stop trying to gag people. It's like if some school board member propose my school is going to be shut down I have the same right to know about it and comment on it. Wooyi 22:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • You're analogy is moot and baseless. You and everyone else in your community would know that the school is proposed to be shut down because oh, let's see, it would be on the TV, in advertisements, on posters and everywhere so that everyone, not just people of a specific bias like, let's say, all AMA members, could participate and so that the consensus of the entire community could be reached. Nice try though. --Iamunknown 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
                    • No one has say non-AMA member can't participate in the discussion. But AMA member should be informed, that's common sense. If one of the WikiProjects get into a deletion discussion while you didn't know it, what would u think? I'm not in AMA, but I feel the sentiment as I am personally involved in several projects, WP:USC, WP:SCOTUS, and WP:CRIME, if any is in risk of deletion I should know. Wooyi 22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
                      • No one has been improperly canvassing for their attention either. --Iamunknown
                        • No one has been improperly canvassing in this AMA case either. Or else you give an example. Again, if a project I participate in is going to be deleted, I should be told. Wooyi 22:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
                          • Improper canvassing by submitting a partisan message to a partisan audience on the AMA notification template and on individual user talk pages. Shall I provide diffs? --Iamunknown 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
                            • Please do not your accusation of "partisan message", there is no such terminology on Wikipedia as what message is "partisan" (first, we don't have political parties on Wikipedia). And go ahead give your diffs, let everyone see what kind of message would you believe to be "partisan". Wooyi 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notifying active members of a project about the project's status is a friendly notice. WP:CANVASS#Friendly notice. This is not the cut-and-dry no-no that detractors are making it out to be. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • FYI: There's a Signpost article being prepared for this week here: [7] I guess that should get a more balanced range of input. Mark Hurd 01:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Types of canvassing is clear that partisan canvassing is unacceptable. Sending neutral, friendly mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion about the AMA via the AMA alerts template is partisan because the recipient audience is devoted to and biased in support of the AMA. Sending neutral, friendly mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion about the AMA via the AMA alerts template to inform them of a current or upcoming vote is unacceptable votestacking. Project page posts, Community bulletin board, and Signpost articles are significantly different than contacting partisan editors on their talk page about a current or upcoming vote. Even with project page posts, Community bulletin board, and Signpost messages, the AMA alerts template was used for unacceptable canvassing and I believe that is up to the closing admin to decide what course of action to take as part of this MfD in view of the votestacking. -- Jreferee 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have modified the notice trying to turn it into a more neutral text... (or maybe into a horrible euphemism... at this stage, what you think you've done right turns suddenly into the worst thing you've ever done). But you're right: an admin must solve this issue. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you Neigel. One question (not just for you): Can we please just remove the notice now? --Iamunknown 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jreferee who said it a lot better than me. I would also kindly ask the closing administrator to take this into account. --Iamunknown 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it curious that after the canvassing started, the debate went from well-structured and leaning towards deleting or closing the project, to a long-winded messy parade with keep after keep, this is an outrage, etc etc? Rhetorical question as it's not curious at all. --kingboyk 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) -

Please stop deceiving and defrauding us using fancy terms. Nothing is "partisan" on Wikipedia, we are not a country so we don't have political parties, nor do we have any cliques or cabals. As a member of multiple WikiProjects (although I'm not a member of AMA), I have the right to know which one is getting deleted. So get over this, let's move on. No canvass has ever happened. Wooyi 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct; Wikipedia is not "partisan". There are, however, people who regard AMA as a detriment and people who regard AMA as not. Assume that those who transclude Template:AMA alerts onto their user space and those who are involved in the AMA are of the latter opinion. Fair, no? This diff shows the message that was transcluded onto Template:AMA alerts for approximately an hour and a half. The recommendations of users before that time (the last one was Edgar's "keep" under the section titled "section heading"), by my count, was 29 delete or historify/esperanzify/mark-historical / 13 keep (I did not distinguish between "delete" and "historify"). Of course MfD is not a vote but a discussion and so 500 unfounded deletes would not outweigh one solid keep, but it is a quick and easy way of judging what may or may not be consensus.

The message was transcluded to user spaces for three days and approximately one hour until just previously when I removed the notice. You will notice, however, that the discussion entirely changed character from what I characterize as a rather calm discussion with curt posts and diffs as evidence to an entirely mangled rendering with people calling for evidence as to the detriment of AMA when evidence had already been presented up top, calling the nomination in bad faith and otherwise completely dismissing others' opinions; I get the impression, and I hope that I am wrong, that few after the message was posted read the entire thread.

At any rate, I'm not sure what I post here will change your opinion; that is okay, you are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. Please, however, respect others' opinions, which you appear, in correspondence with me and kingboy, unable or unwilling to do. I think there was canvassing, I've presented evidence; kingboy and jreferee incidentally think there was canvassing as well and have also presented evidence; there are clearly different groups of people who, in general, maintain different opinions, so, whether or not there was canvassing, there is clearly the capability to canvas to a particular audience; we seem to agree that sending a message to a select audience constitutes canvassing; who knows, maybe there was canvassing? Don't categorically disregard others' opinions just because you disagree. The closing administrator will decide and take the presented and circumstancial evidence into account. --Iamunknown 19:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your long apply. Sorry if I have somehow lost temper here. But I will definitely review and examine those evidence myself and see what's going on. Wooyi 19:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor assistance

• Keep, but turn it into more of a help desk then a bureaucracy.--Rayc 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you considered Wikipedia:Editor assistance and whether it might function more as a help desk than as a bureaucracy? --Iamunknown 22:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there a difference between that and this, other than Editor assistance seems to be less active than AMA?--Rayc 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Editor assistance is a proposal that just got started a ways up the 150kb-or-so-MfD in response to suggestions that the AMA is bureaucratic, promotes wiki-lawyering and other things. User:Seraphimblade, who is currently an AMA member, suggested that we start a more neutral- and less bureaucratic-sounding organization, and thus EA (not to be confused with Esperanza) be formed. I am totally for EA and would like to participate in it even if AMA is not disbanded as a result of this discussion. --Iamunknown 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Ok, just saw they were created during this MfD. Though I think we should also overturn the Esperanzafy presedent here. Any active group should not be disbanded via XfD, as AGF should apply. Groups that become troublesome will eventually die off and historical tags should then be placed.--Rayc 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I wish that were the case. Has it ever happened on Wikipedia? --Iamunknown 19:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Redo from Start" (MS-DOS-derived doctrine)

This page should be declared as "No consensus". Then (inmediately), see which is the right procedure (see talk page discussion) and discuss AMA deletion/keeping again from start or, better, from a refactored page. I really fear that this mess could lead into a misinterpretation of WP's consensus whether to keep or to delete, though I'm an AMA... Please, XfD are votes+discussion to determine consensus; and a messy page is the worst enemy for that (just see what happens on Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion and related). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 07:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From the talk page, posted here at user's request: --kingboyk 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) I'm on Wikibreak, and haven't got long. Popped in to register my Keep opinion, but haven't a clue where to put it. The main debate page is a real mess and very off-putting. My 2p worth is that the AMA is very valuable for people who use it and should therefore be retained. Check the recent work by User:The Transhumanist for a great example of keeping things cool and working toward consensus with two opposing factions. I also think it could do with a rename to "Advisors", rather than the misleadingly lawyerly and POVish "Advocates". --Dweller 11:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have to agree with Dwealer I at this point I was going to weigh in but I have no idea where to discuss the MfD anymore this has become a royal (AND very needless) mess. As for a renaing I like that term alot (advisor) as that is how I handle anyone that I take under my wing Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show me the evidence against the AMA

So far, no one has cited any diffs or individual cases in which the AMA were responsible for "wikilawyering" or had a disruptive or negative impact. Sadly, people seem to be making broad assertions and false assumptions about the AMA, without checking the evidence. I'm going to repeat my examples from earlier from my own experience as an Advocate (sorry if this annoys anyone who's read them already):

1. Recently, User:Boeye34, a new user, asked me for some advice on how to resolve an article that he/she saw as biased. See request for advice here. I responded on Boeye34's talk page. My response did not say "Hey, Boeye, this is how we can use Wikipolicy to demolish your opponents!" Instead, I tried to explain the relevant policies to Boeye, including why he/she shouldn't describe the other users' edits as "vandalism".
2. A little earlier, User:SDas asked me for advice on my talkpage here, in my capacity as an AMA advocate. I responded here, attempting to give fair and neutral advice without attacking other users involved in the dispute. Here, another user expressed the opinion that I was giving SDas "very good advice". A little later, here, the advocee decided to accept the advice given, and thanked me for being "fair and neutral". Not "a good wikilawyer" - "fair and neutral".

Show me a single counter-example, a single case in which an AMA advocate has disrupted Wikipedia while acting in their official capacity or in which AMA culture has been detrimental to building consensus, and I might be persuaded. But so far, there's a lot of evidence showing that the AMA has a useful role, and none at all showing otherwise. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• copied from above - diffs offering evidence against AMA

  "Comment - Here is an example of an AMA problem: User:Jefferson Anderson requests an AMA Advocate for another blocked user, User: Frater Xyzzy here. Opening request for another user Shortly after they are accused of being sockpuppets. User:Jefferson Anderson leaves before he is blocked/banned because of Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson. User:Jefferson Anderson had an advocate who got him out of an Arbitration case shortly before the above request. Continuing harassment by Jefferson Anderson He would have been blocked in Arbitration if he had not left. User: Frater Xyzzy was blocked indefinitely. Mattisse 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

• (copied from above)

  "Comment - the advocate in question above emailed me yesterday that he saw his job as to advocate for his client and AGF and nothing more. This is a receipt for aiding and abetting a sock puppet. The Advocate took his client at face value -- a person who had been editing only a few weeks and was immediately on the AFD pages, moving categories around, embroiled in controversy with established and respected editors, and showed a sophisticated knowledge of Wikipedia, posting complaints frequently on ANI. After the advocate "sprung" his client from arbitration, he did no follow up on the client and did not even know the client had "left" because of subsequent sock puppet charges and a pending ban almost immediately after. In fact, some two months later when the arbitration closed, he sent his client a note of congratulations. To me, this seems irresponsible. --Mattisse 16:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)"

Mattisse, I'm a little surprised to see you arguing so forcefully for deletion, particularly as you told User:SDas that I was giving him/her "very good advice". Maybe not all advocates do their jobs well, but that doesn't mean the system is bad. Not all admins do their jobs well; are we going to abolish admins? Same with mediators. Same with 'crats. Same with arbitrators. There isn't a single system on Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter) that works perfectly all the time. Possibly the problem with the AMA (as opposed to the other positions I listed above) is that anyone can become an advocate without going through a vetting process of any kind; although advocates are occasionally asked to leave the organisation, there aren't really any standards for entry. But that isn't a reason for deletion, just for discussion and re-organisation. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflic){copied from above)

  "Comment - but Neigel von Teighen, not only did you get a sockpuppet off the hook in Arbitration, in the same Arbitration you asked one of his sock puppets (who had been harassing and stalking me for 6 months) to email you if he wanted to know more about me! (You were requested to remove the offer as totally inappropriate.) Did you see this [8]? Your Advocee filed an AMA naming that arbitrator as the problem. Then when the Arbitration ended you sent your Advocee a note of congratulations,[9] even though he left Wikipedia Feb 5 because his was about to be blocked or banned because of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson. If I am ever involved in an Arbitration again and an AMA advocate inserts himself into the process, I shall vigorously object, using the Starwood episode as my basis. --Mattisse 19:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"

• {copied from above} answer to Walton_monarchist89

  "Comment: I was requested to work on an article where two editors were revert warring. One went to AMA to get advice. While the advice he was given was good, it did not help him as he did not want to follow it. I suggested he go back and get more advice from AMA but he did not want to. The article was abandoned by everyone involved in frustration. Mattisse 17:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)"

• {copied from above} answer to Walton_monarchist89

  "Comment - Support the above suggestion Tag historical. Although I already voted to delete above, I subsequently used an AMA diff to demonstrate a sockpuppet's manipulation of AMA. Therefore, I support keeping the pages available fo use as evidence. Mattisse 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"

• Matisse, 1) I have already apologized to you. If you want that I apologize in front of Wikipedia's community, I'll aso do it: I did a mistake and JA was the worst thing I could have done as an advocate. But, 2) if you carefully read the Starwood case's Workshop, you'll see that clerk User:Thatcher131 and arb User:Fred Bauder did a cutting down of the Arbitration case and reduced it to the original request (the WP:COI by Rosencommet) and asked to file a new arbitration for those harrassment cases tangentially related to the Starwood links conflict... No one did that arbitration, neither you. I recognize my fault and that I assumed good faith where there was not and that my email request was simply absurd and idiot. I just ask you not to mix your personal case, my stupid behaivor with the whole AMA issue. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neigel von Teighen, I am truly sorry to be using you as the example as I recognise you as a very good faith person. Further, you have been extremely kind to me and helpful. Regarding your comments above, I will point out that with all the sock puppets closed down User:Rosencomet is not a problem nor is his WP:COI a problem. It is only with his pack of sock puppets tag-teaming, stalking, and harassing other editors attempting to edit "his" articles that gave him any power. This sock puppet ring had been in operation since at least last spring, editing the same articles as the evidence clearly shows. There is no problem now, no need for more Arbitration. The sock puppet ring, to which your advocee belonged, was the entire problem both in Starwood and the so-called other case that was cut down. It was the same sock puppets causing the trouble in both cases. With it shut down there is peace. Again, I am sorry to seem to be focusing on you. And I thank you for your informal but extremely kind help re Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse. Truly I am sorry but that this happened even once, when your advocee had all the signs listed on Wikipedia's concise list of recognisable sock puppet behavior, is deplorable. You cannot go into Arbitration defending people without a high level of sophistication and ability to investigate the situation first. If you had derailed this Arbitration, if that ring had not been shut down, if your advocee didn't subsequently continue his ugly behavior so that now he is on everyone's radar if he does return, that would have been a disastrous. --Mattisse 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I go on an impromptu wikibreak and this is what happens? I am in shock. This nomination is absolutely 100% rediculous on all acounts and is one large non sequitur. Historicaly, the AMA was founded as an independent user organization (by Alex Roshuk one of the founding members of Wikimedia) to help users through problems independent of the "official" methods of conflict resolution. The AMA has a years-long history, is made up of an active community of Wikipedia editors and, regardless of its conception by anyone, has saved MedCom and ArbCom hundreds of cases and countless hours of frustration by preventing escalation. The AMA stands against bureaucracy and wikilawyering and is not divisive (how is it divisive?).Overall, to delete the AMA, no matter how it is spun or rationalized, will cause more harm than good. -- Coordinator, AMA אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Curious, have you read the above discussion? I am offended that you call this nomination ridiculous when well-meaning Wikipedians have offered their honest and good-faith opinions to the discussion. You will notice that very few people are even calling for "delete", most just for "esperanzify". Regards, Iamunknown 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please, pardon me. Now that I have been given time to recover from my initial shock allow me to explain my position a bit more thoroughly. My comments about ridiculousness were solely focused upon the opening comments of this MfD. You will have to excuse my behavior. I have devoted hundreds of hours to the AMA in the past year, and to see the MfD felt threatening to that work, and given the amount of sleep that I have had in the past 48 hours I reacted ungracefully. The AMA served a very important part of Wikipedia History. It was founded in Good Faith as an independent check on and time-saving device for the "official" Wikipedia dispute resolution systems (back when things such as MedCom and ArbCom were just starting out). Many months after it was initially formed, the group ran out of steam and fell into disarray. At that point, no one was "at the helm" keeping things organized (the previous coordinator had resigned without even being acknowledged as doing so) and was operating on its own like a "ghost ship" organization. Editors who had very little experience would "sign up" and take cases that were continually being added to a list that was never being dealt with. This was the period of time where the poor opinion of the AMA came about among ArbCom members (and very understandably so). There were "Advocates" who embodied WikiLawyers, talking about how their "clients" and what "rights" they have on Wikipedia given arbitrary literal readings of the Wikipedia guidelines.
      
      However, since then things have changed considerably. When I joined up it was a mess. I contacted the previous coordinator and learned about what happened and tried my best to clean things up by adding procedures and coding templates and other wikicode widgets that made things easier. I also cleaned up the members list and gathered together a group of active Advocates and initiated conversation. We also started to have meetings every few months which helped us bring up issues that needed to be dealt with and we solved many of the problems that the Association had faced in the past. We don't have "clients" we have "advocees," we work with eachother to resolve disputes rather than like lawyers on opposite sides of a case, and every volunteer has been equipped with useful and useable resources in the form of the AMA Handbook and the Guide to Advocacy.
      
      We evolved into a group of Wikimedians (most of whom joined up in gratitude and inspiration after they were helped in a dispute, themselves) whose purpose is to serve as a helping hand to editors who are facing the Dispute Resolution Process (a process that is very complicated to begin with) alone, as well as to prevent needless escalation to higher levels of WP:DR through a better understanding of how conflicts arise. To better help out editors who were requesting assistance, we started questionnaires for people to fill out, have an alerts system to bring new cases to open Advocates' attention, and have a system in place to deal with cases where there have been problems between Advocates and the advocated.
      
      The system that is in place is not bureaucratic. One democratically elected Coordinator for oversight, several democratically elected Deputies to deal with individual tasks, and a system of volunteer "Teams" to deal with specific cases that certain Advocates have more experience with.
      
      Even though not every Advocee has taken the time to fill out the questionnaires, the vast majority of the questionnaires that -were- filled out were positive. I've posted my findings on the following subpage:
      
      User:The_Thadman/AMA_questionnaires
      
      If in the unfortunate event that the AMA is forcibly disbanded, I would be most quick to support Seraphim's idea of Wikipedia:Editor assistance; however, I cannot stress enough how I would like to see the templates and request systems migrated over as well, as they have been more than proven to work better than a simple wrap list page, as well as keep things more organized. I would also like to implement a questionnaire similar to how the current AMA cases are handled so that the community can get some feedback as to what individual editors are looking for in requesting assistance.
      
      For the meantime, I also cannot stress enough that there appears to be absolutely no consensus and I believe that this MfD should be closed as such. If that happens, I would like to assemble a detailed, articulated list of reasons why editors believe that the AMA does not belong at Wikipedia so that the entire membership of the AMA may look over it as a group. -- AMA Coordinator, אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please, please, please can we drop the starwood related stuff from this page. This is not the forum to voice complants about individual actions of advocates. Yes I know the whole experience hurt and the resolution was unsatisfactory but it is time to move on and not continue this saga one day longer.
• My experience with the Starwood case is that the system failed at all levels. Not just AMA, but Mediation Cabel, RFCU, ANI, and the Arbitration Committee who manged to nicely side step the really ugly part of the case.
• We can examine what went wrong. Part of the problem is that of the limited time of volunteers, no Advocate, Mediator or Arbitrator had the time to dedicate sufficient time to analyse reems and reems of diffs. People jumped to quick conclusions, heartfelt plees for help were ignored and there was lack of any decicive action. Ideally this situation would have been delt with quickly with a decisive ruling within a month. There is an overall lack of professionalism throughout the system, no disrespect to anybody as people do try there best, just in some situations there are few who have the high level of skills necessary to deal with them. There is also a lack of authority with few people who have respect of the whole community required to deal with the hard stuff. Yes this stuff does require a special skill set - a good advocate would first need to establish the trust of the requester, and the trust of the other parties - the trust that all would know they could represent the requesters case in an umbiased manner. Wikilawering is not the way to establish this trust.
• Yes there is a need to examine and refore the whole DR system, but I feel this MfD is not the way to acheive it.
• So close as no consensus and start a process of reform of dispute resolution as a whole. --Salix alba (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I've read so many articles on wikipedia (and in real life newspapers) and they are not so different then the comments regarding the AMA. In almost all the cases the writer gives his opinion based on ignorance, nothing based on facts. All Gore in his movie An Inconvenient Truth, demonstrated the bias of news papers vs scientific research on global warming. All scientific research said it is happening! Whereas still to this day there are opinions and skepticism regarding the global phenomenon. Similarly, many here have based an opinion on ignorance. I had already motioned to keep AMA but I would further like to motion that the subpages regarding the AMAT be kept. There are no real facts that show that the AMAT has or is doing harm to wikipedia. --CyclePat 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nor are there "real facts that show that the AMAT" is good for Wikipedia. Instead, we must debate and discuss; that is, after all, what an MfD discussion is for. --Iamunknown 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Esperanzify: On reflection, the current process is broken in a few respects. In particular, it encourages "runaway advocacies" by advocates who want to fight the system, and it doesn't have a process to monitor advocacies or improve advocacies over time. (In particular, a few of the comments above have alarmed me to the point where I am now on the "delete" side). These issues have been raised several times over the past year or two, but there hasn't been much improvement. IMHO, Esperanzifying the current project would allow us to "close for renovation," and develop a more targeted, less adversarial daughter project. See generally my suggestions here. TheronJ 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Starwood Arbitration was successful. The sock puppet ring was shut down. --Mattisse 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note for above comment: this Essay and this essay's discussion on "Misplaced criticism" may be be an interesting read to concider. It is suggest that such actions may be a WP:POINT. Originally posted 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)... Resigned --CyclePat 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.