Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates

message: For whatever reason, the historic note says that reform failed to surface "after several months". It was two. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right... sighs... I try not to think on this anymore: although I understand (not agree) the reasons behind the process, it must be said that it had irregularities. Yes, AMA would have been shut down sooner or later, but I think the haste of many led them to make some mistakes: the improper MfDs, discussions everywhere else than RfC and a historical tag put by one user in the name of community. No, I don't think AMA's closure was illegal because of these issues, just that I would have liked to have a more transparent and clearer process with average user's input, not only admins, arbs & Ed. Assistance members (well, they had to give their opinion because of the shameful abduction-attempt from some of us)... This is the only complaint I keep: I'm not sure which was the average users' consensus. --Neigel von Teighen 06:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic note 

message: ...if I could provide a link to the WuA page? --Gp75motorsports 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was wondering... 

message: Please add this user page to :Category:Wikipedia contact role accounts.  —Sladen (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ruslik (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? That category is for special user accounts. This page is not a user page. Or am I missing something? --Bduke  (Discussion) 22:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would someone please remove the category - it is for user accounts. — neuro(talk) 14:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  - JPG-GR (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Wikipedia contact role accounts]] 

message: The Association of Members' Advocates has been inactive and tagged as historical since May 2007. I feel now that there is very little content of the AMA on Wikipedia that is still required. I have tagged several pages, redirects and images for deletion over the past couple of days which I believe are no longer necessary. However, I'm not sure if there is even any need to retain archived meeting pages, or even the case pages filled out by users. I had to place the Request for Comment page on the talk page since the main AMA page is protected. I would like to hear what everyone else thinks about this. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree. These pages do not meet the criteria for deletion - WP:DEL#REASON. They are a record of discussions which took place regarding user behaviour and Wikipedia matters, some of which relate to past ArbCom activity, and might be potentially useful to future ArbCom activity. What I particularly like about Wikipedia is the accountability and record keeping that takes place - I see no need to undermine that accountability, especially on pages that record difficulties that users had with other users, or with the Wikipedia system. This stuff is too valuable to destroy. SilkTork *YES! 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment on AMA

message: I have no idea why the page was wiped (let alone protected), since there's no obvious reason for it that I could see (I can speculate that it's due to the opponents of the proposal "dancing on it's grave", but you can't say stuff like that on Wikipedia since we're all supposed to "AGF"! *roll eyes*). Just in case anyone's curious though, what was apparently the last version of the proposal prior to this being marked historical is located here. Of course, someone will probably come along and wipe the history now (*sigh*).— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been unprotected, and I've reverted it to the state it was in at the time it was marked historical.— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whole proposal in history 

message: I've resurrected these pages to look similar to what they looked like when the project went dark so there is a better historical record of the organization. This is mainly because of a proposal that pretty much is the same as what AMA was. I think it better to keep the information around so interested parties can see what happened as opposed to wiping it and someone recreating it without any prior reference. Some other pages were wiped and redirected, I have resurrected those and put "historical" at the top.
The talk page archive was an absolute disaster and used two numbering systems (i.e. Archive 2 and Archive2 both had something in them). I have completely fixed the archives so they are chronological and under the standard numbering system and are now searchable.
As a former member of this group I saw what was right with it and got out as a whole lot was going wrong with it. I think it important to keep it around so people can read it and learn from it, they won't if it's blanked (and I would add the prior AFDs failed so blanking is inappropriate anyway). I hope this proves useful for folks. --WGFinley (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrecting for Memorializing