Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive 4

message: #Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I have some ideas, but I would like to know for sure: what is the rationale for this? – ClockworkSoul 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is to avoid conflict of interest. If an arbitrator supports one side of a dispute and then that case is brought to arbitration then than arbitrator would have to rescue. Rescuing, means that the ArbCom has less expertese and diversity of opinion - we want to avoid that. Izehar 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who are also arbitrators

message: Dear AMA Members: I've been maintaining the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for some months now, after having taken it over from User:Kim Bruning, and indeed, recently the Mediation Cabal has become fully functional and effective in performing informal mediation. Our primary purpose is to provide mediation assistance where it is requested, not "accepting" or "rejecting" requests but rather providing help where requested. We don't actually have any formal process, nor do we have any kind of fixed mandate, which means our mediators have quite a free rein to do what they think is best for those asking for help from us. 
Really, our primary role here has been to try to staunch issues before they get to a point where they require official intervention, and provide a friendly hand to assist in cases where required. I invite members of the AMA to take a look at this initiative; you will notice that we are indeed alive and well, as Kelly points out, and handling cases. Personally I think we should avoid duplicating each other's efforts; the Mediation Cabal can't really provide the services of an advocate, and likewise the role of an advocate is not the same as an informal mediator. We are so informal that we don't even have a selection or joining process for prospective mediators - people just help out. 
Thus, I respectfully recommend that the AMA not branch into informal mediation, simply because the Mediation Cabal and the AMA will otherwise end up duplicating each other's work rather than focusing on our individual areas of expertise. Indeed, the provision of advocates is I believe absolutely essential to the course of dispute resolution, and I feel that the AMA would do far better to allocate their resources towards building a proper system for the request of user advocates and implementing that system to make advocates available to all members. I believe that many disputes, even some being actively mediated, would greatly benefit from advocates being readily available to provide advice and support to users involved in active disputes. It is always best, I feel, for Wikipedia initiatives to concentrate specifically on a single focus - especially with dispute resolution - and that is what I have done my best to maintain on the Mediation Cabal. I thus highly recommend that the AMA do likewise.
If there is any way I can assist the AMA further, please do not hesistate to ask.
Best regards,
--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with what Nicholas said above.  Bonaparte  talk 07:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. Wally 20:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Neigel has proposed to go through with just part 1 of the above, amended to elect just the Coordinator. I agree with that, and suggest that suffrage be extended to anyone eligible to vote in the first poll. I suggest it be an acting position with a limited term, ex. 1 month, during which time the Coordinator can work with the member body to develop a simple mission statement and structure (possibly, but not necessarily, using or including parts of proposals heretofore put) so we can get ourselves moving again. The Coordinator could also come up with a standard of membership (or perhaps certification?) to use in the future, and we could agree to election procedures — with the advice and consent of all of us in discussion being a basic element.
Anyone object to going forward on that, and that alone? Wally 17:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As it stands 

message: I support wally's proposal, but strongly believe the only qualifications to vote should be being an AMA member before the election takes place. Anytrhing else smakcs of elitism to me and woudl alienate many memebrs, including myself.Gator (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps suffrage could be maintained per the standards in the first vote? I.E. anyone who was a member at the time allotted above can vote? Wally 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Being that there are currently no barriers to entry in AMA, this means that anyone could simply join up and vote. Anyone wanting to sway the vote only has to go find people to do nothing more than add their name to the List of Active Members before the date of polling. Not good. - KeithTyler 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wally, the standard for the first vote are fine.  Hate to see brand new memebers beign shut out and I for one will not check backgrounds to enforce this, but it's a good compromise.  I also am in favor of moving forward to elect a new coordinator and nothgin else for now.Gator (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: #Support — this is bare bones and gets us started off on the right foot, with moderated discussion. It leaves plenty of time to deal with any grey areas. Wally 00:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes in favor (please state reasoning) 

message: #I am tired of voting and prefer the suggestion i made above. I will be more agreeable to a vote if people express an interest in the position, and we agree to some method of preventing further referendums. Sam Spade 11:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes against (please state reasoning) 

message: #Hi I'm user:CyclePat and I'm new. I don't want to vote right now because I'm ignorant to these procedures. --CyclePat 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstaining votes (please state reasoning) 

message: Just want to let you know that I have just resigned as Coordinator of the AMA opening the way for an election. If you want to see my statement check the Coodinator's page: Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator. I hope the members understand the meaning of my resignation and see it as a proactive step in allowing the democratic process to work. While some of you may not think I have been particuarly active recently I think there was good reason for this inactivity and I do not see it as an indication that the AMA is not fulfilling the role that it had under the mandate given to me as the first elected Coordinator. Be that as it may we definitely should have an election and since the term of office of the coordinator was never clearly set resignation is clearly the way to call an election under our present system. Alex756 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three cheers for the Coordinator! Wally 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Huzzah!!  Alex, you did a wonderful job getting the group started and as someone who corresponded with you time to time I realize that RL can come and bite you in the arse sometimes and take away what otherwise would be wiki-bliss!!  Again, thanks for the great job.  --Wgfinley 01:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (answering Wally's request for 3 cheers): Hoorrah! Hoorrah! Hoorrah! (Alex, there is a song called The Third Horrah, by Jethro Tull. You can play it and these written 'hoorrahs' will suddenly be really said!)... Getting serious: you did a great job! Thank you! --Neigel von Teighen 13:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a note from the outgoing AMA Coordinator

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

message: *Before I vote supporting or opposing you, I 'd like to say this: I understand that an Interim Cordinator could be needed now that the scenario has changed with Alex's resignation and that would be the main reason for me to change myopinion of helding an election now. But, on the other hand, we were working in another plan and I think we should try with it first. I like Wgfinley as a new AMA coordinator and I'm sure that he'll do it very well, but it's quite unserious and useless to be changing proposals each day. But I also understand that we need someone that lead this mess so we can vote... In summary, I'm a bit confused, so I prefer to wait before voting until this gets a bit clearer to me --Neigel von Teighen 13:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions & Comments

message: This is getting absurd! Now we're discussing if the ArbCom is doing its job and not what we shuld do! Sam, please stop your discussions with Ambi. I'm wondering if the best would be a de facto Coordinator and end all this endless discussion... --Neigel von Teighen 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much, Keith, but I again say that I reject this. If I'm who's running the election process (de facto), I can't be candidate. Sorry... --Neigel von Teighen 13:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Little comment: I have put the (self-)nominated members in bold before the comment you wrote so it's easier to know who's already candidate. So, we avoid double nominations. Ah, this "process" should last until 3 days after the last candidate has been entered. If afterwards more time is needed, we can extend the period in reasonable way, I think. --Neigel von Teighen 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note that there's no consensus as to whether or not Ambi is eligible, and Nick Turnball cannot nominate. Wally 17:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies Wally; I was not aware it was a formal vote. But surely suggesting candidates should be allowed from anyone, regardless of their involvement? (And I am on the AMA members' list now, after having added myself.) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not a vote, just nominations. And I have no objection to hearing nominations from all corners, nor do I have one to Ambi running, for example. But that may not be the only view. In any event this nomination page will work as the vote seems ready to pass come the 20th. Wally 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please!!!! 

message: Can anyone justify the continued operation of this project? I have seen nothing positive from an AMA advocate operating in their role due to an AMA request - not once has an AMA advocate worked to inform users who come seeking assistance how better to operate within the system - rather, the standard practice appears to be agressively taking their designed advocatees side and using every single wikilawyering, debate-society tactic in the book to "win." 
This does not include advocates who run various things on the side - see Sam Spade, for example, whose prosecutorial whatever appears to be wholy unconnected from this project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know for a fact I have responded to requests and specifically directed their requestors with sincere advice. As have Neigel and others. Dispute resolution in WP is difficult; there's more requests than there are advocates free to field them. A heated dispute can occupy an advocate's AMA plate for a while. Note that advocacy does not mean immediately pushing a situation towards MedCom or ArbCom. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples, please? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I intend to put this up for MFD within the next month unless someone can justify the existance of this project with examples that do not include assisting troublesome users in their wikilawyering. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt anyone here could ever convince you of not filing the MFD in that 3 week time span, so just go ahead and do it now.  We all know what the end result will be anyway, so let's not waste time. No offense intended. Gator (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One example of an AMA advocate operating within the spirit (not the rules)  of Wikipedia to assist a new user in improving the encyclopedia would be more than enough to convince me of the merits of this project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we both know that no matter what the example, it won't satisfy you, so please go ahead and file the MFD.  We are in the midst of attempting to elect a new interim coordinator in order to reform the association, so it's really a bad time to be doing this.  I seriously doubt anyone here will go out of their way to justify the AMA to you or anyone right now and they know an MFD will certainly fail, so it's really best if you jsut file it now instead of waiting three weeks and getting little no responses.  People will, at least, be forced to argue for the AMA in an MFD, so let's just cut to the chase. Just my opinion.Gator (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Counselor, this is not a court of law. I am happy to be wrong. Please provide one example of an AMA advocate operating within the spirit (not the rules) of Wikipedia to assist a new user in improving the encyclopedia. I would not be so certain that an MFD would fail, if I were you. If all of ArbCom shows up and opines negatively, how much more do you think it would take? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to waste my time and no on here owes you a justification. Take it to MFD and see what happens.  Good luck.Gator (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, there's no reason why this project can't be valuable. I'll . Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: With a vote of 9-1-1, and having reached the expiration date latterly set at 20 January, the poll meets consensus and an election will occur at the earliest possible moment.
The proposal called for four days of nomination, followed by a secret ballot vote on the approval system. If no one minds, since there's already a nomination section, that could be retroactively counted towards the four day period in order to move this along quicker.
Nominees thus far are:
KeithTyler (nominated, accepted) and Wgfinley (nominated, accepted). Possible nominees pending acceptance or community consensus are Ambi, Kim Bruning and Neigel von Teighen. Wally 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure and Wikipedia:AMA 2006 Coordinator Election for more, especially if you are a confirmed nominee. Candidate statements are welcome. Wally 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not a nominee! I have said clearly that any nomination for me would be invalid. --Neigel von Teighen 13:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll Closed 

message: Does anyone have an objection to Ambi contesting the position of AMA Coordinator? My personal opinion is that resumption of membership should be automatic following the expiry of a term as Arbitrator, making the fact that she is not presently on the member list irrelevant. If there is significan objection to this, it should be heard; otherwise, I feel she should be considered nominated for the position. Wally 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Else you're going to have very few candidates :-) Kim Bruning 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, you've been nominated. What say you? Wally 02:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one's cared to object, Ambi is nominated. Wally 02:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: There is not consensus as to whether you shall be allowed candidacy, given that he's been a member of this organization for the past five hours. I propose that his candidacy not be allowed, as the exception for Ambi was due to prior membership erroneously unrestored, not for lack of membership. I will withdraw this if anyone supports Hipocrite; however, if not, he will be removed from the candidate page. Wally 23:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be ok w his candidacy if he wasn't being belligerant. If anyone supports him I say we allow him in, but I can't see why anyone would, or why he'd get any votes. I hope you are all becoming aware of why I prefer only advocates who have actually advocated to be allowed sufferage. Sam Spade 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a further datapoint, Hipocrite just today posted a personal attack on my talk page.  There have been other conflicts as well, relating to a dispute that I am having with DreamGuy.  Hipocrite appeared rather suddenly (and negatively) in the discussion, and has also been making what (IMHO) are "less than good faith" edits to my official bio article.  The combination of the attack, as well as applying for this position, somewhat bewilders me, though the discussion here at the AMA does help shed a bit more light on the matter.  I'd agree that there's entryism, but is this also perhaps an example of trolling?  Elonka 10:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So, of the four candidates, one has withdrawn, one has never accepted, one has not written a platform except to call Arbcom a kangaroo court and one is being disqualified because he's too new - and this is the body that is supposed to help people speak truth to power without getting mired down in useless nit-picking. I accepted a request for assistance today - perhaps some of the other people on this page should do so as well. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like :wikilawyering" to me.  Opinion unchanged.Gator (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without objection, then, Hipocrite's candidacy is invalid. Wally 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hipocrite 

message: I am withdrawing from the coordinator election as I am resigning from AMA.  There's a major event behind this but things here at AMA have been bugging me for a few weeks now so it made the other decision rather easy.  This group used to be very loose and committed to helping people, now it seems more in love with its own process and procedure than anything else.  By running for coordinator I was hopeful that I could nudge things in the right direction o get AMA back on track.  I'm not sure if that's possible anymore and I'm not sure if rehabilitating AMA is possible right now.  
I was one of the founders of MedCab and when I came back from wikivacation it was in very good hands so I intended to focus my efforts here on AMA.  Now MedCab is without a coordinator and I don't want to see things fall apart there so I have elected to take over as MedCab coordinator.  I think what that group does is very important and it has always had a flair for being informal, something I very much like.
So, I am resigning from AMA at this time.  I leave with but one bit of advice and that is to LOOSEN UP.  This group is falling over itself with policy and procedure and policy and procedure for policy and procedure.  This isn't helping people which was the goal of AMA when it was founded -- to help people that needed it.  I don't see a lot of that going on and it's sorely needed.  So, I wish you all the best, I really hope you can get things turned around.  If you are serious about mediation I invite you to come join, you don't have to quit here to do so.   Audi alteram partem.  --Wgfinley 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do not agree with everything you say, Guy, I'm damn glad you were here to say it. You will be missed, sorely, and I hope we rapidly build the organization that you want to rejoin, and that does helpin exactly the way it needs to. Wally 05:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Wgfinley|Wgfinley's]] Withdrawal & Resignation 

message: Wgfinley has make me take a decision I was thinking of since all this mess began. I tried to do my best by starting a nomination process that had now led into the dissaster we have now. Damned be that post () which began all this "revival" process that ended with AMA's agony. Sorry for beginning the nomination process without consensus and try to install "de facto" an election. Bye! 
Wgfinley, I'll think about being part of the MedCab, though I don't like informal mediations. Maybe I'll do it as a step unto the MedCom, in which I always wanted to be. --Neigel von Teighen 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask that you reconsider. We are moving a bit slowly, but steadily, towards our goal of a full and fair election. It is absolutely crucial that good members stay with us during this time, and it would be difficult for the organization to get on without you — although it will if it must. Wally 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neigel von Teighen's resignation 

message: I deleted the entirety of the bloated membership page and replaced it with the people who have commented on this talk page to date and new joiners in the month of January. Please feel free to re-add yourself to the project if I deleted your entry in error - it was nothing more than an error. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no right to do that. I'm restoring the membership list. We do not simply purge people here. Wally 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The member list, as it stands, is useless. For example, on the list, right now, is: User:telekenetix. I know you hate me and everything I stand for, but this project is currently not working. Pruning the membership list to only include people who want to be on the project is a good thing, and I hope you will revert your reversion of my attempts to fix things. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Instead of deleting the inactive users, I refactored the list into active - accepting cases, active - caseload full and inactive. People who are miscategorized should move themselves. Is this a reasonable compromise? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again...everything has to be a war.  Just knock it off.Gator (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hipocrite, you are new and obviously have little knowledge or regard of the traditions and rules of this organization. You obviously also don't understand that, as we are about to elect new leadership, it is in poor form to start making changes to the main pages of this website with neither discussion nor stated reason. If you change this page one more time I will speak to an administrator. Wally 21:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that you do so. Please do not violate the 3rr on this project page, and instead discuss with me about why refactoring the user list is either good or bad. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't have consensus here and I'm not going to waste 1/2 hour of my life explaining this to you.  Just leave it alone (for now).Gator (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you aren't willing to discuss why one version is better than another, than please don't revert. Reversion wars are silly. I don't know what problems exist that I can fix - I solved the problem of not removing members by keeping all members in the new version of the list. Is there another concrete problem I can solve? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I care or else I wouldn't be reverting you, but I do not care to cater to your whims and demands and have to explain to you something that seems obviosu to others and that (Ithink) you understand byut just like to cause trouble.  Without consensus (that you clearly do not have) you cannot be making these changes.  Stop.Gator (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gator, let it go. I'm having the page protected. Wally 21:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you feel that there are any improvements that could be made to the member list? Perhaps we could remove the people who are clearly no longer editing the wiki? Perhaps we could have a seperate section at the top for people who are currently taking cases? Perhaps we could standardize the signature form (getting rid of the stylizied signatures that are currently there?) Do you have any changes that you think would be helpful? Would you like to discuss my proposed changes, or only revert them? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What changes would you like to see made to the member list, which is where I'm starting. I think we should get rid of people who have not edited the wiki for a substantial period (they can readd themselves, obviously, and would not be removed again), and people who have struck themselves. Your thoughts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be no changes made a week before we have a new Coordinator. There is no reason this must happen now, and it is disruptive if it proceeds. Also, we do not inactivate members unless they do it themselves, as we lack sufficient information at this time to judge. Wally 21:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your thoughts on declaring *EVERYONE* inactive untill they move themselves to the active column? That was my initial thought (actually, my initial thought was blank everyone, let people add themselves back), and saves us from the hassle of evaluating peoples active/inactive status? It has been weeks since this stupid election has started, and this project is stagnant. That needs to stop, now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been a week and a half, and for less than a third of that time have you been here! Just who exactly do you think you are to try to railroad a process on which we've all agreed, and which is finally proceeding apace despite your opposition? Wally 21:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been three weeks since the AMA = MEDCAB proposal showed up. Belive you me, I've been here for far longer than that. I'm going to do what I think is best to help this encyclopedia, as I've said before above. Your thoughts on fixing the member list so that when someone wants help and starts mailing members at random it dosen't take him days to get help? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 

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

message: Is there any reason to have the member statements page? Is there a single statement that provides anything of value to a client? This is part of my strategy of making people advocate more and deal with meta-bullshit less. The statements page is worthless, and should go. Again, I know, I know, wait till after the stupid procedural dumbass election garbage, so I'm not going to make the change, but if you don't want that change made the second whoever the new "coordinator" is is elected, this is the place to discus reasons and alternatives. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you won't make any change on your own without consensus. Beyond that we'll see if the members agree with you. I personally do not. Wally 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I think my member statement provides value.  Feel free to copy it if you feel that yours doesn't. Pedant 05:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your member statement is, I believe, a statement that should be made by each and every advocate here. I find it admirable and valuable. It is nearly unique in that aspect. Please evaluate the page as a whole and consider what value it adds? Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad you have opinions. There will be ample opportunity to express them when we do policy review. Wally 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Member statements are useless 

message: The thing people are reading for on the main page is how to get help. Most everthing else needs to go. I also suggest that the first paragraph BEGS people to wikilawyer. If we're devoted to protecting "due process," we might as well kill ourselves now, because "due process" here is "due what helps the encyclopedia."
The following sections are better on talk page or a new "member information" sction:
Resignation of Coordinator
AMA Membership Meeting
Call for election
Rules of the Association
AMA Userbox template
Again, I know, I know, wait till after the stupid procedural dumbass election garbage, so I'm not going to make the change, but if you don't want that change made the second whoever the new "coordinator" is is elected, this is the place to discus reasons and alternatives. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment above. Wally 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main page is too long 

message: Calling something they're trying to do "stupid procedural dumbass election garbage" is not the way to do it.  If you're just trying to cause trouble and get people to react badly so that you can use that against them later (RFA for example) then you're doing great.  I for one will not react to you so you cna jsut give up, but I've also decided not to waste too much time listening to you either, so it's OK.Gator (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed my attack on the election. Would you like to comment on my substantive proposals? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would.  maybe not exactly when you want me to, but....you're not going to always get people to do what you want, when you want it.  Good life lesson I think.Gator (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If you want people to listen to you...

message: *User:Hipocrite/AMAs
Sam Spade 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gator pointed that out to me. I was going to list it on VFD before I remembered that it was on his user page, and thus it's rather more difficult to deal with than a normal page on the Wikispace. Wally 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can draft whatever I want in my userspace. FFS. It's a thought on an alternative, or a replacement for what's currently there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no, that's not true. The limits are broader — but the discretion is not wholly yours. Rest assured that issue will be dealt with following the election, whoever our Coordinator may be. Wally 07:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell? 

message: I've word from Theresa, and we're officially ready to go.
Here is how it will work:
*The election begins on Friday, 3 February 2006 at 0000 hours UTC. It will last for one week; or, until Friday, 10 February 2006, at 0000 hours UTC.
*Votes will be e-mailed to Theresa knott at Theresaknott@gmail.com.  The phrase AMA Coordinator Election Ballot must be in the title. Within the e-mail, you must specify your username and list the candidate(s) you choose. Failure to do so will have your ballot rejected.
*You may pick either candidate or both. As voting functions by approval method, you simply put down the names of any candidates which you find acceptable. Write-in votes are allowed; however, in the unlikely event a write-in candidate should prove victorious, they would have to first accept the office. Candidates who have already rejected nomination (Neigel von Teighen), accepted but subsequently withdrew (WGFinley), or been found ineligible (Hipocrite) will be automatically discounted, and the next-highest vote-winner elected, should they win. 
*A list of those members with suffrage is available on the 2006 Coordinator Election AMA page, as well as on the procedure page. The criteria for suffrage is membership as of 21:46 on 6 January 2006. Members who do not reach that criteria may not cast a ballot. Those who were members at that time but have since removed their names from the member list are likewise discounted. 
*All members who possess suffrage — they are seventy in number — will be informed of the election within the next day on their talk pages. Anyone who would like to volunteer to assist me in passing on the word is welcome to pick part of the list and do so; but all members must be informed by the start of voting.
Good luck to the candidates and to the organization! Further questions to User:Theresa knott.
Wally 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should reference these instructions from the election page. Users are directed to the 2006 election page which does not lay this out or link to it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor was banning write-in candidates discussed anywhere. I no longer care (this either gets fixed or replaced, I think), but you've certainly done a lot of things to stop people from voting for me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Write-in candidates weren't banned — in fact, they were specifically allowed. Candidates who have already been determined by community consensus to be ineligible are excluded. If so many people were going to vote for you, then there would have been no consensus for excluding you from the race. I remind you that I asked for a single member to back your candidacy in order that it might be allowed, and not a single member was willing to do so. I do not consider it my fault that your heavy-handedness and arrogance have excluded you from this race — that, and the spirit of the rules by which this organization is run. Wally 05:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELECTION STARTING 

message: Here's the message I'm posting on talk pages:
Dear AMA Member,
You are entitled to vote in the AMA Coordinator election, set to begin at midnight on 3 February 2006. Please see the pages on the election and its candidates and the procedure and policy and cast a vote by e-mail!
Wally 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All members have been notified. Wally 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for election 

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

message: Just to help get an impression as to preliminary returns, everyone who's voted say so here (note: don't mention who you voted for, just that you voted).
# Wally 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I voted! *get a sticker* 

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

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

message: I am acting as the advocate for some of the parties in the Shiloh Shepherd Dog dispute, which is before the ArbCom.  Some of them are filing incident reports at WP:ANI against other parties.  This is both undermining my ability to advocate for them and messing up the case by being argued in two places at once.  Does someone have advice?  Robert McClenon 20:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually refuse to represent people who refuse to take my advice. I'm abit dubious about people making a big fuss over adog article in the first place... Sam Spade 21:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't just a content dispute.  The case is about personal attacks and harassment.  The reason that they are making a big fuss about it is an old-fashioned one:  Money.  Money is a perfectly common reason to make a big fuss.  At least one of the parties is a breeder.  The content dispute involves various kennels and registries (records of pedigrees).  Your suggestion not to represent people who refuse to cooperate, however, is an entirely reasonable one.  Robert McClenon 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I wonder if perhaps another idea might be hit upon to close the election issue, since the election did not close it on its own. This is not a proposal; rather, it is simply food for thought, and I would like to hear reactions.
I conjecture:
*A Governing Committee, made up of five, seven, or nine governing members (on a voluntary basis) to be co-chaired by Ambi and KeithTyler;
*This Committee will be responsible for reforms, with a focus on developing advocacy guidelines, clearing away requests backlogs and developing a system for future Coordinators and their installation;
*This Committee will dissolve itself at the point at which a full-time Coordinator will be elected or otherwise chosen.
Anyone?
:While I respect the attempt to come to a middle ground, this strikes me as unnecessarily bureaucratic. There's an argument for why we need a convenor at all (which I agree with), but even that much is disputed - I see little gain for either the AMA or the broader encyclopedia in adding instruction creep. Ambi 08:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we need to do something. Let's not call things "instruction creep" as a heuristic; rather let's consider the idea on its own merits. We have to solve the impasse here one way or the other, and neither of you seem on the point of yielding to the other. Wally 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See section immediately below. ;-) Kim Bruning 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As there is not yet a settlement 

message: Oh fook it, kids these days.
*Heads: Keith Tyler
*Tails: Ambi
<grabs a nickle>
<flips>
<comes up tails>
FWIW. (I hope you'll take my word and don't request photographic evidence in triplicate, as I've put the nickle away again.)
Kim Bruning 11:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old fashioned resolution

message: There, the election is over. Moving on
The thing people are reading for on the main page is how to get help. Most everthing else needs to go. I also suggest that the first paragraph BEGS people to wikilawyer. If we're devoted to protecting "due process," we might as well kill ourselves now, because "due process" here is "due what helps the encyclopedia."
The following sections are better on talk page or a new "member information" sction:
*Resignation of Coordinator
*AMA Membership Meeting
*Call for election
*Rules of the Association
*AMA Userbox template
Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I strongly support the rewrite already done to the intro paragraph. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tnx. Sam Spade 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here on both counts. Ambi 03:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Main Page Is Too Long 

message: Can we please require that people reaffirm their membership or be removed from the main page? It's not a valuable resource. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that... but I don't think I can affirm that because the last vote only certain members that where there for a longer time could vote. Wouldn't be hipocrital if we aloud my seconding of the proposition? Meuh!  I second that anyway. --CyclePat 14:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Get back to us on what qualifies as active. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we ought to have some system to determine membership; perhaps even a "bar exam" that all members need to pass to be qualified as advocates, so that we can provide a minimum level of training so that they will be able to helpfully and effectively represent their clients. Wally 19:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can go about easier than that really - perhaps just requring people to give a wannabe-advocate the nod first (so as to prevent clearly unsuitable candidates), and then keeping an eye on newbie advocates and helping them find useful mentors where necessary. Ambi 10:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only recently joined, so I haven't actually done any advocacy yet. I'd be more than happy to take on a case if there's anything available, or would it be better if I simply accept one of the requests on the requests page? --bainer (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just grab a request on the page and go about it as best you can. We're here on the talk page to answer questions you might have; the Guide to Advocacy, albeit in an elder form, is also available. Apart from that, good luck and look after your client! Wally 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, please don't. We're still talking about how we want to go about things - blanking everything is inappropriate. And you're not the person to do it in any case. Wally 22:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: be bold so they say... WP:BOLD... is the moto of wiki. If you take them off we should at least leave a mesage on their user page. better yet. We should make it so that all members have an email or something so we can easilly send everyone a message (mass email... or quick message on their user page.)!! Not only would that re-affirm their existance but it would also make for faster communication between users and it may even encourage some new case to be formed. Unless of course their's some other solution for quick and effective communication and affirming our affiliation with AMA. ... (a scouts pledges?)  (Or a chain of contact... so and so contacts 5 users.  and so and so contacts 5 more... etc?) dunno.. I'm just throwing silly ideas in the air! --CyclePat 00:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Hipocrite on this one. If we have a great list of people who've never done anything but whack their name on a list and don't even watch this page at all, we're little more than a social club. If we're actually going to link people up with advocates, we need the list to be of people who are actually prepared to do the work. If we blank it now, anyone who is still interested could be perfectly welcome to add their name back, and thus ensuring that we get rid of people who lost interest a year ago. Ambi 03:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily disagree; but I believe that membership ought to be based on more than simple self-selection, hence why it's so important to establish guidelines and some sort of advocate training. Wally 04:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a start, I think. We can move towards some approval mechanism as the next step. Ambi 04:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as that's in the dock, why not? Wally 05:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blanked, readd anyone you feel was removed in error. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The membership list is filled with people who don't care 

message: Hipocrite said that the requests page was overburdened and should be archived.  I tried to discuss the details of its archiving.  Then there was an uncivil personal exchange.  I would like to go back to the original topic.  Who should do the archiving?  I would suggest that requests that have been made in February 2006 should not be archived unless they have been accepted or overtaken by events.  (In one case, for instance, the requester was blocked as a sockpuppet.)  Who should do the archiving?
:Archived. Please return anything I archived innapropriately to the main page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

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

message: I know of two ways that editors can request Advocate assistance.  The obvious one is by posting to the Requests talk page.  The other way is, of course, by contacting the advocate directly (e.g., via his talk page or email address), possibly because the advocate has been involved in the dispute.  Are there any other undocumented back doors that get Advocates assigned to people?  (I have a reason for asking this, but will be discreet about it.)  Robert McClenon 19:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are none, to my knowledge, simply because that's those ways satisfy all conditions. On the requests page gets it taken care of more broadly and quickly; asking an individual advocate makes it more private. That can be done via talk-page or e-mail. Another way, I suppose, is through a third party, though that's not a situation I've encountered. Wally 23:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Wally said. Could this be clarified on the main page at all? Ambi 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: This is a proposal for the revitalisation of the AMA. It goes into detail on how things should work.
===Tasks undertaken by the AMA===
#Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties find a solution to their dispute)
#Neutral Evaluation (stating an opinion)
#Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
#Appeals (to blocks and/or ArbCom decisions)
===Application process===
*Tasks 1 and 2 above will require consent from all parties.
*Applications will be made on the page where they are made now, and should be made using a standard template.
 ==Example Application==
 ===Requested service===
 ===Involved parties====
 ===Brief description of circumstances (with word limit)===
 ===Evidence of all parties' consent (if applicable)===
*If an application has not been accepted within 72 hours, it will be rejected. The parties can reapply no earlier than one week from date of rejection.
*Acceptance by an advocate will be done by notification on all parties talk pages.
*An advocate may not withdraw from a case that he/she has accepted except in the following circumstances:
**The advocate has given seven day's notice of his intention to withdraw to all parties and on the discussion page of the requests page.
**Three days before the advocate actually withdraws, the original request must be re-entered on to the requests page and will remain there for the full 72 hours or until another advocate accepts the case.
**The applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to such an extent that it would be unfair for him/her to withdraw his/her services.
***"Services" includes future services which the advocate has agreed to supply by accepting the case.
***It is presumed that the applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to the said extent. This presumption is reversed once evidence to the contrary is produced.
*Failure to comply with these regulations will be subject to comments from the Association membership and may result in suspension of membership or expulsion from the Association.
*Perfect service and the desired result of the parties can not be guaranteed.
===Member votes===
*The sole decision making process for the AMA is a member vote.
*Member votes may be called by any member.
*Member votes last for a set period of time and only the votes of advocates who have chosen to participate will be taken into account.
*The sole criterion for eligibility to vote is to be a member of at least ten days standing.
*Member votes work on a first past the post basis.
===Coordination===
*The AMA is a democratic organisation and all decisions about its operation are made by members of at least ten days standing.
*The nominal head of the AMA is the Coordinator.
*The Coordinator is assisted by two Deputy-Coordinators who may take his place, should he/she be absent when his presence is required.
===Elections===
*The Coordinator and the Deputy Coordinators are elected by direct vote of all eligible members.
**Eligible members are members of at least ten days standing.
*In the election each member has one vote.
*The candidate who receives the most votes is elected Coordinator.
*The two candidates with the most votes after the Coordinator are elected Deputy Coordinators
===Acquisition, suspension and termination of membership===
*Membership is open to anyone except those who have explicitly been excluded by a member vote.
*Membership can be suspended by a member vote.
*Membership can be terminated by a member vote.
*Membership can be terminated on the request (i.e. removing one's name from the list).
===Miscellaneous provisions===
*A user should decline to act as mediator in a case where the user has previously acted as an advocate. 
*A user should decline to act as advocate in a case where the user has previously acted as a mediator. 
*A user should decline to act as a mediator if that user has recently acted as an advocate for or against one of the parties in the mediation. 
*When participating in mediation, users who are both advocates and mediators should state clearly the capacity in which they are acting.
*Users who are also arbitrators should not serve as advocates while they are members of the Arbitration Committee.
===Support===
#Well obviously I do.Gator (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies; the comment was from me, and I intended to sign it. I do so now. Wally 06:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: #Well obviously I do.Gator (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # Despite the above, I might be willing to support this proposal if there were more stringent requirements for membership. I really think we ought to refashion ourselves more like a guild than a voluntary organization that people use to make themselves look more active, as it were. Plus, if we introduce a training element to advocacy, advocates will be better prepared to deal with the ArbCom and with steps in the dispute resolution process. I remember when I took my first case, I didn't even know the steps in dispute resolution, and had to learn them as I went along. That should not be what younger members need to go through. Perhaps apprenticeship?
#I agree with the spirit of the above unsigned comment, but would never agree to some aspects opf the proposed policy. Sam Spade 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies; the comment was from me, and I intended to sign it. I do so now. Wally 06:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

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

message: Since the proposals offered so far have been nonstarters and the reform is not getting underway, I propose we have an IRC meeting of the sort we've had before, with one caveat — everyone must come with a proposal, no matter how sketchy or nebulous, about how to improve the organization. We'll vote on each at the meeting, and those that pass will gain implementation. Hopefully that might allow for some work to be done.
Anyone have a specific date that might be good? I'm in Eastern Time, US, and can meet pretty much whenever on any Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Wally 19:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, me too...just not weekdays from 6am-5pm. --Osbus 14:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no preference on what time we should meet on Fri/Sat/Sun. Preferably later in the night, Eastern time USA. But that is only because I'm up that late on the weekends. I dunno what I'll bring idea-wise, but I'll try and come up with something. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meeting proposal 

message: I keep getting requests for an advocate, even though I have not been an AMA member for at least 2 years. I note that my name does not appear on the list of members. Miguel 11:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly would you like us to do about it? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. I wonder whether a list of "former members" wouldn't make matters even worse, even with a disclaimer to not contact us about mediation. I am really puzzled as to where all these requests [just two in 2006 actually, but rather puzzling since I have all but vanishe dfrom the 'pedia over the last 18 months] are coming from. Miguel 23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you were recommended... ;) --Osbus 02:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A complaint 

message: What are members' feelings on how to handle requests involving disputes on non-:en WPs? Some things come to mind:
* We are primarily EN and are not officially qualified to work in other languages
* Other WPs have their own DR procedures (do these tend to differ from EN's?)
* Leave it up to the other WPs to have their own specific AMAs
* Leave it open depending on whether a language-capable advocate exists, but no guarantees (not that there are any anyway)
Other thoughts? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if we individually want to handle it, of course we should, but not in any affiliation with the AMA. --Osbus 02:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside :EN? 

message: This is to tell you that the Wikipedia:Justice Court has been set up to maintain a list of bad admins and act as a early warning system. We are accepting application for personnel here.Geo.plrd 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Justice Court ~Kylu (u|t)  03:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation 

message: I think it's about time I did the right thing and threw in the towel here. I was really keen to help improve the AMA's services a few months ago, but personal life changed dramatically (including with it a curtailing of internet access) and I simply haven't had the opportunity or desire to do what I should have since. As such, I'm resigning as AMA coordinator effective immediately. I think it's only fair that KeithTyler should, if still interested, take over as of now. Rebecca 04:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With Rebecca's resignation, and the pages here going silent and somewhat discombobulated, I'd say it's more than time for the AMA to pick itself up by the bootstraps. A lot of cleaning up needs to be done here, and we need to band back together and see if we can get this organization more organized :-) I'm taking it upon myself to send a message to each AMA member listed a talk page message to see if we can get a roll call as to who is still "active," so we can update the list. Once we know who's here and working, I strongly suggest that we hold an election to get a new Coordinator and designate our Deputies. People need Advocates. What does everyone think? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea Steve.  I'm all for it Aeon Insane Ward 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm sad to see Ambi/rebbeca leave us here, i think that the AMA needs a large re-structuring including the designating of a new codinator Benon 22:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Resignation

message: I think it is time to elect the new Coordinator.  I nominate Steve Caruso for the now vacant spot.  He taken charge of the AMA redo and has rose to the occassion wonderfully Aeon Insane Ward 03:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am truly honored by your nomination, Aeon. :-) If no one objects and we are concretely on our way towards a new election, I accept. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 03:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck, kid.  You're gonna need it. Wally 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Should we do the election here on this talk page, creat a new one or have it at the Cooradinators Desk? Aeon Insane Ward 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election Where should it be held? 

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

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