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

message: please note that a couple of folks posted opinions in the short period of time after the first closure was reverted, which are now sitting in the edit history. New section break to avoid e/c. --kingboyk 17:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouw, I have no idea if anything even got reverted or what... too much edit conflicts as a lot of people stampeded over here. I think people want to slow down and think about things for a second. You're supposed to participate in consensus discussions with a clear mind. ^^;;; --Kim Bruning 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine was clear :P  However, my stomach is empty, whopper calling my name. Navou banter / contribs 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol. I was edit conflicted but didn't know I was edit conflicting against a closure :) I don't mind, leave my edit in the history unless this gets reopened in which case it can be restored. --kingboyk 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this gets reopened 

message: Further discussion might best continue on the Association of members advocates talk page, I think. --Kim Bruning 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a great way to bring the issue up to AMA members. But I think that we need to bring this up the community at large, by using MFD as a venue. Just my 2 cents, though. GracenotesT § 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I think AMA deserves a decent discussion on the matter, rather than just keep, delete, etc. If things really break down at the AMA talk page for some reason, well we could always consider MFD... but maybe not even then, you can just mark things historial or rejected anyway, after all. The esperanza MFD was a big drama. Trying this a different way can't hurt much ^^:; --Kim Bruning 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AMA has been discussed repeatedly. Off and on, over and over and over. XfDs are discussions, but they're also more decisive. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was any of those discussions about marking as historical? (Diffs would be great :-) ) --Kim Bruning 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't recall anything that major, no. The last discussion I can recall petered out and went nowhere, which is exactly what an MfD won't do. And no, I can't find it; please don't be angry if it's a false memory ;) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicussion continues at [[WT:AMA]] 

message: ::**Question - Do you think you could help me in my  advocee request for an answer for me? My case has been open/closed/opened and then put "under investigation" since November with no communication with me for almost two months now, not since I requested an explanation and update re the "investigation" (which I never asked for and don't know what is being investigated -- except that some of the sockpuppets after me had Advocates) from the AMA Coordinator investigator and was told I was whining and to calm down.  Sincerely, Mattisse 11:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matisse, although this is not the right place to talk about this, I'm not AMA Coordinator and just can't take a case another AMA has taken... unless someone wants me to overthrow Steve and take the Coordination. But I'll inmediately contact Steve. --Neigel von Teighen | help with arbs? 11:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Steve is not coordinator in question. Guess there is no way to get answer. He is the coordinator, so thanks!  Mattisse 11:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thread moved from MFD 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is a mess, yes. The easiest option is to put your opinion at the bottom. Do you want me to place it on the page for you? --kingboyk 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand what you mean. --kingboyk 14:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please place my comment at an appropriate place on the page. Thanks. --Dweller 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. --kingboyk 10:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: MFD is not a vote it's a discussion. --kingboyk 10:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messy page 

message: (edit conflict)
*Request - Neigel von Teighen, perhaps you or someone could supply me with an answer. My AMA case has been open since November. It has been "Under Investigation" since February 6, though I do not know what is being investigated. To this day I have not received any  Advocate feedback, even though I requested tips for getting along on Wikipedia, advice, and interchange with an Advocate in my original application. The AMA coordinator said on a talk page recently that all the Advocates disliked me and that all my problems were my fault. Is this true? If so, is it possible that I can learn why and how to change? No Advocate since my application in November 2006 has initiated contact with me, except for a welcoming message. I have asked by email and my Advocate talk pages for feedback multiple times and have been ignored or told I was being a pest. I have asked on other talk pages. This is a last ditch effort to get a response. It is true that two Advocates have apologised to me (you being one of them even though you were not my Advocate) and I greatly appreciate and am thankful to you and the other  Advocate for that kindness. Sincerely,  Mattisse 15:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open case

message: I've been thinking about the scope of a replacement project.  (Assuming that we just don't want to refer to people to help desk/adopt a user).  IMHO, if people want to continue the (laudable) goal of assisting confused/new/frustrated users with dispute resolution, it's not crazy to have a project, but any project:
#Must be clearly focused on dispute resolution, not on advocacy for one side of a dispute.  IMHO, it's reasonable for a troubled editor to understand that a particular editor is his advisor, or big brother, or whatever.  In many cases, that's helpful, as it allows the troubled editor to share confidential information, or to trust that a particular editor has his best interests at heart.  However, it's also essential that the troubled editor and the community understand that we're here for dispute resolution, not pure advocacy per se.
#Should have a bar to entry, oversight, and continuing focus on attaining our overall goals.  This will increase bureaucracy, which was one of Esperanza's cardinal sins, and will increase wait time, but will reduce the total number of "runaway advocacies."
#Ideally, will continue to benefit from automation.  The current AMA has some great automation, ranging from satisfaction surveys to an alert system.  Hopefully, if this process doesn't turn off the developers, a follow up project could incorporate similar tech where appropriate.
Thoughts?  Thanks!
TheronJ 18:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a proposal (though not necessarily as a replacement, I think it would serve a good purpose even if AMA is ultimately kept here) at WP:ASSIST. What do you think? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work - that's pretty close to what I had in mind.  If I get some time clear this week, I will try to make some suggestions.  TheronJ 18:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on a replacement project 

message: Another month, another Wikipedia namespace (project space) set of pages gets nominated for deletion at MfD. <sigh> Another huge page of comments to read. What was that someone was saying about a scale problem again? :-( I'm glad to see that Kim and others are waving the archivists/historical flag, and that following the Esperanza debate on those issues, this seems a bit clearer and popular this time round. Maybe when WP:RfArb gets MfD'd then people will all be voting historical rather than delete... :-) Of course, what is needed is for the nominator to say up front that they are nominating a set of project pages with a long history, and that any delete votes will be counted as being a vote for tagging historical. Anyway, in closing I will point out once again what Brion said about deletion. See this diff. Someone else pointed this out recently with the comment: "it is a common misconception that deleted pages are kept forever, this is not so.) Such scavanging of harddisk resources is delayed a long time, and it seems that way, but a deleted page does eventually go away forever per Brion Viber". The misconception that the history of the project can be retrieved from the deleted pages archive needs to be stamped out. Historical pages must be archived, not deleted. (Sure, someone else might be archiving it anyway, but we should at least pretend we are organised enough to do our own archiving - we even have the software that can do it for us...) Carcharoth 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving seems more popular this time round