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

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)

First section

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

  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)

<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)

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)

Random breakpoint

• 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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 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)

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

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)

Support in the Strongest terms for keeping this process

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)