Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Message board/August 2006

< Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates | Message board
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AMA Meeting/August 2006)
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Royalguard11 in topic Further WP:AMARQ streamlining


This is the AMA Meeting board for August, 2006. Since actually getting members together on an IRC chat may tend to be akin to herding cats, this might work out for us a bit better.

The following items are up for discussion by anyone and everyone, but only AMA Members may vote. Please leave your signed comments in the appointed areas:

New Coordinator Election

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Result: Steve was elected as the official coordinator with a vote of 10/0/0.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

We really need to officially elect a Coordinator, but as of now there is only one candidate. If anyone else wishes to step forward and nominate someone or nominate themselves, please do so in this section. After nominations are finished we can hold elections.

Nominations

I nominate myself. This is a statement of my qualifications: I am very busy and if elected I won't spend the amount of time that [User:The_Thadman/Desk|desk] has been spending on organising the AMA pages. I don't have the same level of skill at using templates and organising alerts as our current coordinator. I have a somewhat abrasive personality, which shows through my attempts to mask it. I am not an admin and probably never will be as I somehow seem to have aggravated a few admins and other key editors, so it might be assumed that my actions as coordinator may meet with some resistance from the rest of the community outside the AMA. My username itself has negative connotations for many in the community. My stance re advocacy is that advocacy is most helpful to the community at large, by decreasing procedural drain on the community. I do feel that even editors who are 'wrong' re policies and guidelines deserve a voice, and this has led me to 'speak for' advocee viewpoints that are demonstrably wrong and distinctly opposite to my personal viewpoint. I'm currently involved in an editing dispute on Hippie re the origin and core beliefs of the 'original hippies', and have devoted most of my wikipedia time to that in the last week. My 2 most recent official advocacies have resulted in 1) an advocee who persisted in likspamming after the close of advocacy and 2) an advocee whose valuable contributions continued to be removed from the article in question, after the close of their case. I would judge these 2 cases to be only minimally successful and I am still monitoring the 2 articles in question, so I'm sort of busy with that. In short, I think my election to the coordinator position may have a net negative effect. Of all the advocates, I am not aware of any who have better qualifications for the position than I, except for the current acting coordinator. I will most likely vote for the current coordinator, and am only nominating myself so that we can have more than one candidate. If elected however, I would do my best to serve well. User:Pedant 19:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Added Pendant to the Election and redid it. Æon Insane Ward 20:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Election

Since no one has put forth there names I have started a poll to make Steve the offical Coordinator Æon Insane Ward 03:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Election

Advocacy Handbook Rewrites

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Result: Pedant volunteered and made quality additions to the documentation as well as an example of case documentation. Further case studies may be a good thing to investigate and include.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

There are two major documents that we need to look over:

Along with another document that is currently under construction:

We need to get some editors in there to contribute and even things out as well as add personal experiences and examples. Any volunteers?

Volunteers list

  1. User:Pedant tonight I did some fairly extensive work on Wikipedia:Guide to Advocacy and Wikipedia:AMA Handbook, would someone else like to look it over? I don't want to speak for the whole group if my thoughts aren't in line with the group consensus. I'd appreciate any comments about anything that seems wrong, or just fix it. I tried to condense some of the more verbose sections. It seems to me that there is a lot of duplicated material on the two pages, and maybe it might be worthwhile to merge them? Unless I am not understanding the point of the two pages... User:Pedant 02:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Right now the FAQ (4 questions I think) that Steve mentioned is in my userspace at User:Pedant/AMA FAQ and I encourage anyone who feels like it to take a look and make a note on anything you don't like or edit it however you see fit, I'll dig some old questions out of some emails, maybe you can get some together, we all get asked question I'm sure, so lets get them together and decide what the group consensus is on the answers. I'm NOT encouraging more process or instruction creep, just its nice to be able to easily welcome new advocates and to have a place for the community to get a better picture of our 'advocate philosophy'. Personally, mine is maybe more informal than Steve's, I think. But it's nice to have a mix in the group, and I think Steve's doing a great job formalising what needs to be formalised. Anyway, comments from any of the rest of you are encouraged. User:Pedant 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, the only reason that I'm a bit more formal is the organizational aspect of the Coordinator position. I personally feel that there should be just a bit more formality in Advocacy as there is between as big brother and a younger sibling: Rules bend when they need to, and nuggies are administered to keep the peace (well, not that we'd give out nuggies; the actual point is no "hard retribution"... but I digress :-) ). Instruction creep is a dangerous thing, and one that I'd like to avoid at all costs so as an ironic guideline: There should be as few guidelines "set in stone" as possible.
But now on to the documents: These should be chock full one one thing: Experiences. Experiences with dealing with Advocees is important to pass on to future generations (masses? hordes?) of Advocates. We should include case studies that outline and examplify how to deal with tricky situations as well as a bunch of advice that just "tends to work." Overall we should also make it blatantly obvious that the document is just that: Stuff that "tends to work" and is not a steadfast standard procedure that one must follow. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of case studies. Maybe kinda hard to keep the anonymity. I've asked my current advocee to keep our discussion on his talk page, to keep it together -- with a casual comment that our discussion might help someone else in the future (I was thinking along the same lines as Steve)-- and I usually copy everything relevant to a huge.txt file ... I think those would need to be edited down to something short and snappy. I haven't ever had what I would call a difficult case though, and I think maybe we might need some examples of one of those. Maybe some examples of nightmare cases where nothing went right too, if anyone has one of those to share. User:Pedant 07:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

a comment on the section header 'discussion'

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Result: Pedant brought up an issue of style concerning the heading "Discussion" which will be implemented in the next Meeting.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive. I'd like to suggest we stop using *Discussion* as a section header and try to use a more meaningful phrase, so that on recent changes we can see 'what discussion' the edit in question relates to User:Pedant 07:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy Alerts

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Result: Not enough discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

The new AMA Alerts page has been implemented. Are there any suggestions on how to make it better? Questions? Comments? :-)

Discussion

  • Can you design it so it will say New Messages? Geo. 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's possible, since the actual text of your page doesn't change. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really get how the available/unavailable thing works, so I'm not using it, if it were easier to understand what goes in the template and where you put it and what it does I think it might be better. It would also be nice if the Alert banner disappeared when there were no messages. It increases my heart rate when I see it. Wslack explained it to me, I'm happy now. User:Pedant 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I does disappear for me. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I could muck around with the template and find out some way that you can tell it to go away when you've read the alert and pop back up if there is a new one, but that would take time and a large amount of jiggery-pokery. Alas, it will have to be a future project (or at least one once I get internet into my new apartment). אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

System of Accountability

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Result: General consensus that a System of Accountability needs to be implemented without ex post facto enforcements. General consensus believes that peer review seems to be the best way to do this. Geo created an example system at Wikipedia:AMA_Meeting/review. This item requires further discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

The AMA needs a system of accountability so that we can track the progress and details of how an Advocate handles a case as well as provisions to handle if or when an Advocate or the Advocated does not act in good faith.

Discussion

  • Ideally I would think this should include some sort of survey with a few likert scales to quantify their experience, and possibly we should have them filled out by both Advocate and the Advocated. Perhaps we should also put together a system of awards to encourage good behavior, as well as a method to create a comittee when necessary to investigate problems? We need system in place before we can "formally" look into UCRGrad's complaint (however, I believe that the measures that have been taken so far adequately deal with his issue). אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe a Review Board could do the trick. If no one objects i will make one Geo. 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems a good idea, but there are a few practical questions to consider. How will its members be selected? Will its proceedings be in private? If so, how - e-mail seems a bit unweildy. --David Mestel(Talk) 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Another thought - perhaps it would be a good idea to draw up a written code of conduct for advocates, to provide a frame of reference for any disciplinary board. I'll start work on one, and you can see what you think. --David Mestel(Talk) 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I argee, and also I have learned a few things since then. He seems to be the only one who is trying to keep the problem going when everyone else as eithe rlearned form it or has moved on. Æon Insane Ward 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
WHOAAAA, hold on hold on !!! Important point: If we make a bunch of rules on conduct first, they will be ex post facto and I'm not comfortable judging actions based on subsequent formation of rules to govern those actions. I am in favor of determining guidelines for future conduct, separately from the complaint, and I do agree that past conduct needs to be accountable to at least the informal standards that were in place at the time of the offending conduct. On the UCGrad complaint I don't think we need a comittee to deal with it. We could just as easily open it as a topic right here on the meeting page, present the complaint, and decide if "the actions were unbecoming of an Advocate" based on our present status. I don't think we need any privacy for this at all, the complaint is already a part of a permanent archive, (the bell cannot be unrung) and proceeding in private, in y opinion would taint the proceedings. We don't need to expose anything that should be private, just deiscuss the behavior in general terms. If it becomes necessary for a private meeting we can arrange it when it's needed. User:Pedant
I'm not liking the idea of a review board. The rule I believe should be that an advocate must stop advocating when the Advokee/Advocee requests it. The only process I see happening is an advocacy complaints page where grievances may be aired. The coordinater should act on these as he or she sees fit. Key part: only non-advocates and the coordinator could post on the page. That way people can still vent, and an abusive advocate (if there is one, which I very much doubt) would be pointed out by the general community. Thoughts? --\/\/slack (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not against a review board per se, but I feel that we are pretty busy as a grou already and maybe a more straightforward solution could be best for us in the long run. Things are only going to get busier. How about 'an advocate must include a reference to an archived complaint against the advocate in their member statement'? Kinda like your eBay reputation, people could read the complaint and decide for themselves whether to use the advocate or not? It would motivate advocates to be absolutely scrupulous in their behavior. Point 2: I think that advocating implies a permanent obligation to the advocate, at least to the point of respecting their wish to keep some discussions with their advocate private. (to clarify, in reference to an advocate must stop advocating when the Advokee/Advocee requests it: meaning that I think that even though you are no longer their advocate, you still should keep private anything you would keep private if you were still their advocate.) Also, some advocacies can take months to resolve, and I think it would be pretty uncool to dump your advocee just because the job is taking too much time, they would have gone through all the effort they went through with you and then need to start over. If you need to abandon someone before a resolution is reached, you should at least assist them in transitioning to another advocate if you can. Just my opinion User:Pedant 22:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
On Point 2: Yes some do take along time but I have never heard of an Advocate dumping someone has that happened recently? Usually if I know I can't keep up with the case I relist it back on the Request page so another advocate can take it. Æon Insane Ward 23:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of anyone dumping an advocee, no. Just talking hypothetically since we seem to be establishing First Principles here. I'm just saying it's a good thing to not leave your advocee hanging once you have agreed to help, just as you have an obligation, if you were administering First Aid to continue treatment until relieved by competent relief.User:Pedant
To the extent of my knowledge, an Advocate has never actually dumped an Advocee (so that's something good :-) ), however, it would be good for us to come up with a provision to pass a case off to another Advocate if there are any number of problems (which could range from exhaustion, to wikibreaks, to emotional stress, to sudden disappearance, to obstinance, etc.). It should be fairly informal, and could simply be as easy as asking the Coordinator or a fellow available Advocate. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking in terms of five volunteers who could recommend disciplinary action against a advocate, final decision would stay with the Coordinator. Any objections to me creating a beta page? Geo. 00:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no strong objection. I would prefer to have more than 5 though in this case, since we don't have established guidelines. I think it would be fair to use as many Advocates as would be willing to participate in this case, to insure that we have a consensus on what is or isn't acceptable Advocate behavior and what would be appropriate disciplinary action. I also don't feel right putting the 'final decision' on Steve, I think it would be best if he merely helped evaluate what the consensus of the group is and facilitated discussion when necessary. He didn't volunteer to be a judge. If in the future we choose to have that be one of the Coordinator's duties, okay, but we need to keep in mind that the complaint is about something that happened before we had established guidelines and for justice's sake we should really be especially scrupulous in our decision and the process by which we reach that decision. As an alternate proposal: (and just for this one single case we have outstanding) I propose we all discuss this right here on this page, since we have a lot of us here already. (It may be too much to hope that we can avoid complaints by behaving in such a way that there is nothing to complain about, but lets work towards that. )
For the short term: I personally think that UCRGrad's complaint is dealt with, for all intents and purposes. Aeon is an excellent Advocate, and one snafu with a very difficult advocee should not merit anything more than taking a small break (which he did, himself), looking back over things (which he did, himself), and getting back out onto the field (which he's on now). :-)
For the long term: Why not something as simple as a 360-degree review from the Advocee and other Advocates? We can make an announcement over AMA Alerts and have a page outlining the complaint so each responding Advocate can do their own research and ask questions? Heheh, also I agree with Pedant about ex-post facto resolutions. Furthermore, benevolent dictatorships have the potential to be dangerous (Er.. I hope that Jimbo isn't watching ;-) ~joking joking~). Since we are all volunteers to this group, I'd think that all of our opinions would have equal weight when it comes to our Association peers. The Coordinator position at this particular point doesn't merit me a gavel, it merits me a mop. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, anything drawn up could not be ex post facto applicable. On reflection, a code of conduct seems a bit over-formal, and I wonder whether it wouldn't in fact be better just to use our discretion and good judgement. --David Mestel(Talk) 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Which I also see as the one requirement for being an Advocate -- the ability to use good judgement. I'd be quite happy with a very bare minimum of rules, since we already have all of the wikipedia policies to guide us in our use of good judgement. We would be an excellent group if we could operate on just our excellence alone, and enforce that excellence using a Peer Review as suggested by Steve. (I'm not joking: try to calculate the man-hours of Mediation and Arbitration that have been avoided just through your own personal efforts) Remember, our Advocates actually are among the best members of the community in terms of behavior, and I'm sure we are each even more scrupulous when acting as an advocate, and probably even more so when called on to judge the merit of a complaint. Personally I'm counting on each of us to make that last statement true. User:Pedant 07:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
There could be a referenda veto written in. They would interprete the rules not create them. Should I create a beta version? Geo. 21:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If you have a good format in mind, I'd say yes, at least it will give us more input on what your idea for it is, as well as give us something concrete to discuss. I'd support you drawing one up. Thanks. User:Pedant 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It will be at /review for now. Geo.

Is there anyother points that should be brought up here? Æon Insanity Now!EA! 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Notes on the above (filling out forms)

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Result: General consensus that mandatory forms to fill out is a bad thing. Case histories, however, may be a good thing to keep (for difficult cases and provided they are not mandatory) and Pedant demonstrated how a simple case history could be put together.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

I really don't want to fill out forms each time I advocate for somebody, I think I give my time as generously as I am able to this project, and don't want to take from that time to fill out forms. I feel its process creep. As advocacy is an unofficial process, I believe the lack of precise guidelines is an advantage to our ability to effectively advocate, and I am pretty much guided by

if you decide to advocate for someone, it is your job to help them to express their side of the problem to whoever they have a conflict with, whatever their side is, right or wrong. I feel that wikipedians in general owe it to each other to listen with an open mind, but that when things go wrong, requesting an advocate is the one way to quarantee that someone will listen to whatever crazy idea you have, with an open mind, try to understand you, get a real good grip on what you are trying to say, and then help you to say it, to act as a friend would, to help you keep from getting riled up, and to have patience with you, and to not tell anyone anything which is said in confidence.

For me those are the rules, and if I can't advocate by those rules and still be a part of the AMA, then it would be important enough to me, that I would feel that I have to go back to doing this unofficially. I prefer a minimum of rules, as far as that is feasible.User:Pedant

WOW! I second that proposition... I'll have to hire you as an advocate if ever I need an avocat for advocating troubled times. --CyclePat 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


I agree I give as much of my time to Wikipedia as I can and about 50 to 70 % of it is Vandal Fighting. For me having to fill out forms would take up a lot of the time I could be doing things for the CVU, Esperanza, MEDCAB and other projects. Æon Insane Ward 23:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah I realized as soon as I hit "submit" that I just suggested that Advocates fill out paperwork and going down that road may lead to ~twitch~... bureaucracy... ick... Perhaps we could put together some sort of Advocate review and leave any sort of "filling out" to the recently advocated (ask them to express appreciation, etc., by filling out a survey to help us better serve them or find more compatible Advocate/Advocee matches in the future)? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

here is the case I'm on now. I've summarised the dispute fairly completely with a paragraph. Once resolved, I could summarise the key steps that led to resolution. This wouldn't be much effort and I find it helpful to use an initial summary to help me "wind up for the first pitch". With an initial summary and a final summary, all that it would take to make this a fairly good record is to include a brief account of the dialogs involved in the 'key steps'. A simple search and replace to the names of people involved and voila! -- a rudimentary anonymous case history. I'm not sure I'd want to do this, make it presentable and all, but just saying something like this could be done without that much effort. A really well-composed survey might be of some use... I like the survey idea, but I don't know how helpful it would be, usually the advocee has no real clue how I 'solved' their 'problem.' If they did, they probably could have done it themselves. I'm really not wanting to make this a part of our process just occasionally certain cases might make a useful enough example as to be worth the effort. User:Pedant 07:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I like what Pedant has said. It could be done with only a small about of effort. Æon Insane Ward 03:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sample archive/case history

User:Pedant/KFA-Destiny is my first attempt at producing a well documented case. First, summarised the case within the Request at AMARQ, then I posted the complete complaint from the AMARQ page (note I am referencing the page at the point in the AMARQ page's hist where the case closed), as well as the correspondence with both the advocee and the disputant (correspondence with both parties took place on their own talk pages which made it convenient to archive, and allowed them to not get drawn into direct discussion with each other, which seemed useful in this case) and archived the whole shebang at User:Pedant/KFA-Destiny (the name of the page is an abbreviated form of the advocee's username - KFA - and the page on which the original dispute started: Destiny) Now this was not a particularly satisfactory outcome in this case, and nobody involved seemed very happy, but it was a pretty common type of case. I don't know that this case is that much worth keeping as a case history but as an experiment in documenting a case with case histories in mind it seems pretty successful. Total time to produce User:Pedant/KFA-Destiny was just a couple minutes, and I could do it faster next time. This might be doable, note that I don't want to have to do it in all cases, and also note that this case was allowed by the parties to be discussed on-wiki, so no real issues of privacy are involved, it is all GFDL licensed material. Comments? User:Pedant

This looks like a wonderful example. Most cases probably wouldn't require this LOD (level of detail). :-) With a bit of jiggery pokery I could probably put together a web-form that could facilitate putting these up. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 01:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Standard terminology (closed)

Latest comment: 18 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

Result: The term "Advocee" is what was generally decided on to refer to a Wikipedian who has requested Advocacy.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

Since Advocates are not really lawyers, the AMA has traditionally avoided using the term "client" to describe those who request Advocacy as it generally has caused problems (people assuming a lawyer/client relationship, a "right" to be the client of an Advocate like the US' "right to an attorney," etc.). It would be nice, however, to have consensus on a standard term to use.

Poll

Please feel free to add on additional terms and sign under each term that you'd support. :-)

Ward

  1. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I would object to using this one. The context is usually "ward of the state", refering to the inability of a person to take care of themself, and usually used for mental patients. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Object per Royalguard. --David Mestel(Talk) 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
don't want to be a warder, Object to this one User:Pedant 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Charge

  1. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

#I support this one. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing my support to oppose based on the comment below. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I oppose this one on the grounds that it is rather patronising, implying that the advocee cannot in general look after themself. --David Mestel(Talk) 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocee

(I've been treating this as the consensus term for a couple days at this point, can we certify this term as the preferred term? or do we need more discussion? User:Pedant 21:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC))

I think we're good. I'll make appropiate changes in the handbook and other materials if I see places to be edited. If someone disagrees, go ahead and revert until you're satisfied. --\/\/slack (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Out of all of our options I seem to like this the best. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. This one sounds good too (the typical adding of the extra "e") -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. I agree - not over-formal, but not patronising either. --David Mestel(Talk) 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. I like this one, it is the best term for it Æon Insane Ward 21:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. support this one Advokee, (I prefer this spelling) advocee seems to me to be unique enough as to have no contextual connottation, so the connotaion of the word naturally develops with use. (deleted portions for readability) User:Pedant 21:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)google prefers advocee, FWIW, 106 hits, 1 hit (a post on the AMA requests page) for advokee ick, seems like my spellinig is not the preferred spelling User:Pedant
  6. Agreed per above: has the same significance without the liguistic baggage. I don't care about the spelling, but it shoudl be consistant. --\/\/slack (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sounds good to me --C.Black 17:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. (Support) Doesn't diminish the status of the advocee (like charge and ward). Martinp23 14:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Client

Discussion

Polls are evil. Does it matter what we call our advocee/client/whatever? As long as it gets the point across. Computerjoe's talk 11:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Other business

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Result: See headings below.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

Is there anything else that we need to discuss that has been left out?

Discussion

Deputy Coordinators (closed)

Result: Aeon1006 (talk · contribs) and Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs) were instated as Deputy Coordinators.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

  • I believe that we should discuss electing a Deputy or two to help Steve. Geo. 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. I support that. User:Pedant 23:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support Æon Insane Ward 04:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Full support and soon. Expecially since I am not going to have internet in my apartment until the 29th of this month, a Deputy would be a great and appreciated help. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support having a deputy coordinator. -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support See my comment below. This would be a great addition to the AMA and help to make it even more efficient. Wikiwoohoo 15:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidates

  1. Aeon1006 (talk · contribs)
  2. Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs)
Seeing that two looks like a good number to me, and that there aren't anymore people who have listed themselves as candidates, I move to instate Aeon and Wikiwoohoo as our official Deputies/Assistant Coordinators unless there are any more candidates or any objections. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I second that and support both those candidates. User:Pedant 17:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Interested

  • I'm interested in the job. but however feel that Pendant would be better Æon Insane Ward 04:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How many should there be? Geo. 19:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering Steve's internet problem, two maybe? -Diabolos 02:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I had recently put forward the idea for Assistant Coordinators and this is exactly that. I feel this would be a good idea to alleviate some of the strain that is put solely on Steve and help to speed things up within the AMA as a result. I would say two is a good number and I would be interested in one of the positions. Wikiwoohoo 15:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are there any objections to installation of the above users as interim Deputies? Geo. 22:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • None from me. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 15:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No objection. I appreciate Æon's comment above, assuming he means me and not some user named Pendant. (hmm maybe that would be a better username, mine seems to rub people the wrong way) I'm doing some extensive remodelling of my house so a little to busy to devote the amount of time I feel the job deserves. Also, my work sometimes takes me where I have no internet access. I'd be glad to help in any way I can when I am available. This is a small enough group that I encourage everyone to help however they can ans well. User:Pedant 17:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Election Officers

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Result: May be useful in the future. Further discussion needed as no consensus on how to proceed was reached.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

These would be standing officials who would run elections. For CoI reasons they can't hold another position. Geo. 19:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose this notion, but I'd like to have 3 of these if we can, for tiebreaking reasons. If we use them. Not sure we need them at this point, but I think we should plan on getting bigger in the future. Right now, elections are pretty simple.User:Pedant
How about we write up a rough "job description" for this position and then hold an election poll? :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 01:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of volunteers but either way works. Geo. 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Interested

Further WP:AMARQ streamlining

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Result: General consensus that the streamlining process is a good idea. Steve working on new implementation at Category:AMA Requests for Assistance.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

I've been thinking about, for some time, even further streamlining the WP:AMARQ process, sorta blending togther our current system along with what the Mediation Comittee uses as well as Wikipedia's Category system.

Imagine a web-form with a pre-loaded template that creates new articles that are automatically placed into categories based upon their status (new, pending, open, closed, etc.) with pushbutton links to change that status. This would allow places in the Wikipedia namespace to discuss each case as well as any forms that Advocees would fill out for accountability purposes. The only big change would be that WP:AMARQ would have to be moved to a Category page (probably Category:AMA Requests for Assistance or the like. :-)

I'm going to put together a prototype and I'd love to get everyone's input. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing The Wave just thinking about it (Cheers wildly) Pedant 10:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
*stands up and raises arms* David Mestel(Talk) 06:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea *stands up to do wave, with watermellon.* -Royalguard11TalkMy Desk 18:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Message_board/August_2006&oldid=1143859448"