Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Consider the following a good-faith question into the nature of AMA, without any air of criticism. I could very well just be misunderstanding the goals of this organization, so don't lash out at me for asking this question: Is this not a place where Wikipedians are encouraged to support views that are false, or at least not what they believe? Isn't this a slap in the face to all who desire to reach absolute Truth, and to all who desire to see the right side prevailing no matter how good a debater one is? I realize that often AMA advocates aid Wikipedians who are arguing in earnest for something beneficial, or at least plausibly beneficial, but why should there be any argument for something that is outright wrong? It may make sense in a criminal courtroom, but not here.

With so much closed-mindedness in the world and on Wikipedia these days, sometimes the desire to "hear the other side" can swing violently too far to the other side, with objectivity and universal Truth completely disregarded. I worry that may be happening here. AdamBiswanger1 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can adiquately address this. An Advocate's job is not to stand for their Charge even if they are 100% sure that they are wrong. An Advocate's job is to act as an advisor and make sure that their Charge understands what their options and abilities are under Wikipedia policy. :-) As such, the "Five Pillars" of Advocacy are traditionally Resolving Disputes, Civility, Etiquette, Assume Good Faith, and No Personal Attacks. In my experience, most Advocacy requests are over content disputes, personal attacks/harassment, or vandalism where the party who is requesting assistance is usually new to Wikipedia and really needs someone to help them articulate their problems in a way that another party can understand, or give them options when they are not familiar with processes that a more seasoned editor would know through experience. More than once Advocates here in the Association have had to discuss with their Charge the possible fact that their position may be compromising to the integrity of the encyclopedia (and it's a difficult and delicate thing to do without treading on emotional toes). An Advocate's goal is to bring about a compromise between disputants without compromising their Charge's problems and hearing all possible sides to get the most objective grip upon the situation so that they can better find a solution. I hope that helps. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _{(desk/AMA/vote for me)} 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, and I can only assume by the level of activity in this group that guidance of this nature is needed often. I realize the group openly rejects Wikilawyering, and I can only hope that it never morphs into the type of organization I feared in my initial comment. In any event, I value any enterprise that seeks to help fellow Wikipedians. Thanks for your thoughtful response, AdamBiswanger1 00:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not an Advocate but a former Advocee. I cannot get a reponse at all from the AMA program so I am posting here. Speaking from recent experience, my Advocate gave no guidance or advice, never initiated contact with me and did not answer my posts or emails, nor ever explained anything. I begged for guidance and got no response. In fact, I cannot get any response from AMA program at all even now. How is this supposed to work? What am I doing wrong? Please, I seek information. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone realize that the AMA had their own IRC channel (#AMA.Wikipedia)? It's only listed on m:IRC channels, and not WP:IRC. -Royalguard11(Talk)(Desk) 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Update (for anyone that's reading this). The channel is now #AMA-Wikipedia. Don't go to AMA.Wikipedia. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what IRC is. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Behold the power that is Wikipedia. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That article is not very helpful to me as it is way above my head and not useful for contacting AMA. I am only trying to get AMA to answer my questions and thought IRC might be a way since AMA ignores messages. The link they have that goes to IRC goes to an error page on my browser (Firefox). But thanks anyhow. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You need an IRC client like mIRC. If you use firefox (as you stated) and you're looking for something simple, I recommend ChatZilla, it's just a simple plug-in. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try it. I'm guessing it is a form of "text chat" like some commerial web sites have. Thank you. Mattisse 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, to my surprise, that I'm listed still as an AMA member (though as an "unknown status" member). I thought I was very clear when I resigned because of the mess between December and January (see [1])... Or are you willing me to rejoin??? Or maybe I am a phantom!

Seriously talking, I'm thinking about rejoining this association.

It is great to see this growing again and that the great job done here could finally boost up this whole thing. Congratulations to those who did it! --Neigel von Teighen 21:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm still a member. I don't know what the new crop of people have determined. I don't recognize a single one of them. :) But then again, I've sort of enjoyed being aloof and maverick. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand the page about joining the AMA. Can I join, and if so, how do I go about it? I have also left a message on the co-ordinator's talk page. Walton monarchist89 12:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's changed, the main requirement is to add your name to the member's page. :) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently inquiring about your opinion of the best steps to take here. As many are aware WP:SRNC ended, and a lot of badwill was generated even though the outcome is Arbcom-endorsed. Would you recommend some form of mediation to increase the goodwill of the highway editors involved in the dispute? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys have a problem.

User:Punk Boi 8 is currently running a Mediation Cabal case against ScottDavis and WikiCats, a Request for mediation against Longhair, a Request for arbitration against ScottDavis, and a separate Request for arbitration against Longhair. Leaving aside the fact that the dispute is utterly frivolous, and that these guys are all long-standing, respected contributors, and more importantly they are easy to get along with, Punk Boi 8 is showing that he has very little understanding of dispute resolution in general, nor of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. These cases were all posted in the last couple of days; all are without merit, and the ArbCom cases will certainly be refused.

So how do you guys feel about the fact that he has listed himself as advocate for two of your cases: Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Biblical1 and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/RalphLender? Don't you guys do any screening of your advocates at all? Hesperian 01:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem on having more than one case if the advocate is able to manage it, of course. About knowledge about DR in Wikipedia, you may contact the advocate and tell him directly; obviously there is a problem there. --Neigel von Teighen 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be a problem here, as the user is just telling advocees to file a medcab case or request arbitration. I will contact the deputies with this. Steve's on break right now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, the user isn't listed as an advocate at Wikipedia:AMA Members, so didn't really have authority to take cases. Royalguard11 has cleaned up the mess with the cases and left messages for the deputies, while I have messages on the a case page and the user talk page. Martinp23 23:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed I will leave a message on the 'Advocates' talk page about it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an AMA member, but I just reverted Nathan. He relisted himself for Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/RalphLender with the comment, "I will now take my case BACK." I think he is very young, rather than malicious, but he is obviously going to do a heck of a lot more damage than good. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing there - he's really not been on wikipedia long enough to be fully familiar with policy, so I'm fairly suprised that he's in the AMA - though looking at his past 2 RfAs (one with 20 edits (!) and another with about 50), it's less suprising, seeing the attitude of this editor. Also, the user has listed himself at Wikipedia:AMA Members. Martinp23 09:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm currently acting as an advocate for User:RalphLender.
• One of the parties on the other side of the dispute, Shotwell has just requested advocacy. (See Shotwell's request for assistance). I think that's a great idea, and would like to see if we can untangle this faster with an advocate working each side. Is there an experienced advocate available who can help Shotwell out? Thanks, TheronJ 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This member persistantly keeps on removing the link I added to the following section: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_techno

www.poundingbeats.com is the link.

I know who this person is, and I know he has had a grudge against the site and its owner for quite sometime.

I cannot see as I am breaking any rules by having the link there, and I believe the link has just as much right to be there as any of the other links in that section for the following reasons: -

The www.gabber.org website just seems to consist of a blank page saying "It Works".

And the other website is a german website on an english language wiki page.

The person in question does not seem bothered at all that these other links are there, and just seems persistant in having my link removed, this is because he is biased towards the site that the link points to.

The person and I have been talking on the following discussion page: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MilkMiruku

Read the posts near the bottom, his latest post says he does not care about discussing the matter and that he will take action if I keep on adding the link.

He does not seem to want to tell me what rules I am breaking, so I want someone to tell me whether the link can stay there or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.169.224 (talk • contribs)

Hi, could I suggest you have a look at WP:SPAM... Addhoc 16:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for help shouldn't be made here, but on the requests page. I've submitted the Hardcore techno page for protection. Along with WP:SPAM, you should also review WP:VANITY. And everyone who has been in this fight needs to read Wikipedia:Edit war and WP:3RR. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in the Canada talk page I keep having a dispute with people about wether Canada is British and French, or not. They seem to get easily offended when I speak of it, and think I am being racist, saying Canada is 100 percent white. I'm not saying anything of the such, I just added to the Demographics section that 87 percent of Canadians are white, as that is an outstanding majority, I'd say, and it should be noted for any people of other nations studying Canada. I also added things to the Culture section, saying how Canadian culture is heavily influenced by English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and French culture, and how Canada as a country is the result of past British and French colonializations. However, those facts I posted were deleted, and I am constantly being accused of being some sort of a racist... I am merely trying to add some facts I think are essential for anyone wanting to learn about Canada. Also, I deleted the part that says Canada's constitution "enshrines" multiculturalism, and replaced it with saying Canada protects the ideas of multiculturalism, and you are allowed to express your home country if you are an immigrant. That is true, isnt it?? Well, they deleted it and said I was a racist. And I got rid of something that said "Multiculturalism is what makes you Canadian", because there is no link to anything saying that, and it is not true, Canada has its own culture. I replaced it with "Many people like multiculturalism, however Canada has its own distinct culture made from over 100 years of development." They deleted it, and they keep denouncing everything I say on the talk page, and deny it. They won't talk directly to me, though, of course... :( Please, can someone solve this? Maybe I am in the wrong, but I certainly am not intending to be and I really think I have a good point here. Thanks RyanRP 05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, could you post your request on this page. Also, I would suggest if a statement isn't sourced, you should tag it with {{fact}} and then remove it. Rewriting the statement is ok, but you still need to find a source that supports the new version. Addhoc 11:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the current AMA logo violates the current visual identity guidelines: [2]. It appears that distortion of Wikimedia logos is a no-go. Note that the CVU had a similar logo problem and theirs was deleted outright. Phil Sandifer 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I created some tme ago a logo that no one used. It's on Image:AMA1.png... (it is pubic domain, so we can do whatever we want with it!) --Neigel von Teighen 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've listed this for discussion at the next meeting, which hopefully isn't far away. Then we'll be able to sort this out. Martinp23 18:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe Wikipedia needs an organization that tries to protect user's rights and keep things fair, but I've come to the decision that AMA is not the right place for me. Without trying to hurt anyone's feelings, I feel like the organization has never been run very well, at least during the time I've been a member. I want to give specific examples so that it may be possible to address these concerns, which began as soon as I joined the organization.

On August 28, I joined the AMA. I followed the instructions on the AMA page, listed myself, and left a note for the coordinator, user:The Thadman. I never received a response, but I took on some cases anyway.

On October 19, a month and a half later, I received a "Welcome message" from user:Royalguard11.

On October 22, 2006, I received a "Welcome message" from user:Martinp23.

On December 1, 2006, I received a "Welcome message" from user:Wikiwoohoo.

I feel like the AMA should be renamed the Welcoming Committee, and, as I don't want my talk page cluttered with endless "Welcome to the AMA!"-type messages, I am removing myself from the member list. I feel like the time to welcome someone should be when s/he joins, not months later, and I feel like welcoming people repeatedly is a waste of time that could be better spent advocating or editing the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I truly appreciate your concerns, but feel compelled to note that you have only recieved one welcome message from the AMA - that from Royalguard11. The message I left was part of the AMA rollcall, and was left to all members, and the one which Wikiwoohoo left was to inform you of the current AMA meeting, as you are listed as a new (since last meeting) member there. I hope this clears up the issue of the welcomes, and would just like to say that Steve, our co-ordinator, has been on paternity leave from wikipedia recently, having had a daughter with his wife. Thanks Martinp23 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Martin, but it is completely incorrect to state that I received only one welcome message from the AMA. The note from Wikiwoohoo begins with the heading "Welcome to the AMA", then states "I wanted to say extend my thanks to you for joining the AMA.", and has the edit summary of "Welcome to the AMA". That is clearly a welcome message. See for yourself. The message from Royalguard is also clearly a welcome message. I feel welcome messages being sent more than three months after joining the organization are inappropriate, and, although user:TheThadman may be on extended Wikibreak, it appears from his contribution list that he was actively editing and involved in the AMA when I made my original inquiry. These observations lead me to believe the AMA is not being run very well, and it is my sincere hope that these issues can be addressed. Rather than denying that these things occurred, I would hope the current members would fix the problems which caused the mix-ups to occur in the first place. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I was not trying to deny, but merely to explain the reasons. I believe that Wikiwoohoo's "welcome" would have been due to your listing on the AMA meeting page (where you are welcome to comment). As far as I know (I too was know to the organisation in August), we were disorganised then. Normally, Steve would have got back to you earlier, but perhaps he was too busy. Since, we've under gone dramatic changes in organisation, which would probably explain why your welcome was so late (hopefully it will have been of some use). Again, I cannot apologise enough for the events that have led to the sour taste in your mouth about the AMA, and for the problems that we have had (and may well still have, in places). We would welcome your input at the meeting, and would hope that at some time in the future you might consider rejoining. Martinp23 20:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Martin, and your conciliatory tone. I totally believe every good-faith editor has a right to be heard, and I think an organization to protect editor's rights is entirely necessary on Wikipedia. I look forward to the time when the AMA will run smoothly like a well-oiled machine. I hope the December meeting goes well, and that the organization is able to cast off the problems of the past. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am concerned about the way the process of XfD affects the hard work of contributors who post informative resources on topics of questionable moral value. Basically, I managed to successfully undelete 4 related pages for Playboy Online, Playboy Cyber Club, Playboy Cyber Girl, and Cyber Girl of the Year. I believe that the XfD process is unfair on issues where a normal person underreports his support or enjoyment of an issue. I think it would be generally agreed that people will under report their own tax debts, marital infidelities, and masturbatory practice. I believe that a person is also inclined to underreport his enjoyment/support for resources related to Playboy Online. People supportive of Playboy Online are hesitant to speak up for fear of being viewed as socially depraved, immoral, amoral, and possibly heretical, if not downright looney. Thus, the count of documented support is unfair. Playboy online generates $50 million annually on $8-20/month dues. Revenues are growing about 20-25%/year. It must be popular. Now, CfD discussions are occurring for related categories CGOM and CGOY. Is this the place to address this concern? TonyTheTiger 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a solution to this or it is hopeless? Seems the latter, but feel free to give me hope. Sinderely, Mattisse 23:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've set the case status to investigation. The case was closed at Matisse's request last week, since then my browser appears to have developed a mind of its own, crashing when opening any page that usually takes a while to open, especially diffs. Accordingly, until the problem is resolved, I won't be able to advocate for anyone. Addhoc 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Some things to try is to clear the cache, the history and upgrade to most recent version of the browser. Check for spyware and other hijacks. If you use IE, at least older versions of it are known to have problems with Wikipedia so try Firefox or some other browser. / Fred-Chess 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Addhoc 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Advocate was helpful in telling people to be polite on a couple of talk and discussion pages when others were attacking me. That was it.

The Advocate never contacted me directly, never answered my email, received and presumably answered email asking questions about me from the newly appointed Arbitrator in my case. This was after I expressed concerns that I felt the Arbitrator was biased against me based on his votes against me and his support of my attackers and stalkers over the last several months. The Arbitrator's first act currently was to open an ANI against me entitled "Mattisse Redux" holding me up to redicule, doing this at the request of my attackers. My Advocate gave no clear explanation of a message the Arbtrator left on my page after I requested clarification, made no comments to me about my questions about bias. After the Arbitrator left a message on my Advocate's page that he was going to email him/her questions about my Advocate's personal opinion of me I requested to withdraw from the Advocacy program. My Advocate then closed my case without comment, subsequently cutting off all direct contact with me and putting me on wikibreak. Now the Arbitrator has left Wikipedia forever, taking with him all the evidence he could.

To this day, my Advocation has not explained a single thing to me nor ever contacted me (aside from the "Welcome to AMA" message). Is this the way the Advocacy process is supposed to work? Is this normal? Please someone tell me what is going on? Thank you. Sincerely, Mattisse 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This question was asked because my Advocate claimed the reason he/she could not answer my emails or posts was because of browser problems. However, then the Advocate said he/she could not answer questions/emails because he/she was no longer my Advocate. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This refers to Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mattisse, a case that was opened on 30 November and closed by Mattisse on 8 December 2006. Until I resolve my IT problems I'm not re-opening or accepting cases. Addhoc 17:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please evaluate the action of CyclePat with respect to MONGO, paying specific attention to this. Apparently "Advocacy is NOT a lawyer-client relationship," but "Advocacy is a vehicle for blocked users to continue harassing people." Advocating for your advocees does not entail harassing the people they were initially blocked for harassing. If CyclePat doesn't know what's wrong with the talk page summary "Well, arbcom for sebhcan is done! What do you say about another ARBCOM?" to a user that was just desysoped in a controvercial and heated case, perhaps he's not suited to this task. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Without judging anything, I will say that CyclePat is easily the most aggressive advocate I've ever seen. I'm certain it's all in good faith, but we have very different styles, and I'm curious if we should have some kind of standardization. (Do I need to be more aggressive, for instance?) Martin, Steve, can you guys take a quick look at his advocacy and give us some guidance? Thanks, TheronJ 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, he's aggressive. Maybe warn him to refrain doing this kind of comments... at least, he seems to be compromised with his cases, which is a good thing, maybe too compromised. --Neigel von Teighen 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Now [3]. Is someone going to do something, or do I have to? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Urgh - that comment to MONGO was certainly not the best way to go about what he wanted to achieve. Overall, I've not had my eye on all of this user's actions as an advocate, but I agree that he does seem to be very aggressive - perhaps overly so at times. Maybe it'd just that he's mounting a vigourous defence for his client? However, I do find it quite disturbing that Cplot, the perrenial troll, is using the AMA to push his opinion. I'll leave a message for Pat now, asking him if he'd outline the case (and the defence, as it stands) here, so we can see whether it's a waste of time or if there is a real basis for unblocking. Thanks, Martinp23 14:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised when Pat went in for AMA in the first place, I was not convinced it is the best outlet for his talents, but I don't think he's aggressive, just excessively enthusuastic and somewhat inclined to see things as black and white, and not an easy person to bring round to an opposing point of view once he's got the bit between his teeth. More labrador puppy than rottweiler, and not a malicious bone in his body as far as I can see. He certainly means well, and he doesn't give up easily. But Cplot is a bit of a lost cause; you're probably not going to get that block overturned short of an ArbCom ruling, and whatever happens, discussing it on MONGO's talk page is the very last thing to do. I've reviewed Cplot's history and what with the attacks and the sockpuppetry I'd say there is vanishingly little prospect of unblocking, although as a supporter of MONGO's of course I would say that. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the link from above, I see that Pat doesn't even know how RfC works. RfC is not a user against another... Too confrontative, but I repeat: seems to be compromised with the case --Neigel von Teighen 21:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Advocates" who harass other wikipedians doing what they consider to be their "duty" should be aware they are not protected by any sort of "lawyer shield." If CyclePat continues to act as a cypher for Cplot's harassment, he should be aware that he will be subject to whatever sanction is appropriate for such harassment. Continuing to antagonize MONGO will result in serious repricussions for CyclePat, and for the AMA, as I am certain that the coordinators are well aware. Do we need to play another round of "justify the existance of this institution?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I know this is old news now, but I would like to point out that I don't think Pat was doing anything other than assuming good faith. Cplot abused that, which is hardly a surprise. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible I could be given some cases to work on in partnership with AMA advocates who already have some experiance? I would feel more comfortable as an AMA if I handled a case as a junior partner of a veteran AMA before advocating on my own. --Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 21:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/January 2007/Sethie will hopefully help you to get experience - it's nice to have newer advocates either shadowing the older ones, or having an older advocate watch the case. Martinp23 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please allocate me a case :) I'm too lazy to find one myself :P Computerjoe's talk 15:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Message left on Computerjoe's talk - Martinp23 18:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

After the controversy over the hierarchy and bureaucratic leadership in Esperanza, might it not improve the AMA if they were to reduce or remove their internal hierarchy as well? The WikiProjects seem to do fine without an elected leader or adjunct leaders. >Radiant< 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's a very good point, Radiant! At a minimum, I think that if we don't want to fall into the Esperanza trap, it is important that all decisions not involving confidential informatiom from an advocee are made openly and that all key decisions are made by community concensus, not by the leadership. With that said, I don't think a few functionary positions are out of line, just so that people know who to contact when the muffins hit the fan. The keys will be (1) decisions are still made openly and by group consensus, not by the functionaries; and (2) not too much hierarchy. If we could operate solely by consensensus, that might be even more wiki-ish, but that might exacerbate two of AMA's biggest problems - the lack of quick responsiveness and the lack of oversight over advocate performance. TheronJ 14:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The internal hierarchy consists only on one AMA Coordinator and three Deputy Coordinators but all very informally and flexible (compared to EA). And mostly is decided by consensus through our meetings. I think we are fine on this. The discussion we had and that wasn't resolved is if an Interim Coordinator should be there iff all four coordinators resign; this' Interim Coord. should only be able for an election. --Neigel von Teighen 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I admit, Radiant!, before my appointent as a deputy yesterday I was carefully considering how it would help. Since then, I've noticed that having the positions noted can help in the informal guidance system here, and can help to resolve disputes as well as keep the association running (I hadn't previously realised how much work there was). Thanks, Martinp23 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that unlike other hierarchies, the AMA's is more of an internal thing. The coordinator is someone who we trust in the association, and so are the deputies. The cases are picked by each advocate individually, and they handle them in whatever way they wish (within association guidelines of corse). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You hit the point, Royalguard. --Neigel von Teighen 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)