Note that coordinators tend to work themselves loose, so you need to check in roughly once a month or so, to make sure they're still there.

--Kim Bruning 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC) This is actually a time-old, tried-and-tested method for internet communities. Long story about why it works.[reply]

Sounds like a good one to me! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a "co-ordinator", I think we should have one or two clerks, who will be responsible for checking the backlog of requests and (if necessary) assigning them to an assistant. They will also handle complaints about the program, do other administrative duties, and serve as a point of contact. I would be happy to take on this role. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do seem to be missing the running-away requirement ;-) --Kim Bruning 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that my viewpoint is in the minority, but I would like to express it in again: I do not want coordinator as a rank or any clerk positions. I fear that it will turn this into a program and a bureaucracy, which I originally did not consider it to be. I would like this page to be inviting and say, "Hey, need any help jumping through the hoops of fair use images? Want some constructive criticism? Frustrating by a content dispute? Come right on over, sign a list and an editor familiar with X will be glad to come right away!" I agree that we need to make sure that editor's requeusting assistance are actually getting assistance. But I disagree that we need to formalize the role. This is a wiki, if you see something wrong, fix it]. I would hope that assistants who realize that may not be able to assist an editor would, in such a circumstance, ask an editor more familiar with the subject matter. Maybe I am just idealistic. --Iamunknown 19:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not idealistic. You're being practical. Please view exhibit one: www.wikipedia.org, 3M pages, all written on that philosophy. (minus perhaps 10K pathological cases) --Kim Bruning 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like helping other editors and certainly want to at least try out this new system. How shall we get it started? This currently is a guidelines draft and, as such, I have a few questions to bounce around. In what venue will editors ask for assisstance? (That is, will they sign their name on a specific page, e-mail a specific e-mail address, etc.) Shall we assist people on their talk pages or maintain a sub-page for each person? (I would prefer the former.) Anyways, just some loose ends I thought of. --Iamunknown 18:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think probably the assistance should be on the talk page of the person getting helped-that way, it's easy for them to refer to, and if the assistant sees them engaged in something that's a Bad Idea(TM), they'll get the new messages bar, hopefully checking it and cooling down. As to where and how people should apply, I think we should have one page on which assistants can list themselves. Someone can request help from a specific person, or put a more general request on that page for whoever's available and able to help in their situation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the put a general request on a specific page idea. How's this edit to get us started? I thought it should be at the bottom so that editors who come for assistance are encouraged to at least scan the rest of the document first. --Iamunknown 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! I clarified the statement a bit to ask people to put a brief problem description, that way anyone thinking of responding can see if it's something they have experience with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I like how this is starting. --Iamunknown 23:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea: "Oh yeah, and we need some unofficial coordinators, just to keep a bit of an eye on the page and to make sure this starts up properly". --Kim Bruning 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC) <looks at Iamunknown and Seraphimblade>[reply]

Basically one just needs some people to keep the page on their watchlists, and to promise to look after it a bit for a couple of months at least, is all. :-) --Kim Bruning 01:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, let's do that! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely do that. :-) --Iamunknown 16:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As will I, of course. We also need somewhere appropriate to list this where it might get a wider audience, any ideas? Radiant's already signed up to give some help, definitely a good sign. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in participating in this project. At the moment, it doesn't seem to be clear whether it's active or not, particularly in light of the closure of the AMA MfD. Can anyone clarify whether this project is currently active? And can we add a list of members? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a member list, but it's an in-text link, I'm trying to think of a clearer way to display it. And yes, it's active, I've put notices in some different places, so if anyone wants to ask, they will! (By the way, the list is here.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could just consider yourself a member? :-) --Kim Bruning 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is interested in the project could also add this userbox, which I've just designed, to their userpage. Use {{User Editor Assistance}} to transclude it. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EEK! Userbox! --Kim Bruning 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) runs and hides[reply]

Hrmmmmmmm...-goes off to edit Kim's page- That roping people in thing was your idea, right? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. --Kim Bruning 17:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way to coordinate this project with AMA, Med Cabal, Third Opinion, and adopt-a-user? All seem to have significantly overlapping purposes (informal dispute resolution, guiding new & inexperienced editors). It would be nice to see some sort of overarching way to collaborate and coordinate between these projects. -- Pastordavid 19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that AMA is sticking around, at least for now, I probably will suggest with them that we work together-this project can send people that want an actual advocate to AMA, and they could send people that just need some help and advice this way. Adopt-a-user has a lot of crossover, but they're more intended to help new users learn to edit. And that is great! This one, though, is intended even for more experienced editors that might need help and advice just in a certain area they're not too familiar with, and might find being "adopted" demeaning. 3O is intended more for an uninvolved party to take a quick look and offer an opinion (a mini-RFC, if you will), and Medcab for someone neutral to try and help everyone come to consensus, so I think there's a lot more difference there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense to me. Part of what I am thinking of is that it is not always clear which route one should take when in need of help / guidence, and it would be nice to have some way to sort requests for help. I realize that WP:DR is supposed to help people in self-sorting, but I don't know that it always works (i.e., in some cases DR is unclear, and some people are not the best at self-sorting). Perhaps a centralized location to list disputes, that can then get sorted to the appropriate place? I don't know ... I'm kinda thinking out loud. -- Pastordavid 21:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a lot of what the Help Desk does, but they tend to get buried and underused at the same time. I don't think that's a bad idea at all (though I wish more people just would point someone in the right direction if they see them floundering, it doesn't seem to happen as often as it should). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDCAB de facto does sorting as well, even though that's not really the purpose. :-/ --Kim Bruning 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the /list page gets any longer, it would be helpful to split it by topic area. >Radiant< 08:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, any suggestions on topic areas? Maybe "General editing help", "Dispute resolution", "Deletion issues", any other ideas? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, thinking about this, there's quite possibly people with multiple skills, we could do something like this:

I think the three categories you suggest are good. Perhaps policy/guidelines is good, too, as may be investigating assertions of admin misconduct. Perhaps the MOS, if we have any experts on that. >Radiant< 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very good ones too, and I like the format you suggest, rather than having people listed under multiple sections. Actually, MOS help would be great if we can find some people willing to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea too. I think "images" and possibly even "research" (as in methods of doing research) might be good sort keys as well. --Iamunknown 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think research would probably go under general editing help, but images would be a very good one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad I happened on this page while y'all were working on it. I had a situation arise like what is described, and the description of the process here was much better than the description of "voluntary mentoring" on the mentoring DR page. I still think it would be good to have some sort of way to sort disputes/requests among the various informal and formal DR programs - something like a DR dab page: "If the situation is X ... go to ___". -- Pastordavid 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that, is an excellent idea. I'll start work on that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got one started here, if anyone has ideas, edit away! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great start! Not much time right now, but I will be back to have a go at it later. -- Pastordavid 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could all participants in the project add themselves to [[Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project]]? (Unless you've already added the userbox, which adds you to the cat automatically.) Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does one sign up as an Editor Assistant? I was unable to add myself to the list. --Aarktica 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Here is a draft of what I would like to add:

I am open to informally providing constructive feedback on a situation or problem. Leave a message on my talk page, and I shall reply ASAP. Cheers. --Aarktica 19:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the technical problem is that the members' list is transcluded - just add yourself to the original page at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. Please also add yourself to Category:Wikipedians in the Editor Assistance Project. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I edit the page, all the previous text is missing. I have added text to the box and hit the 'Save page' button several times without any success; perhaps I'm missing something. --Aarktica 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be at all possible to cut down on instruction size already? might be a challenge... what can you leave out and still have it work? --Kim Bruning 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a radical thought: get rid of everything except for the "Request assistance" box. >:-) --Iamunknown 22:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google did something like that, except theirs was a "search" box. Was pretty popular, back in the day, as I recall. ;-) --Kim Bruning 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure-I certainly don't want it to be hard for people, but at the same time, I do think some coherency is needed. What do you think is overly creepy? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turn that around... What do you need to keep? :-) --Kim Bruning 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps move "role of an assistant" and "leadership" to a sub-page, with a link like More guidence for those providing assistance can be found here" or something to that effect. -- Pastordavid 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think that would work better, and have the front page more for those looking. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Assistants should work. - jc37 03:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We can prune a bit, but the "what (not) to expect" section sounds helpful to me. >Radiant< 09:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hmm, Iamunknowns idea sounds fantastic really. Just a big GET HELP NOW box... and then perhaps a short list of links going into detail on what to expect, what not to expect etc (each about a screenful)... if even that.

We might not yet be able to get around other accusations yet, but "bureaucracy" wouldn't be one of them ;-)

--13:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC) but today I'm away programming, as you can clearly see. *ahem* <runs away back to code>

Given recent confurion that I've seen over where to get help (which DR process to use), I think it's useful to have some explanation of what sort of help to expect. -- Pastordavid 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to you and Radiant. Big "Get help" sign, list (or maybe table?) of assistants and specialties and at least the "what not to expect" section or at most that and the "what to expect" section. --Iamunknown 15:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very brief summary, which links to a list elsewhere? Actually hmm, answering GET HELP more in general might not even be a bad idea (though it might take a little more work on backend). Sorry Iamunknown, you've sort of unleashed a monster inspired me here. Maybe I should just go off and design my own processes though ;-) (I'll certainly try to apply concept anytime I try build something new, at least :-) ) --Kim Bruning 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I introduced the polar viewpoint so that we could negotiate between poles, but if we end up liking a minimalist look, hey, I don't think it'd be such a bad idea. I like the current separation of the front page and the guide to assistants page. Maybe a bit more pruning is in order, but I'll probably be more inspired when I'm less tired. _._|| --Iamunknown 04:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is so exciting! Two users have asked for my assistance at my talk age and I tried my best, and it is so awesome! I'm so glad we're getting this off the ground; informality + help = coolness. :-D :-D :-D :-D --Iamunknown 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Had one ask here as well, talked to him on his talk page. I think this is going to work pretty well. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not work with WP:AMA? They don't seem to like working with anyone else unless they are the dominant partner. Let them sink into the ground and run this place like a complex version of the help desk. It seems to me that WP:ASSIST fits neatly onto our dispute resolution ladder:

1. General inquiries - Help Desk
2. More specific and detailed inquiries, possibly about users. - WP:ASSIST
3. Request for community input about a user. - RfC
4. Informal mediation between two users - Medcab
5. Formal, more serious mediation - Medcom
6. Formal mediation with binding consequence - CEM
7. Intervention with binding resolution - ArbCom

I note that someone on the requests page has said that they have answered a query but left it up in case anyone else wants to reply. It might be beneficial to create an "Answered Requests" section for thie purpose, so that other users can check what advice a user has been given and possibly supplement or correct it. As everyone who has had dealings with WP:AMA knows, just trusting editors to tell inquirers the right things can sometimes be disastrous. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since it seems there are some that prefer to talk directly on the request page, I was thinking we probably should archive requests from there rather than straight removal. Would be easy enough to create an archive page. As to AMA, they really have done some good in addition to what's been wrong, I really hope the house can be gotten in order there. I have nothing against AMA, and I don't in the slightest intend this to kill them off, I hope that everyone can work cooperatively. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev920: It's just one particular AMA member who is acting that way, mind you. :-) --Kim Bruning 21:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to the idea of reuniting the two organisations, but it has to be done gradually and through consensus; CyclePat went about it completely the wrong way, with the upshot that resentment between the two groups has actually increased. The other problem is that some members of WP:ASSIST have expressed anti-AMA sentiments, so moving back into the AMA might force them to leave. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain the story with AMA, and the recently observed commotion? It seems that EA is a reaction to some sort of turf battle. I would appreciate some context. Thanks! --Aarktica 18:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Actually, I started this project during the MfD for AMA, as it looked pretty clear at that point that AMA was going to be deleted or disbanded. (That came very close to happening as it was). If that would have been the case, this project would still provide somewhere for editors that want help and advice to turn, and is also an attempt to address the concerns that the community raised about AMA during the discussion. However, even given that AMA survived the MfD, there is no guarantee that their cleanup and reorganization will succeed enough to prevent a second successful one. However, even if it does (and I hope it does!) I think this process can provide a useful function.

The "turf battle" was started when it was suggested that this program be merged into AMA as a team. The requested move that was placed had already received ten opposes and no supports by the time it was closed, as well as additional opposition from those who didn't technically "vote", so that matter's pretty well closed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Does this mean that the AMA may implode? If so, is the EA equipped to assume responsibilities that come about as a result of that action? --Aarktica 21:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Is MfD short for Miscellany for deletion? --Aarktica 21:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MfD is. A shortcut to that page is WP:MFD. About EA, my vision and, I'm guessing others' too, is that EA (I still think of Esperanza when I see that acronym) is not intending to assume the responsibilities AMA holds. We tend to be much more informal and want to help user's out wherever is best for them. No "have you read the EA guidelines"- or "what did you think of your interaction"-type questionnaires. At least, that's my hope. --Iamunknown 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide details on this MfD? What brought it about? More importantly, in what ways is EA an improvement? Is there a "cost" to the existence of EA? --Aarktica 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Wikipedia Signpost article may do a better job explaining than I can. You can read it at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-02/AMA nominated for deletion. I imagine that EA is an improvement because it is less bureaucratic. That, however, is a product of my personal bias towards bureaucracy, rules and the like. I think that others regard EA similarly. I don't think that there is a cost to EA. Though I commented to the effect at the MfD that the AMA should be marked with {{historical}}, {{rejected}} (or a custom tag), I am not actively opposed against its continued existence. I personally do not think that the "cost" of the EA will be the existence of the AMA. --Iamunknown 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only person who saw an attempted turf battle? Well, at least I'm not going insane then, but still, that's kinda new for wikipedia. :-( --Kim Bruning 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that WP:ASSIST is becoming WP:EA. Makes it all worthwhile... ;)

Standard procedure on Wikipedia is rapidly beoming "Corrupt/Crap/Bureaucratic organisation is Mfded. It survives MfD with promise of reform. Reform never occurs and morale falls. Depleted organisation is Mfded the second time and is esperanzified(how I hate that fucking word)." One would imagine unless WP:AMA realise what a precipice they stand on they will go the same way. Their discussion on reforms appear to be quite productive at the moment, but if you read their actual discussion page they're wallowing in a village council style "And so I think we need to develop a consensus on what colour the bikeshed should be..." which never bodes well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you forget the bit where it's a medcab-ish person causing the delay at the first MFD. O:-) (and then people don't listen to them on the organisation talk page) --Kim Bruning 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the relatively young and excitable user who claims that people are trying to destroy Wikipedia through the MfD and then tries to reform the organisation by creating a proposal for even more bureaucracy. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When replying to a request for assistance, should we reply at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests underneath the original posting, or on the user's talk page? A few minutes ago, I answered a user's question on the requests page just as Seraphimblade was answering on the user's talk page. To avoid such duplicate work, I think we need a firm guideline on this. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I don't think it's that big a deal. That was just a chance thing, that request had been up for hours, and we both gave pretty much the same advice anyway. I really don't think we should have any firm guidelines in the absence of an absolute need for them. :) However, I would tend to say that in general, if the editor asking for help seems to be reasonably experienced, talking to them on the request page is just fine, especially if the request seems to be something that won't require a long dialogue. A newer user, though, might not know how to use a watchlist or find that page again, but they sure won't miss the big yellow banner. In that case, it's probably best to respond on their talk (or at least leave a note on their talk with a link back to their answered request). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK fair enough, although in the absence of any guidelines on this issue, I've been replying on the requests page and then notifying the user on their talkpage, which preserves continuity while ensuring that they don't miss the response. But like you say, it probably isn't that big a deal. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the request page still instruct assisting editors to remove the request once they answer it? If it weren't for that instruction, I would lean towards something more along the line of Walton's method. TheronJ 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, nevermind. I see we're now archiving closed questions -- that's a good change, and I've archived mine. TheronJ 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either method works; just remember to add a note to the request whenever a member of the EA team has done anything concerning the case. Then I think the problem is solved. --Deryck C. 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favour of archiving all closed requests. I think that answering them on the requests page solves that problem, as it makes it clear which ones have been answered already. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things that I have noticed. It is a fact that that Seraphimblade started Editor Assistance during the MfD of the AMA as a failsafe. Now that the AMA is still around, I do believe that CyclePat's Move Request is more than apporpriate, as the EA has far too much overlap with the AMA, and that the AMA is in the middle of scaling things back for more simplicity. Wikiprojects that have too much overlaps, historically, have been merged in the past or deleted, therefore I strongly suggest that EA is combined with the AMA before things pick up too much steam. It was not appropriate (and against Wikipedia guidelines), in my opinion, to delete CyclePat's move polls, so soon I am going to be restoring them so that a discussion can be made. I bring no ill feelings; I just believe that having separate factions can cause problems, and that we should be all working together, rather than separately in our own cliques. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 14:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I should let you know then, that in view of your determination to suppress EA, I will be writing another MfD nom for AMA. It is unacceptable for such a corrupt and bureaucratic organisation to attempt to subvert a cleaner, more consensual group. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev, please, this is not a WP:CIVIL reason the file an MfD. I'm not trying to "surpress" anything. This ill blood needs to stop. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 15:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of point? Who is trying to force a move poll against the will of WP:ASSIST? I was planning to MfD AMA anyway, but your breathtaking arrogance has made me bring it forward. Stop trying to take over and I'll put it off. Dev920 (Have a nice day!)

Looks like the initial "EA" is a curse. Everything given this name got MfD-ed. --Deryck C. 14:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, did you actually read my message? I think EA is a brilliant idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Dev. What is more, the AMA is about advocacy: this is about informing people of how Wikipedia works. There's a difference. For the AMA, in its death throes, to try to take this down, is repellent. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we all cool down, and try to reduce the hostility between the two organisations? Although I'm not against merging them in principle, I think that filing a move request is an inappropriate way to do it, since it could end with having a move forced on WP:ASSIST against the will of its members, and will just breed more hostility. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a merge would serve any productive purpose at this point. Personally, I think that AMA should concentrate on getting its own house in order before attempting to annex other projects. Overlap isn't a bad thing if it gives editors more places to turn to for help. ChazBeckett 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and for now, let's just see how both turn out! AMA did survive one nomination, it is true, but I don't think it's quite out of the woods yet. I hope things can be gotten in order there. At some point down the line, if it turns out that the two are duplicating each other's efforts, a merge certainly might be in order, but for now, let's let things develop as they will. Right now, there's enough difference between the two that I believe they'll be more useful separately. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the comments above, and the way WP:ASSIST is developing, I think EA can co-exist with AMA, for the following reasons:

• One good thing about EA is the fact that we don't ask users to file formal "Requests for assistance" and name other users as participants, like the AMA does. This, in itself, can be seen as a confrontational act, and can sometimes escalate a trivial dispute to a higher level. Because EA really just answers users' questions, I think there's a less confrontational atmosphere.
• On the other hand, I don't think the EA framework would be suitable for resolving more serious disputes, as we don't have formal "case files" and "assignments" in the same way. Nor would we be able, in the serious cases, to guide users through mediation at MedCom, or to offer help with arbitration cases. The AMA does have a role to play in those areas.
• So I think the two organisations can exist together in the hierarchy of WP:DR. Trivial cases, where a user is just a little confused about Wikipolicy and/or is in a minor content dispute, can come here, and we can give them help and advice without starting a big fight. More serious cases will be sent on from EA to AMA, or go straight to AMA.

I would also like to re-iterate that I am still a member of both organisations, and intend to remain so. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it when proposed, EA is fully meant to see people through Mediations and Arbcom cases. We simply haven't had such a case come to us to date. The purpose is not to be another help desk, but a place for experienced editors to work one-on-one with bewildered or confused users, just as AMA does. EA was not designed as a step below AMA but as an organisation equal to it, pulling out the redeemable parts and shunting the crap. Referrals of the kind you are speaking of sound like a phenomenally bad idea. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I respect some AMA members, I'll be damned if I'll refer anything to the AMA: I believe it to be unwiki and a shockingly bad example for newbies. We can cope with DR on our own here minus the wikilawyering. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view of EA is similar to what Dev described above. EA is essentially a more streamlined AMA, focused on assisting editors rather than advocating for them. Perhaps in some situations it will be necessary for a member of EA to act as an advocate in order to assist an editor, but this isn't the primary goal of EA. I believe the biggest flaw in AMA is that it's too closely modeled after a real-world legal system. I think it's more helpful to provide editors with assistance rather than WikiLegalRepresentation. Still, if AMA is successful in its housecleaning, I can see it existing as a viable group. Just my 2c. ChazBeckett 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose something is known to be very very healthy: AMA and EA must compete as two holdings in free market and let people what they like better... or maybe people like us both. So, we AMA advocates and you EA assistors will be forced to give the best of each. Of course, it must be a fair competition... Thus, my AMA fellows: no merging attempts, please, and let's work! --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 16:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA members involved in discussions here, please, go back into our problems and let EA live in peace. OK? Editor Assistance has the right to exist, and to co-exist with AMA. And AMA has not the right to be the only assisting organization, do you understand? Attitudes like these are the ones that makes people think we're corrupt, useless, etc.

And good luck to all EA members! Hope we can work together in peace! --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neigel. Good luck to you as well. ChazBeckett 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! (for some reason, my last edit rendered something strange... I had to change it) --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a tiffy over such a lightweight program! Come on, we only have three pages and a talk page. We don't even stand a chance against the AMA. Lighten up, folks. --Iamunknown 18:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And with the exception of archive pages, that is hopefully all we will ever need. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as per the discussion on my talk page: : I will not leave in peace until my comments are returned and or archived on this talk page. There is nothing offencive about them and nothing that warrants the removal. My attempts to have a discusssion as suggested by others... to try and "abduct" the WP:ASSIST are NOT RELEVANT to keeping the following conversation. It must be preserved for historical purposes. Removal of the comment bellow is considered a violation of wikipedia's rules on vandalism, "Talk page vandalism". Wikipedia has built a concensus which states:

"Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

It appears that more than one editor has taken the liberty to remove my comments and other users comments. I'm not going to start naming names, because you know who you are but if need be I can go get each time it has been removed. It has been more than 3 times. As per WP:HAR, it is said that:

"Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."

Pressently, editor that keep removing my comments have created an unpleasant experience and many editors are trying to encourage me to stop editing. Truly we can corelate with this guideline of Harassment. With a specific exemple included such as "disruption intended to support a cause" it is easy to associate our current situation with the term "harassment."

The cause supported is WP:ASSIST and the method is by removing comments from people that clearly object or voice their opinion against the association. Such an exemple includes the RM discussion which was most recently removed by user:Dev920.[1] By removing this information, we are essentially forced back at "square one." similarly, when user:Kim Bruning kept removing that conversation/survey we where un-able to proceed towards a fair discussion regarding the subject.

Again, as per WP:VAN you can not remove goodfaith attempts at a conversation to build WP:CON. Whatever (within reasonable grounds of not being a plain out attack) someone says should be archived and preserved for future reference on the talk page. This is why I will keep placing the conversation back in it's location. You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group."[2] We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda] In this case, the removal of comments from the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate the desperation of the members of WP:ASSIST. To what extent are they going to go to if this was more than just a discussion? If they are ready to harass a user, what next? Truly there must be some limit to this non-sense? A further technique that is being used by WP:ASSIST which I have observed, is called bandwagon. This consists of inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea (AMA) by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. (wikilawyering, etc...)" Such actions, conversations and comments should not be tolerated here on wikipedia and I urge that it stop now prior to going any further within the disputes resolution. Asside: Regarding AMA and ASSIST proposed move page/merger, no matter what the decission... the conversation is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule. On top of that, it falls within the criteria of vandalism. This conversation, should at least remain archived. (It should have also probably followed a fair time. Unfortunatelly that was not the case.) Again, in short, removing the archive bellow creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]