Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Teams

Comments on AMAT proposal

This seems overly structured to me. I like the idea of teams, but I think they should form on an ad hoc basis for individual advocacies, not on an ongoing basis. In other words, if Foo and Bar announce that they are "team FooBar", (1) it's exclusionary, (2) it leaves users at the mercy of Foo and Bar's combined schedule. On the other hand, if editor Baz posts a request and (1) Foo and Bar both sign up for that advocacy, or (2) Foo signs up, invites additional advocates to chime in, and then Bar signs up too, then great.
I don't think there's any reason to encourage editors to submit request directly to teams rather than to the global request system.
I question the statement: Filing a direct request with multiple available advocates or AMAT's at the same time is considered bad form. It is discouraged and in the 'Association's experience' will delay your effective time in obtaining help Why is it bad form, and who has experienced a situation where requesting help from multiple advocates at the same time has delayed an advocee's effective time in obtaining help? (Also, I'm not sure I understand what the phrase "delay your effective time in obtaining help" means. Is "delaying effective time different" from "delaying help"?)

Thanks! TheronJ 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello TheronJ, Thank you for the comments. I hope you will be able to help out with the AMAT and perhaps teams will be a good thing AMA in general! What exactly seems overly structured? Oh! Okay! Perhaps you are refering to the idea that you should have 3 people to form an AMAT and that the Teams should perhaps be capable of forming a lot quicker and maybe dissintegrate just as quickly. I think this is a great idea! Perhaps we should create a section where advocates looking to form a small team can put there name and request a team member. (Maybe the section where it says members looking for a team?) This is still possible even though I think a we may have some long term AMATs such as the current proposal for Arb-com Team. When you think about it though, a proposed team is kind of like an "ad hoc" team until they get 3 dedicated users. Again, I consider it to be pretty much all Ad Hoc until a team require a large system like the AMA in general does for their cases. Each team can decide on how they wish to operate... If they do not wish to receive direct communications, then that is their prerogative and it is up to the team to explain how they except cases. (Nothing against the current AMA system of filling cases, the best thing we could or maybe should do is explain to a team that it is a wise idea to establish early on how they will take on cases to avoid internal conflict between members). Also, the level of expertise might grow fast considering some of the users that exist out there are pretty good in certain niches! I see what you are suggesting... Essentially, you want to see if AMAT can accomadate a specific niche of encouraging more users to work together or to team-up on certain case that each one would like to do, and not necessarily be locked in team. Again, I'm being prety liberal here hence the reason I left it up for graps so each group can decide. (I call it Macro management)

The statement of "...Filing a direct request with multiple available advocates or AMAT's at the same time is considered bad form. It is discouraged and in the 'Association's experience'..." is a modification of the AMA regular members list. Asking Joe for help, then asking, Jimmy, then Stephen, etc... only takes up everyones time. I think it was a polite way of discouraging people from filling a request on multiple levels. We want people to think about their needs, if they seriously require a team prior to contacting. The people that will need it... (ie.: ARB-com, RFC, Sock could all have teams) should know if they want or need a team or a single advocate or perhaps a simple email to an individual advocate. --CyclePat 19:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Assistance Team deleted

A team must be proposed before it is created, wait to have three members and then, created... and WP:ASSIST should decide if it wants to be part of AMA or not. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that they should perhaps not be listed but not because of your explanation. Your making rules as you go along about the proposal. What if some advocates just want to get together temporarily? If there is a team that wants to be called the SS Hitler RCPatrol Advocates (though the name may be contreversial... I see no reason why, once they have 3 members or more that they shouldn't be concidered a part of the AMAT). I only concur with you because it says that "AMAT members must first be listed as individual advocates but do not necessarilly need to be accepting individual cases." I am not sure if all the members of that team are in fact AMA members, but neither am I sure if the members of the Arb-com team are all members also. Currently they have approx. 17 members at WP:ASSIST. Assides from the above discrepency I think they should be concidered an AMAT. That are performing preciselly the same task. If they are performing the same task then perhaps they are a WP:FORK. They are attempting to be considered seperate but in fact, we should all be working together. A good team leader realizes that he must have "influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members". --CyclePat 02:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK... but have you asked Ed. Ass. members' or not? They have the right to remain independent to AMA! And I believe they are not willing to be part of AMAT, just because many of them voted against AMA on the MfD. Cycle, MedCom didn't had any concern against MedCab. --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 10:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]