Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/AMA IRC Meeting log (2-12-05)/Pt.II
|This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.|
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Continued from: Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (2-12-05)
[13:30] <Sam_Spade> who knows how many people have tried to seek advocacy from mrs.hippie burning? ;)
[13:30] <Wally|AMA> It's not really a fundamental change, it's within the Coordinator's purview.
[13:30] <Wally|AMA> Administratively.
[13:31] <alex756> Right, it is just an administrative change, I agree with that Wally.
[13:31] <Wally|AMA> We need to step lightly, though.
[13:31] <Wally|AMA> We don't want to make it seem like you have to be Alan Dershowitz to remain in the group.
[13:31] <Sam_Spade> but if he was in our group, he could have 5 stars, like me!
[13:32] <Sam_Spade> :D
[13:32] <alex756> I would make the list of members accepting new cases a separate page that would be linked to the main page.
[13:32] <Sam_Spade> how about you move the big list off into its own page
[13:33] <Sam_Spade> and put the list of available or active members where it used to be
[13:33] <Wally|AMA> Either way that sounds fine to me.
[13:33] <alex756> No, I don't agree with that Sam, because that is also the place where people join and can see who is already a member.
[13:33] <Sam_Spade> I just want to make it easier for perspective clients
[13:33] <Sam_Spade> they are unlikely to go searching our sub-pages
[13:34] <Wally|AMA> We could put the new list at the top, perhaps?
[13:34] <Sam_Spade> it would have to be a REALLY obvious link
[13:34] <Sam_Spade> yeah
[13:34] <Wally|AMA> Have the member page, list of members actively taking cases first, and then secondly list of users overall.
[13:34] <alex756> [[Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries?
[13:34] <Wally|AMA> Members, rather.
[13:34] <Wally|AMA> No, just put it all on the one.
[13:34] <Sam_Spade> put yourself in a nube clients shoes
[13:34] <Sam_Spade> new to the wikipedia
[13:34] <alex756> It can also be put into the box on the top.
[13:34] <Wally|AMA> That works too.
[13:34] <Sam_Spade> very confused, and needing help
[13:35] <Sam_Spade> thats what we should design things for
[13:35] <Sam_Spade> to make things easier for that client
[13:35] <Wally|AMA> I agree with Sam.
[13:35] <Wally|AMA> Especially since the vast majority of our clients do indeed fall into that category.
[13:35] <Wally|AMA> We don't have four-year users coming around to ask for representation.
[13:36] <Sam_Spade> most of the advocacy I do is integrating new users
[13:37] <Sam_Spade> even big cases before the arb comitee usually involve nubes
[13:37] <Sam_Spade> which is kinda sad, really
[13:37] * Wally|AMA nods.
[13:37] <Sam_Spade> since they prob should have been integrated better, so as not to end up there in the 1st place
[13:37] <Sam_Spade> thats a meta-problem w the wikipedia generally, integrating nubes
[13:38] <Sam_Spade> I'd like to see advocates putting alot of focus ot that
[13:38] <Wally|AMA> Well that sounds like an issue for another day. :P
[13:38] * Grunt is now known as GruntWillBBL
[13:38] <Sam_Spade> anyhow, your clearly allowed to edit AMA pages, alex ;)
[13:38] <Wally|AMA> For now, I think boxing members who are actively taking cases at the top of our member page should suffice.
[13:38] <Sam_Spade> and we all 3 seem to generally agree on this
[13:39] <Wally|AMA> Erm at the top of the page listing our members.'
[13:39] * Angela is now known as angaway
[13:39] <Wally|AMA> Hear hear.
[13:39] <Sam_Spade> just make sure you keep that confused nube in mind
[13:39] <Wally|AMA> Democracy is run by those who show up.
[13:39] <alex756> I have made a change to the AMA template with a new page.
[13:39] <angaway> thanks for letting me come to your meeting. gtg now. bye all
[13:39] * angaway has left #AMA
[13:41] <alex756> Do you think this solves the problem?
[13:41] <Wally|AMA> A new page or boxing active case-takers at the top of our current list?
[13:41] <Wally|AMA> I think both do, but the latter does far more cogently than the former.
[13:41] <alex756> I added a link in the template box to a new page list.
[13:42] <alex756> I can add a list somewhere once members start listing themselves on that new page, no?
[13:42] <Wally|AMA> Sam, what do you think?
[13:42] <Sam_Spade> not sure, my wiki is slow
[13:42] <Wally|AMA> In principle, that sounds fine.
[13:42] <Wally|AMA> To me, anyway.
[13:43] <alex756> As of now, no one is listed as taking new cases, so please, guys go right ahead and add your names to that list and once I let everyone know we have such a list we can add a section to the AMA page as well.
[13:43] <Sam_Spade> cool
[13:43] <jag123> What type of cases do you accept anyway?
[13:44] * GruntWillBBL is now known as Grunt
[13:44] <Wally|AMA> Anything at the mediation or arbitration level, pretty much.
[13:44] <Wally|AMA> Subject to a user agreeing.
[13:44] <Sam_Spade> wait a minute
[13:44] <jag123> do you have any examples?
[13:44] <Sam_Spade> the vast majority of cases have nothing to do w arbitration or mediation
[13:44] <Sam_Spade> I consider advocacy to be VERY vague
[13:44] <Sam_Spade> as in just about any assistance
[13:45] <Sam_Spade> helping people w problems to solve them
[13:45] <Wally|AMA> Well, in general it has to be within the parameters of the dispute resolution process.
[13:45] <alex756> Sam is right, advocacy involves answering inquires from anyone who has problems with Wikipedia procedures.
[13:45] <Wally|AMA> Otherwise it's advice. :P
[13:45] <Wally|AMA> But this is our "cries for help" page:
[13:45] <jag123> answering inquiries isn't being an advocate
[13:46] <Wally|AMA> We are here to render advice, though.
[13:46] <Sam_Spade> I disagree, wally and jag
[13:46] <alex756> Advocacy starts with providing information.
[13:46] <Sam_Spade> and second alex :)
[13:46] <Wally|AMA> Well, I don't really concur, but the point is whatever we CALL it, we render assistance at any level.
[13:46] <Wally|AMA> We give advice when its asked for, and provide advocacy when its called for.
[13:46] <jag123> okay, let me ask the question in another way
[13:46] <jag123> assume I were to join, what could I expect to do?
[13:47] <Sam_Spade> hey, we should debate the definition of advocacy to death! That could REALLY waste time ;)
[13:47] <alex756> Often in the process of providing information to someone who makes an inquiry you can discover if they truly need someone to intervene in their dispute resolution process or to help them clarify it.
[13:47] <Wally|AMA> lol Sam, we'd be like the government. ;)
[13:47] <Sam_Spade> helping people who ask for help
[13:47] <Sam_Spade> or working on building the AMA to be more able to help people whop need help
[13:47] <alex756> Wikipedia:AMA_Advocates_accepting_inquiries is now seeking advocates...
[13:47] <Wally|AMA> I think advocacy itself starts when we assist users actively involved in dispute res.
[13:48] <Wally|AMA> Otherwise it's advice, to my mind, which any Wikipedian might offer.
[13:48] <Wally|AMA> But they come to us, because lawyers make people feel safer, I guess. ;)
[13:48] <Wally|AMA> Unless you're a doctor, of course. :D
[13:48] <alex756> What do you mean by "actively involved in dispute res.? Wally?
[13:48] <Sam_Spade> lawyers scare me, actually
[13:49] <alex756> Me too!
[13:49] <Wally|AMA> You are a lawyer, Alex. :)
[13:49] <alex756> Don't remind me, Argh!
[13:49] <Wally|AMA> Hehe
[13:50] <Wally|AMA> Well, by "actively imvolved in etc." (too lazy to type it out) I mean when we take a case from a user engaged in an RfC or beyond.
[13:50] <Wally|AMA> Otherwise, we're giving advice, which any advocate indeed should do - I see advice as the only thing required of every advocate.
[13:50] <alex756> But if someone is potentially involved in a dispute or is getting into a dispute and they turn to an advocate for some guidance you do not think that is advocacy work?
[13:51] <alex756> Lawyers use the distinction between advice (what lawyers do) and legal information (just general understanding). But they are always arguing about that distinction and where to draw the line.
[13:51] <Wally|AMA> Ah, I see.
[13:52] <Wally|AMA> Well, we're not really lawyers, in the context that there is little actual law.
[13:52] <jag123> let's say I'm in a dispute. What are you going to do for me?
[13:52] <alex756> I find a lot of people are in need of an advocate but they couch it in terms of needing information, because they don't even know what an advocate is.
[13:52] <Sam_Spade> I would talk to you
[13:52] <Sam_Spade> and give you useful links
[13:52] <Wally|AMA> Well, you put up a request and someone contacts you.
[13:52] <Sam_Spade> and potentially advocate your case on the talk pages in question
[13:52] <Wally|AMA> Usually it's quite quick, depending upon the number of active users, but there are occasional horror stories.
[13:52] <alex756> I think the analogy with law is that the DRP is the "law of Wikipedia" so in that way it is similar.
[13:53] <Wally|AMA> Very true.
[13:53] <jag123> sam - your definition of advocate is pretty vague. can you be more specific?
[13:53] <Wally|AMA> I consider our role advisory until the users specifically requests representation.
[13:53] <Sam_Spade> not really
[13:53] <Sam_Spade> I prefer it vague
[13:53] <Wally|AMA> An advocate guides a user through the Dispute Resolution process.
[13:53] <Wally|AMA> An advocate speaks for a user, and possibly in place of the user.
[13:54] <Wally|AMA> Depending upon the user's wishes and knowledge of the WikiLaw, if we might call it that. :P
[13:54] <Sam_Spade> DRP is only one part of the law of wikipedia, the real deal is Wikipedia:Policy Library
[13:54] <Wally|AMA> But DRP is the main operative part.
[13:54] <Wally|AMA> That, standing Arbitration Committee rulings, and basic etiquette.
[13:54] <Sam_Spade> I don't agree, but its not important
[13:54] <alex756> You see this discussion is useful for training advocates to understand what we are about.
[13:55] <jag123> at this point I'm completely clueless
[13:55] <alex756> Let me ask you jag123, what do you think advocacy is?
[13:55] <Wally|AMA> What you're seeing some of, jag, are differing views of advocacy itself.
[13:55] <Wally|AMA> There's no right answer.
[13:55] <jag123> alex - I
[13:55] <jag123> Im not really sure. I've only seen it in action once
[13:56] <jag123> I'm trying to get specifics but it's like pulling teeth
[13:56] <alex756> We do have a guide to advocacy page and a FAQ, have you looked at that information?
[13:57] <Sam_Spade> I recently rewrote the guide to advocacy, BTW
[13:57] <Sam_Spade> I made it lots vaguer ;)
[13:57] <alex756> Wikipedia:AMA FAQs
[13:59] <Wally|AMA> Part of being an advocate, in many ways, is finding your own way.
[14:00] <Wally|AMA> Just like any other legal or quasi-legal system, there are differing views of how it should behave.
[14:01] <alex756> I think the simplest definition would be that an advocate is like an agent or surrogate for the person with the problem. You are stepping into their shoes and trying to see what you can do for them to help them out.
[14:01] <Wally|AMA> That is certainly true.
[14:01] <Wally|AMA> Beyond that, I think, it's a personal thing.
[14:01] <Wally|AMA> You choose what it is you are.
[14:01] <jag123> what if a user is wrong?
[14:01] <Wally|AMA> Like Plato with justice, we can speak for hours and only agree we're not really sure. :)
[14:02] <Wally|AMA> Perhaps no one will take the case.
[14:02] <alex756> It is a confidential relationship to be built on trust.
[14:02] <Wally|AMA> We're not public defenders; we're not required to answer every call.
[14:02] <alex756> I don't agree with that. The whole point is that we don't know who is "right" or "wrong".
[14:02] <Sam_Spade> I do!
[14:02] <Sam_Spade> :D
[14:02] <Sam_Spade> its my super-power ;)
[14:03] <Wally|AMA> Well, its an area that is occasionally grey, and occasionally not.
[14:03] <alex756> I know some advocates prefer to work with people with whom they agree, other advocates can respect that maybe they don't know everything and maybe they don't know if someone is right or wrong initially.
[14:03] <Wally|AMA> If you take a case you're expected to follow through unless something notable comes to light of which the advocate wasn't informed.
[14:03] <jag123> alex -so what if someone is in front of the ArbCom, and they have blatantly broken various policies. How would you go about defending them?
[14:03] <alex756> Also if someone is really "wrong" about procedure then the advocate is really helping them to understand Wikipedia.
[14:04] <Wally|AMA> Mitigation, jag.
[14:04] <jag123> okay
[14:04] <Wally|AMA> Although ignorance of the law in general is not an excuse for breaking the law, we can argue that the user did not do it in bad faith.
[14:04] <alex756> Wally, jag123 asked me the question.
[14:04] <Wally|AMA> Oh, sorry.
[14:04] <Wally|AMA> :(
[14:04] <Wally|AMA> Shit.
[14:04] <alex756> It is o.k., just give me the opportunity to answer first o.k.. Thanks.
[14:05] * Wally|AMA delicately removes his foot from his mouth.
[14:05] <alex756> I think that if someone has so blatantly violated WP policy if they have an advocate they may not ever get to ArbCom.
[14:06] <alex756> And as Wally states even if it does get to that stage, there are lots of issues about "intention" and the willingness of the user to respect WP policies in the future.
[14:06] <alex756> If someone is just an ignorant nube they may not suffer the same penalty of someone who has wilfully been subverting WP policies over a long period.
[14:07] <alex756> Also the person may not really understand the process and might cause a lot of misperception of their own position.
[14:07] <alex756> An advocate can help make sure that the person is put in the best light before ArbCom so that they are treated fairly.
[14:08] <jag123> I see
[14:08] <alex756> ArbCom may not always do the best thing, so an advocate will help protect the person so they don't end up being abused by the process.
[14:08] <alex756> Wally, do you want to add anything to that?
[14:08] <Sam_Spade> I personally have advocated for outrageously unpopular users, who were quite certainly wrong... today even ;)
[14:08] <Wally|AMA> Just that there is a concrete difference between the nubes and dedicated vandals.
[14:09] <Wally|AMA> For example, we have a lot of Lyndon LaRouche supporters on the Wiki.
[14:09] <Sam_Spade> hehe, I'd say we have 1
[14:09] <Sam_Spade> HK
[14:09] <Wally|AMA> We have enough, unfortunately. :P
[14:09] <Wally|AMA> But these persons know the rules and break them anyway.
[14:10] <Wally|AMA> A lot of nubes just walk in with a POV, don't get what we're doing and try to enforce their views.
[14:10] <jag123> Sam - the unpopular users who were quite certainly wrong, what did you do to help them?
[14:10] <Wally|AMA> That's not to say they're right, or that its good, but benefit-of-the-doubt must be a catchphrase for both the AMA and the Wikipedia as a whole.
[14:11] <jag123> right, for new users, I understand
[14:11] <Sam_Spade> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
[14:11] <Sam_Spade> scroll to the bottom
[14:11] <Sam_Spade> thats today
[14:11] <jag123> Wrongful block?
[14:12] <Sam_Spade> however, in another case, I withdrew when my client became clear in his intractability
[14:12] <Sam_Spade> yeah
[14:12] <Sam_Spade> that was paul vogel
[14:12] <Wally|AMA> I remember reading that case.
[14:12] <Sam_Spade> once I figured out he was pretty much just a vandal, I gave up on him
[14:12] <Wally|AMA> Horrendous row, that was.
[14:13] <Wally|AMA> And that's a big thing, jag - if a user's not honest with us, sometimes we can't do anything in good faith.
[14:13] <Sam_Spade> I think HK should be allowed to edit, along w nazis and whatall, but they have to follow rules
[14:13] <Wally|AMA> If a client lies to us or continues acting wrongfully even as we try to help them, then occasionally they must be left to fate.
[14:13] <Sam_Spade> we shouldn't have bans based on POV, but some users need banned
[14:14] <alex756> Do you have any other questions jag123?
[14:14] <Sam_Spade> I agree w wally
[14:14] <jag123> alex - let me just finish reading sam's stuff
[14:14] <alex756> I too, if someone is not cooperating with an advocate the advocate has no obligation to keep working with them, honesty is absolutely necessary.
[14:15] <alex756> Before we end the meeting I'd like to talk about the buddy system issue too.
[14:15] <Sam_Spade> User:Dnagod never officially accepted me as his advocate, BTW
[14:15] <Wally|AMA> Yeah, I'm unclear on this.
[14:15] <Sam_Spade> so thats an unofficial case ;)
[14:15] <Wally|AMA> You're doing the Dnagod thing, Sam?
[14:16] <Sam_Spade> sorta
[14:16] <Sam_Spade> ots pretty much over
[14:16] <Wally|AMA> What ended up happening?
[14:16] <alex756> It is just a suggestion Wally that if one advocate wants to discuss his or her case with another advocate that other advocate is his/her "buddy".
[14:16] <Sam_Spade> he is banned indefinately for making rude comments
[14:16] <Wally|AMA> Oh.
[14:16] <Wally|AMA> Sounds good to me, Alex, but I don't know if we have to formalize that.
[14:16] <Sam_Spade> racist slurs, generally, not specific to a certain user, afaik
[14:17] <Sam_Spade> it may help, formalizing it
[14:17] <Wally|AMA> Ugh, bad times has by all.
[14:17] <Wally|AMA> True.
[14:17] <Wally|AMA> We should make it known that advice is available.
[14:18] <jag123> I'm back
[14:18] <Sam_Spade> yes
[14:18] <Wally|AMA> By the way, are we ever going to bring back up the working committee/coordinator thing?
[14:18] <Wally|AMA> Because I've rather changed my mind regarding the committee.
[14:18] <Sam_Spade> indeed we should mention in our members statements if we are willing to be a "buddy" or whatnot
[14:19] <Wally|AMA> Very true - perhaps a star might be used for that next to our names on the member list.
[14:24] <Wally|AMA> Anyone still here?
[14:24] <Sam_Spade> yo
[14:24] <alex756> yep
[14:24] <jag123> yeah
[14:24] <Sam_Spade> I'm gonna leave son tho
[14:24] <Wally|AMA> Everything kinda stopped, it was a little freaky.
[14:25] <Sam_Spade> my oldest wants online after doing his chores ;)
[14:25] <Wally|AMA> Did someone fart or something? ;)
[14:25] <alex756> I admit I left the room for a minute.
[14:25] <Wally|AMA> Well, then you must be disbarred.
[14:25] <Wally|AMA> ;D
[14:25] <Sam_Spade> I've been arguing about being an advocate on my talk page ;)
[14:26] <alex756> You still arguing with yourself Sam? ;)
[14:26] <Sam_Spade> nope, I have a couple opponents
[14:26] <Sam_Spade> anyhow, I'm willing to be a buddy
[14:26] <Sam_Spade> and an active advocate
[14:26] <alex756> I have been and continue to be willing to bud.
[14:26] <Sam_Spade> but I demand 5 stars and a permanant position as :Imperator"
[14:27] <Sam_Spade> ;)
[14:27] <alex756> I think AMA should be a barnstar freezone.
[14:27] <Sam_Spade> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AMA_Advocates_accepting_inquiries
[14:27] <Sam_Spade> that page seems to be unfinished...
[14:27] <Sam_Spade> boo, hiss
[14:27] <Sam_Spade> I have 2 barnstars
[14:27] <Wally|AMA> Concur with Alex.
[14:28] <Wally|AMA> If any of us wanted, we could all just start awarding each other barnstars on a rotating basis.
[14:28] <jag123> lol
[14:28] <Wally|AMA> In a month or so we could each have twenty or so.
[14:28] <Wally|AMA> And be real proud of our work. ;)
[14:28] <alex756> I just started that page, Sam, a few minutes ago.
[14:28] <Sam_Spade> I agree w myself, and second the motion to adjourn
[14:28] <alex756> Can I add you Sam and Wally to that page?
[14:29] <Sam_Spade> please do
[14:29] <alex756> What about the next meeting? Any suggestions?
[14:29] <Sam_Spade> lets do it more often
[14:29] <Sam_Spade> set 2 regular times
[14:29] <Sam_Spade> and have them every week
[14:29] <alex756> I guess if I deputize people I need something like a deputy star.
[14:29] <Wally|AMA> Surely.
[14:29] <alex756> Two meetings a week is a lot of meeting.
[14:29] <Sam_Spade> like on sundays and wedsdays, or some such
[14:29] <Wally|AMA> I can't make it next weekend.
[14:30] <Sam_Spade> well I won't be coming ;)
[14:30] <Wally|AMA> (Which I had thought was THIS weekend)
[14:30] <Sam_Spade> but more communication is good
[14:30] <Sam_Spade> how about we simply use this IRC room to have informal chat whenever?
[14:30] <alex756> Maybe in two weeks, it seems that the three of us are defintely the "working group", no?
[14:30] <Wally|AMA> I think it would seem so.
[14:31] <Sam_Spade> formal meetings can be less often
[14:31] <Wally|AMA> I just wish some other user on this network hadn't reserved "Wally".
[14:31] <alex756> I have no problem with using the IRC channel for chats, it can also be used for private meetings with clients, no?
[14:31] <Wally|AMA> Absolutely.
[14:31] <Sam_Spade> yeah
[14:31] <alex756> Should we have office hours?
[14:31] <Sam_Spade> but we should mention it somewhere that its ok, or recommended
[14:32] <alex756> I will add something to that effect on a new page I am going to start called member activities.
[14:32] <Sam_Spade> cool
[14:32] <alex756> That is where I will post the proposal for the certification process, maybe we should meet to discuss that in a few weeks.
[14:32] <Sam_Spade> I like the fact that we are emphasizing pro-activity and concensus, and not beurocracy and voting
[14:32] <Wally|AMA> Consensus is preferable where possible.
[14:33] <alex756> Do we really even have enough members interested in participating for a vote?
[14:33] <Sam_Spade> we should have a co-ordinator election at some point, at least for propriety
[14:33] <alex756> If we communicate that is much better than constant voting, no?
[14:33] <Sam_Spade> but I think we'd need candidates 1st
[14:33] <alex756> Yes, I agree, are you running for the job Sam? ;)
[14:33] <Sam_Spade> I can't imagine anybody other than alex would win
[14:33] <Sam_Spade> but certain members seem to think its necessary
[14:33] <Sam_Spade> heck no
[14:34] <alex756> Maybe we can get some of those larouche people to pack the membership and then he could finally win an election?
[14:34] <Sam_Spade> maybe to ensure you win?
[14:34] <Sam_Spade> HK didn't vote for me for arbitration comitee ;(
[14:34] <alex756> That would be some way to get publicity "Larouche for AMA Coordinator!" LOL!
[14:35] <Sam_Spade> at some point I want to talk about combating the trend towards viting on the wiki
[14:35] <Sam_Spade> but thats a big topic
[14:35] <alex756> OK, I admit it my dentist gave me some powerful painkillers yesterday and I'm a bit out of it today.
[14:35] <Wally|AMA> lol
[14:35] <alex756> What is 'viting on the wiki" Sam?
[14:36] <Sam_Spade> I'm not drunk, in case it matters
[14:36] <Sam_Spade> *voting
[14:36] <Sam_Spade> I've had alot of tea tho
[14:36] <Sam_Spade> working on my 3rd liter
[14:36] <alex756> Glad to hear we can enter into a contractual obligations with you Sam.
[14:36] <alex756> I'm a T brain too.
[14:37] <Sam_Spade> I drink massive amounts of green tea, no creme, no suger
[14:37] <Sam_Spade> it prevents cancer
[14:37] <Sam_Spade> and I'm a health nut
[14:37] <alex756> I think that we are publishing all our discussions so there is transparancy.
[14:37] <alex756> Is that the only kind of nut your are Sam?
[14:37] <Sam_Spade> I'm also a gun nut
[14:37] <alex756> Where did you say you lived?
[14:38] <Sam_Spade> :D
[14:38] <Sam_Spade> currently Germany
[14:38] <Sam_Spade> but that varies alot
[14:38] <alex756> I remember not to disagree with you if you are within 300 miles of my location.
[14:38] <alex756> "I will remember" that is.
[14:38] <Sam_Spade> I have alot of connections ;)
[14:38] <alex756> So do I, Russian, live in Brooklyn, KGB capitol of the world now.
[14:39] <Sam_Spade> thats interesting
[14:39] <Wally|AMA> Dammit. Why don't Anglo-Swedes have connections?
[14:39] <Wally|AMA> ;)
[14:39] <Sam_Spade> I study organized crime / secret societies / gangs
[14:39] <Sam_Spade> militias, etc...
[14:39] <alex756> I think as long as we keep posting everything on our WP pages and wait to implement anything that is discussed here that it is a good substitute for viting.
[14:40] <Sam_Spade> yeah
[14:40] <alex756> Is it true that the pope is a freemason?
[14:40] <Sam_Spade> but alot of this stuff you can just "do" as co-ordinator
[14:40] <Wally|AMA> Is it true that the Pope has been replaced with a Disney animatron?
[14:40] <Sam_Spade> I donno, but check out infowars.com
[14:40] <alex756> I still prefer to give members notice. I would love it if someone started a discussion about any of these issues.
[14:41] <Sam_Spade> infowars.com/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used
[14:41] <Sam_Spade> it prob sez on there ;)
[14:41] <Sam_Spade> if not, try a chick tract
[14:42] <Sam_Spade> http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp
[14:42] <Sam_Spade> :D
[14:43] <Sam_Spade> I do know that Hitler rides on a vril-powered UFO w subteranean lizard folk in the hollow earth, tho ;)
[14:43] * Grunt is now known as GruntWillBBL
[14:45] <Wally|AMA> I knew it!
[14:45] <Sam_Spade> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_mysticism#References
[14:45] <alex756> Sam, Wally I've added links to your talk pages about advocacy. If you want to put in some kind of statement after your names, feel free.
[14:45] <Wally|AMA> They all said I was crazy!
[14:45] <Sam_Spade> references on that last part ;)
[14:45] <Wally|AMA> But there were subterranean lizards!
[14:45] <Wally|AMA> Surely.
[14:45] <Sam_Spade> great, thanks alex
[14:45] <jag123> I've got to go. It was nice meeting all of you
[14:45] <Sam_Spade> apparently a cult in brazil says jesus rides on a spaceship w bigfoot
[14:46] <Wally|AMA> Nice meeting you, jag.
[14:46] <Sam_Spade> I have a theory that he has space battles w hitlers lizard folk, but no citations as of yet ;)
[14:46] <jag123> Have a good day all!
[14:46] * jag123 has left #ama
[14:46] <Sam_Spade> have a good one, I'm taking off too, before the kids mutiny
[14:47] * Sam_Spade has quit IRC
[14:54] * alex756 The AMA meeting is ending at 3:00 PM EST, 20:00 UTC.
[14:54] <Wally|AMA> Hasta luego, Alex.
[14:54] <alex756> OK Wally, we'll be in touch.
[14:54] <Wally|AMA> Thanks for all the help & hard work. :)
[14:54] * Wally|AMA has quit IRC (""Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something." - last words of Mexican outlaw Pancho Villa, 1921.")