Talk:List of twelve-step groups/Archive 1

List Needs Clean-up
I removed all of the hoaxes. Many groups should probably be removed as they're not notable. Groups without meetings, for instance, should be identified and removed. -- Craigtalbert 10:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Our Media Anonymous and Anti-Nutrients Anonymous meetings are for the most part ad hoc but any two people can set up their own meeting and we will post this information. We seem, in general to be especially creative people and we find this is working. Even though we do not list the information many years we also have had regular meetings and also have been using a piggy back system i.e.: members are encouraged to go to OA or WA etc. for support inbetween meetings. There is no where in the "Big Book of AA" or in "the Twelve and Twelve" where it is written in stone, that meetings need to be posted, or that they need to be regular.

There is the suggestion for "90 meetings in 90 days" ...we are not big enough for that yet...that does not mean that we are not alive and well and that the public should not know about us. If the "The Satruday Evening Post" had not published the article about Alcoholics Anonymous when they were as small as we are, it is possible they would not exist today.

What is important is that the program works and how the members choose to work the program is up to the members. "These are suggested steps".

Hartcomm 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed theoretical groups
I removed all the groups that didn't have any indication that there were any face-to-face meetings from the list. Call it WP:N or WP:EL but every idea someone had for a group that they made a website for doesn't deserve to be listed here. -- Craigtalbert 07:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We just posted the info about the 12 step groups for media addiction and we are not a hoax ...there is only a requirment to have 2 people at a meeting ...we do not know who these pontificators are that take it upon themselves to violate the free speech of others, but they should cease and decist. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mft12x12 (talk • contribs).
 * If the groups do not publish or make available a directory of meetings it is WP:LINKSPAM, and they can't be included on this list. -- Craigtalbert 21:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many groups that meet utilizing the 12 Step principles but do not publish a regular meeting schedule either because they are closed groups, meet irregularly, or for a variety of other reasons. For that matter, there are people who have meetings on-line because they are so debilitated from illness or age that they can't physically make it to a face-to-face meeting. These principles are for everyone who takes them seriously. They save lives and sanity wherever they are practiced. The 12 Steps and meeting principles can be used to heal from being powerless over any number of addictions, or even in a more general sense as through the ARTS group (artists recovering through the Twelve Steps) to deal with a variety of recovery issues. it seems important to me to let people know the vast number of ways the 12 Steps have been used and continue to be used, in the spirit of Bill W. rather than to over-police the situation without possible adequate basis ````TruthHelper
 * Please mind WP:FORUM. In response to your other comments, yes, I am aware of closed meetings and that many groups meet irregularly, and still others meet over the phone or online. However, we can't allow people to use wikipedia and a vehicle from promoting non-notable groups. If a "group" does not have meetings, then they are certainly non-notable and do not belong on this list. -- Craigtalbert 02:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are playing God here ...who gives you the right to tell others how to run thier 12 step meetings ...the groups Media Anonymous and Junk Food anonymous (AKA - ANA) have been active since the early '80's and we have meetings but just because we do not publicize our meetings on the web does not mean they do not exist. Especially in the case of Media Anonymous ...we have people who cannot even look at a webpage. These webpages have been around from the very beginning and have not changed much ...we have had a lot o problems from self appointed non believers like those here, that burn books before they are published ... in terms of "theoretical groups" the case of War Addicts Anonymous Might Apply because it is entirely new and we are seeking others to share their experoience strength and hope ...especiallly those who are "freinds and family" of violence and adreneline addicts...we see no reason why this information should be excluded from a public data base just because of the theorizing of some, about the legitimacy of incumbent 12 Step Programs... We would suggest that these people "get off the centre of the universe" and go to a CODA Meeting...or something ...GET A LIFE. -- {{subst:unsigned|74.105.98.223|03:28, 17 August 2007}
 * Please mind WP:CIVIL. A good way to solve this problem would be to produce reliable sources documenting your claims. -- Craigtalbert 07:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As Per the concerns expressed here, we have added the following "Meeting Information" disclaimer to the webpages for the groups :"Anti-Nutrients Anonymous" "Media Anonymous" and "WARANON" :

For Meeting information pls. call (416)-767-3033 - (416)-526-4386 after 6 P.M. or on weekends or join our Email Forum. We are A.lways A.round 24/7 and will respond ASAP ...but we are only human,please allow 24 Hrs. for a reply .Meetings are arranged by appoinment either face to face or by telecommunications channels anywhere, anytime anyone requests the need for one.

Thank You for your Commentary it is appreciated ...we will now again attempt to list our Groups meetings in Wikipedia List for public access to this information  -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.105.98.223 (talk • contribs).
 * Please read WP:COI, WP:LINKSPAM, WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V. -- Craigtalbert 07:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

F.Y.I.:

Hi All:

I am also a member of MediaA and ANA and I would like to add the contents of documents in the new "Historical Documents" link on:

http://JunkFoodAnonymous.org

http://MediaAnonymous.com

and via*:

http://meditationwalk.com


 * This E-journal, part of "Media Free Times" v.32n.1- will be updated later this week at the Library Archives Canada E-Journals collection

The direct link to the PDF file via the server is:

http://web.295.ca/gk/MFTv32n1/ANA_MediaA_History.pdf

Here are the contents list in the file:

Historical Documents of Media Anonymous and Anti-Nutrients Anonymous

Contents

Pages 1-5 : Correspondence with A.A. for permission to use the 12 Steps

6-7: An early poster with meeting information

8: A letter to A.A. describing the relationship between the two programs and how they co-relate

9: The date for the first announcement in the international press

10-12: The first appearance in the mass media, a write up in “Adbusters” magazine

13-14: The first published journals on deposit with the Library Archives Canada and the issue of ISSN numbers for the various publications

15-16: A letter from a member

17: A letter from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food – Resources and Regulations Dept. 18-19: Correspondence with “The Self Help Clearinghouse of Metropolitan Toronto” and the first published announcements of irregular meetings in their “Blue Book”

20-24: Correspondence with the Canadian Minister of National Health and Welfare, that includes the text of “Sucrose Addicts Anonymous” v.1n.1

25: The front page article in the UK “Sun” asks the question “Addicted to Sugar?” …please note the contradiction: “…has lost all her teeth…is in perfect health…” Many addicts are in “perfect health” until the addiction takes them down.

26-29: A sample of early literature used at the meetings: A cc. of a reprint from “Under the Influence” by J.R. Milam Chapter on “Malnutrition” – Re.: the effects of sucrose and other anti-nutrients on addicts and addiction recovery.

Thank You for all the support and we wish you all a clean and sobre day

Georgie :-)

Hartcomm 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

oops 1ST post I had sent to main page sorry about that.

HELLO

As a member of Junk Food Anonymous & Media Anonymous I would like to reiterate that we are not a hoax or fraudulent organizations!!!!

Our Domane Names have been listed since the 1980's

http://JunkFoodAnonymous.org

http://MediaAnonymous.com

Our 12 steps are based on AA's 12 steps and have been accepted/approved by their organization, since June 9th 1989 for "JunkFood" Anonymous ("JFA"), AKA Anti-Nutrients Anonymous, ("ANA"), AKA Sucrose Addicts Anonymous and May 30th 1995 for Media Anonymous

We are listed on other Domaines with not the problems we are having here, i.e.:

http://adban.org

http://meditationwalk.com

We would like to be listed in the Wikipedia "List of 12 Step programs" also. There are many people to reach in our organization, many are on vacation and not that many current members would also be signed in to use your Wikipedia discussion.

As with all 12 step programs we like to reach as many people as need our program, so hopefully you will reconsider our asking to be listed with you.

Thank you

Samdra F JFA/MA member

P.S.:

I have just received an email that we have included many documents in our webpages under the link "Historical Documents - PDF" :

http://web.295.ca/gk/MFTv32n1/ANA_MediaA_History.pdf

That contains scanned documents, including cc. of write ups in public media journals like "Adbusters" magazine, correspondence with Health and Welfare Canada etc. and cc. of posters and Self Help Organization group listings with meeting information etc.

Media Anonymous World Service (t.m.)(inc.) Media Anonymous is a 12 Step Recovery Program for Media Addiction.

Contact Person : George K. Phone : (416)-526-4386 after 6 P.M. & Weekends —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samdra60 (talk • contribs).

12 Step listings on pages that are open to public edit should not be censored
Attn. Graig:

I am not speeking for the ANA and MediaA groups as there are no authorities but as a members. First of all, as much as I can empatize with fellow members in their heated attempts to reason with you, I want to apologise for any upset or misunderstanding this may have caused.

Secondly...it is not our intention to spam or the promote anything ...Wikipedia has created an oportunity to "edit" and we did that and it appears that you are taking it upon yourself, what appears on this end like juvenile behaviour and remove all our postings ...do you have a personal objection to our groups? If so please let us know so that we can respond.

Other members already have posted information in response to all your objections i.e.: in terms of "reliable sources" etc. We have updates of our pages with "Historical Documents -PDF" that includes a cc. of an article in "Adbusters" and the date of an announcement in the International Herald Tribune.

In reply to your request that we list meeting info. we wrote that many members do not use the web and that although meetings are frequent they are not regular as we use telecommunications in a real time bassis and have meetings whenever we need to. The Clock can also a form of media addiction. Having comlied with all of these when we re-enter our data you write that we are spamming.....did you review this material? What is your reply? If Wikidedia does not want people to edit the pages they should let people know in advance. Instead of presenting themesleves as open to public editing and then having censorship and threats to ban any one who attempts to publish.

I think that there is enough room in cyberspace for a few lines on incumbent 12 step meetings ...you list meetings that are non 12 step oriented ...what objection can you have to groups that are 12 step oriented but are to small to have the main stream media "reliable sources" report on them or that do not have "regular meeting lists".

12 Step programs are not a "Who's Who" of the orthodoxy...our groups are in the main based on the oral tradition and this does not mean that we are in your words a "hoax" or a "fraud".

I think that if you want to practice compassion and do the Buddha thing and like MFT12X12 suggested and "get off the centre of the universe" and see your actions objectively you will have to agree there is probably some real egoism here that is blocking the commonweal...but it is not my business to take your "moral invnetory" here. I am speaking as an ehticist here and in terms of ethical behaviour, I think it is important to keep an open mind and realize that not all 12 Step organizations will fit, or need to fit into your world view to be legitimate and that it is not your mandate to be the censor, in a page that is open to the public to edit ...it is like a lamp post that everyone uses to pin up posters ...is it your job to pull them off? If Wikipedia is a private property and you are the proprietor and you do not wish to have incumbent groups posted that is one thing...then this fact needs to be displayed so as not to mislead the public users.

On the other hand if the page is not open for the public to edit ...a notice of this fact should be placed on it i.e.: this is a private space and we monitor what appears here.

In my opinion if we are talking reasonably about communications protocol, then this is what would be appropriate.

There is 98% junk on the internet and I think that the information that we provide is worthy of a a few bytes of space, in a commons space like Wikipedia is offering here and there must be many other more notable items on the web, that need the efforts of a censor.

If you are sincere about "clean up" and "legitimacy" of our 12 step programs we invite you to become a member and find our for yourself if our "meetings" and our program is for real. If not then we beseach you to stop censoring us, smearing us with these negative lables of "Hoax" and "Fraud" and to have compassion and mutual respect in your affairs towards our organization and it's members.

Thank You for your openness

Unconditional Love and Peace

Hartcomm 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not upset, and none of this is personal. I have reviewed the information you have posted, and I don't see anything to establish the notability of your groups. Wikipedia has several guidelines that are intended to keep articles encyclopedic and to prevent misuse, and I believe I am following them. I have cited the ones I feel are relevant when making changes. Reasonable people can disagree, but I believe the guidelines are very clear in this case. -- Craigtalbert 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Graig:

"Notable" by Wikipedia Stantdards, or by 12 Step recovery Standards, which is more important?

Be that as it may, I think that you need to retract your statments above that our groups are "Hoax" or a "Fraud" or that we do not exist because we do not list our "Face to Face" meetings and any other prejudicial comment. This is think is misleading, defamatory and inapropriate statements.

We have provided you with the published article from "Adbusters" ...do we need to be interviewed by "Time Life" to qualify as notable.

Also i would like to reiterate my suggestion to create additional new list for "incumbent" or even "theoretical" 12 step groups that do not follow the main stream orthodoxy ...this i would think be in keeping whith your ethical guidlines and on the cutting edge, in terms of contemporary encyclopedeic capabilities, given the nature of the electronic media that can report in real time.

These are just suggestions for the commonweal.

Thnk You for you consideration

Hartcomm 17:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I never called your groups a hoax. There were a few hoax groups I removed from the list in March, and they were hoaxes. I later removed groups that are non-notable. I'm sorry that you disagree with me. You can put in a Request for Comment and get the opinion of other wikipedia editors on this issue. -- Craigtalbert 20:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Narconon paragraph
I posted a "warning" about Narconon at the top of the Nar-Anon article to match the ones in the Narcotics Anonymous and Narconon articles. Having a paragraph dedicated to it here seems a little ham-handed, the current disambiguation information proceeding the other articles is more than adequate. I'm removing removing the paragraph from this article. - Craigtalbert 10:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Gam Anon
Hello, I do not see GamAnon listed under 12 step programs. GamAnon is similiar to AlAnon as it is for any person that has been affected by the gambling problem. Its a very important and crucial program to list. Please include this in your listings. Thank you very much, Hugnkiss22. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugnkiss22 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I included GamAnon. I was on the fence about what friends/family auxiliary groups to put on the list, since the less notable ones are usually mentioned in the articles of the "primary" organization. That was good enough reason to avoid making a decision about it. -- Craigtalbert 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative to the traditional 12 steps
I want to suggest an alternative to the traditional wording and perspective of the 12 steps. Instead of being oriented to an external higher power, it is self-directed. It is called "The Proactive Twelve Steps" and can be found at http://www.proactivechange.com/12steps I am not entering this info as an edit because I have a conflict of interest. Wikizeno 13:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC) I'm adding this "Request edit" tag on 7/13/08. Conflict is that I'm involved with the site.


 * I would be happy to make such an edit for you, if you can supply reliable sources documenting the notability of The Proactive Twelve Steps. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are two places that reference The Proactive Twelve Steps: - http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Support_Groups/Twelve_Step/ (under "Proactive Twelve Steps Workbook") - http://www.12step.org/Tools.html (in the category "step worksheets and workbooks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikizeno (talk • contribs) 10:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By reliable sources, I mean according to wikipedia's standards, e.g. books or journals with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. There are no books or journals that I can quite about that. I didn't know whether you considered DMOZ / Open Directory a reliable source. Since it's not, I guess this wouldn't qualify as notable. What's the procedure to end this: do you remove the suggestion, or do I do it? Thanks for your help. --141.155.125.180 (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamanon
Thank you very much for adding Gamanon and the website!Hugnkiss22 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Slaves Anonymous
Having three meetings (not groups -- meetings) does not make "Slaves Anonymous" an established organization. Sorry. -- Craigtalbert 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PornAddicts Anonymous
As is the case with Slaves Anonymous, if it doesn't have established meetings or can't show evidence that it does, it doesn't belong on this list. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a non-notable group and does not belong on this list by any measure of notability: . -- Scarpy (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I will make note of that on our site. Wiki does not think we are real or notable being new. I am sure that will get lots of positive relations for Wiki.

Break the rules. I am not including information that is proprietary, hurtful, or anything where I gain to profit.

This is for recovery.

Google just had the sitemap submitted to it and will take sometime to have it show up.

Please, use it against our small fellowship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAAnon1 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are times when breaking the rules is reasonable, but this is not one of them. Wikipedia serves people better storing information of encyclopedic value than it does as a form of advertising for groups. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Dictionary.com

ad·ver·tis·ing  Audio Help   /ˈædvərˌtaɪzɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad-ver-tahy-zing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., esp. by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.: to get more customers by advertising. 2. paid announcements; advertisements. 3. the profession of planning, designing, and writing advertisements."

Is this a paid announcement? No. So therefore it is NOT advertising.

Since we are a 12-step program following the 12 traditions from AA, there is now financial gain and therefore, no advertising for anything on the site exists.

So again, this is not advertising.

"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. """"If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored."""" (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)

The common principles would be to share information in the LIST.

The common principle that you seem to neglect, whether or not you are yourself in a 12-step fellowship for recovery, is that recovery is done through sharing, one person to another, usually through 12-step work. Since the Internet has become a primary source of information, as evidenced by the Wiki project, it would be a disservice to folks looking for recovery in that area.

I have not added anything other than a genuine recovery site for an addiction that is new in the world.

You have taken it upon yourself to determine someone else's recovery potential by outright stating that it does not belong in a place where people look up recovery information.

If there is one person who gets this and then four and then 12, then Wiki has done a great service if the addition of the group is allowed.

By editing and sticking to hardline rules in a LIST of programs, and only a list, not even a WRITE-UP or REVIEW of these programs, you are eliminating the possibility that the largest online encyclopedia in the internet has determined that their disease is NOT ENOUGH for Wiki (almost making you and Wiki their higher power) and therefore violating the common purpose of sharing this information with someone who still suffers.

Perhaps someone more grounded in the 12 traditions of recovery and actively working a recovery would be better suited for handling the editing of this page.

Had you been editing this during the late 30's, say around April 1935, and the Internet was the primary source of much information, you would NOT be editing a twelve-step list TODAY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAAnon1 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC) PAAnon1 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As a member of the group you are advocating for, you should pay careful attention to wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. I realize you are not likely to receive financial benefits as a result of advertising on this page, but as WP:NOTADVERTISING points out, wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion, "propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise."


 * I strongly agree that it is more important to follow the "spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law." That is one of the reasons why I have not been very strict about "enforcing" wikipedia's notability guidelines for all groups listed here. Strictly speaking, all groups should have multiple independent reliable third-party sources demonstrating their notability. I've been reasonably happy with groups that obviously are well-established and have several active meetings. It's becoming clearer this was probably a mistake, in the case, as the extra room for interpretation causes more problems than it solves. The list will probably have to be significantly trimmed again.


 * Since you've all ready put in a request for a 3O, lets wait to see what the other editors opinion is. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
I'm responding to a request posted on Third opinion. Here are my opinions: That last point probably isn't what either of you wanted to see, but there you have it. The link to PAA should go, as well as the others. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An editor with a conflict of interest should not be editing this article; at best that editor can propose an addition on the talk page.
 * It is well known that links on Wikipedia attract traffic to a site. In that sense, any link posted on an article is potentially promotional. A link put there by someone associated with the site is therefore definitely promotional, and should be deleted immediately.
 * The opinions of an editor with a conflict of interest should have zero weight on whether his/her organization deserves a mention in the article, because of the conflict of interest.
 * Overall, this article has no business providing external links to any of the organizations listed. If the entities aren't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, they shouldn't be listed here at all. The individual articles should each have an external link to the subject organization. I'm tempted to propose this article for deletion due to lack of notability of much of the content.
 * You're right, I removed the nns. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Arrogant editing
Twelve step groups exist to save peoples lives. Who are you to decide that some group that is saving people's lives is not notable enough to be listed? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that belongs to everyone. Censoring it according to your criteria is not appropriate. After all, wikipedia has articles about individual plant and insect species. How can you say that a twelve-step group that might be one of the smaller ones is less important than an insect species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's notability requirements are based on the number of third party reliable sources published on the topic. There are no scholarly sources on GreySheeters anonymous . -- Scarpy (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is outrageous! GSA is currently having its 18th annual roundup in NYC, where hundreds of people have come, including from several foreign countries. They are running parallel workshopes in six rooms, some of which are overflwoing. There are member groups in the UK and Iceland, and I think also in Israel, in addition to the USA. These are people who depend for their lives on this group. If you want to hear recordings of GSA events, they are available commercially, e.g. at http://www.glennkaudiotapes.com/ They erroneously list this group as "Greysheet anonymous," rather than "GreySheeters Anonymous" on their search page, but if you look under the erroneous group name, you will find many, many recordings. If you listen to some of this material, you might realize that your highhanded deletion of information about GSA is actually endangering the lives of people with serious eating disorders.

I can't believe that this encyclopedia is limited to topics that have been noticed by scholars. Scholars can't study everything. This is supposed to be a people's encyclopedia. What if someone has personal knowledge of something that scholars haven't noticed yet? Does that mean it has to be censored by vigilantes? It reminds me of what I have heard of Muslim countries, where women get beaten around the legs by vigilantes if they don't have long enough clothing. If only scholarly articles can be published here, what is the point of having a wikipedia that everyone can edit? Have scholars written articles about all volunteer organizations? 12 step organizations are particularly unlikely to attract the attention of scholars, because of the requirement for anonymity. But these organizations are very important because they save people's lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is intended to collect encyclopedic knowledge, there's some good books on how it works:
 * http://www.amazon.com/Wikipedia-Missing-Manual-John-Broughton/dp/0596515162/
 * http://www.amazon.com/How-Wikipedia-Works-You-Part/dp/159327176X/

OK, since you're so knowledgeable, and I have another life and don't have time to read books on this topic, who do I appeal to since I strongly disagree with your decision to delete my article on GreySheeters Anonymous? Surely you are not the final authority, here. Also, if the article includes the link to the commercial website where dozens of recordings can be ordered, would that be a reliable enough external source to you? I don't know how much you know about twelve-step groups, but there is a strong tradition of anonymity in them. That makes it very hard to discuss these things. Is it possible for me to discuss this with you in a non-public forum, like over the phone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.163.109 (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I didn't see this until just now. I didn't decided to delete the article, although I did think it was a good decision. There is a deletion review process: Deletion_review.


 * Self-published sources (recordings) are not enough to establish the notability of a group for an article. The Eleventh Tradition does not prevent you from doing scholarly research and writing. If you'd like my phone number, use the feature to email me on my talk page and we can discuss it from there. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Page List
Not including the ones listed on the Addiction recovery groups page.


 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Adult_Children_of_Alcoholics - 3521
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Al-Anon/Alateen - 992
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Clutterers_Anonymous - 512
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Co-Dependents_Anonymous - 1699
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Co-Anon - 50
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/COSA - 686
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/COSLAA - 1
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Debtors_Anonymous - 670
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Emotions_Anonymous - 1195
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Emotional_Health_Anonymous - 166
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Gamblers_Anonymous - 1085
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Gam-Anon - 22
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Gam-A-Teen - 24
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Neurotics_Anonymous - 561
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Nar-Anon - 447
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Overeaters_Anonymous - 2419
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Online_Gamers_Anonymous - 863
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Sexaholics_Anonymous - 2166
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Sex_Addicts_Anonymous - 2612
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Sexual_Compulsives_Anonymous - 1028
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Smokers_Anonymous - 86
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Sex_and_Love_Addicts_Anonymous - 1549
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Workaholics_Anonymous - 714
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Celebrate_Recovery - 974
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/GROW - 2883
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/LDS_Family_Services - 322
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Parents_Anonymous - 129
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Pagans_In_Recovery - 449
 * http://stats.grok.se/en/200809/Schizophrenics_Anonymous - 183

-- Scarpy (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

From my email: Conversation with User:Petermixt
you are not mis-informed on your fellowship vs programs. The groups are all fellowships / the members work and practice a program. Please stop this mis-information.

they are fellowships that work a program found in thier books. Please get it correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermixt (talk • contribs) 18:55, July 20, 2007 (MST)


 * No, I'm not. I will point you to the directions I gave in my previous email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarpy (talk • contribs) 19:34, July 20, 2007 (MST)


 * sorry bud - but you are just repeating the most common mistake of all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermixt (talk • contribs)) 20:26, July 20, 2007 (MST)


 * Maybe I am. If you had some reliable sources on the topic, you could easily prove me wrong.


 * At any rate, I will no longer respond to emails on this topic. I will post the converstation on the articles talk page, where it belongs:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_twelve-step_groups


 * Decisions made on article content should be transparent whenever possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarpy (talk • contribs) 20:56, July 20, 2007 (MST)


 * Well - I've been wrong also - we recently brought this question up at the board level. Seems :::: the answer to this began with the Cocaine Anonymous pamphlet "Guide to the 12-steps".


 * http://www.ca.org/literature/guideto12steps.htm


 * They published it years ago.. it states that CA - does not have a program of their own -- but :::: rather thy use the program found in the book, Alcoholics Anonymous. Some of them used the NA :::: book, but what is significant is that they recognized the difference between the fellowship of :::: AA and the Program of AA which is in that Big Book,


 * http://alcoholism.about.com/library/weekly/aa010716a.htm
 * http://powerfullyrecovered.com/articles/essays/programvfellowship.htm


 * ok --- now dinner. Have a great evening.


 * Pete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermixt (talk • contribs) 21:18, July 20, 2007 (MST)


 * These are not reliable sources, but they are interesting. At any rate, while this may be true in the organizations that copied AA the most assiduously, the program in many of them includes more than the Twelve Steps and Traditions: e.g. Debtors Anonymous (spending plan), Overeaters Anonymous (food plans), Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (sexual recovery plans), Workaholics Anonymous (abstinence plans). There are several other examples. In fact, EHA, EA, and NAIL don't suggest any kind of abstinence or behavioral changes at all. But if you substitute programs for fellowships again, I don't see that the difference is large enough to fight about. -- Scarpy (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Update
If anyone is interested, there is relevant discussion on this topic at the following pages:
 * User:Petermixt/User_talk:Petermixt
 * Help desk (will be archived here)
 * User talk:Barneca (will probably be archived here)

I have suggested that Peter make the language changes to the articles that he's advocated for (e.g. groups/programs --> fellowships). Although he's requested that I make them, I don't want to make these changes for him espeically since (even though they've been withdrawn), it comes after two legal threats. The pressure to do it feels like I'm being coerced more than it feels like collaboration. He seems competent enough to edit wikipedia and Barneca additionally suggested he try using the WP:OTRS. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to only include notable groups
It's all in the archives. I am not unsympathetic to the groups that might be notable, but don't have an article demonstrating it. In fact I've created several because of this, and have been keeping track on this list above. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One citation mentioning that a meeting exists is not enough to show notability of groups. No discussion of topic. Removing these again. -- Scarpy (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The word 'Notable', as it is used in discussion on this page, is an Arbitrary and Subjective Term
'Notable'? By whose standards......?! Many of the organizations stricken from the list are sizable and widespread. Who defines 'notable'? Just because no one has gotten around to writing a wiki article about something doesn't mean that it is 'not notable'. The idea that an organization must have a wiki article to be considered notable is very wiki-centric to say the least. Its as if nothing exists until it is first written about in wikipedia...

70.215.167.217 (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * look up WP:NOTE to better understand what we mean by that term. I have also placed a "welcome" template on your page, to better familiarize you with Wikipedia policies.  The reason for the "should have a wiki article" statement is that if it does have a wiki article (and you will note that there are many MANY who do) than it shows that there is enough coverage and secondary sources to justify inclusion in this article.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia standards just fine. There is NO wikipedia standard that says "Only organizations that already have a Wikipedia article are listable or notable in another Wikipedia article". The consensus in this case has fallen into a little bit of group-think. And it doesn't even meet Wiki standards-- since all kinds of outside citations would suffice to meet the REAL standard of notable.

Sometimes people convince each other of things that just aren't so. Either because they are trying too hard to please each other instead of doing the task the right way, or because they are hypnotizing each other (getting their reality from each other on a particular subject, and ignoring all outside information).

70.219.246.158 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * .158, what would be your standard for notability? Number of meetings? How long it's been established? Should groups someone thought up on a whim last night be included? Without reliable sources documenting size or history of groups, what assurance would readers have that the information is correct? Lip Balm Anonymous appeared on this list for several months because there was no oversight or criteria established. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * this conversation would go a lot smother if you could tell us which of your groups didn't meet this standard but would meet the standard of "all kinds of outside citations would suffice to meet the REAL standard of notable" and provide those standards of notable that you are referring to. your analysis of "group think" is a little patronizing and I would really appreciate it if you choose to continue this conversation that you try TRY and respect your fellow editors.  you have constructed a straw man for the consensus process which is demeaning and insulting to both you and us.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Groups removed that might be notable enough for articles
Since meeting times and locations are often published in newspapers for twelve-step groups, news archive searches can inflate the importance of their results. The groups struck out on the list either have no Google Scholar results or don't appear to have enough for an article (Google Scholar results can also often be misleading as authors will sometimes rattle off a long list of twelve-step groups without discussing them, but it's not nearly as bad as a news archive search). If editors find or know of articles in "non-scholarly," but still reliable sources (or in scholarly sources not indexed by Google Scholar), unstrike organization name and provide citations. This way we can work on making articles for notable groups. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * AAA - All Addictions Anonymous Nothing
 * AAA - All Addicts Anonymous Nothing
 * ABA - Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous<  one result, just lists the organization, doesn't discuss it. There are now 15 Google Scholar results for this group, depending on the depth the are discussed in the articles, it is worth considering. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Adult Children of Alcoholics - Not many of the 139 results seem to discuss the organization in-depth, but it may be possible to scrape an article out of them. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some novel searches just for this fellowship: searching just on their website URL (28 results), |ACOA&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 using a the or operator for the acronyms and instances of the full fellowships name (~1,010 results). -- Scarpy (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A.R.T.S. Anonymous from snippets, none of the results look like they're about the group.
 * CDA - Chemically Dependent Anonymous appears it's mentioned in several books, but a little hard to tell how much it's discussed in each from the context. I re-examined the GS results after someone tried to add it, and I believe I was wrong regarding my first guess. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleptomaniacs and Shoplifters Anonymous - two results. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CEA - Compulsive Eaters Anonymous snippets don't indicate article is discussed in detail.
 * CHAPTER 9 - Couples in Recovery this one may just be hard to search for.
 * DAA - Drug Addicts Anonymous (8 results) - may be possible. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dep-Anon - Depressed Anonymous few search results don't appear to discuss group in detail.
 * DDA - Dual Diagnosis Anonymous few search results don't appear to discuss group in detail.
 * DRA - Dual Recovery Anonymous 99+ results, could easily make an article out of this one.
 * EAA - Eating Addictions Anonymous nothing
 * EDA - Eating Disorders Anonymous few search results, don't appear to discuss article in detail
 * FA - Fundamentalists Anonymous 23 results, could write an article on this one. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FA - Food Addicts in Recovery Anonymous 1 result
 * FAA - Food Addicts Anonymous 19 sources, is possible but not likely
 * GSA - GreySheeters Anonymous  nothing
 * Hair Pullers Anonymous zero results
 * HA - Heroin Anonymous  two results
 * Checked again, now showing three references. -- Scarpy (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IPA - International Pharmacists Anonymous 14 results, some appear to discuss this group specifically.
 * IA - Insolvents Anonymous - (0 results).
 * Manic Depressives Anonymous (also Bi-Polar Anonymous) only four references.
 * MA - Methadone Anonymous 49 results could easily write an article on this one
 * OCA - Obsessive Compulsive Anonymous 18 results, some appear to discuss this group specifically.
 * OA - Offenders Anonymous  13 results, hard to say but most don't appear to be about this group.
 * Pills Anonymous -, 56 results but all of them seem to be mentioning it in a list of other groups.
 * PAA - PornAddicts Anonymous Still nothing.
 * PAN - Pan Fellowship Eight results, but only one or two look like they might be about this group. -- Scarpy (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PFA - Prison Families Anonymous - maybe
 * RA - Recoveries Anonymous; the Solution Focused Twelve Step Fellowship few results, do not appear to discuss group in detail. -- Scarpy (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * RCA - Recovering Couples Anonymous 35 results, could easily write an article on this one.
 * it would be most appreciated to write an article. Tophinspired (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now 38 results. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Recovery in the Lifestyle - No results . -- Scarpy (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * S-Anon/S-Ateen - For family and friends of sexaholics 36 results, could easily write an article on this one.
 * SA - Spenders Anonymous 13 results, some seem to discuss it specifically.
 * Sex Industry Survivors few links, don't seem to discuss it specifically
 * SRA - Sexual Recovery Anonymous 14 results, some seem to discuss it specifically. Probably enough for an article.
 * SMA - Self-Mutilators Anonymous few results, don't seem to discuss it specifically
 * SocAnon - Social Anxiety Anonymous 0 results
 * Searching on this again, there are still no results. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SPA - Social Phobics Anonymous 1 result
 * Searching on this again, there is still just one result. -- Scarpy (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also checking Social Anxiety Anonymous (SAA), 0 results. --
 * SWA - Sex Workers Anonymous 4 results, but they see, to be on topic.
 * CIR - Christians in Recovery nine results, but they seem to be on topic.
 * STA - Self-Therapy Anonymous Nothing

Notability of Underearners Anonymous (UA)
How about UA - Undereaners Anonymous -- Tophinspired (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look good . -- Scarpy (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As of late October 2011, there have been articles in both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times on UA, as well as many, many others (just try a Google search). I'm now preparing an articleEweinber (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't we try and see if that article sticks before adding it to a wikipedia list.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was thinking about making a UA article not too long ago, but I'm still kind of reconciling with Wikipedia (she can be a real bitch). -- Scarpy (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Social Phobics / Social Anxiety Anonymous
Social Phobics Anonymous (Now also called Social Anxiety Anonymous) has adopted a 100% 12 Step approach and is now in 4 states as well as running three telephone meetings with international participation. The program is now more than 6 years old and has almost 70 pages of its own literature. Perhaps it should be added back onto the list.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When Social Phobics Anonymous or Social Anxiety Anonymous becomes notable enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia, then it may be added back. The prior consensus was to include in this list only those groups having Wikipedia articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Social Phobics Anonymous / Social Anxiety Anonymous is listed in DMOZ under Twelve Step Support Groups. That should more than qualify them for a place in this articles list.

75.166.170.132 (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You will want to read WP:N. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Food Addicts in Recovery Anonymous
Still does not look good -- Scarpy (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Groups created from list
For motivational purposes as articles are created for groups on the list above, I'm moving them here. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * FA - Families Anonymous 236 results, could easily make an article out of this one.
 * There is no an article on this group. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OLGA - On-Line Gamers Anonymous  few search results between the two spellings, but appears to be enough information to make an article. - done!
 * Updated July 6th. Wrote stub for Online Gamers Anonymous. -- Scarpy (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PA - Parents Anonymous 1000+ results, I don't know why this doesn't have an article all ready.
 * An article for this group was added several months ago: Parents Anonymous. -- Scarpy (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SIA - Survivors of Incest Anonymous 51 results, definitely enough for an article
 * Done. -- Scarpy (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hustlers Anonymous
see page 23 of this issue of the 12 Step Gazette

see also Salon.com

the website HustlersAnonymous.org, however, refers to itself as a "company," and quotes liberally from the Christian Bible, so that's probably not a 12 step fellowship

perhaps the first two articles are referring to something else

i'm new, i don't know how to add new material on this page. i'm afraid it will get deleted. i will let others decide.

Kire1975 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there. This list has a history of including only those organizations notable enough to merit their own article on Wikipedia. The WP:CORP notability criteria apply, in particular WP:SIGCOV. Both the 12 Step Gazette and Salon links you cite actually re-published the same article, originally from The Fix: http://www.thefix.com/content/hustlers-anonymous-street-dealer-drug-treatment8501


 * Even if that article appears in multiple places, it's still the same article, so it counts as one. I wouldn't call that "significant coverage" as defined by WP:SIGCOV in Notability.


 * I Googled for additional sources. Nothing in Google News or Google Books. On Google Web, all I can find are references to that same article on The Fix. The org's own web site and blog postings wouldn't count either.


 * I'd say the group is on its way to achieving notability, but not quite there yet, so let's leave it off the list for now. The fact that you mentioned it on this talk page will serve to remind others to check it out from time to time to see whether it's worth writing a Wikipedia article about it, and then including it in the list. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Linked articles
There is no requirement or Wikipedia policy requiring that entries in this article have a dependent linked article. If anyone reverts your entry giving this as a reason, you should report them for vandalism. Mike Hayes (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:LIST as well as the archives of this talk page. You will find that it is a requirement of the community of this page that groups mentioned need an article attached to them to prove that they are notable.  My advise is to write the caffeine anonymous page first, and if it stays then add it to this list.  That is an airtight way of both contributing to the encyclopedia as well as keeping it on this page.
 * also please be careful of what you call vandalism. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and accusing an editor of bad faith edits on a new page or calling it vandalism is contrary to the collaborative aspects of the project.  I suggest you read WP:BRD, and perhaps we can come to some agreement if you are not willing to write a page.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please also read the essay avoid the word vandal, just because you disagree with an edit is no reason to be uncivil and accuse someone of vandalism. wikipedia's vandalism policy is very explicit and thorough.  If you have any questions about what is and is not vandalism I would be glad to help you out.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I just read your edit summary which stated "if you want to start an edit war, go ahead. I will revert you as many times as you revert me."  This is a very hostile reaction to having an edit removed because it doesn't fit with the articles standards.  Please read the lede of this article which states "This is a list of Wikipedia articles on twelve-step groups that are based on the set of guiding principles..." The first sentence of the page you are trying to contribute to states that it is a list of wikipedia articles, and every edit summary I have given you has reiterated that fact.  Please write the Caffeine Anonymous article first.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability is a RIDICULOUS REASON for not including a Twelve-Step program on this page. What are the qualifications of the persons whom you regard as the "consensus" to make that decision? How many of them belong to Twelve-Step programs? If they are not Twelve-Steppers, I do not except their opinion. Mike Hayes (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of this article states "this is a list of wikipedia articles..." so the lede sets up the requirements from the start. the qualification of all of the editors to this page is that they are wikipedia editors experienced with wikipedia policy.  Some are twelve steppers, others are not, all are familiar with the policies and edit the articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * actually, according to the manual of style, lede is a correct spelling for the introduction of wikipedia articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have a simpler solution than writing an article on something I know nothing about, how about changing the lede* to "this is a list of Twelve-Step programs..."? (Any more reverts–more than three in 24 hours– and you'll have officially started an edit-war.) Mike Hayes (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * *The OED doesn't include this usage in its definitions for 'lede'; it would be interesting to know where Wikipedia found it. (How about "lede-rune  n. ? a mysterious doctrine." [OED] Seems to fit splendidly.) Mike Hayes (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? Right now we have a clean list of articles with a good standard for inclusion which prevents people from listing every single local 12 step group they found a blog page for and offers good navigation on wikipedia for 12 step groups. So why change this from a list of articles to a list of 12 step groups? What is the benefit for the encyclopedia? If you look at the history page, you will notice that I'm not the only editor who abides by this standard, there are several edit summaries from at least 4 other editors I know which state "this is a list of wikipedia articles" so please convince us that it is of benefit to the encylcopedia to list groups that aren't notable enough to write an article about.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * in other words, what is the inclusion criteria that you are proposing. You have read through the archives and have seen the discussion which led us to this standard.  so please let us know what you believe the notability standards are which would allow us to judge the difference between an actual group, and a group which someone wrote a joke page on blogspot about and why we should change it.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have contacted a few editors who have participated in the maintenance of this article, and let them know your proposal.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Additionally, if you look in the article history you'll find several instances of attempts to add an entry for someone's personal favorite obscure, non-notable, or local group (violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE), even with external links to them (violating WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:ELNO). Requiring that each entry have a Wikipedia article is a good way to ensure that this list doesn't accumulate useless cruft.


 * That said, I don't object to changing the criteria to "This is a list of notable 12 step groups" with entries that have no Wikipedia articles, as long as the proponent of each new entry can demonstrate that the entry has significant coverage (not trivial mentions or directly listings) in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the group. That would allow for entries that don't have Wikipedia articles, while still maintaining a meaningful list. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to stick with the present practice, for the reasons set out at WP:WTAF. If the sources exist, it should be easy to write a stub, and getting it past New Page Patrol will provide a check. If people can simply add an entry here with some links, it is nobody's business particularly to check that the links are good and not just passing mentions or press releases. JohnCD (talk)
 * I'm fine with that too. It occurs to me that a corollary to WP:WTAF (or a logical consequence of it) would be to indef semi-protect all lists like this one, because anyone who writes the article first will be a confirmed editor and be capable of adding it to the list. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is obvious from the conversation above that unless Mike provides a new reason for the change, I think we should stick to the present convention for all the reasons you guy's have listed. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coffeepusher, this has worked well so far. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be a dissenting voice here. There are organizations with many chapters, weekly meetings, not-for-profit status, all of that.  I'm not part of these organization nor do I have the authority or time to elaborate on all their details.  Is the policy then to deny they exist and systemically stifle enumerating them simply because someone doesn't have the time, expertise, or commitment to be the caretaker of a dedicated article?
 * You are asking then, for people who are dealing with serious addictions which consume their lives to also have many hours to become part of this community, learn the syntax and rules, and then describe an organization that is helping them through the addiction, fending through the editorial review process. Pardon me for calling this unrealistic and non-collaborative.
 * These groups are by definition insider managed - that is, only consisting of people suffering from the underlying disease. Perhaps the barrier to entry should be placed at a lower, more incremental level that encourages community, collaboration, and contribution. But hey, just an idea. Kristopolous (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Existence is not dependent upon having a slot on this list of wikipedia articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2015
ABA: Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous (ABA) http://aba12steps.org/

198.147.19.2 (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - as the article states:-"This is a list of Wikipedia articles on twelve-step groups" there is no article on Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous so it cannot be included - please Write the article first - Arjayay (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2015
70.127.230.61 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) In the 12 step program list there is another not shown A.R.T. Anonymous for artist in other programs and who are stuck in their ART
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As above, this is a list of Wikipedia articles on twelve step groups. There is no Artists Recovering Through the Twelve Steps Cannolis (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add the following to the Twelve-step group list
Computer Game Addicts Anonymous (aka:CGAA) - - is a fellowship of men and women that seek recovery from addictive gameplay by helping one another stay clean a day at a time.

Essentially it would be: CGAA - Computer Game Addicts Anonymous(<-Link) for recovery from addictive computer and video game play. Here is a relevant article to join the cool-kids-club: http://shoeleathermagazine.com/june-2015/time-for-e-hab/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Captain Kitten (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As the lead paragraph states, this is a list of Wikipedia articles. Write the article first, and then it can be added to this list. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2016
RCA - Recovering Couples Anonymous http://www.recovering-couples.org Ours is a fellowship of recovering couples. We suffer from many different addictions, and we share our experience, strength and hope with one another that we may solve our common problems and help other recovering couples restore their relationships.

TakaliOmega (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , and it won't be done until there is a Wikipedia article about Recovering Couples Anonymous that meet's Wikipedia's notability requirements as spelled out in WP:CORP.
 * If you want to write the article yourself, please first read WP:Conflict of interest (because you have one), and see Articles for creation for instructions on how to write an article that can be reviewed by established editors before it is accepted in to main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Add
Opa- opiates anonymous Lee5528 (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * . See WP:WTAF. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016
Regarding list of 12 step programs please note that on clicking on COSA (formerly codependents of sex addicts), one is taken to information on another 12 step program, namely SAA. COSA is for anyone who has been affected by someone else's sexually addictive behavior. The cosa website for further information is cosa-recovery.org If there is no text with information about cosa available on Wikipedia I suggest it at least not send people to SAA as it could cause confusion for someone looking for above definition as saw is for sex addicts themselves. Thank you

24.46.9.220 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have removed the COSA entry, especially because it violates the purpose of this page, which is a list of Wikipedia articles. There is no Wikipedia article on COSA, and we already have a link to SAA elsewhere on the page. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a section on it in the SAA article, Sex Addicts Anonymous as it's an auxiliary group of that organization (in the same way Al-Anon is for AA). I would say this is a borderline case since the organization has some status in Wikipedia, but worth keeping on this list. - Scarpy (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I put the link back, but this time linked to the section, and named the link more appropriately to avoid the confusion described by the anon above. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Racists Anonymous
Please add this as another type of 12 step meeting. I'd like to hear from others who may be starting groups. Google search for other info https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/08/31/some-churches-are-forming-racists-anonymous-groups-for-those-brave-enough-to-join/

I don't know how to make a subject come up for discussion, or editing. Am I doing this correctly? 72.188.10.94 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Write the article first, showing that this organization has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, then it can be included in this list. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Dual Recovery Anonymous
Here is another 12 step group that I think there is a strong need for. Alcoholic/Addict with Mental Health Issues, example: Bi-Polar Alcoholics/Addicts have a very difficult time, and there are other "dual diagnoses" which create problems that recovering people may need to talk about in conjunction with the understanding of the 12 steps of recovery. For a description: https://scontent.ftpa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15055614_276847726046047_4643410137207882482_n.jpg?oh=26f3a237df6001a6a31769ff09a3e311&oe=58C7CB7F

I do not know if I am posting this in the correct place. If not - please re-post for me? Thanks Cheri 72.188.10.94 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If the organization doesn't meet the inclusion criteria of WP:CORP, then it doesn't merit its own Wikipedia article. If it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, it cannot be included in this list article. You can attempt to write an article on the organization if you want. You can register an account and start Draft:Dual Recovery Anonymous, or if you don't want to create an account, you can use Articles for creation. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Cheri - My process for writing these articles (and I started/wrote most of them) was to start with what was in the peer-reviewed literature. For an encyclopedic article, ideally scholarly sources should be the lion's share of what's used to write the article. Google has a specific search engine for this purpose called Google Scholar, and you can see the results for Dual Recovery Anonymous here:
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Dual+Recovery+Anonymous%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C6&as_sdtp=


 * 241 scholarly articles mention it, so that's a good sign. With twleve-step groups, however, many articles only mention the names of the organizations in passing and don't discuss them in depth, so the actual number that could be sources for an article is smaller. Next I would look at Google Books (which specifically searches books) and Google News Archive.


 * https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Dual+Recovery+Anonymous%22
 * https://www.google.com/search?cf=all&hl=en&pz=1&ned=us&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_epq=Dual%20Recovery%20Anonymous&as_occt=any&as_qdr=a&authuser=0


 * Then, after reading and vetting sources from those three methods, to put a finer point on things I would consider some self-published sources (sources that, in this case, would be published by Dual Recovery Anonymous themselves) in their on literature or on their websites. But you want to limit the amount of these that you use. I've used too many in some articles before and later come to regret it.


 * It's a lot of work, but can be rewarding if you have the time and motivation. I would write the DRA article if I had either at the moment as a well-written DRA article could meet notability requirements. Racists Anonymous, while it seems like a worthy goal, has much fewer sources discussing it if you do the same searches. - Scarpy (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2017
Add to list of 12 Step Programs based on AA:

RCA - Recovering Couples Anonymous http://www.recovering-couples.org/ Sandra95617 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --  Dane talk  21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2017
Please include the following fellowship which has been omitted: ABA - Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous

http://aba12steps.org/about/ Thunderarch (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ - the inclusion criteria for this list includes a Wikipedia article, but Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous does not have an article, so is ineligible - Arjayay (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017
Add to 'Programs partially patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous': Millati Islami seeks to integrate the treatment requirements of both Al-Islam and the Twelve Step approach to recovery into a simultaneous program (http://www.millatiislami.org/) 82.38.122.13 (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Murph 9000 (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2017

 * CGAA – Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous Janice in recovery (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2017

 * CGAA – Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous (Video game addiction) Janice in recovery (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ The link to another Wikipedia article does not meet the standards for what are considered reliable sources. The article does not appear to address CGAA as a twelve-step treatment option for video game addiction.  Please read the reliable source standards and re-post your request with an indication that such a source considers CGAA a twelve-step treatment option for video game addiction.  Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017
I would like to say that there is a group lacking inbetween the entry of the PA Pills Anonymous and the SA Sexaholics Anonymous on that page,s.o. The groups name is Recovery Anonymous and it is the abbreviation RA. The website can be found www.r-a.org. This is a group which is helping if you have more addiction than one or more behavioural addictions than one. It is including all.

So the correct list is looking like that after the correction:


 * OLGA – Online Gamers Anonymous
 * PA – Pills Anonymous, for recovery from prescription pill addiction.
 * RA - Recoveries Anonymous
 * SA – Sexaholics Anonymous
 * SA – Smokers Anonymous

Kind Regards 2003:76:4F58:5500:9DF0:5A02:CB7:E3D3 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * . It is a good suggestion, but the objective of this list article is to list 12-step groups that already have their own article on Wikipedia. Before it can be added to this list, an article must first be written. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2017
Please add to list: Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous (ABA) 2602:306:BC02:90B0:9539:744B:AEFB:659D (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2017
Neutralninja (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2017
We would like you to add "S-Anon" as a 12 step organization modeled after AA that helps individuals that have been affected by someone's addiction to sex. Please reference www.SanonIL.org to refer others to a site that can help. Messenger of Recovery (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ - No Wikipedia article = No inclusion - Arjayay (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Dishonesty Anonymous
No pressuring to believe in higher powers

You can keep your willpower

No forced belief in male deity

Instead of twelve steps there is only one:

STOP ALL YOUR LYING — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigor1234 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018
Wikigor1234 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No edit request - just would like to add one group that is not on the list.

Dishonesty Anonymous

No pressuring to believe in higher powers

You can keep your willpower

No forced belief in male deity

Instead of 12 steps, there is only one:

Stop all your lying!

I don't know where you would put the descriptions below the title Dishonesty Anonymous. I don't use this site or computers much but have seen this group popping up in the San Francisco area.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Entries on this list need to have a Wikipedia article. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018
Add this to the section called "Programs patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous":

CAFAA - Caffeine Addicts Anonymous

Please hyperlink the above to www.CaffeineAddictsAnonymous.com.

Fyi (I'm not asking for this to be in Wikipedia): This 12-Step group has not yet been listed, and fully follows the 12-Step AA program. CAFAA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization, or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. It's primary purpose is to stay free from caffeine and help other caffeine addicts achieve a caffeine-free life. CAFAA is free and, like all 12 step programs, has no profit motive and does not accept any money from outside organizations.

Please let me know if you add this. Thanks. MsSB1 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018
Would like to ADD this 12-step group which 100% follows the 12-Step Format: CAFAA - Caffeine Addicts Anonymous (https://www.CaffeineAddictsAnonymous.com)

Thank you. MsSB1 (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done: The list is for subjects that have Wikipedia articles, we don't add external links (Spam) to articles like this. Theroadislong (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2018
I would like to add this group: Love Addicts Anonymous loveaddicts.org  Let me know if I can present a description of the group in another section of Wikepedia. Thanks Lori Glass (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The group needs to have a Wikipedia article first. Sam Sailor 19:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018
Please add: OTC - Open to Change (recovery from compulsive avoidance of intimacy) Link to: www.open2change.org Boypacer (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Why/how is this group notable? -  FlightTime Public  ( open channel ) 13:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2018
Other Good Forms of Anonymous Outerlimits 1. NoBody Knows Anonymous 2. Shit Fucking Vanish Anonymous 3. Mulholland Anonymous 2602:306:C4EB:A109:D9A5:EE38:2E54:D69C (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

 * LR – Librarian Wit 2602:306:C4EB:BEC9:B10B:417C:F0AE:D79A (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This list only includes entries with an existing Wikipedia article based on multiple independent sources. Please take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and see WP:WTAF for an essay with some additional advice. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019
Under the heading Programs patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous, below the entry named CA -- Cocaine Addicts Anonymous, please add CAFAA -- Caffeine Addicts Anonymous. Link to this website: https://caffeineaddictsanonymous.com/ Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777290/ RenaCrispin (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: After reviewing the archives for similar edit requests the consensus is the group needs to have a Wikipedia article which before being added. As of this request the group Caffeine Addicts Anonymous does not have an article.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    13:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2019
ACA should be changed to: ACA Adult Children of Alcoholics/Dysfunctional Families as supported by the its World Service Organization, Inc. Qt9998 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    14:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

For a reliable source, please see https://adultchildren.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6C1:C000:8A63:5D5A:C666:7ECA:134B (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019
PLEASE ADD RACIST ANONYMOUS TO THE LIST http://rainternational.org Allenazali (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . If it has no Wikipedia article, it cannot be listed here. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This is how the official website defines ACA, not the way your article does:

Adult Children of Alcoholics & Dysfunctional Families | World Service ... https://adultchildren.org/ Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACA)/Dysfunctional Families is a Twelve Step, Twelve Tradition program of men and women who grew up in dysfunctional homes.

2601:6C1:C000:8A63:117A:2039:1D43:A85C (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead misstates the subject
This is not a list of Wikipedia articles, but rather a list of 12-step groups which have WP articles. Whereas the inclusion criteria (must have article) is within policies, stating it in the article seems unencyclopedic. I am changing it to refer to "notable 12-step groups". NisJørgensen (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020
Add On-Line Gamers Anonymous - the website of which is https://www.olganon.org/home - to the list of twelve-step groups. On-Line Gamers Anonymous is to help people recover from video game addiction and computer game addiction. Mattrb81 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This list only includes subjects that already have an article. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2020
add ABA- Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous Christinaklein123 (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Subjects should generally have an article prior to being included on the list. Jack Frost (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020
Add these 12 steps groups:

EDA - Eating Disorders Anonymous

ABA - Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous

Britt.Mehr (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * These don't have an article on Wikipedia yet. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2020
Hi - there is a new 12-step program that is extremely important to add: IA - Intimacy Anorexia and MA - Married and Alone. There are 12-step groups for both. There is more info here at this website: Intimacy Anorexia - Characteristics, Treatments & Resources www.intimacyanorexia.com Thank you. 2605:A601:AB07:FB00:7CD2:3FEA:CC94:1161 (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * These don't have an article on Wikipedia yet. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020
Add CGAA Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous https://cgaa.info/

ITAA Internet Technology Addicts Anonymous https://internetaddictsanonymous.org/ 2600:1700:E7A1:4280:4910:AB38:6855:E890 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ per WP:WTAF. These don't have articles. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 00:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2020
Please add this fellowship to your list: Internet and Technology Addicts Anonymous Source: https://internetaddictsanonymous.org/

I am part of this fellowship and can confirm it is a 12 step fellowship, based on the principles of AA and other 12 step fellowships. 82.6.150.1 (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. Look above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020
Please ADD "Financial Underearners Anonymous" to the list of available 12 Step Programs. Please create a hyperlink that connects this to www.financialua.org FinancialUA (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Does not have a Wikipedia article. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2020
Looking to add groups including Obsessive Skin Pickers Anonymous and On-line Gamers Anonymous. Pmnef (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: When those groups have Wikipedia articles, then they can be added to the list RudolfRed (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021
Add "MA - Marijuana Anonymous" to the list of 12 step groups patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous 2601:204:E780:D7A0:E42B:FBD6:6CD8:266E (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's there now. RudolfRed (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021
Add the following to the list: MAA (Media Addicts Anonymous) https://www.mediaaddictsanonymous.org 2603:7080:1A01:9000:E532:A868:3AA5:510F (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. See WP:WTAF. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2021
Please add Dual Recovery Anonymous for people who are diagnosed with a mental or emotional health issue and also have a addiction problem

Their website - http://www.draonline.org/ DhawanM (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. See WP:WTAF. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2021

 * Add another 12-step recovery group based on AA to list:

—RCA [Recovering Couples Anonymous] 2603:8000:6E06:3002:24E8:3B8A:FB46:33FF (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This list only includes entries with an existing Wikipedia article based on multiple independent sources. Please take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and see WP:WTAF for an essay with some additional advice. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 23:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No non-notables
If the organization isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it doesn't go on this list. - Scarpy (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Addition of missing 12-step fellowship
Please can someone add |Computer Gaming Addicts Anonymous to the list? Many thanks, OliviaMcCabe (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022
Add ITAA: Internet and Technology Addicts Anonymous to the list of programs modeled after AA. 2601:145:4280:D830:49:6281:19B8:AF62 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: It must be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2022
A few other programs can be added: CEA-HOW also called compulsive eaters anonymous HOW, is a 12-step program for people with eating disorders (their website is ceahow.org)

Chapter 9 anonymous is a 12 step program for couples in recovery, their website is chapter9couplesinrecovery.org

RCA is recovering couples anonymous which is another 12 step program for couples in recovery, their website is recovering-couples.org 104.172.98.161 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: They must be notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be included on the list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022
Additional 12-step programs to add to the list include:

Internet and Technology Addicts Anonymous - I.T.A.A. (https://internetaddictsanonymous.org/)

Media Addicts Anonymous - M.A.A ( https://www.mediaaddictsanonymous.org/ ) 24.103.126.108 (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Pages must have an associated wikipedia article to be added to this list. ITAA is only mentioned in a disambiguation page with no article and the MAA isnt even mentioned, so neither of these fit the requirement. Aidan9382 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add this four groups under Programs patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous
GAA - Gaming Addicts Anonymous ITAA - Internet and Technology Addicts Anonymous MAA - Media Addicts Anonymous VA - Violence Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tortuga244 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these will be added for the same reason as the discussion below (No WP article). Aidan9382 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022
RCA or Recovering Couples Anonymous is another well known 12 step program. https://recovering-couples.org/ 2600:1700:9758:3650:3C7C:2A33:C153:4CD4 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See WP:WTAF, we don't have an article on Recovering Couples Anonymous Cannolis (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022
SPAA - Sex and Porn Addicts Anonymous 143.177.152.160 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It also needs to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Eating Disorders Anonymous
Link goes to the page for Eating disorders, not Eating Disorders Anonymous. Page is semi protected so can't correct on my own. Thanks 2604:2D80:E591:7E00:B052:3CF4:D1F9:A302 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the entry. This is a list of Wikipedia articles of 12-step groups, not an indiscriminate list of every 12-step group in existence. There is no article on Eating Disorders Anonymous. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023
Under 'Programs patterned after Alcoholics Anonymous' please include Obsessive Skin Pickers Anonymous. Their website is here for reference: https://www.osparecovery.org/ 2A02:C7C:6451:1400:7455:92C3:586A:95 (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not done, there is no Wikipedia page for Obsessive Skin Pickers Anonymous. -- Mvqr (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023
Add the following group to list of 12 Step Programs: Artists Anonymous - website: https://artsanonymous.org/ ApproachingZen (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is no Wikipedia page for 12 Step Programs: Artists Anonymous. Lightoil (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023
Please add Recovering Couples Anonymous (RCA) with link to website recovering-couples.org

A 12 Step program for Couples. Technology.Chair (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Do also note that WP:PROMOTION is not allowed here on English Wikipedia.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  18:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023
Please add the following:

Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous.

Main PO Box 125 Edmonton, Alberta T5J2G9 Canada

Website: aba12steps.org 217.180.201.154 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * . We have no article on Anorexics and Bulimics Anonymous. This is a list of 12-step groups that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)