Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Note: The Association of Members' Advocates was previously known as the Office of Members' Advocates. While unsigned text has been revised to reflect the name change, outdated references in messages have been left unchanged.

New election?

The coordinator election was held April 16 - April 30, with the statement that there would be another election in six months -- which would have been October. This is what I can glean from Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election Procedure -- which was a bit hard to find, btw. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 23:27, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

It seems you're right, but certainly we'll have elections soon (I wish)--Neigel von Teighen 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with an election, or even a change in structure. I am not sure we really even need an elected coordinator. I was thinking that we should have some kind of conference or maybe someone should do some analysis of the work that has been done by advocates (while maintaining the anonymity of the users and maybe even the specific nature of the disputes) so we can discuss the kinds of help we have been able to give and figure out ways to improve our organization's delivery of services. I think that when we first discussed having a coordinator it was thought that there would be a lot of requests from people who could not find an advocate, but really there have only been a few inquires made to me about finding an advocate which were dealt with pretty quickly through regular channels. And as far as the work that advocates have done no one has really complained. Perhaps the whole idea of our structure should be looked over. The original idea was that we were going to operate either individually but someone suggested we also needed to operate as a group, but in my opinion we really don't need a leader, there are enough "leaders" around Wikipedia and quite frankly I am not interesteed in having any kind of title, though maybe if we had a spokesperson, who could speak for us as group (if we had some collective opinions) that would be good, but at this point a conference might give us a collective idea about creating some tools to help people involved in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. — © Alex756 18:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wise words, thank you. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having been the coordinator I am not sure we really even need an elected position. Maybe we should first have a "consitutional convention" which would help us decide what kind of structure we really need to help the association and its members' activities at advocacy work better. While I appreciate having been elected voluntary coordinator in recognition of my work as the founder of the AMA, I do not see any reason to perpetuate the sense that there are people with some kind of special "status" on Wikipedia by electing them to some "position." We started this association because we saw a need to help people deal with the developing "dispute resolution" bureacracy on Wikipedia, (i.e. mediation and arbitration committees) not to create more titles.

Some more of my comments moved from the main page for organizational purposes. — © Alex756 19:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outreach?

Is Wikipedia:Requests for Assistance our only avenue to visibility? Should we be making a better presence in Dispute Resolution and/or with RfMs and RfAs? - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 23:27, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

We are listed on a number of pages that deal with dispute resolution issues, so people find out about us that way. I have gotten a few direct email contacts since I was elected, but it appears that most people just use the members directory and contact advocates directly. I have not gotten any significant complaints which is a very good sign, because I am sure if someone had problems they would complain to the coordinator. On the other hand we do not have any statistics about how many people have used advocates so I don't know how effective our outreach has been. If we could do some statistical study that might help us develop a plan of things to do in the future now that some time has passed since our group has been in existence. — © Alex756 19:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Improved the navigation menu

I've improved the {{AMA}} template by putting the 'orphaned' AMA pages in it. Do you like it? --Neigel von Teighen 23:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Makes sure every page is accessible. — © Alex756 19:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Call for election

I've posted a poll in the AMA Homepage about making a new Coordinator election. Any comment, place it in this talk page. --Neigel von Teighen 18:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why have a re-election? Who would be the new co-ordinator? Has Alex done something wrong (or failed to do somethimg right)? I'll wait for your response before opposing, but 6 months (8 months now) going by isn't reason enough for the vote, IMO. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One big reason to have an election every six months is because it was stated originally that that's when it would be done. :) IMO postponing the already-stated election schedule without some kind of consensus to change it would suggest a lack of integrity on our part. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:09, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

It's a matter of procedure and regulation: If it says 6 months, it is 6 months (up to now are 9 months, Sam) and there may be someone with great ideas for the AMA. In my opinion, Alex has been a great coordinator. As I said, it's a procedure and a rule that should be cared. This is called institutionality. (This is before Keith's post. I've got an edit conflict!) --Neigel von Teighen 21:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a question mark next to six months. The part that was put on that page says that the period of election is indeterminate. Six months is really not a long period of time. — © Alex756 08:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the bit about six months was Alex's own idea, if I'm remembering correctly. When the first election was held, the term wasn't particularly fixed in stone, but some kind of term is necessary unless the position is life tenure (subject to removal for misconduct). Six months is a pretty short cycle and I would recommend using 1-year terms going forward, but that's my personal view. At this point, there's been no discussion of term limits, so presumably there is nothing to bar reelection of an incumbent if so desired. --Michael Snow 23:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IMO the Internet and its projects move pretty fast, and 1 year is about the high end of how long an elected position should go. The 2- and 3- year terms of some of the arbitrators strikes me as insane. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:19, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't suggest anything longer than one year here, but there's also some energy drain involved in having elections, and too-short cycles leave little time to actually do the work at hand. I'm not sure how functional the AMA is right now in terms of member involvement anyway, but the fact that we're well past six months already tells me that a year might be better, just in terms of dealing with its own inertia. Again, I'm not trying to force a change, simply saying what I think. --Michael Snow 00:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that we should make the election soon (February?) and regularize all this things. It can't be possible that all Wikipedian associations have clear rules but we don't. There's a proposal of guidelines for advocates and the term of our chair is undefined. 6 months is a very good term length: it's nor too short nor too long. In Wikipedia:Elections it's published (don't know who did it) that term is 6 months long but we're lapsed; what a shame! We're not being serious in this case, I think. --Neigel von Teighen 00:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not that there's any problem with Alex's leadership, as such, but just that this really hasn't taken off. It started in a blaze of publicity, and is a good idea, but since the last coordinator election, has been completely dead. IMO, the Association should be working more like the Mediation Committee, with a rotating chair (say, one-month - people's activity levels change) who deals with requests and then contacts an appropriate advocate. Ambi 00:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we can judge the activities of the associations membership from the activities on these information pages about it. There was never an idea that we would be creating more bureaucracy, etc. but that we would be a place that people could come to find members, so I don't know why you think nothin has been happening Ambi. Regarding your suggestion about a rotating "chair" this does not appear to be necessary, as we are an open association. I do not make assignments of advocates. All the names of our member advocates are published and anyone can contact them directly without any kind of intervening meddling by a chair. I see no reason for a chair. The coordinator's job was to deal with things as they came up, ad hoc, and actually not a lot of stuff has come up. Does that mean nothing is happening or our members are not doing anything? I don't think so, but your suggestions should be discussed, as I state, in some kind of "constitutional convention" or "conference". Even though we have a coordinator, we don't really have any bylaws for membership meetings, etc. where we can discuss the concerns of the membership, that, IMHO, would be much more important that having a new election. — © Alex756 19:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the mediation committee is the worst possible example of where we want to be going with this. Their consistant failures are what we should be learning from and making up for, rather than emulating. Wasting our time and energies on pointless beurocracy (such as the proposed election) is the last thing any of us should be doing. It should be clear to all that we were making progress until the burn-out and anti-climax caused by the last election. Anyone who is interested in doing something should find a member in need and advocate for them. If you can't think of anybody, ask me, I get requests all the time. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 13:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What has the AMA achieved so far? There's been no advocating taking place - I've frequented the arbitration pages more than most, and I've never seen any sign of an advocate (nor have I seen Sam anywhere there, except as a directly involved party - so I wonder what he's doing with these mysterious requests). It's not as if there was any advocating taking place before the last election, either - there was a lot of hype as it was set up, and then nothing when it required action.

Sam, however, misses the point with what I suggested. I'm well aware of the problems with mediation, but the basic organisational structure of that committee is quite sensible, and that's why I suggested it here. Half the problem here is that the head doesn't know what the tail is doing, and organising it in that manner would help to alleviate this. Ambi 14:03, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alot has been achieved, have a look at my talk page sometime, here’s a random sampling from the last couple of weeks:

User_talk:Sam_Spade#Need_your_help_in_Talk:Charles_Darwin

and

User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_Dezember_2004_2#Charles_Darwin

involving the mention of Lincoln and Darwin’s shared birthday,

User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_Dezember_2004_3#RfC

involving a spurious RfC,

User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_Dezember_2004_2#Thanks.21

involving Neigel looking for something to do, and me directing him to the mess Talk:Atheism was in (a situation, which while still in trouble due to at least one problem user, is in much better shape thanks to Neigel's involvement. This is a particularly good illustration of a failure of the mediation committee BTW, since assistance was previously requested of them and refused)

User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_Dezember_2004_2#Red_Ensign

involving a problematic new user and his troubles regarding the red ensign (a case the AMA might do well to look into further, both User:AndyL and User:ArmchairVexillologistDon could use an advocate in their current arbitration case [[1]],

User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_Dezember_2004_2#Changing_policy

and a general policy question, such as I receive constantly from new users, friends, and in this case a user who once attempted to have me arbitrated (unsuccessfully of course ;) but with whom I am now hopefully on better terms.

Adding this with what other advocates have been doing, and the goings on @ Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, and there has been quite a bit of activity, IMO. The AMA does not revolve around arbitration and mediation cases, indeed at its best it prevents them. Of course we can do more, but will another election facilitate that? I have my doubts. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 15:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See my comments above under "New Election?". — © Alex756 18:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a vote to hold an election is not equivalent to a vote of no confidence in Alex, but a vote for us to be accountable to our own stated policies, or at least be formal and upfront about changing them. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:38, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think perhaps it might be a good idea for us not to snipe at each other and, rather, to try to consider the suggestions Alex has made, namely for some sort of constitutional change. The fact that there have been no advocates involved in arbitration is a good thing — it means cases are being settled before they reach that point. As for our having no appearance, I know Keith was assisting a user in that process, and I myself am attempting to get mediation for another pair (although thus far I'm starting to agree with Sam about it being a badly-managed farce).

I believe fervently that a coordinator is still needed at the AMA. Why? Quite frankly, because there are things not getting done. As a matter of fact, not a week ago I was reading a request for assistance posted by a user called DnB on 1 November that was never answered (the user about whom DnB complained, by the way, is now involved with several other users in a seperate arb. case). Other cases are answered on an ad hoc basis by the few of us that seem to check the Requests for Assistance regularly. I believe that the Coordinator (and perhaps we should have a duumvirate rather than just one) needs to be more proactive, not less. To my mind, Coordinators should:

*Offer preliminary advice to a user as soon as their request for advice comes in, namely as to whether or not their case is applicable vis-a-vis our mandate;

*Seek out and assign/pair available coordinators to the cases pending review (a list of "Advocates Wanting Work" or somesuch would be useful here);

*Keep track of progress being made on each request that is accepted and to which an advocate is assigned — this is especially important as we are basically Legal Aid and are helping almost uniformly newer users not versed in our procedures, and if an advocate is not doing a job the user will be in a bad way;

*Keep track of all cases before the Arbitration Committee and their results, including what precedents were set;

*Be available, if applicable, to present "friend-of-the-court" briefs to the Arbitrators;

*Perhaps represent users themselves if it a particularly important or hairy case (this would be part of the impetus for having two, besides diffusion of workload);

*Be elected to fairly short terms, no less than three and no more than six months, either on a staggered basis or on an even one (whether or not Coordinators would be eligible for re-election as incumbents, or at all, is also an issue).

The job of the Coordinator to my mind could be much improved by a broadening of duties and by their holding responsibility for monitoring developments in our fledgling legal system so that in the future the job of advocates would be made easier. My two cents, anyway. Wally 20:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think if you suggest someone should do the job that Wally is suggesting we should start a NPO and do our own fundraising to pay for a coordinator's position! This is not what I had in mind when I started the organization, it was just to point out to people around that there were individuals willing to help them. If someone contacts me directly or on the coordinator's page I do respond, but I do not think that this should be a "top down" organization as Wally suggests because having someone tell everyone what to do is not in the spirit of volunteerism though it may be what people here are Qikipedia think is necessary. It seems, from my review of member talk pages that a lot of people just look through the list and then decide who to talk to about their problems, this is great and I am glad to have contributed without creating all kinds of discussions, etc. I think that the success of the AMA is shown by how little has gone on in these talk pages during the last six months; also remember that some of the requests for assistance don't really ask for AMA expertise but want us to step in as mediators, we are not mediators. They can go to the mediation committee for that and anyone who wants to be a mediator and not an advocate can go there (they are very different roles, remember?). Regarding the arbitration committee I had hoped that there would be advocacy in front of that committee, but as others point out it does not seem to be necessary, we are not a bunch of lawyers trying to create a professional monopoly on advocacy so we can obtain some special benefit, we are just volunteers trying to help people understand the dispute resolution process; it seems we are succeeding in doing that on a case by case basis. That is our humble beginning and I hope it continues to be our inspiration in the future. — © Alex756 08:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a bad deal to plan a term of 6 months and then do nothing about the next term. That doesn't mean that we must stick with the original vague idea. We should figure something out, at least for propriety's sake. But any of these could work:

1. We decide that we don't need a coordinator;
2. Without holding a formal election, we agree (with no objections) to give Alex another 6-month term;
3. We hold an election for a 6-month term;
4. We change the term of office, then proceed from there.
5. We redesign the office, then proceed from there.

We should start with the simplest of these (the lowest numbers on the list, if I've ordered them properly), going on to the next one only when we have a good reason to reject it. (Except that #2 really should have no objectors at all.) We already rejected #1 in April, so presumably the same reasons apply -- but we should check. -- Toby Bartels 23:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was no concrete plan for six months. It was just a suggestion. I think what we really need to do is figure out how to improve our work, after we find out what advocates have been doing, what they haven't been doing and what is going on. — © Alex756 08:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only a question: Is there a formal procedure in cases where advocates are in an Arbitration case? All of here know that the ArbCom has a very well-stated procedure for each case with sections for evidence, voting, resolution, etc. but it seems that there's no space for us advocates in there. It's like the AMA doesn't exist for them. I say: The AMA must be recognized by the ArbCom as something important in dispute resolutions and this can be achieved by many ways, for example, making a sort of renewal of the AMA. --Neigel von Teighen 18:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the RFA or dispute resolution page include a link to AMA and a short sentence about it? I don't think we need a lot of space there, though perhaps someone (us? them?) should make sure that anyone going into mediation or arbitration can request an advocate. Separate section devoted to AMA seems unnecessary (besides, we should fill that space ourselves here). As an advocate, we share representation of the member with the member themselves, and so anything the member in the dispute can do in the process, we can do (or more to the point, do for them if desired). This would include submitting or challenging evidence, findings of fact, etc. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:03, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, Keith. I must accept that. --Neigel von Teighen 21:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But I still would agree that increasing our visibility would be a good thing. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:47, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion, regarding Alex's second-to-last, was not at all a "top-down" system. Advocates would still have absolutely free reign over the cases they accept. My suggestion much more "advocates", if you'll excuse the pun, a proactive system that leads to cases being advanced faster. They would just be there to offer, initial impartial advice to users and then work to ensure that advocates are assigned to exist in a timely manner (which in the past you yourself have done, Alex — I still have on my talk page an old general request you sent out to provide help for an anon). They would also be there to help codify the procedures to follow and set precedents as decided by the ArbCom, and to help make sure that procedures are being followed so that resolution is faster. I do not, under any circumstances, propose a system of executive control over cases by a Coordinator, nor would I favor or acquiese to any such proposal. I also do not advocate a "Big Brother" who is constantly peering over advocates' soldiers — merely a sort of "guardian angel" available to provide advice to both requestees and advocates who need it with an in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia procedures, and with whom advocates can check points. That, and perhaps a caveat that they can render advice without being asked if they see that the dispute resolution process is not being followed in order or if an action an advocate takes seems inappropriate. But no executive control or power to withdraw or depose advocates. Hope this clarifies. Wally 22:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Wally and this is why I am suggesting the meeting and some general discussion. Right now the only qualifications for membership is an interest in advocacy, there are no rules about reporting to the membership, etc.. No one has really asked me for any input regarding their activities as advocates and that is something I always thought the coordinator would be doing, helping the other advocates, but without any structure (such as meetings or some kind of seminar situation) it is not conceivable how a coordinator would even be approached. If we had an ongoing forum where we could discuss things together that would be useful. If we, as an association, saw something going wrong with the dispute resolution process then maybe we could discuss those problems as a group and make some suggestions for reform. I don't know if you were around then, but I was involved in the early discussions of the dispute resolution process when Jimbo "decided" to set up mediation and arbitration committee. There was a lot of discussion about it on the mailing lists and I think I made some of the first proposals about using mediation and arbitation. I think I was also nominated to serve on all those committees, because of my legal background but I declined because I felt that the movement of "official power" at Wikipedia was getting out of hand, someone had to start sticking up for individuals and not for the "consensus". That was really my idea about starting the AMA (first called the OMA because I saw it more as a clearinghouse). It was also one of the first examples of democracy working at Wikipedia (this is before the Board of Trustees was put in place) and remember we had the very first election on Wikipedia so our organization has an important historical role in being at the forefront of change on Wikipedia. That should be part of our continued role, if the organization is to be viable and to play a real role in the evolution of Wikipedia (and Wikimedia). We should also be encouraging other Wikimedia projects to become part of AMA or develop their own organizations; all these things a coordinator can help, but there has to be the voice of the membership in the background, we don't want the AMA just to be someone's sounding board, it should be an example of cooperative work that brings positive change to Wikipedia and that is respected because it shows how a group of people can work together and reform processes that tend to get out of control at times (i.e. absolute power corupts). Just some thoughts. — © Alex756 05:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well on principle, all I need say is that you and I are in quite a bit of concurrence. As for process, either way it will not be a disaster so we'll work for a compromise and see what we can see.

By the way, any time suggested yet for the meeting? Wally 06:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was absent this three last days and I'm back. After reading the discussion, I think Alex's right: we must keep this great job moving. The meeting will be a very good way to do this and to bring a solution for the postponed election. --Neigel von Teighen 17:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delegation of authority

I think we might be well served by delegating authority on various matters to various members. We each have our strengths, so why not specialize? I've been reading alot of Adam Smith lately, and he makes some brilliant points about Division of Labour. Lets try it, if nothing else it could result in fancy titles... *wink wink*.

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 21:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if that's the Wiki way. I would think leaving it open, allowing members to take cases as they deem able to, is the best. Furthermore, I'm not aware that division of labor is the way RFM or RFA work -- they are likewise done in a "who wants to take this one" manner. Part of the coordinator's job might be to help fill in where issues have not had a response from an advocate. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Keith. However, I do believe that further diffusion, rather than delegation, of responsibilities ought to be investigated, hence my proposal for two Coordinators. Additionally, I intend to make this proposal at the meeting — as I hope Sam does as well. Wally 22:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the word, delegation might not be bad, but not necessarily to individual members, but to groups of members. We could have a working group that looks at the ways advocates work together or work in explaining the dispute resolution process. I think a working group that reviewed the work of the Arbitration Committee would also be a good idea, sort of like some of the projects that are being undertaken around Wikipedia but not dealing with encylopedia content but with the actual structure of Wikipedia. We could analyze the Medcom and Arbcom operations and create a report; we could also do case studies of specific disputes and where the have ended analyzing the types of disputes that appear to settle early and what kinds end with Arbcom sanctions; it could be summaries of the cases so far, review of committee procedures, approaches and decision logic, etc.. This kind of study that involved a few members keeping it organized and others contributing as they see fit could be very interesting. After such a study then the members of that committee could present it to the AMA at a Membership Meeting. Wouldn't that be useful to all of us and it might even show the Arbitration and Mediation Committees the usefulness of advocates in dispute resolution? That would give us some very positive publicity. When I have worked in organizations that have a coordinator that role works best when the members have definite plans of what they want to do together and they tell the coordinator how to help them do it. I could see the coordinator having progress report meeetings with that working group to make sure they stay on track and acheive the decided goal after the members have authorized the undertaking. That would be a great example of the difuse delegation of authority, no? — © Alex756 05:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoa. I don't see that it's the role of members' advocates to be investigating the Arbcom; I would think that would be a separate group entirely. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 18:55, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Oversight is always good. Lets all investigate each other, while were at it ;) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well before we get into that, I'll repeat my statement that we shouldn't be thinking about auditing anyone else until we can audit ourselves. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 18:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

We're not the AMD ("Association of Members' Detectives") nor something like a audition organization. Let's advocate and leave that to the ArbCom. --Neigel von Teighen 22:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oversight of the arbitration committee is everyones business. I'd prefer if we didn't write ourselves into a corner w beurocracy and rules, but rather kept things open ended. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Responding to some of the comments above, I think just as the ACLU or other advocacy organizations study and comment on the legal system, and how rules or decisions shape society, because they do. Certainly the decisions of ArbCom give everyone an idea of what is acceptable and unacceptable around here, but do you think the average user can really always decode what they are doing? I doubt it. We, by analogy, can try and understand how the dispute resolution system works or doesn't work and try to share some of that knowledge with Wikipedians. What better way to promote the ideas of the AMA? Isn't that also part of what we decided to do when starting this group? I really don't see it as being any kind of "judgment" over these people, where we are some kind of investigative agency but more like a "practice manual" that lawyers use when working on a case that really analyzes their decisions, procedures and outlook on disputes. It would help advocates understand what their members are faced with and it could also give us valuable ideas about how we could suggest positive changes when (or if) the time comes. I agree with Sam it should be open ended, but I don't see why a group of advocates would not be the best people to undertake such a study. Also, on a side note I think this shows how much we need to discuss things, because if you want your coordinator to coordinate they have to know what they are coordinating. Otherwise you run the risk of such a position being more dictatorial than based upon the consensus of a group of volunteers. Just my opinion. — © Alex756 02:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AMA logo (not very important, anyway)

(I know the ongoing topic is a very different one) Do you like the logo I made for the AMA? You can find it in Image:AMA1.png. I'll put it in the AMA page if you like it. --Neigel von Teighen 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic saved for the meeting, eh? :) Wally 22:24, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a logo is necessary. In fact, compared to the lack of logos for other structures in WP, it seems ostentatious. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 18:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, but it's nice to have one... I did it playing a bit around with my image editor --Neigel von Teighen 22:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tallying the votes, when they come

I'm willing to tally the vote, as I did last time, if and when the vote takes place. -- user:zanimum

Leaving the AMA

I have nothing against the AMA, but given my (negligible) level of involvement I think it is best to just remove my name from the membership list, if only to save other AMA members the work of visiting my talk page to leave messages I do not have the time to act on.

Please do not try to talk me into reversing my withdrawal. I tend to overcommit and AMA membership is just an example of that.

— Miguel 15:07, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

A suggestion for a summary page of Arbitration Committee decisions

The current Arbitration archives looks like it is mostly organized for the benefit and convenience of the Arbitrators. Having dug through those archives so that I could get a better idea of how the Arbitration Committee makes their decisions, and what those decisions might be, I know that it is a tough slog through the archives. It would be great to have some sort of more organized summary of the Arbitration decisions. Creating this summary would be a great way for a couple of the Members Advocates to become more familiar with the Arbitration Committee's decisions. It would be nice if the decisions were grouped by the type of decision, and then some sort of template created so that each dispute could be easy understood, with links to the Dispute, Talk, Evidence, and Proposed decision pages, rather than the much condensed format that the Arbitration archives uses. I have also put a copy of this suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy comments.

Also: One minor point that I brought up in the Vfp15/Charles Darwin Arbitration: if someone is going to be a Members' Advocate, they should have an email address enabled for the User account, because there will probably be times when someone wants to reach them and discuss things that should not be discussed in such an open place as their Talk page. Advocates who were not involved in that arbitration might also want to read my comments on how advocacy did and did not work in that particular arbitration [2]. gK ¿? 10:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As an arbitrator, I think this could be a good idea, and I'll help with it if I can - we need advocates that are up to speed with the arbitration process. I also suggest (and this is just my opinion, by the way) that on top of this, AMA advocates read through both the arbitration and dispute resolution policies, and a few past cases, and make sure they have a feel for how the process works. It's important to note that arbitration doesn't really work like a real world court, and as such, legalistic arguments concerning technicalities of the arbitration process are less likely to fly than responses concering the facts of a particular case. Ambi 11:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Negotiation

User:Fred Bauder has put up a brief page at Wikipedia:Negotiation which attempts to discuss a preliminary stage of dispute resolution between two parties.

It seems to me that the WP explanation/understanding of the dispute resolution process prior to the Mediation stage is not well explained. (I hesitate to use the word "defined" as negotiation should be open and free and not strictly defined.)

Negotiation fundamentally the process where two people voluntarily meet in an informal manner to hammer out the resolution of a dispute without a neutral intermediary.

However, I think this happens less often than it should. Complainants see mediation or arbitration as the main ways to get disputes resolved. Of course, a lot of disputes probably do not need either process (and the likelihood of requests for such processes being accepted is not high and will not likely ever get higher).

I can't tell how often advocates promote this process, but we could and probably should attempt this stage before diving into mediation or arbitration. Both sides of a negotiation should be offered an advocate if desired, and the members along with the advocates go to a negotiation table to try and hammer things out.

There isn't a place for this, and I imagine a lot of it when it does happen is carried out on the talk pages of the various users and perhaps the talk page of any articles involved in the dispute. This seems unorganized and it clutters up those areas. I would think having a separate place devoted to the parties discussing the issue would expedite the process and a) minimize fear of disrupting existing places, b) avoid that disruption, and c) minimize too many outside parties getting involved that wouldn't otherwise be interested. Where could this be?

- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:05, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

I largely agree w Keith. BTW, have you considered signing up @ Wikipedia:AMA Advocates accepting inquiries? Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I am more in favor of advocates taking the task seriously and being proactive in watching the AMA request page, instead of being reactive via a page like this. (Ironically both of you have done that as well.) After all, all of the people listed on the AMA member list ought to qualify for that page unless they state themselves as taking a Wikibreak or otherwise unavailable. In theory, some person who is in charge of coordinating the group would keep in touch with these members and encourage them to either get involved with the AMA actively or else come off the member list. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 19:23, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

If wishes were horses... An active advocate ought to both check the requests and help any users who ask for it. We've had too difficult a time lately lassoing everyone in - there needs to be some sort of controllable list of those advocates available to assist users. Wally 05:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is the duty of advocates to get involved, not the coordinator to spend time trying to track them down. We have had this discussion several times before and taking someone's name off a list does not solve any problem. The real problem is that what we should be doing is helping people more, and finding more way to do it, not saying we are ineffective in helping people. I do not have ANY evidence that those who do advocate are not doing a great job. I highly commend all who do any volunteer work in this regard and I do not go around complaining (too much) that there is apathy in this association, what is the good of doing that? As far as the idea of "appointing" advocates I am totally against that. Imagine if you went to your local bar association and they told you who to hire? What kind of advocacy would you get them? Most of these public defender type schemes result in situations where the advocacy is very poor because it is not done through a mutual agreement. Your Coordinator. — © Alex756 18:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT: Ineffective and unresponsive?

Requests are piling up on the /Requests for assistance page. No one is responding to them. There are valid issues for which people are requesting help, and we are not acting on them. This is untenable. We proffer to offer help, yet we are apparently in no position to offer it to those who need it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 19:05, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I just went through and dispensed with a few of the issues. The problem is not so much too many cases, but more one of housekeeping: most of these issues either don't belong here or can be peremptorily dispensed with through some sound advice and a point in the right direction. Half or more of the cases we get are fits of pique anyway. Perhaps we need a sort of cleaning crew rotation to clear through these on a regular basis, seperating the wood from the trees, as it were. Wally 03:40, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is one reason we discussed putting together the page on those advocates that are available for consultations at our last meeting which Keith did not attend. Does this mean we are ineffective and unresponsive? I don't think so, certainly no one has contacted me directly to complain. I should also point out that people can contact advocates directly without leaving any trace on Wikipedia, so I think the comment by Keith is a bit harsh and is not a positive criticism intended to help us achieve greater efficiency; it is just pointing out that the requests for assistance page is not necessarily reflecting the work that is going on by the advocates. I certainly am aware of a lot of work being done by advocates such as Wally. Remember that the page for requesting assistance is just one way that people can request an advocate. Ultimately it is a direct relationship that they must develop with individual advocates, we do not have any system of appointing advocates to help anyone who contacts these pages. We made this decision early on to give all advocates independence so we did not seem like we were "governing" them. — © Alex756 18:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We're not the only ones with this accumulation problem: the ArbCom has a similar one! --Neigel von Teighen 20:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If I were harsh, understand my frustration. I know that there are members out there who are getting unfair hearings. Some of them come to us via our Requests page. Whether or not we can hope to work miracles, they still could use our help.

When I came across the requests page, there were unanswered requests dating back to June 2004. I attempted to reorganize that page for better effectiveness. And I started making an effort to respond to those complaints that could be responded to, to help clean up the page and at least be responsive.

Since then, I've gotten myself in a particularly heady arb case, and haven't had a lot of time to keep up that effort. In the meantime, requests of us have increased. And this is no doubt a good thing, because it means people know about us. Unfortunately, as those requests have increased, responses to them dropped off (until I made a stink).

People who need help from us aren't necessarily going to be up on their WP chatting skills. They certainly shouldn't be required to play talk page roulette on all the names listed under the Members list; a majority of whom, it is acknowledged, aren't at all active. Nor do I think they should have to go to Available Advocates and flip a coin to decide which person's talk page to ring.

If every active advocate took it upon themselves to peruse the Requests page periodically, requests might get responded to more often, and the channel for people needing us to communicate with us would be made much easier for them. Likewise, we would be able to easily view our activities as far as those requests are concerned. And furthermore, we would be sure not to end up with the same reputation for responsiveness as Mediation.

Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 00:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully I've helped clear up some of this problem; several requests, especially old ones, have been dealt with. Some, unfortunately, were months late, which I agree is unacceptable. This is especially considering that most of the RfAs we get are not things we actually need to take action on, but people putting a request for comment here instead of in the right place. Wally 03:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Association of Member Investigations

Please see Wikipedia:Association of Member Investigations, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office and Wikipedia:Association for Unbiased Prosecution. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have voted in the vfd against these ficticious associations. --Neigel von Teighen 17:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell is up here, but this is sick. What, can someone tell me, is wrong with having a system where users who encounter problematic contributors bring them to the dispute resolution process a la citizens' arrest? Why do we suddenly need a body responsible for dragging people before the ArbCom simply because others can't be buggered to do it themselves? There's a difference between needing help (what we're for) and laziness (what this will be for). I suggest we need to form a unified front to resist this ridiculous organization. Anyone up for a meeting on this? Wally 01:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This also provides help. Bringing a case against someone can be a painful process, which I suspect you would know if you had indeed had any experience of this. I've seen it plenty of times, both first-hand and with other people, and it's a common source of losing good editors. The AMI seeks to change that. Yet you want to crush it? The Troll Defence League strikes again. Ambi 02:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please. It is supposed to be a painful process, because even problematic editors are not supposed to be removed without getting their due. And you can attack my experience, or lack thereof, all you want; but I would do well to watch my words, especially when the word "troll" is one of them. Like "lie" in Parliament, it is not one a person of any dignity should use to others of the same. Wally 02:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not supposed to be a painful process. It is meant to be a last resort, but not a painful process - the aim is to resolve conflicts, not to have people give up and leave Wikipedia. And I'm simply saying that you might actually want to experience the frustration of having to bring a case against a severely disruptive user before you comment on how it is laziness to ask for assistance with it. Ambi 03:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll do you one better — I've had to defend an extremely disruptive user, one whom I personally believed guilty but felt deserving of a fair shake nonetheless; I would suggest that pushing Sisyphus' rock up the hill is more painful than pushing it down. And if people are giving up and leaving Wikipedia, that's their problem — I have no sympathy for quitters. I've edited on difficult pages; I've reverted trolls and argued with anons and Adam Carr and 172 to boot. So please spare me the accusations of inexperience while trying to defend this... organization. I find it confusing that you are behaving in such a hostile manner towards me. Wally 03:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That you're willing to defend users is great. However, the logic that it's vital that any user must have assistance in defending a case, but should not have any in bringing one, would seem rather twisted to me. Ambi 03:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. Hence why I note, as Sam did, that the AMA represents users in need whether it is towards the end of prosecution or defense, and simply the fact that defense is more commonly an area in which users need assistance, as those bringing cases generally have experience themselves with Wikipedia's arbitration system. I also note that, absent this current system which heavily-stresses community involvement in this process, the proposed body encourages what is essentially "tattling" on users whose only crime may have been irritating the reporting user or making a slip of the tongue, and, unlike a system where a user bringing a case must be intimately involved with it, removes accountability from the equation. Wally 03:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bringing a case against someone can be a painful process, What a disingenuous statement. It is far more painful to have a case brought against you. Complainants, even when guilty of observable and exhibitable wrongs, are never sanctioned -- only the targets of complaints are, after fighting an uphill battle against an ArbCom that sides with admin complainants and flatly ignores and dismisses the arguments of the accused. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 18:53, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

And for the record: if Wally or anyone else here have never initiated arbitration against someone, it's quite likely that this is because they resolved disputes the right way, not the hungry-for-litigation way used by Snowspinner. (Oddly, the ArbCom never rejects his cases on the grounds he didn't go through the lower channels first. This is a rule seemingly reserved only for those bringing cases against admins.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 18:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

My god, it's blitheringly easy to railroad unorthodox non-admins through the arbitration process (while admins lie unscathed, save for by a posse of other admins with enhanced senses of self-importance), why is there even a need for such vigilantism? Shall I now look forward to contributing to WP, ever in fear of the posse coming through to take away my ability to vote on policy, or procedural votes, or update poorly included content? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 07:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Join the club, what else is new? ;) I was accused of being a sockpuppet of a banned user weeks after starting editing (mainly because I caught on fast and was interested in policy), was flamed off of IRC and the mailing list, and have been threatened with blocking and arbitration fairly consistantly ever since. I was even blocked for a few hours once, until I shouted loud and long enough in all the right places (among other things I started emailing admins from the top of the list on down ;) until an admin who had previously attempted (unsuccessfully of course) to have me arbited (certainly not the first or the last) convinced a current arbiter to unblock me, based on the fact that... (believe it or not...) I hadn't violated policy! (true story ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:42, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eliminating legalese

I'd like to propose that the legalese is removed from the AMA. This is partly to stress that our resolving disputes process is not a legal process, partly because most (all?) members of the AMA are not qualified practising lawyers, and partly because legalese is not easy for non-laywers to follow.

Part of this would be renaming the AMA - probably both to get rid of the formal sounding "Association" bit as well as the "Advocates" name. My initial suggestion is "Wikipedians' Representatives" - though other suggestions would be welcome.

The other bit would be to redefine what the AMA do. This would just be a rewording into normal English, rather than any actual refinement of the AMA's scope. Changing the word would also give a welcome opportunity to stress that the AMA can assist all sides in a dispute with the aim be to come to a swift and, if possible, amicable solution, jguk 19:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not an idea without merit, in my opinion, as we want to as far as possible keep the process accessible to Joe Wikipedian (which I myself have, admittedly, not been careful to do in the past). However I object to any change of the term "advocate", as it is quite plain English — if we were going for legalese, wouldn't we call ourselves lawyers or attorneys or counselors? An advocate is just someone representing a particular side in a dispute. Wally 20:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Representatives potentially suggests, at least to my mind, representation of constituent groups rather than individual clients (as in elected representatives), a connotation I wouldn't want to create in this setting. My recommendation once upon a time was to cut it down to "Member Advocates"; alternatives to either word might be found, although they would still be acceptable to me as is. --Michael Snow 00:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Though I do note that, as far as I'm aware, advocate=lawyer. I'd have thought "Counsellors" wasn't a legal term, though, jguk 21:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See the wiki article on advocate for what we apparently use (oughta be sent to wiktionary IMO); it is someone who represents someone else, á la lawyers, PR people, activists, etc. As for Counsellor(s) at least in the US, if memory serves, it's something of the lawyer's word for lawyer. Alex could provide the solid info on this, since he is one and I am most decidedly not. Wally 01:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Our definition of advocate notes that it is especially used in a legal context, and also that "In Scotland, U.K., "advocate" refers to those legal professionals with the automatic right to argue cases in the supreme courts of Scotland (i.e. the House of Lords, Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary)." Also, all dictionaries that I have seen give "a lawyer" as one of the meanings of "advocate". Maybe, advocate does not mean lawyer to you, but it certainly does mean that in this part of the world. By the way, I'm not attached to the term "Wikipedian's Representatives", it was more of an initial suggestion of how we could get rid of the legalese. I'm open to anything that does not suggest, as the current wording does, that its members are, or are pretending to be, qualified lawyers, jguk 05:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree w the proposed changes generally, and the change of the term "advocate" specifically. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

why? jguk 22:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No further comment at this juncture ;) (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 06:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We advocate for the arguments and positions of users in disputes. There is no need for a name change or mission change. Such is needless and disruptive. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 18:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just Signed Up

Just signed up and wanted to introduce myself. I stumbled into here when reading about a different group and had no idea something like this was around. I recently became an unknowing advocate for Netoholic in his arbitration case so I guess you could consider that my intro. I look forward to contributing because I think it's something that is sorely needed.

--Wgfinley 01:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spade detective agency

Just to let everyone know, I have opened Spade & Archer and am now accepting applications. I in now way intend for this to conflict w the AMA, quite the opposite, I consider it a subsidiary of my work here. I've been reciving more business than I can handle lately, so I've decided to take on some assistants. I'll likely be refering some business to active advocates, since I expect to continue recieving more than time permits. Let me know if your looking for a case, need some help, or if you'd be interested in a position w my agency. Cheers, Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 22:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ready to hold election

I'm ready to be an election official for the AMA. -- user:zanimum

Is there an election? --Neigel von Teighen 14:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There are no elections, only meetings. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 19:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee RFC

AMA members might be interested in reading and commenting on the Arbitration Committee's RFC -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC. →Raul654 19:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Mark, I've put in my two cents I'm sure others will as well. -JCarriker 00:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

increasing awareness

Do everyone who have been targetted by an Arbitration or RfC know they can get assistance here? I haven't been so, but I haven't heard about this place until about a week ago when I also signed up. If not, wouldn't it be benefitial to add a message about it on such pages with a link here saying "if you need assistance about this, you can ask these guys"? I don't know how it works, which is why I ask.

--Fred-Chess June 29, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

Doubtful. I think we talked about at least trying to get WP:RFAr to link here, but the best I think we have is a mention that arbitration participants can have representation if they want. I'd suggest that the reason is that the ArbCom doesn't want people to have representation, because it makes cases too much of a pain in the ass to have someone to rebut them effectively -- but in my experience, they merely ignore such rebuttals anyway. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

AMA is dead, long live AMA?

I'd almost "pull a Radiant" and mark the page as dormant, buuuut, then again, I'm not Radiant. Should I tip him off? *innocent look*.

On the other hand, maybe AMA is being very active in areas I don't know about.

Oh right, why was I dropping by? Well, you may have heard of the Mediation cabal . Thing is, we're not seeing any advocates helping out at all, and we'd be grateful for any help we can get! :-)

Note that the mediation cabal is very very informal, and the way things are done are a little, well cabal-ish, true to the name.

If you'd like more information, please contact me, you can find me or other cabal members on irc quite often.

Kim Bruning 11:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kim, personally speaking, I like to work as an AMA in the official system and not in informal mediations outside the MedCom. If there's a good formal system that guarantees that the process will be serious, then, why does the Mediation cabal exist? Also, I think you should care if the ArbCom recognizes the mediations you do as real mediations: you know that for making a RfAr, you need to have passed through official mediation first and show you did that step! Anyway, if you need any help, I'll be pleased! --Neigel von Teighen 22:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom most emphatically does 'not require that cases presented before it be "passed through official mediation first". We'd prefer that people make an effort to resolve their differences through mediation (either formal or informal) but it's definitely not a requirement. If you go into mediation with the idea that "I'm doing this so I can arbitrate your ass" then the mediation will almost certainly fail and you might as well just not bothering wasting anybody's time on mediation. (You might also want to skip arbitration since we don't look kindly on people who try to use the ArbCom as a cudgel.) In any case, the MedCab provides a valuable resources as an alternative to the MedCom (which, from what I can tell, is quite busy as of late). I tend to refer people who come to me seeking resolution to MedCom (and, at the same time, pinging RedWolf24 to let him know that the case is on the way). If he tells me that they can't take the case right now it gets pushed to MedCab, and I ping NicholasT to let him know it's coming.

I must admit that the AMA has a very poor reputation with the ArbCom. We've recently decided to give y'all the opportunity to redeem yourselves by allowing you (and everyone else) to propose principles, findings of fact, and remedies on our Workshop pages. I suggest you take advantage of this offer to redeem your worth to the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess we better start "redeeming our worth" then!!!Gator1 12:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That there's few participation in RfAr doesn't mean that we're not working in other stages of the dispute resolution system such as RfC and RfM. I congratulate the MedCab for its job and I really think the MedCom is collapsed since January 2005 (and this can lead into a later collapse of the ArbCom), but I'm not very sure if I would accept to work there as an advocate. Anyway, I'll take a look there and send some opinions when I can. --Neigel von Teighen 22:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I could use some help in an attempt to fix the Adminstrator culture of abuse

We all know of incidents where admins abuse their powers and commit violations because they think the ends justify the means. I have tried to bring awareness to the community with an RfC at [3]. I could use help from long time members of the community in better designing the topics to be voted upon, so that the major issues of administrator culture that is abusive and dismissive and mocking of users can be fully addressed. Thanx. --Silverback 07:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Is This Wikiproject Dead?

Please let me know, something like this is needed, but the AMA is beyond inactive. I figured i'd check to see if anyone was still alive before I send this to mfd. One way or another, the slate has to be cleaned here. karmafist 03:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am an active member and at lea oen person jsut recently joined. Most requests are bogus, so I don't do much, but I have offered to mediate and advocate at least once since joining just afew months ago. Thanks.Gator (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm also an active member, but if you check the requests, you'd see that they are asking for something we can't help them with. The last "advocacy" I did, was to get an excessive block removed. Now that is something considering "advocating" - but we can't dicipline users who make personal attacks (that's what 80% of the requests are), so inevitably they get ignored. Izehar (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's bull and an illustration of what's wrong here. Just because someone who is asking for help has a specific remedy in mind does not mean that AMA cannot help them. Rather, AMA is supposed to guide them through the proper dispute resolution process. That would entail dissuading them from their knee-jerk, newbie expectations of immediate bans and engaging in Negotiation, nudging them towards WP:RFC or elsewhere in the established consensual processes, or even so far as engaging in informal mediation. Sadly, ever since shortly after I stopped whining about the AMA requests page being horribly neglected, it's been horribly neglected. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, that's not the subject. We're still active, we're just not going to waste our time to respond tot he numerois whiney complaints that we get here every day. Sorry, but if people will refuse to read the info at the top of the page re: what it is we do and do not do, I can't help that.Gator (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that what we do is guide people through the proper WP:DR process to settle disputes. It seems to me that if there is a dispute, our job is to guide the dispute through the proper process. If that involves dissuading their misconceptions, so be it. Much better to help even misguided disputes through the process than be negligent and leave those disputes in chaotic limbo. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so if we're not dead then...Reforms? Election? Discussion?

This was started on my talk apge and I have moved it here in roder to have a full discussion. I'd love to hear what otehr people think.Gator (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, do you think that anything can be done to "revive" AMA? Perhaps make a list of things we can and cannot do and maybe "promote our services" as well. Izehar (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the biggest reason we seem inactive is because we do not do the vast majority of things people ask us for. Maybe we should expand our services?Gator (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I sent a message to the Coordinator: "There seems to be some concern over whether the AMA is becoming inactive, whether we re not being clear in what services we do or do not provide or whether we should expand our services to meet the current demanded services (informal mediations, arbitrations etc.). I think you should have some say here and I for one would love to hear what you have to say on the matter. Come to my talk page.Gator (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's talk about this right here for right now and then we'll move it to the talk page if it goes anywhere.

I'll go into detail tomorrow; I have an exam tomorrow morning and I can't mess about with Wikipedia now. Here's some food for thought:

• Services provided could be listed on the main page and explained in detail on their own subpages (eg Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Informal mediation).
• Users could be invited to request a specific service on a specific issue (certain issues will need consent from all parties. For example informal mediation would be a waste of time if not all parties wanted to negotiate in that manner).
• Applications should receive an explicit acceptance or rejection, because now there are users, who made requests which are not going to be answered, are still waiting for a response. That's just cruel.
  • This acceptance/rejection would have to be determined by a member vote.
  • This causes problems, as most AMA members are not dedicated enough. A possible solution would be to set a deadline (eg if no one has responded to a request within 48 hours, it will be automatically rejected).

Of course, all this are just thoughts, but now the requests are mainly asking for things we cannot do. Most of them are complaining about a specific user making personal attacks or something like that. I can't help anyone with that, can you? Our services need to be defined and we need to make clear what we can and cannot to. Izehar (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agreed to be the coordinator for the first year, after that no one seemed to be able to get an election together for a new coordinator; that does concern me as there does seem to be some apathy amongst members. I am happy to help in any way, but currently I have been working more behind the scenes doing some volunteer legal work for Wikimedia Foundation. If anyone can organize an election that would be great; also any counsel or assistance that I can give to members is always possible either via my talk page or, preferably through my email link there. Regarding the structure of the AMA, it was always felt that it was just a way for individual AMA members to make their skills known to editors who were looking for someone to advocate for them or, just give them some information about the complex dispute resolution process as Wikipedia. User:Alex756 04:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

after that no one seemed to be able to get an election together

Sorry, that doesn't sound right. Elections had been predetermined to happen after six months, the time came and passed without elections, the issue was raised to have elections, and instead, a poll was put up as to whether we should have them (which passed with a yes), and then a number of group meetings were held in lieu of holding elections. Please don't make me go through the tedium of digging through the page histories. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as an election, I wouldn't even know where to begin, but if you (Alex) think there should be a new one, I would think it would best for you to declare it and set it up. I think that given the demand for different services than origianlly envisioned, the AMA should reevaluate there purpose. Maybe, in addition tot he AMA's original charge, we should be open to informal mediations and non-binding arbitrations. If that is the cae, I agree with Izehar, that we need to reorganize the AMA site in order to properly educate people on our servies, direct them to the correct place, and properly accept or reject requests. Further, given the current apathy among AMA memmbers, I don't think a vote on each issue would help as most would not participate and AMA members could easily be overwhelemd with having ot vote on so many requests. maybe what we should do is ask AMA members to respond to a request if they are interested and, if they do, indicate that on the AMA page. Otherwise, we should have a time limit on requests (longer than 48 hours, maybe 1 week) that should be removed as having not been accepted by an AMA member after that point. Any other thoughts? Should we move this discusson to the AMA talk page now?Gator (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I really like all these new ideas, Gator! They're great! What I'd really like is to become something more organized as, for example, Wikipedia:Esperanza. They're doing a great job there and I'm sure we can make AMA grow. But be careful, now it's more important to get the members working than be thinking of elections and so on.

Remember that I did one year ago an election call, the election wasn't done and the AMA is still working! So, the elections aren't so important as you believe. But in the other hand, we are proud that AMA was the first democratic organization in the whole Wikipedia, but we have forgotten to keep our democracy moving! Can we be proud of that?

I propose to discuss first how to get all members joined so we can then discuss the future of AMA. It's logical. Opinions? --Neigel von Teighen 17:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. When you say "get all members joined so we can then discuss the future of AMA" I'm not sure what you mean? Get them here to discuss this? Please clarify. Thanks.Gator (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We need that more people get involved in this discussion. See: we're only Keith Tyler, Izehar, Alex, you and me. I know it's impossible to gather all AMA members and it would be very useless to have nearly 60 users discussing and proposing things! No, we need qualified advocates with experience. Some names we should consider: Andrevan, Metasquares, Sam Spade (though he is running for the ArbCom, he would be a great help), Snowspinner and Zestauferov (who organized the first AMA election). --Neigel von Teighen 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well I agree, but unlessyou want to personally give notice to all of them I do not of a mechanism whereby we can make a general announcement. Feel free to go on their talk pages and alert them to this, but in the menatime, I think we can continue to discuss what changes need to be made.

Izehar, you had some great ideas before. Care to expound upon them and get us back on track?Gator (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, give me a few minutes... Izehar (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You'll find my proposals in User:Imaglang/AMA proposals. Let's keep this talk page in order! --Neigel von Teighen 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What you have is great and all but I'm thinking that we need to have this discussion on the AMA page. You might want to consider moving some of your great ideas to here. Just my OP though.Gator (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's proposal

Tasks undertaken by the AMA

1. Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties reach their own solution to their dispute)
2. Conciliation (initially like Informal Mediation but if that fails, then the added feature of proposing solutions to disputes)
3. Neutral Evaluation (giving inputs on how a particular policy or guideline affects a certain action - when most users in a dispute do this, they have a tendency of always interpreting it in a way favourable to them, especially in content disputes - essentialy, this is "advice")
4. Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
5. Appeals (to blocks and/or ArbCom decisions)

Application process

• Tasks 1, 2 and 3 above will require consent from all parties.
• Applications will be made on the page where they are made now, and should be made using a standard template.

==Example Application==
===Requested service===
===Involved parties====
===Brief description of scenario (with word limit)===
===Evidence of all parties' consent (if applicable)===

• If an application has net been accepted within 72 hours, it will be rejected. The parties can reapply no earlier that one week from date of rejection.
• Acceptance by an advocate will be done by notification on all parties talk pages.
• Once an advocate accepts a case, he/she can subsequently reject it prior to completion. In such circumstances, the application will be re-entered on the requests page and will remain there for a maximum of 72 hours.
• Perfect service is NOT guaranteed.

Coordination

• The AMA as a democratic organisation shall have no single officer as coordinator, but shall be run by a committee consisting of all advocates who have successfully completed at least one case and choose to participate in running the organisation.
  • This approach has practical benefits to it as well, as this association is a voluntary one and given that Wikipedia is merely a hobby, then this ensures the likelihood of someone "in charge" always being around. Look at now, where the Coordinator is away.

Of course this is merely a skeleton, but we'll fill in the blanks. Izehar (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The committee idea sounds fine. I'm not sure if there should be any requirements like that though. How about a straight vote of the committee and if voters feel like that is an important criteria, then it will play a role in the decision making anyway.Gator (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My purpose was mainly to exclude users who add their name to our lists merely for the prestige of being a member, but have not contributed to the organisation's success (hopefully it will be successful once we've revived it). I'm sure that that definition applies to most of our members. Do you know how many have actually responded to requests? A substantial number have added their names and then forgotten they'd done so. I think that users should be able to join, and work their way up to the committee. The criteria aren't that high anyway. What are your views on the other proposed changes? Izehar (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then maybe we need to further define or loosen the requirement of "succesfully completeing one case" what does that mean? How about "active members who have responded to a request in the past three months?"

Other than that, I have no problems, I'm pretty open to expanding our services.Gator (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yours sounds much better - what do we do now? Contact Alex? Izehar (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

edit conflict) well, I beleive he is watching. I think we need more input from AMA members at this point, but his input is very important for obvious reasons. Also, User:Imaglang has done some greatwork on this thing and I think he/she needs to get in on this.Gator (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I strongly disagree w gator, those who have failed to successfully complete a single case should have no say in any of our doings whatsoever. I reccomend something far more meritocratic than Izehar suggests, and oppose commitees as a general rule (has anyone ever heard of anything good coming out of a committee?) but at least Izehar's idea's are a step in the right direction. Sam Spade 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well whether it s committee or one person, I have no prefernece. The problem I have twith "successfully" "completing" once case is the definition. I think active members are fine and this needs to be open as possible whether it's using a committee system or a one person system.Gator (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on the grounds that as Wikipedia is a hobby and AMA a voluntary aspect of that hobby, one coordinator will not always be around. Such as now, our coordinator is away - if there were a committee, someone (one person, two, three...) would always be around to represent AMA. Izehar (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

How about replacing "successfully completing" with "completing"? Mediations can fail because of the parties, not the mediator's skill. I propose that a task should be completed when the advocate it is assigned to says it is:

• Tasks 1, 2 and 4 should be judged to be completed when the advocate says that he has made a reasonable attempt and has succeeded or failed.
• Task 3 should be judged to be completed once the input has been given.
• Task 5 should be judged to be completed once the outcome of the appeal is known.

I also prefer the committee idea, and a "bums on seats committee". Each vote to last about 72 hours. For example if all but four members of the committee have not voted, then the four members will constitue a full ad hoc committee for that vote and proceed without the rest. Izehar (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok I'm on board with that, I've been convinced. :) I would still love to hear what the current coordinator and Imag have to say about this.Gator (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll respond soon. Neigen will have to, he has some very good ideas. Izehar (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think his ideas are great.

It seems like we are worried about forming a committee which we admit will do very little. How will this committee revitalize/etc. this org? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

3 issues

There are 3 issues on hand, as I see them:

1. if there should be a committee
2. who should be able to vote regarding this, and
3. how long the meeting or vote should be held for

• I am dubious of a committee

• I feel strongly that only those who have had successful cases should be allowed to vote (anyone can be present and speak). We have many people on the members list, but very little advocating / mediating, etc... being done. There needs to be a line drawn between who is really doing something and who isn't, at least among our leadership.

• I support a 72 hour meeting and vote, due to scheduling issues on an international project.

In conclusion, I say we go ahead w or w/o Alex, he may be gone for some time to come.

Sam Spade 01:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So what would this committee's role be exactly and what issues would people be voting on? Also, you say that "only those who have had successful cases should be allowed to vote" what is your definition of successful and how do you reconcile that comment with "There needs to be a line drawn between who is really doing something and who isn't." Do you want successful candidates or active candidates. TO me, the fact that someone may not have won a case doesn't mena that they shouldn't be allowed ot be on the comm or vote or whatever. Active members should the criteria.Gator (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It does not appear that the committee would actually do anything; it should be replaced with nothing. In the rare event that a vote for something will be required, it should be done as follows:

Amendment proposals

• There are two categories of AMA membership:
  • Full membership
  • Associate membership
• Full members get to vote on any issues (should any arise).
• Associate members only get to propose.
• Full membership is granted to whoever has successfully completed at least one case.
  • Successful completion means that the member has provided one of the following services:
    • Tasks 1 and 2 are judged to be successfully completed when the dispute is over.
    • Tasks 3 and 4 are judged to be successfully completed once the required service has been performed (regardless of the outcome).
    • Task 5 is judged to be successfully completed once the outcome of the appeal is known.
• Associate membership is the same as full membership, save that the member cannot vote on any decisions that will need to be made.
• Votes to run on a "if you didn't vote, you missed it basis".

Again, this is just brainstorming. Not many of our "members" seem to be participating in this discussion. Izehar (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to formulate such a rigid procedure, then I hope someone's planning to spell out how they are done. Honestly I am not personally aware of the appeals process, unless this is another way of saying "writing to Jimbo". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is. Essentially someone will have to write a brilliant, concise and comprehensive summary of what the problem is, and ask him to fix it. Izehar (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I really think we should focus more on expanding our services and changing/reforming the AMA request page (adding differnet pages for different requests per: Izehar) then on governance and committees and such. I think we need to focus on reinjuvenating the AMA first. Without that, the committee will not only have very little support it will have very few members. Let's refocus our efforts to services and AMA page reform.Gator (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been a bit sceptical about the different pages for different requests, but I know that it if it were all on one page, then it would be really long and hard to edit (in certain countries it can take even five minutes for a really long page to load User:HolyRomanEmperor is in Serbia and told me so). Izehar (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Allright so let's get concrete here. I propose that we all give our input on a new lsit of services we think the AMA should offer. Izehar, I think you came up with a good list jsut alittle while ago. It pretty much was what lawyers do in the U.S (I should know). Would you mind posting that again under a new section and we'll go from there. Let's table the committee discussion for jsut right now. That sound good?Gator (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I found what I was referring to:

One step at a time :-) lets deal with services first. Izehar (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Services

• Informal mediation is informally helping all parties reach a mutual acceptable solution to a dispute through compromise without violating the basic principles of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (Wikipedia's three core policies). Consent from all parties to negotiate in this manner will be required.

• Conciliation is the same as informal mediation, except the conciliator can also propose solutions to the dispute - this additional capability may appear desirable to some parties and not to others. Consent from all parties to negotiate in this manner will be required.

• Neutral Evaluation is essentially "legal advice" on how a particular policy or guideline affects an individual or a group. As nearly everyone interprets policy in a way favourable to them, this service may be useful in RfCs or even in common disputes (eg is this edit original research?).

• Advocacy involves writing on behalf of a user in RfArs and RfCs. This is certainly going to be the most tedious chore. We will have to insist on concise, well-written, accurate, complete summaries of the scenario WITH DIFFS. I am sure that advocates will not want to have to go through months of talk pages to find evidence.

• Appeals are contesting to a decision on the basis that is it misguided. ArbCom decisions to be appealed to Jimbo and out input will have to bear the name of AMA and be signed by all its members (it will carry more weight this way). It goes without saying that requests to appeal will only be accepted if there is a possibility that it will be successful. If it will be an obvious failure, then we won't even bother. Appeals to administrator decisions to be made on WP:ANI and if appropriate, our input to be signed by all members (like a petition). Of course, all this personal vouching should be done ONLY if an obvious mistake has been made. If not, the application to be rejected (advocates vote with their feet - if they don't want to, they don't have to support a particular action).

---

Comments please... Izehar (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Question abnout conciliation. Is that kind of like a non-binding voluntary arbitration? If so, let's just call it that to avoid confusion. Other than that I think these expanded services are great. Let'some more discussion here and then we can move on to the web page.Gator (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's more like a non-binding voluntary med-arb as you call it in the states. Izehar (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

med-arb? I THINK I know what you mean, but please explain. Every state is different so don't assume too much lol.

I live in the UK - I don't know which state... It's a means of dispute resolution which starts out exactly like mediation, the mediator becomes familiar with the problem and the parties, if normal mediation fails, the mediator can start making reccomendations of his/her own. Some disputing parties may want this more interventionist style of mediation. Other disputing parties may not. Izehar (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example from Minneapolis link. Izehar (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok so it's like a mediation non-binding arbitration hybrid. That's fairly rare in the U.S. Let's do this. An AMA memebr can mediate, conduct a non-binding arbitration of the matter and offer his/her opinion OR sometign ib between like what you are suggesting. Let's give the AMA memebrs so flexibility to give aprties what they would like. How's that?Gator (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Izehar (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so we've agreed on services. Should we move on to "application procedure". Izehar (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure but lets be sure that everyone knows the sevices discussion is stil open for anyone else that may ahve an opinion. Let's try and leave all discussion on services in the services section and so on...Gator (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Some comments

I'm back and I gladly see you were working hard! Here are some replies to the most important issues discussed:

1. Informal Mediation: I'm strongly against this idea. First, if there should be informal mediations in Wikipedia, there is already an organization called The Mediation Cabal that works on that. ABut my point is that there shouldn't be any informal mediations and that the MedCom should be the unique organization allowed to do mediations. Please keep in mind that the ArbCom doesn't like to arbitrate cases that hadn't passed through official mediation. No, we are advocates, not mediators: mediators are supposed and selected (remember that only supported users can enter into the MedCom!) to be neutral and we advocates are supposed not to be neutral!
2. New requesting system: Excellent idea! This will order this thing. I like very much that 72 hours limit Izehar proposes.
3. Coordination: As I say in here, I would rather discuss this later and try to keep the AMA Coordination as it is, but with a more representative function.
4. Meritocracy: I don't like it, it can be a boomerang: that people having many lost cases but still try to win one and like to be part of the AMA will be excluded... I don't know, I must think a bit more about this.
5. Committee: Never!!! Juan Domingo Perón said that "If you want something not to succeed, for a committee". And this argentinean dictator always formed committees when he tried to break opposite projects.

Here is a little summary of my proposals:

1. We must try to gather all the members. We're the Association of Members' Advocates. We must encourage members to participate even more on this project.
2. AMA must try to have more communication with the official committees. After all, we are also official and I think we have the right and the duty to participate in all the changes that are being done in the Dispute Resolution System.
3. Create advocates that work with the committees advicing and advocating mediation/arbitration requests when the Arb/MedCom needs to accelerate a case (something similar as statal advocates). Then, their (MedCom's/ArbCom's) request list will get smaller and also ours.
4. Purge the AMA members list. There are people that never advocated a case and there is a user (User:WikiUser) that added his list for protecting himself of a year ban (obviously, this was in vain).
5. Elections are needed to bring fresh air and new ideas.
6. The AMA Coordinator should represent us advocates when we interact with the ArbCom or the MedCom or even the recently created Mentorship Committee (MentCom). As you see, this idea with the other about breaking our isolation are related.

See you! Ah, I won't be available from Friday to Tuesday, so don't wait my replies until then. --Neigel von Teighen 19:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everythign you saidm, except I beelvie we need to exapnd outr services to include informal mediation, informal arbitration, hybrid...etc.Gator (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The main problem is not us doing mediation, but that there should not be informal mediations/arbitrations anywhere. In Wikipedia, there are the MedCom and the ArbCom. We must respect this official channels to do mediations and arbitrations as they are supported by and supporters of Wikipedia's policy. Official mediators and arbitrators must pass a selective process before they can be part of their respective committees. This tries to guarantee that not anyone can be arbitrator nor mediator and there some criteria that were considered so the people that get in are actually neutral in their decisions. Obviously, the official channels can make unneutral decisions, but those decisions can be stated as unneutral because there is something (the applying crieria) behind these bodies that allow us to say that they are wrong. Curiously, it is their officiality which allows us to appeal against their decisions. Informal mediations/arbitration aren't guarranteed to be neutral and haven't anything that guarrantees themselves. If an informal mediation or arbitration turns out to be totally unfair, who will respond for it? And that's why I don't want the AMA involved in something that can be a "boomerang" for us.

Obviously, I do agree that we must expand our services if and only if they are realted to advocacy: advicing and neutral evaluation, for example. --Neigel von Teighen 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO the difference between an informal mediation and a full mediation is that informal mediation can be for piddly little disputes that MedCom wouldn't bother themselves with. How would those parties negotiate, only through RfC; what if that didn't work? Izehar (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. The fact that mediations/arbitrations would beinformal, is the difference here. Nothing bad can happen, because they can't force anyone to do anything and it makes no fficial difference, but they can help people if the mediator or arbitrator helps resolve a dispute. I know that it is not agasinst policy to do this and I don't think by doing informal work like this that we would be disrespecting anyone. We shouldn't worry so mch about stepping toes here. The fact is that people are flooding the AMA page with petty disputes about issues that are ot going to be resolved through formla channles because they're not important enough. The AMA should expand services so that it can really do more than jsut advocate for people in thsoe very few cases. Anyone else have thoughts on this?Gator (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

When I talk of informal mediation, is to do a full mediation outside the MedCom (like the MedCab does). But that cases where a "cooling down" of the discussion is needed aren't mediations, they are part of the so-called "negotiation" process (in the DR system, it is two steps before the Mediation). There is already a group, the Harmonious editing club (of which I'm part), that tries to do this. --Neigel von Teighen 20:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediations are nothing more than that. Getting parties to come together and talk things out and try to reach a compromise. Whether you call that negotiation or whatever, I think there is PLENTY of room for the AMA to offer that aservice and there is certianly a need. I continue to push for having this service in our bag of tricks.

Advocates nearly never agree

So rather than trying to propose things any one of us prefer, how about we think of things none of us oppose. Unanimity. If you guys remember how alex operated, he always went w unanimity. Anyways, what can we agree to? Sam Spade 23:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, we're just starting the reorganisation - let's just agree on neural evaluation, advocacy and appeals for now. Let's see if we can handle these - if we have too many tasks, the workload will be immense. Let's start with three tasks for now and see how it goes. Once we've agreed on tasks, then we can move on the application procedures. Izehar (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm eager to move on too, but the vast amjority of the request coming in need a mediator and if we don't expand our services to include that I'm worried we're not really going to be solving the problem here. I think consensus is sufficient here just like everywhere else. Unanimity is not required to move forward. If there's a consensus that mediation/arbitration whould be included, that's good enough for me, I guess I just don;'t see why we ALL have to agree, that seems like an unreasonably high hurdle. Where am I going wrong (Sorry Izehar. Like I said I'm eager to move on too, but really want to do this right..:(..)Gator (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, well I would support those two additional features (where else would the petty disputes go?) Izehar (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Me too, but another user does not and Sam proposed that we need everyone to agree and I think that's an admirable but ultimately fruitless idea. I think we have consensus on the services here (not unanimity) and am prepared to move forward.Gator (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, this discussion seems to have come to a standstill, so let me "revive" it. Let's leave the services for now and move on to the application process - views please on my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates#Application process. Also, why did this discussion come to a standstill? Maybe that's the problem. Izehar (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I was ready to move forward adn was just waiting for you to repsond. Sorry. lolGator (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Application Process

One question: should we give AMA members tha ability to abandon their clients after they engage in servies but before they finish or should AMA members just agree to complete their job? Shouldn't we have certain standards for our members (kind of like a bar in the U.S?) How do you feel about changing that to read that AMA members promise to work with all due diligence to complete their job once they have engaged in services? Or maybe just take that out? What do you think?Gator (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, IMO we should be able to abandon our clients. I think that it would be foolish for a voluntary association to have such obligations. Our services are merely personal favours. However, I think that safeguards for quality should exist, ie unsatisfactory performance by an advocate on repeated occasions should be eligible to have his membership revoked by a member vote. Izehar (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, if members can do this (which I think they just agree not to do), then let's not advertise it as I think it would undermine our clients' confidence in the association. Let's just leave it unsaid.Gator (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, we mustn't misrepresent what we do. Our clients must know that we can withdraw (I like that word - it sounds acceptable for what otherwise would be a sleazy move) if we so choose. It should all be in our "constitution" which I am currently writing. Once it's finished, I'll place it here (or in my userspace) for scrutiny and after that, we should call a member vote. I'm thinking it should last about five to seven days (or until everyone's voted). Izehar (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

PS I don't think that prospective clients will even read the "fine print" about our withdrawing capabilities. We still haven't agreed on services yet. I think that we should just include everything and if a certain advocate wishes to avoid a certain chore, he/she can. Izehar (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well then I think that the absolute right withdraw at any time no matter the circumstances or harm to the client is inappropriate and I would push for some basic duties to run from the AMA member to their clients in this regard, even if it's just a bsic duty not to screw a client over. I understand that it's voluntary, but if the AMA member doesn't want the basic duty not to abandon and hurt their clients, then they don't ahve to assume it, (being an AMA member is not a right it's a privilege) but if this association is going to have any realy credence here, then our client's need to be assured ins ome small way that their advocate will not decide to leave them high and dry without any consequences.Gator (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but it's not as if we can impose any real sanctions. All we can do is suspend or revoke membership. All members before joining will have to agree to the "practice guidelines" and if a member keep on violating them for no good reason, then his membership may be suspended/revoked. Withdrawing from a case should be discouraged, but the option should always be available. Especially in informal mediations. Izehar (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspension and reovcation of membership are sufficient sanctions. Practice guidelines should include a duty to to avoid harming our client's interests if at all possible. Therefore, if an AMA member wishes to withdraw they need to give proper notice to al parties, work to get an AMA memeber to replace the and withdraw in such a way as to avoid detrimental effects to their client(s). If they don't do this then sanctions can be considered, especially in repeat cases. How about that?Gator (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know - I still think that withdrawal should be readily accessible. Imagine accepting an informal mediation and it dragging on for months. I don't like the fact that an advocate is bound by an obligation to do complete a job that's impossible to complete (certain disputing parties are so pigheaded). How about making withdrawals available only in cases of informal mediation and conciliation. In appeals and advocacy it is not an option and in cases of neutral evaluation it's not really necessary. Izehar (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it shouldn't always be an option and I think it always should eb available, it jsut needs to be proeprly done. If a mediation is drawing on and on, I don;t see how it would hurt the clients to withdraw with proper notice and at least a weak attempt to get a replacement. I don';t see the problem there. There jsut eneds to be a safeguard for our cleints, that their AMA member has certain obligatosn and will not just choose abandon them suddenly for not good reason and without communication.Gator (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

All right, ending an informal mediation would not be that disasterous to our clients interests. How about a mandatory week's notice. I don't like the obligation of having to find a replacement, as everyone would want to avoid a hopeless mediation. If I wanted to withdraw from an informal mediation that had been nothing but edit wars for the past two weeks and everything I tried failed, would you carry the burden for me? Heavy burdens must be able to be discharged, but members who abuse those safety hatches, should be subject to diciplinary proceedings (revocation of membership). How about a clause which says that no one will be allowed to discharge an informal mediation without having served seven days. Izehar (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me be clear, the member need only try to find a replacement, they don't have to actually produce one if no one comes forward. I think a weeks notice is fine, but the member is not burdened by posting a note on the AMA page asking for a replacement. No one needs to take him/her up on it, they should just try. I think the policy should be a unifomr polcy for all outr services in order to avoid confusion as to which withdrawal policy applies to which service. Let's jsut keep it simple but make it clear that they need to provide notice (1 week is fine) (2) try to find a replacement and (3) generally speaking, withdraw in such away as to not cause undue harm to a client or clients. Sound good?Gator (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's what my original proposal was - if a member withdraws from a case, he has to place it back on the requests page for the maximum of 72 hours. Izehar (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that along with one week's notice (1) and the general duty (3) I outlined above would be fine with me.Gator (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, gove me a minute or so to write all this down. Izehar (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Amended application process proposal

Application process

• Tasks 1, 2 and 3 below will require consent from all parties.
• Applications will be made on the page where they are made now, and should be made using a standard template.

==Example Application==
===Requested service===
===Involved parties====
===Brief description of scenario (with word limit)===
===Evidence of all parties' consent (if applicable)===

• If an application has net been accepted within 72 hours, it will be rejected. The parties can reapply no earlier that one week from date of rejection.
• Acceptance by an advocate will be done by notification on all parties talk pages.
• Once an advocate accepts a case:
  • In all cases, the advocate may subsequently withdraw by 1) giving one week's notice to all parties; 2) reposting the request on the AMA page for another 72 hours asking for a replacement advocate; and 3) may not withdraw in a way or under circumstances as to cause undue harm to a client or clients.
  • Failure to comply with these regulations shall be subject to sanctions (formal reprimand or suspended or terminated membership) to be determined by a majority vote of all full member advocates (quickpolls).
• Perfect service and satisfactory results are not and can not be guaranteed.

Annex

The tasks are:

1. Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties reach their own solution to their dispute)
2. Conciliation (initially like Informal Mediation but if that fails, then the added feature of proposing solutions to disputes)
3. Neutral Evaluation (giving inputs on how a particular policy or guideline affects a certain action - when most users in a dispute do this, they have a tendency of always interpreting it in a way favourable to them, especially in content disputes - essentialy, this is "advice")
4. Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
5. Appeals (to blocks and/or ArbCom decisions)

---

Comments please... Izehar (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think we should have a policy to remove members who have been inactive for one month if they haven't given prior notice of their inactivity accompanied with a good reason. Izehar (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright on withdrawal, I think one weeks notice for all services are fine, but need to be accompanied by that duty I specified above. I am also against a full member vote to withdraw. No need to air out ugly disputes in front of everyone. I said above I was against a withdrawal policy that differed depending on the services and I thought we were in agreement when you said OK. I apologize for all the confusion. Here is the withdrawal policy I propose(d) for all services. 1) one week's notice to all parties 2) post on the AMA page asking for a replacement (or repost the case for 72 hours whichever) and 3)an AMA should not withdraw in such away as to not cause undue harm to a client or clients. It's important that our clients know that an AMA member has certain obligations to them when they commit and they just can't say "I'm going to screw you in one week...get ready." The AMA nmeeds to be held to a higher standard for its services than just any editor helping another editor(s) out.

Annex: If they do violate the withdrawal policy, they may be subject to sanctions including formal reprimands, suspension or even removal from the association by a vote of the majority of the AMA.

This is what I propose(d). Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine, except I can't pin down that "harm to client". How shall we define "undue harm"? Izehar (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That needs to be determined on a case by case basis and we need a general duty like that in those rare cases when someone can give one weeks notice and post for a repalcement and still really hurt their client because of unique circumstances that we, in our limited wisdom, could not forsee. The majority of the AMA members can decide this questions if when it comes up.Gator (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want a more "precise" defintion I would define it as harm to a client that it beyond that which is necessary in all withdrawals (we assume that a withdrawal always harms people). That a little better? I don';t think we should define it though adn leave that up to the members when they come across it.Gator (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember though, my proposal above allows withdrawal only in cases of informal mediation and conciliation. How could withdrawal from those cause significant harm to the client? I can't even think of one example. However, we could put something like "excessive detriment due to reliance" or something like that in the rules just for show and in the unlikely event when it could apply, it should apply. Izehar (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember I said that my withdrawal policy applies to 'all services. We should not have a different withdrawal policy depending on the services, it will get too confusing. We need to be able to withdraw from any cases under the right circumstances. We cannot be forcing our members to stick through it no matter what, that's unreasonable. I can't think of any examples myelf, but I am sure that they exist , which is why we need this policy, so that when an example does show itself, our client's are protected and there are fair procedures in place. I like your wording, I just fear it's too narrow. It's OK to have broader language when you want to have it serve as a catchall for those examples that you and I can't think of right now.Gator (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking that if we do undertake informal mediations, then we will be at competition with the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Wouldn't it be much easier if the advocates focused on advocacy and if they wanted to mediate as well, they could join the cabal? Izehar (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've thought about that too, but 1) there's not really competiton, it's not this is a business or somethign and 2) ther's obviosuly a greater need out there then they can handle or else we wouldn't be flooded with these requests. I think we definately need to add it as a service. There's no rule that the cabal has a monopoly over this service and they can't handle all of the requests. Reponse to my last statement? Is my version of the withdrawal policy ok with you? If so, please add it to the above wording.Gator (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How's this?

• Any advocate may withdraw from a case that he/she has accepted providing that the following requirements be met:
  • The advocate has given seven day's notice of his intention to withdraw to all parties and on the discussion page of the requests page.
  • Three days before the advocate actually withdraws, the original request must be re-entered on to the requests page and will remain there for the full 72 hours or until another advocate accepts the case.
  • The applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to such an extent that it would be unfair for him/her to withdraw his services.
    • Services includes future services which the advocate has agreed to supply by accepting the case.
    • It is presumed that the applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to the said extent. This presumption is reversed once evidence to the contrary is provided.
• Failure to comply with these regulations will be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Association and may result in suspension of membership or expulsion from the Association.

---

Will the above do? Izehar (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine.Gator (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, so we've agreed on services, application procedure and withdrawal of services. Now we have to deal with co-ordination. What should we do? My latest proposal on the subject was very controversial. Izehar (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Coordination

You mean the committee idea? Yeah, I'm not too hot on that idea either to be honest. Maybe just a small 3 person committee so that, hopefully, one of those people will be around to help out. I cans ee how having just one coordinator can cause problems...And with a committee that small, I don't think we need any official criteria for being a nominee. Kind of like RFA, there's unofficial criteria that everyoneuses. I'm confident that the best people will be elected if we allow all AMA members to vote, give them plenty of notice and allow them to choose who would be the best at it using their own ctriteria of who deserves it. Just my OP on that. Better to keep things as simple as possible. Thoughts?Gator (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a Coordinator, a Vice-Coordinator and a Deputy-Coordinator. In practice they are the same office, but a single coordinator gives the AMA a visible head. They could be elected by direct vote of all listed members by a set date and office is conferred on the three individuals who achieve the three top places. Izehar (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Having a visible head is fine, but if we are going to have three different offices, then they really do need to be different. I wouldnt want to have a sham ofice that is really all three. I'm not really sure that having one visible head is such a big deal. Maybe the committee could choose their own chair? So we would elect a three person committee (keep it small) and then they would choose their chair so we could have a visible head. How's that?Gator (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, indirect elections can be tricky - three people electing one of their number, nothing good can come of it. They're not really sham posts: they are different posts - when the coordinator is not around, the vice-coordinator will and if he/she isn't, then hopefully the deputy-coordinator will. The Coordinator is in effect the "chief". Izehar (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How will they determine if the other two arent around? Wait for a response, e-mail the higher ups.......seems like a waste of time to me if a coordinator needs to act quickly...am I wrong? "Noting good can come from it"? What do you mean? Sounds like a parliamentary system to me. I think it could work out fine. How about this: elect one coordinator to be the head person and then two deputies to act when the coordinator cannot and to kind of pick up the slack and do chores. How's that?Gator (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was aiming for variety, but whatever :-) Now in time, I'll archive this page and relist our new proposal in my usual fashion (the bureaucratic/red tape style), spam all members on their talk pages (except the banned one) and get them to comment. If they all are leaning towards agreement, we can call a vote. Izehar (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

So are we going to have an election for each office, or should we use your idea of the top vote getter gete the coordinator positon adn then the bottom 2 get the deputy positions? I kind of liked your idea.Gator (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoever gets more votes becomes coordinator. Whoever come second and third become deputy coordinators. Izehar (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds good. So we are in agreement that the only criteria to bne a nominee is to be an AMA member right? There was some controversy over this before.Gator (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, you will have to have been a member for at least ten days before the vote (safeguard against sockpuppetry). Izehar (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds fair, I just didn;t like the "had to have suiccessfully completed a case" requirement. I think the voters will be able to impose their own collective criteria better than we ever could. Let's move forward then. Great job!Gator (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a group of counter vandalism advocates - the vandals are running wild or RC now. Izehar (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm trying to distinguish between conciliation and neutral evaluation and there seems to be a considerable overlap. Perhaps these two should be merged and be in effect an expert request for comment. Izehar (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How about mediation, third party neutral evaluaton and informal arbitration?Gator (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of listing our services in the proposal as follows:

• Informal mediation (helping disputing parties reach a compromise)
• Neutral evaluation (giving opinions and advice from a neutral point of view)
• Advocacy (same as last time)
• Appeals (same as last time)

Izehar (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's better this way as it allows the advocate more freedom to do what is required to complete a task rather than having to stay within the narrow boundaries of the task definition. Izehar (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I like that. What about informal arbitration? If parties came ot me and said we agree to follow whatever ruling you make on this issue, becuase we don;t want to file an RFC and go through that entire process, that seems like a service we could provide? No?Gator (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO neutral evaluation is the same as informal arbitration. It's even better, as it doesn't sound like an oxymoron. Informal arbitration is contradictory - neutral evaluation is the same thing. They ask for an opinion, we give it. Izehar (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok that make sense.Gator (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's newest proposal

Tasks undertaken by the AMA

1. Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties find a solution to their dispute)
2. Neutral Evaluation (stating an opinion on a particular scenario)
3. Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
4. Appeals (to blocks and/or ArbCom decisions)

Application process

• Tasks 1 and 2 above will require consent from all parties.
• Applications will be made on the page where they are made now, and should be made using a standard template.

==Example Application==
===Requested service===
===Involved parties====
===Brief description of circumstances (with word limit)===
===Evidence of all parties' consent (if applicable)===

• If an application has net been accepted within 72 hours, it will be rejected. The parties can reapply no earlier than one week from date of rejection.
• Acceptance by an advocate will be done by notification on all parties talk pages.
• An advocate may not withdraw from a case that he/she has accepted except in the following circumstances:
  • The advocate has given seven day's notice of his intention to withdraw to all parties and on the discussion page of the requests page.
  • Three days before the advocate actually withdraws, the original request must be re-entered on to the requests page and will remain there for the full 72 hours or until another advocate accepts the case.
  • The applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to such an extent that it would be unfair for him/her to withdraw his/her services.
    • "Services" includes future services which the advocate has agreed to supply by accepting the case.
    • It is presumed that the applicants have not relied on the advocate's services to the said extent. This presumption is reversed once evidence to the contrary is produced.
• Failure to comply with these regulations will be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Association and may result in suspension of membership or expulsion from the Association.
• Perfect service and the desired result of the parties can not be guaranteed.

Member votes

• The sole decision making process for the AMA is a member vote.
• Member votes may be called by any member.
• Member votes last for a set period of time and only the votes of advocates who have chosen to participate will be taken into account.
• The sole criterion for eligibility to vote is to be a member of at least ten days standing.

Coordination

• The AMA is a democratic organisation and all decisions about its operation are made by members of at least ten days standing.
• The nominal head of the AMA is the Coordinator.
• The Coordinator is assisted by two Deputy-Coordinators who may take his place, should he/she be absent when his presence is required.

Elections

• The Coordinator and the Deputy Coordinators are elected by direct vote of all eligible members.
  • Eligible members are members of at least ten days standing.
• In the election each member has one vote.
• The candidate who receives the most votes is elected Coordinator.
• The two candidates with the most votes after the Coordinator are elected Deputy Coordinators

Acquisition, suspension and termination of membership

• Membership is open to anyone except those who have explicitly been excluded by a member vote.
• Membership can be suspended by a member vote.
• Membership can be terminated by a member vote.
• Membership can be terminated on the request.

Miscellaneous provisions

• A user should decline to act as mediator in a case where the user has previously acted as an advocate.
• A user should decline to act as advocate in a case where the user has previously acted as a mediator.
• A user should decline to act as a mediator if that user has recently acted as an advocate for or against one of the parties in the mediation.
• When participating in mediation, users who are both advocates and mediators should state clearly the capacity in which they are acting.
• Users who are also arbitrators should not serve as advocates while they are members of the Arbitration Committee. This case is an exception to the rule that inactivity may terminate membership.

---

Will this proposal do? Izehar (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but you may want to describe in greater detail how the deputies will be chosen.Gator (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! Can you think of any way to formalise the language - I don't really like saying "second and third place". It sounds quite amateurish. Of course, we are amateurs, but it mustn't show ;-) Izehar (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How's that?Gator (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine :-) Izehar (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should get Alex's views before putting it to the vote. We may be turning the association he founded into a cranky old bureaucratic machine and he may not like that. He may have some proposals of his own. Izehar (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course.Gator (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to tell him, or shall I? Izehar (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free. Hopefully, he's been watching this entire thing. We haven't exactly been private about going about this, but go ahead.Gator (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Informed him, we'll see whay he has to say. Izehar (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I added something, please comment. Izehar (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. We should have stuff about conflicts of interest, so that was smart.Gator (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I copied that section from "Rules of the association" on WP:AMA. Izehar (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

..sounds kinda bureaucratic. I think we should revive it in the form it's in now. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Comments

I for one will support anyone who wants to help generate more advocacy at Wikipedia. However, it was not my intention when starting this organization to create yet another arm of the vast and complex Wikipedia bureacracy. It was an attempt to create a place where people could "associate" and not organize committees, votes, etc. Getting people to respond to inquiries is a good thing, but putting a structure in place to do so, is not in my opinion, the way to do it. I don't think that the activity on the "official" pages of the association is any indication of what individual advocates are doing. Sam Spade started his own "investigation agency" and I don't see that as contrary to the AMA. If I see any future for the AMA it would be to organize a conference on the problems Wikipedia faces, to analyze and criticize ArbCom by examining its activities. I think the idea of stripping someone of their AMA membership after a couple of months of "inactivity" is ludicrious. It is like suggesting that an experienced trial lawyer that decides to do some transactional work should never be allowed back in the courtroom. It would be a terrible mistake to allow members to take away another member's status except for the most serious kinds of transgressions regarding their advocacy work, and even then it would require a serious structure that allows the advocate a chance to present their side of the story (audi alteram partem). I do think that just having one person as an administrative structure is not a great idea, it would be better to have two or three people working together as co-cordinators, as a team to work on issues of interest to all advocates, not to act as a coordinator of advocate referrals, to supervise some kind of "application procedure" or some other kind of oversight that deals with the day-to-day work of advocates; that should be their own private affair. The model would be more along the lines of a bar association type of organization, not like a public interest law firm that takes in clients advocates for individual positions through the organization's appointment of advocates. This is one of the reasons that I felt that the original name I came up with Office of Members' Advocates was better changed to Association of Members' Advocates. Anyway, that is what we have been historically, and we will always be remembered as the group that had the very first real election on Wikipedia. If the members decide through a democratic process that it should evolve into something else, I have no problem with that and I will be around if anyone wants to consult with me. Alex756 07:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that fifty days clause could be gotten rid of - IMO a bit of red tape might make this currently inactive association start working again. Of course this will be passed only by a vote and I thik it would be best to have one in the new year. Izehar (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree that we should not automatically eliminate members. I strongly diagree that putting a structure in place to repsond to inquiries is somehow a bad idea, I think it's not only agreat idea, but is really the only logical way to go about this. The AMA is evolving into something mroe than what it was originally intended to be and I think that's great. It's reached the next step in that evolution. If we don't embrace that I think the AMA will become extinct.13:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Red tape and the tyrrany of the group

We need more people who can help and are willing to help others through the dispute resolution process, whether they be nice, tidy mediations or arbitrations, or more messier interpersonal rows and libel accusations, etc., involving people who aren't familiar with WP process.

Asking people to apply and then waiting for a sufficient number of existing members to approve or deny those people will only serve as an impediment to increasing the ranks of willing members.

Also, I strongly question the section that states that the group can expel members. Please provide an example of another WP group that does this. Even the Mediation Committee is not that strenuous.Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the propoal again. There is nothing int here that says an applicant needs "a sufficient number of existing members to approve or deny those people." A request will jsut be deemed denied if NO ONE responds within 72 hours so that we don;t ahve the clutter we ahve now. If you think it should be longer than 72 hours then please say so. I think 72 hours is sufficient but that's jsut my opinion.

Other than de sysopping someone I can't think of anotehr group...but so what? that can't eb your only argument? We ened to perogative to remove someoen fromt he AMA if they are incompetent, immoral or otehrwise hurting people. Of course. I doubt we'll ever or rarely see that happen, but the AMA membership eneds ot have that option if things get that bad with a member. The AMA's reputations is important.Gator (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The MedCom vets whoever joins and existing members must approve them before joining. In our case, anyone can join simply by adding his/her name to the list. How else can we guarrantee quality? Should we have an admissions process similar to that of the MedCom? Izehar (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, we're doing it right, don't second guess yourself. Remember, this guy out right accused us of tyranny, so don't take him/her all too seriously.Gator (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of puting this to the vote after the 26th and let it last until the 30th (four days). That way, we'll be ready (assuming it passes) to start accepting cases in the new year. Izehar (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, don't take too seriously someone who likes to put words in someone else's mouth. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not earlier? We are on the talk page and ahve been doing this for the past few days, so we ened to assume that interested people ahve been seeing this. Why not this Friday?Gator (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

More Thoughs On Proposal

I'm going to echo a lot of what Alex said, he predates me with the Association but I predate most of the names that I'm seeing in conversations here. I think there's a general incorrect perception of what the AMA is and what it isn't.

I've been gone on a Wiki-break for a while, I just got very fed up with a lot of stuff concerning copyrights and sourcing and since those issues appear to be addressed now in the wake of certain incidents I'm going to wade back into the waters. I've had a number of cases and I was a part of probably two of the larger and longer Arb cases of the past year, Netoholic and Instantnood. Overall I think the Arbcom respects my abilites as an advocate and I've always worked hard to represent my "clients" well.

First is regarding the tasks of the group. The first one is informal mediation and that task is already accomplished by The Mediation Cabal. They're flooded with requests and being one of the founders of that project I'm proud to see how popular it has become. They've had member turnover a bit but things all in all appear on the right track. I also oppose AMA doing mediation because our goal is to act as Advocates, being an Advocate means having a bias towards a particular person and that isn't compatible with being a mediator.

The second task is "Neutral Evalution", again, I think that's hard for a group that is supposed to advocate for someone. Also, it's more or less what Medcom does. Historically the task has been "Partisan Evaluation", in other words User A comes and says "I need help make this argument in this case" or "I'm getting torn to shreds here and need some help" and an advocate sees that and says, "sure, I'll help you". I've done it on cases I didn't agree with the person but that's what being an advocate is, it's being a partisan for someone who needs it.

The last two tasks you have are what we should be centered on -- RFA, RFC and Arb appeals and whatnot. That's the meat and potatoes about what being an advocate is about.

Okay, next, applications. The application page just needs to be tidy. No one has to take a case, if no one wants to take it I say it gets moved to an archive after two weeks, simple enough. If someone wants to take it they do. If an advocate starts working with someone and decides he can't anymore I don't think he needs to do anything else but to notify his "client" and suggest he might want to repost his application. The only exception to the rule is an advocate who is working an Arb case or appeal for someone. If he decides to withdraw he needs to let his client know, notify the Arbcom, and suggest the person apply for another advocate and ask for a delay in Arbcom proceedings while he gets help or formulates the argument himself.

During my case with Neto I threatened a few times to withdraw if he wasn't going to take my advice or try to work with me (i.e. going out and engaging activity similar to what he was in Arb for). I felt that was my right, he knew it, and he made changes accordingly. Now, if for some reason we have someone who drops clients all the time that would need to be looked at but I'm not aware of that ever happening.

I don't like the voting thing, isn't this Wikipedia where we should be trying to reach consensus? How can we advocate for people to reach consensus if we can't do it ourselves? Some things need a vote (i.e. elections) but most things do not. With the rate that people work on the project and then go on break and come back we have a lot of turnover of editors coming and going, there shouldn't be an easy vote process that can change the whole thing while someone takes a Wiki-break for a couple of months.

Then all the jazz about suspending or terminating members, I don't know if that's necessary, peer pressure is usually enough. However, I think we might need something very basic in this regard -- for example, I don't like it that we have an AMA member listed as away because he/she is currently serving a one year ban. Doesn't make the group look good. This should be simple though and I don't think it should be a vote of the full membership so as to avoid witch hunts. I think the Coordinator can make a decision like that and the group can have the right to protest what the coordinator has done and then you go to consensus forming on it.

There it is, my $0.02. Let me say I am certainly glad to see new names, I tried working on reorganizing and elections and announced a meeting a month in advance and one person showed, that was very disappointing. I'm hopeful there's interest to keep this group going in the right direction.

--Wgfinley 06:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: What the AMA is or isnt is what the AMA memebrs thnk it should or should not be. We are not bound by some sort of tradition here. If you think the defitnion of an "advocate" is too narrow to encompass activities like mediation adn neutral evaluation and yoyu think that's abnig problem, trhen we cna change the name of the organizaton. If we, as the members, think it should expand and do more, than we should. Mediation is an appropriate activity for us 1) if we want to do it and 2) if there's demand. I've heard thia rgument ovetr and over again about the cabal, but there is plentry of room for two organizations helping people resolve disputes. Same thing goes for the medcom. Look at the requests coming, in, the vast majority of them are for things beyond our current sevices. So we cna either hide our haeds in the sand and continue telling them to go away (really working well by the way) or we can change and adapt to better serve the project.

I'm not sure what your point is on the voting. Al we want to do is vote for elections, which you seem to support, so where's the problem?

Whether you want to give the power to discipline memebrs to the coordinator or the members is fine with me.Gator (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, we aren't bound by anything but why go out and duplicate efforts already being handled by other projects? If you want to do informal mediation then, by all means, sign up to help on The Mediation Cabal, there's nothing stopping you from doing AMA and TINMC, they're both user groups. The problem presently, as I see it, is that a lot of the muck that came to AMA and was dismissed because it really wasn't in our purview is sticking around. For whatever reason AMA has always been a bit of a complaint department and I don't think we really want that duty. Personally I don't think it's that they come just here, they post their complaint wherever they can and this is one of the places they end up. If you go back and look at the archives of the requests I think you'll find a lot of that and I think you'll find a lot of people that just wanted to drag their issue to another venue. --Wgfinley 03:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've amde my thoughts on this issue very clear, so I won;t go into detail again. There's nothing wrong with expanding our services into anotehr associations domain when it's obvious they're just not able to handle all of the matters out there and I dont want to join that group because I want to handle complaitns ehre, not there. We shouldn't be so resistant to change and adapt.Gator (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's call a meeting and put this thing through. I'm eager to get started withour new mission.Gator (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This makes absolutely no sense to me "I want to do something another group does but I don't feel like doing it there so I'll do it in this group that doesn't do it". I really don't understand. Again, this is the Association of Members' ADVOCATES, we're not mediators, we're not cops, we're not Jedi, we advocate for people. Someone wants help getting their point across in an article we assist them. Someone needs representation or help formulating their arguments for an RfC or RfA we help them. That's what this group has always done and I think we should stick to our mission and do that.

Have you read the mission statement? It's a great one, lots of good folks spent a while putting it together. In fact, someone who's worked in AMA for years, whom a few days ago you told everyone to ignore because he doesn't like the proposal, was one of the people who worked on it. It's great, check it out:

The Association of Members' Advocates (AMA) (formerly The Office of Members' Advocates (OMA)) is a Wikipedian voluntary association based upon principles of human rights and committed to protecting due process, fundamental justice or fairness and the principle of audi alteram partem in dispute resolution. Membership is open to anyone who wishes to help members with the dispute resolution process, especially at the mediation and arbitration stages.

Audi alteram partem -- "hear the other side" is what this group has always been about, giving voices to people who are having difficulty. AMA is a user group that's part of the dispute resolution process, we're not the process. There are many outlets for mediation -- MedCab which I mentioned earlier, the Harmonious Editing Club, as well as MedCom. In fact, if a case goes to MedCom and they feel not enough informal mediation has been done they send it to MedCab. Now say one of those users feels like he needs someone to stick up for his point of view that's where AMA comes in.

So, all in all -- I don't understand your logic about changing this group into something that overlaps and duplicates other groups and I don't understand where the fire is that this needs to be voted on and the "transformation" begins. To be really honest with you Gator, and I hate pulling rank and I hate saying "I've done so and so and blah blah blah" but I just archived about 6 months worth of requests, do you want to know the number of requests you responded in some fashion to? 2, and they're both on the current page. I think I quintupled that last night alone. Maybe if you had a record of many contributions to people looking for Advocates people would be more receptive to your POV. --Wgfinley 02:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there's no reason to get hostile. All I'm saying is that I think it';s time that the AMA expanded, that's all. If the word "advocate" bothers you, then we should change the name. I personally cna define an advocate as somethign that encompasses mediations and and thir party neutral activity, but if you can't then let's change the name. But the name of the organization is not an argument and neitehr is th efact that another organization does the same thing. There's plenty of room here for both. Anyone else?Gator (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO we should leave the possibility of performing additional tasks open, and our members who do not want to perform them don't have to. Gator who does want to mediate, can; whereas Wgfinley who doesn't, won't. Izehar (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I don't see why some members should be prohibited from doing that if they want to and no one would be forced to. Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, this makes no sense. This group has and has had a need it looks to serve, we don't need to bog it down with services duplicated by other groups. What next, if someone wants to come and revive the Wikipedia District Attorney and wants to do investigations within AMA we should allow that? How about a group of AMA members set themselves up as a Shadow ArbCom? This group doesn't need a bunch of bureaucratic process to bog it down, a lot of rules and allowances for expelling members for malfeasance that has never taken place before, nor a bunch of new objectives and tasks to distract us from what our mission is -- to be advocates. Noone is prohibiting people from mediating, as I said, you can go join MedCab and still be in this group. --Wgfinley 02:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Reforms? How about working the requests page?

Okay, I just spent a couple of hours cleaning up the requests page and, you know what, it looks like the last person to do it was......me...... back in April. Handling requests is where it is at for us. After I saw some thoughts about "all these requests" we've been getting I had to see for myself.

Once I sorted them out there were about 20 requests in the past two months, that's not a lot. I went through a ton of them and there are a grand total of 6 requests left that I haven't done anything with yet. How about, instead of all these grand plans about committees and votes and removing people we finish the cleanup and respond to some requests? It's not that hard.

I moved everything before November into archive 4, there was just no sense in keeping all that there so the page is much easier to sort through now and everything is in the correct section, just need some folks to respond to a few of the requests.

--Wgfinley 05:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

IRC

Has the AMA WP:IRC channel #wikipedia-ama ever been used? Izehar (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been used, it's been quite some time though and I'm not sure if ops are configured for that channel or not, not that it would matter much I don't think. --Wgfinley 01:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, ops haven't been configured, I'm sitting in the room now, will hang out for a while and see if anyone shows. --Wgfinley 01:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sitting in there now...Kurt Weber 00:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Association of Members' Advocates/Archive 3! For all to share--Santa on Sleigh 22:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove Missionary

You all might want to remove Missionary, seeing as he was just a sockpuppet. I would do it, but I don't want to be accused of impropriety, seeing as just reporting him got me labeled as a witchhunting stalker by the administrator that confirmed with CheckUser powers that he is in fact one of an army of sockpuppets.Tommstein 18:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course he should be removed - along perhaps with WikiUser. Vandals and sockpuppets give us a bad name. I would remove them, except I think a member vote would be more appropriate. Of course that would be just a formality... Izehar 19:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed him given his own admission he was a sockpuppet. The WikiUser issue is a bit more touchy and I think needs input from the group as to what to do about that. --Wgfinley 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm back!!

Hi! After a horrible computer crash (burned motherboard!), I'm able to rejoin the discussion. But I was out too much days so it will take me some time to understand what is happening here. If someone could send me a summary of the discussion into my talk page, I'll be very grateful of it. --Neigel von Teighen 18:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Members_Trying_to_Restart_AMA

I don't feel this is a fair or useful distinction to make, particularly when it singles out only 2 users, both new. Sam Spade 02:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right: that isn't necessary at all. --Neigel von Teighen 18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I have just joined and have only taken on one case. --Chazz88 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)