Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• /Archive1: 18 February 2004 to 6 January 2006

Proposal

This is a proposal for the revitalisation of the AMA. It goes into detail on how things should work.

Tasks undertaken by the AMA

1. Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties find a solution to their dispute)
2. Neutral Evaluation (stating an opinion)
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 not 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 comments from the Association membership 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.
• Member votes work on a first past the post basis.

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 (i.e. removing one's name from the list).

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.

Poll - (5/5/4)

This poll works on a first past the post basis and will close at 21:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~.

The only requirement to vote is membership of the association that pre-dates 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Support

1. Support this will revitalize the AMA and would no longer prohibit members from providing commonly requested services (mediation, opinion work). I'm totally on board and don't see why, fis ome members want to perfrom certain services (without hacing to join anotehr group that is not getting the same requests as we are here), why they should be prohibited from doing so. So what if AMA stands for advocates it's just a name! and "advocate" can be interpreted to encompass mediation/opinion work. Now's not the time to be opposed tochange. BE BOLD.Gator (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support -- Pakaran 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Regrettably, up to this point I haven't been active in the group. However, I feel that this new proposal will breath life into a necessary and helpful organization. Soltak | Talk 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - I joined the AMA rather excitedly but have done little for lack of understanding exactly what, when and how I should be doing things. This would make things a lot easier for new members. - Jord 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: we worked very hard on this, would you care to enlighten us with a sentence or two? Thanks.Gator (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Oops. I meant to give a reason! I feel it would make the organization overly bureaucratic, especially the parts where it lets people be kicked out of AMA. I also especially don't like the idea of automatically rejecting cases after 72 hours, though I'd like to not see them sit longer than that, to be honest. I do like the tasks part, but I don't think we should provide mediation; Wikipedia already has two mediation groups, one informal, and anyone can provide informal mediation. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   If you don't want to mediate, then don't; withdrawal of membership is a safeguard to quality and I think that the chances of that happening without a good reason are extremely unlikely, and the 72 hours limit is intended to prevent a backlog. Anyway, the applicants are allowed to resubmit their application a week later. Izehar 22:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Wally 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

   I have been absent for some time, despite my earlier participation in reform processes, and would not vote save that my opinion was sought via a message on my talk page: thus I cast a ballot. I find the proposals not only too ambitious and broad-based but I also feel that they step on the toes of other organizations. To my mind we have a mediation crew here to mediate — albeit one even less effective than we are — and we have arbitrators to give opinions on application of Wikipedian policies. They idea that we might fulfill either of these roles, mediative or advisory, is offensive to those organizations.

   Furthermore, when we have such trouble coordinating ourselves now, how are we to assign ourselves more responsibility? And who are we to do so? The comments below, by an Arbitrator no less, should capture the need for increased emphasis on training and standards rather than on reckless self-aggrandizement. I fear this is an effort, though well-meaning, fuelled more by dreams than capability.

   I would also like further input from our Coordinator on his thoughts about this.

3. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 01:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

   Far, far too formalized and rigid. Rejection of request after 3 days is a joke considering how badly the current requests page tends to be neglected. Doesn't mention at all the simple task of helping others through the DR process. This isn't limited to representation. Being well-versed in the DR process and being able to show others the way through it is what I mean. A lot of requests need only this. Removes ability of members to work in a Wikian, self-directed way and instead injects decisions of the entire AMA into their activity or continued membership. Increases the duties of AMA, mainly including the need to vote on so many procedural issues. Don't forget, some of us like to edit articles too from time to time. - Keith D. Tyler ¶

4. Wgfinley 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
   • Regarding Tasks Undertaken by the AMA

   • "Informal mediation" is currently handled by The Mediation Cabal which is quite alive, well, and active. I would encourage users who have an interest in mediation to sign up over there, anyone can join.
   • "Neutral mediation" is currently handled by The Mediation Committee which is also quite alive, well, and active. I would encourage members who would like to be a mediator apply to be a mediator over there.
   • The remaining tasks are what the AMA should focus and concentrate on as there are no other groups in Wikipedia that perform these services.

   • Regrading Application Process

   • Instruction creep -- mainly Procedural steps are popular to add but unpopular to follow, mainly due to the amount of work required to actually follow the complex procedures..

   • Regarding Member Votes

   • Wikipedia is not a democracy -- This organization only needs to vote on very limited number of things -- a coordinator when we need one and ithat's about it. I don't understand how we can be an advocate for someone and help them reach consensus on their issues when we don't practice consensus building amongst ourselves.

   • Regarding Coordination

   • I don't believe "deputy coordinators" are necessary, I don't think more chiefs is what is needed. Alex has said he's more than happy to turn over the reins when someone wants to step up and be Coordinator as he just doesn't have the time for it, I think replacing Alex with someone who has the time to give is the main thing needed. I've been considering it.

   • Regarding Membership

   • More instruction creep, I believe this section could be wrapped up with one sentence "Membership in the AMA is open to anyone but suspension or revocation of an individual's membership is subject to the consensus of the membership.

   • Regarding Miscellaneous provisions

   • No issues.

   Finally, let me say that I take exception to this vote being put to the group with a closing time and an implication that action will be taken then. There was no provision for this when the group was formed. Any changes to the group should be done by consensus and I believe there were many long time members who stated their issues with this proposal so to put it to a vote, in my mind, is trying to bypass consensus building.

   Now, members are being told if they don't want to mediate they don't have to or they should leave? This group has never had a proviso regarding mediation and I frankly don't understand why some are insisting to push this through, it's like me barging my way into your living room and telling you I don't like your TV and you should go buy a new one. Since many other members have introduced their concerns I haven't seen a single change to this proposal and to me, that doesn't show that you worked very hard on it. --Wgfinley 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, one more thing, I think the folks proposing this mean well (another important reference and lesson in instruction creep) but have gotten a bit wrapped up in this.

5. Oppose -- a democracy as the "sole decision making process," with the provision that "any member may call a vote." What's to stop a person to call a vote to just call a vote? Then, to be suspended for pulling said voting stunt, the suspension must go through another vote. Too many votes. I agree with Wgfinley, in that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Too much red tape to cut through. I'd probably support if not so bureaucratic. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Abstain/Neutral

1. Neutral for now. Will switch to support if the section Acquisition, suspension and termination of membership is clarified: are all votes simple majority, 2/3, 3/4? – ClockworkSoul 22:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, all votes are for an absolute majority. The idea is that all members are presumed not to be sockpuppets and that they are all reasonable. If something unreasonable is proposed, then it's presumed that more than 50% will oppose. Izehar 22:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   If the proposition can be ammended to state that, I will be very happy to offer my support. – ClockworkSoul 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

   I added the links to the definition - I think that that should do. I don't really feel comfortable changing the proposal after some members have already voted though. Izehar 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral here's my ideas...
   • Arbitrators shouldn't be allowed in AMA except as "on hiatus" members not only because of potential bias, but because until there's some reform of the system, they'll be too damn busy to be effective. Don't even pose the option, it'll be a nuisance.
   • Change "should" to "cannot", unless they want to do it independently. It'll give the AMA far more credibility.
   • Ditch first past the post thinking, it doesn't jibe with Wikipedia. Instead, make a clear level for consensus, i'll create a simple formula after my break if you'd like.
   • Make an addendum regarding if there are no advocates available after 72 hours. A person's case may be worthy, but there might not be enough advocates, something that person should not be penalized for. karmafist 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
3. (Moved to neutral because I'm ineligible to vote) Please see my comments below; my primary concern is that informal mediation is already handled by the WP:MEDCAB, and if informal mediation is included in the purview of the AMA then there will be duplication of effort. Secondly, one cannot both advocate and mediate simultaneously; being an advocate involves assisting a user in arguing a particular case, whereas mediation involves providing a neutral negotiation forum between multiple parties. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Could we split the question? I support the idea of making this a more democratic body, even if Wikipedia as a whole is not . However, I also respect the requests from other arbitrators not to infringe upon their domain. I would like to see some coordination between the AMA and such organizations, but as much as I would like to belong to a group that maintains an oligarchic hold on conflict resolution within the community, I would rather not aggrandize the scope of our duties as such. I wouldn't feel quite right voting for or against the proposal, and hope my request to vote on seperate parts of it is given due consideration. Respectfully, --BDD 02:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatted so that numbering would be intact Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) || and again, 04:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't agree with this thing under "application process" about all parties consenting: it doesn't matter whether or not all parties consent to one of the parties being represented by an AMA member. The only person who has to consent is the person who is seeking representation (where consent is implicit). --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 22:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the only tasks which require consent are tasks 1 and 2 (Mediation and Neutral Evaluation). That requirement is not applicable to Advocacy and Appeals. The idea is that mediation or neutral evaluation would be futile if not all disputing parties wanted to negotiate in this way. Izehar 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who are also arbitrators

I have some ideas, but I would like to know for sure: what is the rationale for this? – ClockworkSoul 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is to avoid conflict of interest. If an arbitrator supports one side of a dispute and then that case is brought to arbitration then than arbitrator would have to rescue. Rescuing, means that the ArbCom has less expertese and diversity of opinion - we want to avoid that. Izehar 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment

As an Arbitrator, I obviously have an interest in the possibility that the AMA might someday be of some use. Unfortunately, the AMA has a very poor reputation -- I have heard my fellow Arbitrators comment many times that "No AMA advocate has ever been in any way helpful on any case ever", and in the cases I've been personally involved in which had an AMA advocate, the advocate has been at best worthless and at worst obstructionary and irritating. (There have been helpful advocates, but none of them were AMA members.)

So, with that background out of the way, I look forward to a revitalization of the AMA, converting it into a useful entity that will prove helpful in the dispute resolution process. Unfortunately, I think the "instruction creep" that is laid out in the above proposals will do nothing to further that. Rather, I think you people need to think about what makes an effective advocate in the Wikipedia community, and try to select members who have those characteristics. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that you've figured out what those characteristics are (don't worry, neither have I). But I think writing a bunch of procedural folderol for elections and dismissals and such not is not the right first step toward that. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of anyone ever complaining about AMA advocates being "obstructionary and irritating". If this is so, then perhaps this organization should be disbanded. It was never meant to be a policing organization or yet another arm of the Wikipedia bureaucracy. It was meant to be a place were people who were anti-bureacracy could help other individuals, not become self styled "Wikipedia lawyers-in-waiting". As the first elected coordinator I tried to get people interesting in having conferences and discussion the work of an advocate, but this does not seem to interest people who are interested in having their names listed as being members of a group but who don't really want to work at improving the group. I also agree with you Kelly, the way to improve it is not to have yet another reorganization. Reminds me of what they say about Canadians when they die and go to heaven (and I can say this because I am a Canadian), they organize a conference. Never really want to do anything, just want to discuss it. I think this organization should be disbanded, if people want to start yet another group, fine, but don't add it to the mantle of a disfunctional group, just start your own. Alex756 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I was also a bit taken aback by Kelly's comment and am wondering which ArbCom members she talked to! I received several private messages from ArbCom members during my cases that I was doing a very good job. I think there is an important component of assisting on Arb cases for those who are not experienced in them, I think this task of "lawyers-in-waiting" was taken on as a response to the District Attorney's Office which went on to become The Association of Member Investigations. I think Alex is right though and we need to get back to our roots and what this group is supposed to be about, not take on additional tasks when we already have issues. --Wgfinley 01:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wgfinley, your service as an advocate before the ArbCom was before my tenure on the Committee, and it may not have been noticed that you were an AMA member by the Committee at the time. It has also occured to me that one or more of the effective advocates may have actually been members of the AMA, but they never presented themselves as such. On the other hand, whenever we (the ArbCom) see someone pop up in an RfAr as "so-and-so's Advocate from the AMA" we all groan, knowing that what will come next is a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or a redundant cross-filing, or some other procedural annoyance that will ultimately come to nothing but which will force us to deal with extra noise that adds nothing to the Arbitration process.

A useful advocate, from the ArbCom's perspective (or at least my perspective, as a member of the ArbCom), will refrain from "wikilawyering", and will instead present a consistent and coherent explication of the evidence that demonstrates that his client should not be censured, or that his client's nemesis should be censured, or both. Advocates should also assist in the Arbitration process by proposing reasonable principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement measures on the workshop page of the arbitration case. Special attention should be given to writing principles which reflect our core values and which can stand universally as precedent; findings of fact should be specific to the case, be supported by evidence (generally, edit diffs), and should only be offered to the extent that they are required to justify a remedy or enforcement. Advocates should avoid arguing directly with the other parties of the case (at least on the Arbitration page) as that just tends to make the arbitration pages longer and more fractious. Advocates are strongly encouraged to control their clients and to encourage them to refrain from posting in the arbitration itself. (In the most recent case I dealt with that involved an advocate, the party made far more posts to the arbitration pages than the advocate did. I was sorely tempted at the end of that case to recommend a remedy forbidding that advocate from representing any person before the Arbitration Committee for a period of one year.)

I can't speak for what sort of representation would be helpful to the Mediation Committee or the Mediation Cabal. It would behoove this organization to find out what these other bodies in the dispute resolution process would find most helpful from an advocate representing someone involved in their processes, and seek to develop methods to help deliver those services to the betterment of the community, and thereby the encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this proposal is to stop the group being dysfunctional by laying down:

• What we do;
• How we do it;
• How our services may be obtained;
• How we work; and
• To establish a few membership rules.

IMO a bit of red tape is necessary here. If one were to check the requests page it would become abundantly clear that the people who need our services have no idea what this association is and the fact that no advocates respond indicates that most advocates, on joining, had no idea what would be expected of them. Now, assuming this passes, everyone will know what we do, how we do it etc. Most requests are complaints of abusive behaviour with newbie expectations of immediate bans - advocates cannot help with that kind of thing. All we can do is help resolve disputes. This proposal emerged after lengthy discussions and detailed examination of each clause, in an attempt to revive this association. We had become stuck in a rut and very few, if any, members actually accepted any requests. If anyone can think of a better way than the above proposal, let's hear it. This is the best I (and a few other members) can think of. Izehar 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I served for some months with the Mediation Cabal before becoming an Arbitrator. MedCab provides several of the same services that you're proposing to provide, without the organizational structure. The problem, as I see it, with having a lot of organizational structure is that you get status-seekers joining for the sake of being a member, without any committment to the function of the organization. The MedCab avoids this largely by having no membership requirements, and thus there is no status to gain by joining.

If you want my opinion, you should scrap all membership rules, allow open membership, and concentrate on providing resources for members and the community. The way you avoid the problem with people asking for things they can't have is to have clear resources that explain to people what they can have. The reason you have members who don't respond to requests is that many of them joined for status, rather than to help, or because they don't know how to help; you eliminate the first by taking away the status and the second by teaching them how to help (note: teach, not tell; there's a difference). But that's just my opinion.

I'd really like it if an effective organization of advocates -- one that the ArbCom can rely on -- were available, for those cases where one party or the other really does need an advocate (an unfortunately common occurrence). How about helping out Wikipedia by creating that organization? Kelly Martin (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A note re. proposed branching into mediation

Dear AMA Members: I've been maintaining the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal for some months now, after having taken it over from User:Kim Bruning, and indeed, recently the Mediation Cabal has become fully functional and effective in performing informal mediation. Our primary purpose is to provide mediation assistance where it is requested, not "accepting" or "rejecting" requests but rather providing help where requested. We don't actually have any formal process, nor do we have any kind of fixed mandate, which means our mediators have quite a free rein to do what they think is best for those asking for help from us.

Really, our primary role here has been to try to staunch issues before they get to a point where they require official intervention, and provide a friendly hand to assist in cases where required. I invite members of the AMA to take a look at this initiative; you will notice that we are indeed alive and well, as Kelly points out, and handling cases. Personally I think we should avoid duplicating each other's efforts; the Mediation Cabal can't really provide the services of an advocate, and likewise the role of an advocate is not the same as an informal mediator. We are so informal that we don't even have a selection or joining process for prospective mediators - people just help out.

Thus, I respectfully recommend that the AMA not branch into informal mediation, simply because the Mediation Cabal and the AMA will otherwise end up duplicating each other's work rather than focusing on our individual areas of expertise. Indeed, the provision of advocates is I believe absolutely essential to the course of dispute resolution, and I feel that the AMA would do far better to allocate their resources towards building a proper system for the request of user advocates and implementing that system to make advocates available to all members. I believe that many disputes, even some being actively mediated, would greatly benefit from advocates being readily available to provide advice and support to users involved in active disputes. It is always best, I feel, for Wikipedia initiatives to concentrate specifically on a single focus - especially with dispute resolution - and that is what I have done my best to maintain on the Mediation Cabal. I thus highly recommend that the AMA do likewise.

If there is any way I can assist the AMA further, please do not hesistate to ask.

Best regards,

--NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Coordinator, The Mediation Cabal - WP:MEDCAB

I fully agree with what Nicholas said above. Bonaparte talk 07:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)