Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 While unsigned text has been revised to reflect the name change, outdated references in messages have been left unchanged.

see also: /Archive 1 and /Archive 2

Contents 1 New election? 2 Outreach? 3 Improved the navigation menu 4 Call for election 4.1 Delegation of authority 5 AMA logo (not very important, anyway) 6 Tallying the votes, when they come 7 Leaving the AMA 8 A suggestion for a summary page of Arbitration Committee decisions 9 Negotiation 10 COMMENT: Ineffective and unresponsive? 11 Association of Member Investigations

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. Example (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. Example (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. Example (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. Example (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*.

Example (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 ;) Example (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. Example (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)