Wikipedia talk:Association of Member Investigations/Archive 1

message: I really like this idea, although I hate the name (sorry Snowspinner). Lately I had been thinking of proposing something similar to this because I thought that it was a missing piece in the Wikipedia dispute process. However the model that I was thinking of, rather than being like a US-style District Attorney or even Attorney General, was something more on the line of the type of Investigating judge or Investigating magistrate that some European countries have (for example, Spain's Baltasar Garzón). I think that this would be in better keeping with WikiSpirit, since it is based upon an inquisitorial system, rather than an adversarial system. Perhaps a better title might be "Office of Investigations" or "Office of Wikipedia Investigations". BlankVerse ∅  10:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I see your point, and it's a good one. I had concieved of the primary function being dealing with arbcom cases, but you're probably right that the current name is too adversarial. I'll mull on it while I travel over the next few days. If you feel like it, go ahead and change the name on me. :) Snowspinner 13:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
I ran across a link to the DAO by coincidence on Blankfaze's user page.  I think what you're doing here is (in general) a good idea, but I have some qualms about the same.  'District Attorney's Office' (or BlankVerse's suggested 'Office of Wikipedia Investigations') might seem to imply some sort of official sanction or formal, policy-based authority.  I unfortunately can't offer any specific suggestions, beyond 'The firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe'. :)  --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Great idea

message: The inability of secular authority in matters spiritual being well known, I have constituted the Sacred Office of the Inquisition to deal with the pernicious and widespread problem of heresy. Please see Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition for details. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacred Office of the Inquisition 

message: I think it would be better all round if Snowspinner...considered why what he is doing is thankless...
:::jguk 20:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Lone Ranger|"Thank you, Masked Man!"]]

message: #Calton | Talk 01:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Thank you, Masked Man!'''

message: This page seems to be proposing (or establishing) an Association, but doing so terms that make it less than clear whether it's that, plain and simple; humour; or an official Wikipedia body or policy (the term "Office" being for me highly problematic in that regard).  Can I suggest (a second go at) a page move?  Alai 08:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office, or Association? 

message: Under what provision of Wikipedian guidelines or tradition does a group of users empower themselves to be a secret police? OK, not that secret? How about Hitler Jugend. It is also improper to describe any voluntary grouping of members as an "Office," which implies, especially to the non-involved, an official organ. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely Invalid 

message: Upon further advice that I think is well-taken, I've moved it to Association of Investigations. That said, I'm now irritated that it suggests the investigations comprise the members instead of the people volunteering. But I don't like Association of Investigators, because, well, I'm not an investigator. I'm a Wikipedian who's willing to look into disputes to see if there are signs of a real problem. Further comments welcome. No reason not to move it through even more pages. Snowspinner 23:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
*"Association of Investigations" sounds awkward to me... like it's a group of investigations... Anyhow, I figure if we intend to counterpart the AMA, then a counterpartish name would work well... so "Association of Member Investigations"? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Rename

message: I made an addition shortly after the page was protected... I didn't notice it was, and reverted myself as soon as I did.  Anyhow, I'd like to see if we can agree to insert it.
The passage is meant to establish up front the aims and purpose of the organisation:
:The Association of Member Investigations is a volunteer organisation which was created to assist Wikipedians in investigating disputes and compiling requests and complaints to be used in the various steps of dispute resolution.  The AMI is meant to be a resource for users who are having a conflict with another user but to whom the task of compiling an RfC or ArbCom case seems daunting.
Thoughts? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work - it eliminates any confusion as to what the organisation is about, and makes even more abundantly clear that this is not some form of "sekrit police". Ambi 06:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't have any problem with adding that as an introduction. However, it makes the AMI sound increasingly less distinct from the stated purposes of the AMA, and the possibility of confusion between the two is an issue JamesMLane raised above. I'd still like to hear articulated why the two can't be housed under one roof. I gather that there may be some reluctance to do this, but so far the suggestions to merge into the AMA have simply been ignored, so I can't tell whether the idea is opposed, why it might be opposed, or who opposes it. With a lack of response from one side, it's impossible to even discuss the issue. --Michael Snow 06:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd refer you to Ambi's comments below: We have the AMA to defend people before the ArbCom - a prosecutorial office is the natural counterpart to this, and I'm not the only arbitrator to be fully in support of this measure. Ambi 01:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The AMA does not exist solely for the purpose of defending people in arbitration; that's a skewed perspective created by recent arbitration cases that have included advocate participation. The AMA gets requests both from people who want assistance defending themselves, and also quite often from people complaining about the actions of others. As I mentioned above, I'm an original AMA member, and I've done in the past exactly what the AMI apparently plans to do. I didn't make a point of identifying myself that way, but that's because the role depends on community support, not membership in a particular association. --Michael Snow 08:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps the AMA is drifting away from its original function.  Either way I think that there should be some organisation to do this sort of work, and I think it should probably be a separate entity. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In what sense is the AMA drifting?  I always assumed that it responded to the requests it received, so the composition of its work might change from month to month depending on what sort of requests happen to come in.  Is it alleged that people with complaints hesitate to seek the AMA's help because it's perceived as "defense-oriented"?  Can you elaborate on why there should be separate entities?  The AMA is more like a bar association than a law firm, so there shouldn't be a problem even if, in a particular arbitration proceeding, one AMA member is helping the complainant while another represents the respondent. JamesMLane 08:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition I'd like to make 

message: I just wanted to echo Ambi's comments from the VfD. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong keep. We have the AMA to defend people before the ArbCom - a prosecutorial office is the natural counterpart to this, and I'm not the only arbitrator to be fully in support of this measure. Ambi 01:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambi's comments