Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive 3

message: 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? - 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)
thread_title:  Outreach? 

message: I've improved the  template by putting the 'orphaned' AMA pages in it. Do you like it? --Neigel von Teighen 23:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea. Makes sure every page is accessible. — ©    Alex756   19:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved the navigation menu 

message: 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 . gK ¿? 10:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A suggestion for a summary page of Arbitration Committee decisions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  COMMENT: Ineffective and unresponsive? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: why? jguk 22:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Eliminating legalese

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just Signed Up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spade detective agency 

message: 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)
thread_title:  increasing awareness 

message: 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 .  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)
thread_title:  I could use some help in an attempt to fix the Adminstrator culture of abuse 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Is This Wikiproject Dead?

message: ===Tasks undertaken by the AMA===
#Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties reach their own solution to their dispute)
#Conciliation (initially like Informal Mediation but if that fails, then the added feature of proposing solutions to disputes)
#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")
#Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
#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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Sounds fine. Izehar (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Izehar's proposal

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Coordination

message: There are 3 issues on hand, as I see them: 
#if there should be a committee
#who should be able to vote regarding this, and 
#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)
thread_title: 3 issues

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Amendment proposals

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Advocates nearly never agree 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: ===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:
#Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties reach their own solution to their dispute)
#Conciliation (initially like Informal Mediation but if that fails, then the added feature of proposing solutions to disputes)
#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")
#Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
#Appeals (to blocks and/or ArbCom decisions)
----
Comments please... Izehar (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Amended application process proposal 

message: *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:
#Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties reach their own solution to their dispute)
#Conciliation (initially like Informal Mediation but if that fails, then the added feature of proposing solutions to disputes)
#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")
#Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
#Appeals (to blocks and/or ArbCom decisions)
----
Comments please... Izehar (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Application process

message: The tasks are:
#Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties reach their own solution to their dispute)
#Conciliation (initially like Informal Mediation but if that fails, then the added feature of proposing solutions to disputes)
#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")
#Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
#Appeals (to blocks and/or ArbCom decisions)
----
Comments please... Izehar (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Annex

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How's this?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Coordination

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: ===Tasks undertaken by the AMA===
#Informal Mediation (helping disputing parties find a solution to their dispute)
#Neutral Evaluation (stating an opinion on a particular scenario)
#Advocacy in RfArs and RfCs (speaking on behalf of a user)
#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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

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

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Red tape and the tyrrany of the group 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reforms?  How about working the requests page? 

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

text: Sitting in there now...Kurt Weber 00:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IRC]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remove [[User:Missionary|Missionary]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm back!! 

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

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