Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive 2

message: This is not a question, but seeing no specific place for such a comment, I chose this one. I am voluntarily offering my resignation from the Association of Members' Advocates. I do not make this decision lightly, but on the basis of an ongoing dispute with a rather contentious member of Wikipedia, of whose predilection to combativeness I was aware before choosing to stir the pot with him. If I am unable to resist rising to the bait in this case, I quite frankly do not feel I would serve another member well in a similar situation. Perhaps in another, more mature incarnation, I can assist here. Thank you to those who supported me.
Denni 21:42, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)
:See my comment on Denni's talk page. — ©    Alex756   16:59, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: If you want to address a question to AMA post it in this section

message: I would like to request assistance in Wik's attempt to get me banned, should it make it through. Wik's "Request". In my experience with him I've found he is unwilling to negotiate, and I do not wish to deal with him. Jor 20:16, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: If you want help with a dispute post it in this section, on a member's talk page or via email

message: My Fellow Advocates,
I believe we have a sufficient number of Advocate-Members to commence a discussion on the procedures of this office, so therefore I should like to comment on what is to be determined. This office, established by the Learned Advocate Alex756, seems at present to be unofficial and unrecognized. Therefore, I humbly submit that the Office apply to the Committees for recognition. Also, insofarasmuch as the rules of this Office are concerned, I find that the following ought to be addressed:
*The official relationship between the Office and the Committees.
*The role each Committee will have in establishing rules of the Office.
*The role and title of the coordinator (perhaps "Director" would be more suited).
*The number of coordinators. (If the Office grows, it would become more difficult for a single coordinator to coordinate all Advocates.)
*The procedures of Advocacy. (This last should be determined after the Arbitrators at least an outline of their plan.)
*Advocacy during the Emergency sessions of the Arbitration Committee.
-- Emsworth 23:20, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
My dear Advocate and Lord Elmsworth, regarding recognition: I put a plea on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee policy page at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Can members have representation?. We are awaiting an answer. In regards to mediation this might be more flexible and I have made a statement about our potential role there at: Wikipedia:Mediation#Advocates regarding the consensual nature of assistance that we are offering other members. Perhaps certain members can make inquiries amongst members of the Committees to determine if they may be receptive to "official" recognition of our status, though I imagine that our efforts to be of real assistance to various members will demonstrate the validity of our endeavors to all concerned.
Insofar as the the other rules of this Office are concerned we should have a meeting in the near future to discuss this so a proposal can be put forward for our own Bylaws or "Rules of the Association of Advocates". We should also have a charter that demonstrates our high principles. Regarding a Coordinator or Director it would be a good idea to have an operating committee that can delegate group responsiblities or be an oversight body if we get more members. For now I suggest consensus as a good way to develop a collegial atmosphere amongst the volunteer Advocates.  As always, your humble and obedient servant... — Alex756  talk 01:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out, the concept of an unofficial Office is problematic. Furthermore, I question whether it is necessary to have an official organization, rather than simply providing this page as a resource for people who want an advocate. I would just call it Member Advocates. --Michael Snow 21:13, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rules

message: There is at present an emergency session of the Arbitration Committee on the Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health, which I point out in case any one is interested in advocating either side. -- Emsworth 02:24, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
:It would seem reasonable that if an Advocate is interesting in helping they should contact either M-N-H or TK and see if they are interested in any assistance from the OMA or any of its members.  — Alex756  talk 09:06, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Emergency Session

message: I agree that people should not act as advocates while they serve on the arbitration committee. Also, while it may be appropriate to encourage mediators to also be advocates, I feel some points need to be addressed, to preserve the integrity of the conflict resolution process. For your consideration, I suggest:
#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 before the arbitration committee in a case where the user has previously acted as a mediator.
#When participating in mediation, users who are both advocates and mediators should state clearly in which capacity they are acting.
It's not a problem yet, and probably all of us would follow similar guidelines instinctively. Still, I think it's valuable to develop some ethical standards that can be expected of member advocates. --Michael Snow 21:13, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the above ethical guidelines, and request that further guidelines (as well as our status, official or non) be proposed and discussed forthwith. Sam Spade 03:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethical issues

message: I'm not sure how many of our "association" are actively following this discussion, but I think Sam is right that we need to move along with it. The following is a proposal; I have tried to break down the details into separate points. Feel free to respond to or vote on each point separately, rather than the entire proposal.
#Remove the appearance of official status, and rename the page "Member Advocates". (I don't see what purpose being an Office serves above and beyond simply being a resource. I also think the possessive plural form is unnecessary for a general name.)
#Adopt all of the ethical guidelines suggested in the section above, and post them on the page.
#Post information for users who want the services of an advocate, specifically:
##Instruct them to contact directly any advocate whose services they want.
##They may ask for the assistance of an advocate at any stage of a dispute, not just arbitration.
##State that the nature and scope of assistance depends on consultation between the advocate and user.
##Point out that the advocate does not have to agree to represent them.
##Point out that due to the open nature of Wikipedia, we cannot guarantee that advocate communications with user-clients will have any degree of confidentiality.
#Remove the link to "Request Assistance" as unnecessary, since users will contact advocates directly.
#Postpone any discussion of having a coordinator. (I see nothing to coordinate right now. The only thing I would expect is if the arbitration committee wanted to have advocates assigned to participate in certain cases.)
I also have one more possible ethical guideline to offer, but I'm not sure if it would be desirable. "When acting as advocates on Wikipedia, rather than in a personal capacity, advocates should disclose this fact." Thoughts and criticisms are welcome. I will leave my proposals open for a week to gather responses, then determine what action to take. --Michael Snow 07:17, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the thoughtful responses so far. Sam's point about leaving the ability to make a general request is an especially good point. I failed to consider that people might come here needing help, yet really have no idea how to go about selecting a particular advocate. So I concur with the reservations expressed about my own proposal. Incidentally, that now seems to me like the primary special function a coordinator would have, directing general requests to a suitable and willing advocate. On the informal poll, I like the sound of being a faculty, but I think it might confuse non-Scots into looking to us for general instruction. In any case, either Member or Members' must remain as a modifier, to make it clear what kind of Advocates we are. Beyond that, it doesn't matter much to me. --Michael Snow 04:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: No objection here. I still prefer Member Advocates to Members' Advocates, but maybe that's just my taste in things. --Michael Snow 00:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization, rules, other proposals

message: I created Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance to act to some extent in this capacity, but I don't see it as really the right place. I would like to hear discussion about where we will list our clients, and give some general progress reports in regards to their cases. Sam Spade 20:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of ongoing cases/member-client relationships 

message: user:plautus satire is temporarilly banned from Wikipedia, yet is likely to undergo arbitration. An advocate might help solve that difficulty of communication. Thanks. --user:MyRedDice
:I tried to assist platus, but found it needlessly confusing, and took the first opportunity to interpret him to be reliving me of my obligations. Sam Spade 02:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[user:plautus satire]]

message: I know that my official status in this unofficial association is that of "Member Emeritus" (gee that sounds impressive) but I thought I would propose a new rule. I also have done some work on the AMA FAQs and the Guide to Advocacy. I will continue to drop in at those places and look forward to the merciless editing skills of the fellows of the association. — Alex756  talk 06:05, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Newly proposed rules

message: Alex756 asked me to share my "real-life" experiences with meditation so I will add one thing, and I might share more later.  Mediation shouldn't be forced on people.  It doesn't always work, and it probably won't work if the two parties don't want to do mediaton. Perl 15:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thought 

message: I rolled back a comment that looked like trolling, but then decided that perhaps it was serious, so I rolled back to it.  Still, though, do the advocates want to give the impression that they oppose the so-called "tyranny of the sysops"?  I leave it in your hands to decide whether or not that language should stay on what is essentially "your" page. :) Jwrosenzweig 17:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "tyranny of the sysops"

message: I've had three people ask about my resignation from the AMA so I suppose I should try to explain.
The ridiculous additions by The Cave Troll were one part of the problem, but highlighted more problems - the lack of direction of the AMA, and the opportunity for trolling the AMA. I don't have time to deal with trolls right now, and if the AMA is going to attract them, I think I am best off out of it. 
The confusion of goals, highlighted by Cimon above, which presumably are what led to his resignation, are problematic. I thought this was just going to be a group of people who were willing to help those in mediation/arbitration to understand those processes, but other members seem to have wildly different ideas. Alex claims we are here to criticise the Arbitration Committee and Sam Spade thinks it is some position of authority with which he can threaten other users.  I disagree with both of these. 
Another problem is the obsession with legalese on this talk page, which I find highly off-putting. In my mind, the aim was to help those already confused by the over-legalistic procedures of mediation and arbitration, but seeing this talk page is going to make those users run a mile. 
I also didn't expect this to turn out so official-looking. Are we just helping people with the m/a process or are we putting ourselves up to be held accountable for not "winning cases" that we are helping with? I worry that the amount of formality here will lead users to thinking that the advocate is in some way responsible for their case, and they will therefore start complaining if arbitration does not turn out the way they wanted it to. I don't want to be held accountable for the outcomes of mediation or arbitration, and the current set up suggests that I would be. 
There are also signs that advocacy is being forced on users. It needs to be something people ask for, not just one person deciding that they are going to advocate, which is the impression I get from pages such as User:Sam Spade/Clients. 
The whole thing seems overly rules-based, which does not match what I was expecting the AMA to be. If it's just a matter of helping other users, then surely hard rules like "Advocates shall only communicate with consulting advocates" are completely unnecessary? I guess I just have different thoughts about what the AMA would actually be than others here. 
I realise I should have brought up these issues earlier but I'd been thinking for a while about what I should do and Cimon's resignation, Cave troll's bizarre additions to the page and Perl's opposition of me all on the same day led me to think it would better if I just resign for now. If anyone wants my unofficial, informal help on any matter related to mediation or arbitration, I am happy to give that, but not in any formalised or legalistic manner as the AMA seems to expect. 
Angela. 00:59, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
:This would only come from the mouth of a "tyrant of the sysops"!  Angela you should be ashamed of yourself! </humor></sarcasm></stupidcomment> Perl 01:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are in the process of becomming. Maybe you don't like how things are going, and maybe you don't want to be a part of changing things, but that doesn't mean they won't be better. I'm sorry you feel that I use this as "some position of authority with which he can threaten other users", and if that is a concensus, I should be the one resigning, not you. Clearly there are many issues that need work, and I hope Alex's return will assist us improving things. Lets all pull together and work on these concerns, before we abandon the idea, or worse allow it to degenerate. Sam Spade 02:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues I have with the AMA

message: *Opening: Association of Members' Advocates, Coordinator
*Qualifications required: No particular experience necessary, but you should probably join the AMA if you want to be the coordinator
*Job description: Connect users who request general advocate assistance with individual advocates who can represent them, co-ordinates policy discussion and maintains meta page
*Salary: Ha!
*Other perks in lieu of salary (such as power, authority, position of importance): Fancy title
*Term of service: Currently undetermined
*Duties would consist primarily of having AMA Requests for Assistance on your watchlist. When requests come in, you would then need to find a suitable advocate who is willing to work with that client, and put the two in contact with each other.
Anyone who would like to serve as coordinator may express interest below, and the AMA will make a selection. If nobody expresses interest, we may need to draft somebody. --Michael Snow 06:18, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominations would be fine as well. What I originally posted, and I see it's been tinkered with already, was only my notion of what the coordinator's role would be. I haven't used the IRC channel and don't expect to do so ever. There are already too many locations for Wikipedia-related discussions, and I don't want to add even more to the ones I already follow. See the poll at Wikipedia talk:Mailing lists#Poll: a better place for discussions?. --Michael Snow 16:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: AMA Coordinator

message: I found the below on User talk:User Advocate and thought it might be of benefit to the AMA:
:Avocat de la défense...c'est la traduction correcte ?
:Some definitions:
::Advocassie. Latin. French. The office of an advocate; advocacy.
::Advocate. v. To speak in favor of or defend by argument. To support, vindicate, or recommend publicly. n. One who assists, defends, or pleads for another. An assistant; advisor; a pleader of causes. 
::Advocati. Latin. In Roman law, patrons; pleaders; speakers.
::Advocatus. A pleader; a narrator. In the civil law, an advocate; one who managed or assisted in managing another's cause before a ... tribunal. Called also "patronus".
:— Alex756  talk 21:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: I think somebody should take the case, but not me since I don't know the process's or the circumstances very well. Sam Spade 04:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  168/mav  

message: User:Ugen64 added himself without a statement. Adding oneself could be acceptable, but I don't believe anyone should be allowed to join AMA without providing a statement. What do the rest of you think? Metasquares 02:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you believe this then you should change the policy (which ugen followed perfectly correctly) which currently reads "To join, add yourself to the list below. If you wish, you may add a *brief* statement of your reasons for joining."  fabiform | talk 02:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. When I joined, everything went through Alex. That must have been changed sometime, and I didn't notice. Apologies. Metasquares 02:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably could have answered more gently, or at least dropped a few smilies in, sorry. :)   fabiform | talk 02:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-added new user without a statement? 

message: at this rate it doesn't look like theres going to be much of an election. Are we getting any new contenders, or are ed and alex ready to square off, or what? Sam Spade 00:38, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That was originally written in as a measure to prevent the inconvenient situation of lacking a ballot counter, but a later idea made it obsolete. - Woodrow 02:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: did anybody see my request? Sam Spade 00:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'm considering acting on it, but I don't know much about the case. Give me a few days. - Woodrow 02:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance]] 

message: Just a comment; it appears that User:Secretlondon has left Wikipedia for the moment (which is a shame.) As such, should he still be on this list? -- Solipsist 12:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent partner