Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This WikiProject is believed to be inactive.

If you are not currently a member of the project, please consider joining it to help.

Otherwise, we apologize in advance for our error should your project be active.

If you are looking for advocacy, consider looking for it at the Association of Member's Advocates

This page will never be Wikipedia policy. It is, by design, entirely informal.

The Advocate Cabal is actually a real initiative, set up to provide informal advocate services to Wikipedians involved in disputes. Despite the slightly tongue-in-cheek nature down here - as with other Wikipedia cabals - we are actually here to help, as well as to hopefully provide a slightly lighter perspective on the matter.

Shortcut: WP:TINAC WP:ADVCAB

We are the Advocate Cabal - or maybe we aren't; one never can be sure with cabals. This text is, in fact, a figment of your imagination, and there is no cabal. (Well actually, of course, we're just kidding; we are here to help you, and do actually exist). Sound familiar? If so, probably that's because this initiative is based on the Mediation Cabal informal mediation initiative.

[edit] The lowdown

An advocate is basically someone who works on your behalf to help you resolve a dispute. Whereas a mediator (for instance, someone from the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee) is intended to be neutral, and acts to work between two parties, an advocate works on your side only to resolve a dispute. This means that, instead of working on the basis of a mutual agreement, the advocate basically represents you in the conflict and assists you in resolving the dispute with the other person; they are able to evaluate on your behalf, and are not expected to be neutral like mediators.

The Association of Members Advocates (AMA) is another Wikipedia organisation offering advocates; the difference between the AMA and this initiative is that they have a very formal structure, and operate according to strictly defined processes and procedures. They also have a very formal membership methodology, with voting on decisions, elections, etc. The Advocate Cabal, on the other hand, has no fixed process, no rules, and no structure - indeed, we don't even have any formal members aside from the Coordinator, and anyone who wishes to help out as an informal advocate simply just does so.

[edit] Getting an advocate to help you

[edit] If you can edit Wikipedia

Add a new section under Requests, just briefly describing your request. Essays really aren't necessary, please keep it as short and snappy as possible. Make sure you cover the following:

What's up?
Who's involved?
How would you like an advocate to help?
How can the advocate contact you?

That really is all there is to it! :)

[edit] If you can't edit Wikipedia

Drop an e-mail to nicholas (dot) turnbull (at) gmail (dot) com, removing the munging, and Nicholas (the Coordinator) will add the request here. Please cover the points above, as with posting on this page.

[edit] Being a Cabal advocate

"In New York, you always want a cabal to help you. In Soviet Russia, the cabal always wants YOU to help it!"

That didn't really work, actually, but you get the idea. We really want your help, if you're willing to be a cabal advocate. :)

[edit] How to help out

Put this page on your watchlist, by clicking the "watch" tab at the top of this page, so you'll notice when new cases are added here and when other changes are made.
There's no members list at all, you just help out if and when you like. Pick a case that you'd like to work on, and drop the user a message, via the user's specified contact method, to say you'll help out.
Make a note to say you're dealing with it if you like, but even that's optional.

[edit] How to be an advocate

There's a quick tutorial at Wikipedia:Advocate Cabal/5-minute advocate tutorial which you might want to read if you're new to advocate work on Wikipedia.

The Coordinator is Nicholas Turnbull, who can help you out if you need any information or guidance.

[edit] Requests

[edit] Talk:UGOPlayer

For months now, I have been trying to keep the article in a form that contains sections about certain things, such as a section on the site, another on the forums, and a third section on how to submit work. It has been rigorous, going on since January, and I am getting really really tired trying to debate this on my own. I need help. The users involved in this are myself, who may also be seen as USER:sbloemeke and USER:Fagstein. That was all there was inside it until USER:Steve block came involved a couple days ago. I am requesting assistance just as someone else to argue my side with me, and to provide advice where/when needed. I can be contacted by my user page (The IP one), or at sbloemeke2@yahoo.com68.192.25.106 17:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Roman Catholic Church

I am involved in a large dispute over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. I formally requested to move the article to Catholic Church. There is a supermajority against my position. You can see my explanation of why I feel the vote has been unfair here. I would just like to get advice from an advocate via my talk page. Thanks. --Hyphen5 02:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal rapid transit

The Wikipedia mediation/arbitration process isn't clear to me.

I don't have a lot of time to learn the complicated system you have to resolve disputes at Wikipedia.

I am mentioned by name in the Wikipedia personal rapid transit article and attacked by name on the PRT Talk page and my Talk page and other Wikipedia pages by anonymous authors.

This is what those anonymous authors have said about me:

"You're on crack." [1]

"Avidor's psychotic interjections " [2]

"Unreasonable, destructive, irrational, unwilling to debate changes. This is Avidor's history on Wikipedia"

"...his actions are based in mental illness rather than reason."

One of these anonymous accusers has made these statements about me to mediators:

"So now you're bowing out ,eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is. "

[3]

"Avidor is an 'extremist'."

[4]

Why do you allow anonymous authors to post this stuff?

Like John Seigenthaler Sr., I think I deserve to have a chance to clear my name and have this dispute resolved as quickly as possible.

Who at Wikipedia is accountable? Who is in charge?

Thank you,

Ken Avidor Avidor 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Avidor neglected to mention that he is the aggressor in this conflict, repeatedly calling Wikipedia users "cultists" because they happened to edit the Personal rapid transit article. Go look at the history. Now that Avidor has been threatened with being banned, he's playing the victim in an attempt to clear his name. Don't fall for it.

By the way, most of the anonymous edits were me. I didn't always log in, but I never tried to hide my identity. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)