User:Pedant/AMA FAQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a work in progress, and represents my opinion only:

1. Is the advocate's activities supposed to be entirely public? (as in can I work out deals away via e-mail, not talk pages as to avoid flaming and whatnot)

Please excuse my long answers: You should be ready for public scrutiny of whatever you do "on wikipedia" of course, but... No, you don't have to have all your discussions with your client out in the open and it makes good sense to have private or semiprivate interviews with anyone involved or anyone who might give you insight. A lot of your research can be done by checking the history of whatever the problem is. The problem sometimes, is figuring out exactly what it is that your client is having a problem with, so it is sometimes necessary to have several discussions with the client to figure that out.

2. Is the advocate supposed to focus, in Arb cases, on the client's innocence, or is he free to look into the accusers?

I have never had anything go to arbitration. I would say though, that your job is easier in those cases as the arbitrator will likely guide the discussion, and all you need to do is present your client's side. Really the only thing an editor can be 'guilty' or 'innocent' of is bad faith. Any person whose intent is to create a better encyclopedia will be glad to help work out a reasonable solution. It really is a lot easier than it seems, all you need to know is that good communication is the key.

A client who is 'wrong' seems to be pretty common. They still deserve to not be beat up for it. Sometimes the very best you can do is help the discussion stay on track and focus on solutions rather than infinite argument. You just do the best you can to help however you can. You aren't obligated to continue as an advocate beyond what you can do, but so that the client doesn't get abandoned in the middle of the process it would be stellar of you to try to only take cases that you feel you can handle, as well as try to stick with it when it gets too tough, and ask for help if you need it.

As I understand it, (and this works well for me) as an advocate, your job is mainly to try to effectively achieve a solution to whatever the client thinks is the problem, but sometimes this might take the form of both advocating for your client, as well as advising your client that, (according to wikipedia traditions, customs policies and the overall intent of the community) that your client is in the wrong, or partly so, and in what way.

This should be done very gently and objectively, and with reference to appropriate policies and previous discussions. In this type of case the biggest problem can be that the client simply doesn't understand or disagrees. That is fine. In that case, you might consider that your job is to both educate the client as to why they might need to bend a little, and at the same time to try to represent to the other parties the most reasonable understandable version of your understanding of your client's intent and reasoning.

3. Do advocates ever go up against each other?

I'm sure they do. Again, as an advocate, your main job is to present your client's side of the issue as reasonably and accurately as you can, and your secondary job is to help your client understand their "opponent's" view. It can oftentimes seem as if an advocates only job is to translate into English what is said in English. It should make no difference that a client is represented by an advocate. It is still the same thing, with the added advantage that both parties have someone reasonable to help facilitate the discussion. Remember the two 'sides' are not opponents, rather they are colleagues working towards the same goal.

4. Are there any things you've learned in hindsight that you can save me from? :D]

Yep.

1)don't sweat it, don't get personally wrapped up in a case, or emotional or frustrated. Everything can work out with patience and good faith discussion.

2)treat everyone as if they are well paid and qualified editors, all working towards the same goal (this really helps me)

3)"please"; "I'm sorry"; "thanks very much"; and all the rest of the niceties of social interaction go a long way to helping you be understood. Use them like magic fairy dust anywhere they fit.

4)just as your client has asked for help and advice, it's okay for you as an advocate to ask for help.

5) This one might be very very helpful: I always copy all correspondence with my client to a text file and save it somewhere. It could get huge and it will be helpful to have it somewhere where its not being "mercilessly edited" when you want to keep track of what your client said.

6) this is I think the most important: your client could be wrong, in which case they still deserve their position to be advocated, but they don't deserve to 'win' and it isn't your job to help them 'win' but merely to advocate their position accurately. No rule is set in stone, and if the client is wrong (according to the rules) and the rules are wrong (see WP:IAR) maybe it works out that by being wrong, the client has actually improved wikipedia by helping to clarify rules or change them. Remember there are thousands of us here and with that many people working on it, even a case that blows up and turns into world war 4 can work out if you assume good faith, have patience, and stay calm. Just do the best you can, and ask for help if you need it.