Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Talk about the AMA should go here:

I've added a text to Wikipedia:Mediation#Advocates and have decided to start a Wikipedia:Guide to Advocacy where that text is posted. Comments, changes, suggestions are greatly appreciated by OMA members and others. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 16:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Purpose of the Association section

There's a lack of parallelism in this list. Item (b) is easily fixed by removing 'to' from its beginning, but (c) doesn't seem to fit the list conceptually. It sounds like it should be outside the list, but perhaps Alex meant something slightly different? --Spikey 18:31, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the syntax. Hopefully that does make sense now... — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 23:13, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Choosing an advocate

How do people go about choosing an advocate? Should there be something about which areas which people would prefer to deal with? Does someone choose an advocate, or do they just ask for one here, and then one of the members volunteers to take on the case? Angela. 23:09, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've started drafting some suggestions on the Wikipedia:OMA FAQs page. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 01:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where to discuss

Would it be useful to have a message board set up for this like the mediation and arbitration committees have? Angela. 00:01, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes that would be a great place for us to organize meetings (can we do that in a chat room or on IRC?) — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 01:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contact info

Shouldn't contact and irc info go on the main OMA page? Or is it cleaner to keep it here? --Spikey 19:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe a separate page just of members contact info? — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 01:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you want to address a question to AMA post it in this section

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)

If you want help with a dispute post it in this section, on a member's talk page or via email

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)


I am hoping to convince Kevin Baas that reverting my talk page to his personal liking is not polite. I have offered alternatives re. where we could discuss issues, and have also offered a policy of non-confrontation. He seems amenable to neither. Denni 21:32, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

List of members talk pages, email or chat addresses

There is also an Association of Members' Advocates IRC channel at #ama.wikipedia on the Freenode network.

The Rules

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 01:00, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My Learned Fellow Advocate, I humbly suggest that we then determine the location of such a meeting or discussion: the venues available seem to be the talk page, the open message boards (as the Mediators have done) or electronic mail (as the Arbitrators have done); I advocate the use of the message boards. Yours, &c -- Emsworth 01:11, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

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)

Emergency Session

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 09:06, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Scope of arbitrators' power

I would also like to point out the statement by the arbitrators on the source of their power Wikipedia:Matter of Theresa knott and Mr-Natural-Health#Clarifications by arbitrators in the above cited case file.

I would like to clarify one point for anyone who may be confused. Arbitration, unlike mediation, does not have to be consensual. Thus, our right to arbitrate this case comes from its direct referral by Jimbo Wales: not from Theresa Knott, and not from Mr. Natural Health. Martin 18:32, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. I don't really agree that it is not consensual. We as Wikpedians are a community, arbitration should be a consensual process that comes from community statements. It is called "binding arbitration" because once you voluntarily submit to the will of the community (which is consensual) then you give up your right to object, as long as the process is fair. Arbitration is not a legal system and despite my tongue in cheek statements this is not an autocracy. See Wikipedia:Writ of Wikimedius. The bylaws specifically give the authority to overturning or recognizing arbitration to be within the power of the Board, not just the Chair of the Board (Jimbo) meta:Board of Trustees, see Article III, § 4.4 [1]. It also states that the Disciplinary Board should be appointed by the whole Board of Trustees, not by Jimbo alone. See Article V, § 2, ibid.

Is there any consensus that we should try and make a representation to the Arbitration Committee about the source of their authority and clarify the scope of Jimbo's referral power? I know that this "Emergency Session" power is an interim thing but there is also supposed to be an election within ninety days of the adoption of the bylaws to elect two other members to the board to represent members concerns, these two directors should be people with whom we can work as an association to keep Wikipedia's rules fair and responsive to community needs. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 09:06, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely not! I will resist the very enunciation of a wish to form such a consensus to the utmost of every fiber of my being! Not only will I continue to resist the tendency to form the mediation committee to a political body; if this Office of Members' Advocates tries to constitute itself as a political actor, I will not only resign immediately, but will pledge publicly an implaclable opposition to its continuance. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:38, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but could Alex reword the question? Perhaps translate into Simple English? I really don't understand what your're asking... --Spikey 13:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Forgive me butting in here, but I think there's a bit of misunderstanding. The Arbitration Process on Wikipedia is consensual with regard to all Wikipedians as opposed to those being Arbitrated. In other words, because the Arbitration Process has the blessing of "Wikipedia" in the abstract, this gives it jurisdiction over individual Wikipedians. Otherwise any individual trollWikipedian (not naming anyone in particular obviously :-) could just say "I don't consent to being Arbitrated" and that would be that. --Phil 13:56, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Phil for stating that. I am wonder what Cimon Avaro is objecting to, it is not clear. Is Cimon (Jussi-Ville) stating that sie believes that we cannot have a position about a issue of policy that differs from the opinions of the "Official Bodies". I do not understand why not? Isn't this what advocates are for, to review the evidence and try to argue for a particular position? I think that coming to a consensus about an mis-interpretation of how the Arbitration Committee sees itself will protect Wikipedians not be an exercise of arbitrary political lobbying. What we are talking about here is rational argumentation that can be used to get people to be reasonable, fair, responsive and willing to listen to alternative points of view rather than their arrogant self appointed ideas of power. I see nothing about that which is political — it is dealing with official power and attempting to see that it is excersised fairly and that the people who are exercising it do so in a manner that treats all Wikipedians equally under the principles enumerated by various international human rights instruments, etc.. I really don't know what Heiskanen is getting in a huff about, perhaps sie could restate hir opinion in Simple English; or consider resigning from an association due to a belligerent, negative attitude about what advocacy is all about. I should state the saying that Wikipedians do not have the right of freedom of association is not an attitude an Advocate can have; if the others disagree that is their right. Such a statement about one's intention to destroy a voluntary association is anathema to principles that allow this group to exist. Thanks. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 02:41, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is that I hold that enunciating a dissensus (barring shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater) is a right even more precious to those beloved of liberty, than freedom of association. (You will have to wait a bit for a more detailed response.) -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 13:20, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

The part I really don't understand is the tendency to form the mediation committee to a political body. What does this mean? When was this brought up? --Spikey 18:14, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I find the entire above communication betwixt Avaro and Alex to be essentially incomprehensible, and perhaps even nonsensical. I heartily request that they both restate their positions in as clear and concise a manner as possible, for the good of all concerned (including themselves ;). Sam Spade 03:06, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a party of the first part. I think all discussion here should be standard English, and the use of legalese, unless absolutely essential, should be punishable by having the offender's vowel keys removed for thirty days. Thnk tht shld kp t dwn. Denni 20:43, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

Ethical issues

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:

  1. A user should decline to act as mediator in a case where the user has previously acted as an advocate.
  2. A user should decline to act as advocate before the arbitration committee in a case where the user has previously acted as a mediator.
  3. 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)

I completely concur with the guidelines suggested by Mr Snow. I also beg to propose the following:

  1. In order to avoid the appearance of bias, 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.

-- Emsworth 22:57, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

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)

I am in full agreement that guidelines ought to be in place before they need to be referred to, and Michael's recommendations are an excellent start. Horse, barn door, etc. Denni 20:47, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

Organization, rules, other proposals

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.

  1. 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.)
  2. Adopt all of the ethical guidelines suggested in the section above, and post them on the page.
  3. Post information for users who want the services of an advocate, specifically:
    1. Instruct them to contact directly any advocate whose services they want.
    2. They may ask for the assistance of an advocate at any stage of a dispute, not just arbitration.
    3. State that the nature and scope of assistance depends on consultation between the advocate and user.
    4. Point out that the advocate does not have to agree to represent them.
    5. 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.
  4. Remove the link to "Request Assistance" as unnecessary, since users will contact advocates directly.
  5. 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)

  1. I like the sound of "office of" and don't see the objections to be particularly strirring. If our official status is in some way unnaceptable, I'd like there to be some community involvement in making that decision.
  2. Agreed.
  3. Agreed, but I see no reason why they must contact a member directly rather than a general request.
  4. Disagree, I for one would prefer to place a general request, and I see no reason why such an option should be removed. If people choose to contact a member directly so be it, but removing this may ensure the better known advocates recieve the brunt of requests, leaving others with less to do. I would prefer to have the opportunity to have it both ways. If a person prefers not to have a particular member, or a member prefers not to advocate a particular person (something I forsee as being fairly common, particularly given time available said member), I think that will all be sorted out shortly.
  5. I can see any number of reasons for a co-ordinator, but sadly alex, who I would have liked to see as the co-ordinator, appears to have left the en-wiki. I agree to postpone said discussion until either the time of his return, or the necessity of said co-ordination.

Your final ethical guideline offered doesn't strike me as either necessary nor objectionable, so I abstain from vote regarding it. I would like to express thanks for your dilegence and foresight in having brought these proposals to our attentions, and furthermore request all other members to be equally thoughtful in their suggestions and responses. Sam Spade 07:38, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  1. "Office" does not indiciate, in my opinion, the nature of the body. Perhaps one could name the body the "Association of Members' Advocates," or, borrowing from the Scottish term, the "Faculty of Advocates."
  2. I agree.
  3. I agree, with the reservation expressed above by Sam Spade.
  4. I disagree, again for the reasons proposed by Sam Spade. If a user does not have a particular advocate in mind, then he or she should be able to put in a general request, which can then be considered by the advocates.
  5. I do not feel that any discussion should be postponed while one waits for a user to return to the project, for such a return could take a long time, or, sadly, could never happen. What remains is to determine when a coordinator becomes necessary. I think that, as soon as the Arbitration Committee adopt their final policy, we elect a coordinator. In the interim, I think that a coordinator would be helpful for organizational purposes.

-- Emsworth 14:03, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Please consider training and as a matter of course requiring advocates to properly gather evidence and present it in a usable manner, by which I mean a link to the matter spoken of, in the page we have devoted to a matter. The litigants themselves lag in this matter as do most of the arbitrators. In the Mr-Natural-Health matter almost all evidence presented was gathered by me and i'll soon poop out at that. Fred Bauder 14:30, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think that we should have some sort of agreement between the Advocates and Arbitrators (informal or formal) outlining what is to be expected of the two parties. I think that the following might be good starting points:

  1. The advocates should competently present evidence and arguments;
  2. The advocates should fairly represent their clients;
  3. The arbitrators should recognize the right of parties to have an advocate, and should inform each party of such a right at the beginning of an arbitration;
  4. The arbitrators should keep advocates informed of any decisions made.

Also, I would request that the arbitrators designate an area that can be used solely for Advocate's arguments - either a special section of the talk page or of the main page, or an "Advocate-Arbitrator" discussion page, or some other page. Furthermore, I hope that it would not be necessary for advocates to perform their own investigations. -- Emsworth 16:49, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

I am going to add the ethical guidelines proposed earlier by Michael Snow in the section entitled "Ethical issues" to the office's page, since there do not seem to be any objections to the same so far. Also, I request suggestions for the name of this body (perhaps an informal poll is coming up soon). So far, we seem to have:

  • Office of Members' Advocates
  • Members' Advocates
  • Association of Members' Advocates
  • Faculty of Advocates

More ideas are welcome. -- Emsworth 20:12, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

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)

I agree with Emsworth's opinions of the numbered points above. I am in favor of 'Association of Members' Advocates' or 'Association of Member Advocates'. It's not very Wikipedian to turn a page into a virtual location (a very hootooian thing to do), but the title should refer to the body and not the the advocates. 'Faculty of Advocates' woud fit this as well, but it's a fairly localized term. Maybe 'Association' is too, and I'm just sheltered. :) --Spikey 17:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If there is no objection, then I will change all references to "Office" instead to "Association." -- Emsworth 19:40, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

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)

List of ongoing cases/member-client relationships

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)

user:plautus satire

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)

Newly proposed rules

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 06:05, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My thought

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)

"tyranny of the sysops"

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)

Issues I have with the AMA

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)
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)

Newly Proposed Rule(s)

  • If there are advocates representing both or multiple sides of a dispute those advocates shall only communicate with consulting advocates as appointed by the AMA so as to create a Chinese wall between the differing sides of the dispute. When advocates communicate with each other on differing sides of a dispute they do so in an adversarial manner much as in other forms of advocacy as are found in the legal profession, for example. They may do so if their clients consent to communication without the intervention of a mediator or if mediation has failed during or leading up to arbitration (in an attempt to resolve the matter before the arbitration reference becomes final).
    • Support. You wouldn't colaberate with the opposing lawyer in a debate, and that's basically what the last two steps of dispute resolution are. Metasquares 14:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose, unless qualified to apply only to communication regarding the dispute. Otherwise the rule hinders productivity. Working together outside the dispute will not infringe on the chinese wall. --Spikey 22:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
According to user:The Cave Troll, The advocate position stands in opposition to the tyranny of sysops. The advocates' job is to prevent runaway abuse of sysop authority. Likely advocate powers might include:
    • Unilateral Unban (to mirror sysop unilateral temporary ban)
    • Page Unprotect (to be a subset of sysop page prot/unprot)
    • Audit Functions (these aren't anywhere that I can see them except the clunky page histories.
  • "tyranny of the sysops"? Who added this? It seems very dubious to me. I thought this association was to help people with arbitration and mediation, not to start unprotecting pages and unbanning users? Angela appears to have resigned because of this comment, but does anyone actually support this? I don't. fabiform | talk 21:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Attribution added. I would suggest removing this statement if it is not the position of any actual member advocates. Martin 22:00, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How can a voluntary association of people that is distinct from the "powers that be" be given "official" powers? I guess I am not a voting member here anymore as I was made a former member when I was on my wikivacation (far be it for me to go again this democraticly run group's decisions) and I don't know if my status of "Member Emeritus" gives me any vote in the decision making process but if I were able to vote I would vote to make this proposed rule "irreceivable" as a proposition. If an advocate has any "power" it is in their ability to listen and to be succinct and reasonable when advocating for others. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk]
I wasn't aware we able to allocate ourselves powers and privileges? While were at it, how about if we give ourselves a salary? Seriously tho, I was never a part of any vote of removal for Alex, and as far as I'm concerned any change of his position not made by himself was out of order. Furthermore, to my knowledge, the only one who can allocate powers and such would be Jimbo, or possibly a beurocrat. If they were giving out such powers, I should think there would be a stricter standard for who could be a member, and what rules they should follow? The very idea of allocating powers to ourselves seems quite heartily humorous, and I find it hard to believe anyone took it seriously enough to give it more than a laugh, much less to resign their position. Alex, change your status back and give us a hand here, will ya? It would seem we need your vote, or at minimum your level head. Sam Spade 19:03, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The change in Alex's position was due to his Wikivacation, which turned out to be temporary. In part, I wanted to avoid the potential problem of users wasting their time trying to recruit an advocate who isn't available. He has been invited to restore himself to full membership. Right now, membership is voluntary, so there is no removal or admission process. I've encouraged those who have resigned to reconsider as well. As for the discussion above, obviously the idea of an independent and unofficial body like this having "powers" is ridiculous, as is the idea of opposing the "tyranny of sysops", especially when quite a few members are sysops.

As for the rule above worth seriously considering, I oppose it. If there are advocates on opposing sides, they need to be able to communicate and work with each other, even though their clients are adversarial. The proposal seems to misunderstand the concept of a Chinese wall, which is an internal mechanism when a single law firm or similar entity represents competing clients. The AMA is not a law firm, so there's no loyalty to the other advocate or the firm that should compete with loyalty to the client.

Instead, we could consider a guideline that an advocate only represent multiple sides in a dispute if all of the advocate's clients are informed of this and agree to it. --Michael Snow 20:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of an advocate representing multiple clients in a dispute. OTOH< I think the idea of tyranny of sysops is stupid. Perl 20:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
While it is true that AMA is not a law firm AMA is also not subject to the court enforced rules of confidentiality that lawyers are subject to, so by using the concept of a chinese wall (which comes from the securities field originally, lawyers adapted the idea later) we make sure that disputants are aware that advocates don't really talk to each other about the work they are doing if they are on opposite sides (though if they are not there might be ocassions when one advocate commuicates privately with another advocate to get their opinion or input for the sake of helping a disputant, this could also help develop the sense of collegiality between advocates). The important thing is to make it clear that advocates don't all sit around in a chat room somewhere discussing cases with each other and disclosing confidential information in ways that could harm the others involved. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk]

I actually think its good for us to discuss things amongst ourselves, esp. if we represent opposing clients. Maybe we can find a soloution where they cannot. Disclosing private info is a whole other subject. So far, I don't think much of anybody has given me private info, since the vast majority of my wiki related communications have been on the wiki, and thus are open to all to see (if they can find the page where such utterances ocured ;) Sam Spade 22:31, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The important word in my last sentence above is "and". If we don't violate anyone's privacy I think that discussing cases is a good thing, here or on an IRC channel or on some other instant messenger or chat system. We can all learn from each other's experiences, share expertise and see how we are interacting with the mediators and arbitrators. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 23:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like we agree then :) Sam Spade 23:32, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator

  • 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)

Is it possible to nominate someone? That is the process that happens in most deliberative assemblies; this would be an example of democracy in action (as opposed to autocracy in action). Also does there need to be a discussion about the role of coordinator and what it should consist of or did the members of the AMA vote on this on the IRC channel or somewhere else that I am not aware of? — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 07:36, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

I nominate Alex756 Sam Spade 04:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Definitions

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 21:19, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

168/mav

[2] 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)

I don't feel I should get involved because of the recent public situation regarding mav and myself. We should make sure there is not even the appearance of bias when representing someone in a dispute. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 20:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Members statements

after some some undiscussed editing of my personal commments on the meta page [3] by user:bcorr and new members advocate User:anthere I request a policy relating to the editing of one anothers members statements. My feeling is that any and all such edits need to be thoroughly discussed in advance. There was however no discussion in advance regarding this issue betwixt myself and either of them. Sam Spade

I agree that there should be discussion in advance. A further question this raises for me - is it in fact desirable to have such statements on the page at all? Or should we perhaps just have a list of advocates, and let anyone who wants to make statements make them on their own user page? (presumably people wouldn't be as inclined to edit the statements of other users that way) --Michael Snow 23:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi folks -- I agree that it was unwise of me to change Sam Spade's statement, and I'm sorry for that -- especially because if I was just trying to clarify something that I felt was clearly misleading -- and I clearly didn't go about it in the best way. FWIW, I might have apologized and asked him to change the wording or something if he hadn't responded so extremely on my talk page. I try not to react to my perceptions of his behavior, and I certainly wasn't going to revert his changing it back. Anyway, I appreciate the advice -- you're reinforcing something I keep telling myself but occasionally have a hard time doing. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:47, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
My reactions to Bcorr were based on previous harassment from, and unfortunate run-ins with this admin. Please don't think I easilly rise to such levels of hostility. Sam Spade 03:06, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a separate page for members' statements and only list members on the meta page, as Mihchael Snow points out the list on the main page is really just to let people know who is a member. But I do think that we should have some forum so that we know amongst ourselves what brings us to this association. I think this adds something to the collegial feeling of this place, it should not be seen as a form of advertising or something that requires vetting by other members. If someone makes a comment that is inaacurate, perhaps someone can comment on the comment, that would seem an appropriate way for members to communicate with each other (and an example to others, after all if we cannot resolve disputes between our members how are we going to help others?), your humble and obedient servant....

Wow... I take serious issue w our newest member(user:Ed_Poor)'s member statement. I personally tried to ask him for assistance early on here at the wiki, and found it to be a horror show. I'll side step the particulars if possible, but if anybody needs to change member statements due to innacuracy, it would be him. Sam Spade 05:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I regret having reverted Sam without discussion (it seemed to me it went without saying why I reverted such a wrong statement). Now, I explained my move to Sam. I wish not that an external member of the committee claims authorship on a community organisation page. I consider it is detrimental to the committee itself that its organisation scheme is claimed to have been set and written by a non-member. However I apology to Sam. I would appreciate that similarly, Sam apologies for having insulted me three times in a row, even after I explained myself. FirmLittleFluffyThing

:I apologise for your insult. Sam Spade 06:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would it help if we moved all the statements to the Requests for Assistance page, and just list members with no statements on this page? The idea being, that the statements are primarily to help people if they want to select a particular advocate, in which case that's the page they should be going to anyway. --Michael Snow 19:17, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If Sam wants to remove his own comment, does he have to use strikethrough, or does he have the right to fully remove it? I think he should have the right to remove it without using strikethrough. (I think Anthere's recent revert might have been done out of spite) Any thoughts on this? Perl 19:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My thought is that its really not important, and that certain admins get to do what they want, so why defy the not so secret "wiki-hierarchy". At least they didn't ban me for backsassing them. Thank God for small victories. Sam Spade 21:29, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Standards

Do we have any guidelines for membership? Is there any process for removing a members advocate? Is it to be entirely volontary, or is there a process to blackball a new member, or to object to one another, or anything of this sort? I would really feel better if a couple of recent additions were not members, based on my knowledge of their methods of resolving conflict or dissent. Lets hear what we think. Sam Spade 01:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)(belated sig)

There's sort of an implicit agreement to the guidelines stated on the page. Other than that, this is currently an open organization anyone can join, and I think I prefer it that way. I don't consider the participation of any member objectionable, even if I disagree with their methods of advocacy. Besides, different methods may be appropriate to satisfy the needs of different clients. --Michael Snow 22:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would like to hear what others think about this, but my opinion is thus
If a person has not been demonstrated to have been an effective advocate, and has been demonstrated to be an innefective advocate (or otherwise unhelpful to those who request assistance) and the above are generally agreed to by the other advocates, I think some sort of vote, super-majority and/or decision by the co-ordinator should be allowed in order to remove them.
Clearly we should not have people who have a history of less than helpful responses to those who would like assistance as advocates, particularly if they have not demonstrated that they would be an effective advocate, or (in one current case) their members statement is able to be easilly shown false. Of course this is only my opinion, and I am eager to hear what others feel on the subject. Sam Spade 23:05, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Disagree - too subjective. And if someone "loses" in their arbitration they can just blame the advocate. Secretlondon 23:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Disagree as well. One can't demonstrate someone has been an effective or ineffective advocate, since the job did not exist before, and it is likely it will go on this way since mediation/arbitration are private processes. It is essentially to the client to have an opinion on that matter.
We do not need to have other advocates agree or disagree on another advocate. The only validity of his presence is whether he may be thought useful to someone, or not useful. Again, that is the client opinion which counts. Diversity of propositions is what matters. - Anthere

My dear colleagues, we have an open association open to anyone who finds their way to these pages. How can we develop a reputation for advocates? That is up to each of us in our work. Should we deny membership to someone because we disagree with them? I think not. Can we have a procedure for removal or the sanction of members for conduct unbecoming someone charged with the representation of another's interests? Most certainly. What should those standards be? Certainly not failure or success in the outcome as the outcome is dependent upon the cause. If there are failures in the relationship between the advocate and the disputant (I do not like the term that the arbitration committee has adopted, litigant, it is not litigation) there may be times when such a breakdown will warrant some sanction between our association and the member in question, or it may also be undertaken as part of the dispute resolution process that Wikipedians have available to each other. Can members be rated by the work they do, i.e. after working with a disputant? Certainly the disputant could complete a survey and express their opinion about the advocate, such surveys mihgt be made available to someone interested in working with an advocate. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 02:05, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like that survey idea, and I agree with Alex generally. In any case their is clearly not a concensus in favor of my proposal, so I withdraw it. I'd be very interested to see what sort of survey we might utilize, as well as how we are going to resolve the matters relating to members comments, innacurate and otherwise. Sam Spade 06:19, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Self-added new user without a statement?

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)

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)
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)
I probably could have answered more gently, or at least dropped a few smilies in, sorry. :) fabiform | talk 02:52, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator

What is clear to me is that we need a co-ordinator, and that their 1st duty should probably be to provide leadership/proposals in regards to members comments and the process of becomming a member. I clearly prefer a stricter structure, and others clearly prefer a near unmitigated freedom (even going so far as to edit other members comments). One thing I think we can all agree on is a need for clarity, and I feel a co-ordinator will help us in pursuit of such a goal. Sam Spade 02:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I will be a co-ordinator if you like. Perl 02:57, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since we have two nominations for coordinator will we now have a vote?(Nominations for office usually do not need to be seconded, so I am assuming both Sam's nomination of me and Perl's self-nomination are both valid). How should we proceed, wait a little while longer for other nominations or set a deadline for the close of nominations? — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 07:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

nominating ant for coord, for her bounteous energy and ease of reaching out to people. | I'd like to see the AMA develop into a 'conflict patrol' like the RC patrol, to keep an eye on conflicts and reach out to people to defuse situations before they are forced into formal conflict channels -- rather than waiting for people to come here and ask for they know not what help. +sj+ 20:53, 2004 Mar 20 (UTC)
Oh, well, I did not know I was nominated. That is very nice of you Sj. I think...that this position requires more than one person. Of course, helping to link the mediation committee to the AMA would be something I would like to do, but I am not sure I can assume the whole thing at all. I think division of roles might be a good idea...pondering... FirmLittleFluffyThing
I support your ideas generally, if not your nominee specifically :) Sam Spade 21:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I propose that no new members (after this moment) be in the current running for co-ordinator, and that we set a deadline of 1 week for new nominations. Depending on the number of nominations, I either agree, or disagree, w Alex's idea about not requiring a second (i.e. if the number is small, seconds wouldn't be needed, and if it turns out to be large, we likely should require them). What say you, good sirs (and madams ;)? Sam Spade 07:15, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Since the AMA is still a small body, and not all advocates seem very active in our discussions, it seems counterproductive to require nominations to be seconded. I am curious about how Alex sees his potential role - on one hand, so far he prefers to remain a "member emeritus" rather than return to normal full membership, but on the other hand, he seems willing to accept a nomination as coordinator. Does he perhaps think that as coordinator, he would organize and advise the advocates in their efforts, but not normally function as an advocate himself? There's nothing necessarily wrong with this approach; I ask primarily because the role of coordinator is still somewhat undefined, and how the candidates view that role will probably affect what it develops into. --Michael Snow 21:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree strongly that both Alex and Perl should be expected to explain their positions, intent, and othewise fill us in about what they plan to do as AMA Coordinator. Only thus will we be able to make a truely informed descision. Sam Spade 03:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I also agree. Metasquares 14:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am preparing a statement I will try and post it in a day or two (hope that is ok with everyone) above under my name. Regarding my status I thought that Member Emeritus was a honorific title, usually if a professor emeritus returns to teach again they do not strip him/her of that title. Really, I am not big on titles and I am not quite sure who gave me that nomer (I think before that I was a former member because it appeared that I had left Wikipedia at the time and I was acting as de facto interim coordinator). Any title is fine (within reasonable limits), even no title is fine. I leave that issue up to the others involved in this association (be they members or others involved who are not members). — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 16:09, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Generally the term "emeritus" applies to situations in which the person has retired from full activity. Many emeritus professors do teach under that title, but usually with a more limited (and less demanding) schedule. So that's why it gave me the impression you weren't functioning in the normal role of advocate. If you don't care about the title, you could simply reinstate yourself on the regular list. But since this is a voluntary association, I'm not going to dictate to anyone how they should define their participation. I look forward to your statement. --Michael Snow 18:59, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would think that, as Alex756 has returned to full activity and participation, his status should be the same as that of the other members. -- Emsworth 19:59, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Since I did not give myself this title, I do not feel qualified to take it away (I have no special status). — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 21:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
OK, done. Sam Spade 22:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Members statements2

I took the liberty of relocating all of the advocate statements to the Requests for Assistance page, and restoring the original statement Alex made when he started the AMA. I'm hoping that location will be less problematic, and make it more clear that the statements are personal and not official. I did not restore statements that were voluntarily deleted by the advocates themselves, although those advocates may restore their statements if they wish. I proposed this idea earlier, and nobody objected, so I hope this meets with everyone's approval. If not, I would be happy to discuss it. --Michael Snow 22:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I never noticed you making that proposal, but assuming you did I don't object to you taking such action. On the other hand, I think its a particularly bad idea ;). For one thing that is definitely the wrong place for members statements, and for another the content of members statements is clearly what needs attention, not the location of them. It seems obvious to me that they are far better suited to the main page than under requests for assistance. Additionally I think that all members statements need to be removed (due to the presence, theoretical or otherwise, of false statements) and if any statements should be there at all they should be placed by someone other than the member (i.e. clients, satisfied and no). I also reccomend to Mr. Snow that since he seems so very inclined towards making meta-descisions here, he might like to nominate himself for AMA coordinater? Sam Spade 23:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
My proposal is in the section above on Members statements, but it may have gotten missed in the surrounding discussion. I hoped Requests for Assistance would be a better place, on the theory that the statements should primarily work to help people choose an advocate when they're looking for assistance, and that page is where we want them to go. If we decide they should be gone entirely (and people can maintain statements on their own user pages instead), that's a possible alternative. What do other people think?
Since I can't tell if Sam is venting annoyance (sorry, I'm just trying to "be bold") or seriously suggesting that I nominate myself, I'll put it this way: I choose not to nominate myself. If someone else wants to nominate me, I can't stop them of course, but I might prefer to support a different candidate anyway. And Sam, if you try to draft me, I may just get my revenge by nominating you as a sysop (just kidding). --Michael Snow 00:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I moved the Members Statements to a new page and Michael Snow has added a link to the table. This should provide anyone who wants our services the opportunity to find out something about the members. I would encourage the other members to review their statements and put something in the statement that would be relevant to help someone who is considering contacting a AMA member to decide to contact you. — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 19:37, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Election

I suggested at one point that the nomination process will expire at 07:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC), and unless we quickly hear otherwise, I think we should all decide that that is to be the case. Sam Spade 02:23, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe give it another week? I am happy to keep functioning as some kind of defacto interim coordinator if need be. I just posted notices today on the Announcements and Going on's pages which may garner some more interest in our association. Also the candidates need time to make their statements on the Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election page. So far I am the only one that has posted a statement or answered questions put forth by our members. Let us give everyone enough time to respond and participate fully. As a candidate I want a fair electoral period as that would add legitimacy to any decision we make. There is no urgency, is there? As we need a balloting method perhaps we can discuss that in the interim, i.e., secret or open? — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 03:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I am late on many issues I need to do first. I will be happy that more time is given to think of what could be done, explain and ask questions. With no more time, I can't assume :-( FirmLittleFluffyThing 05:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well we can spend another week voting maybe, but do we need another week for nominations? I'd like to get that out of the way, and that doesn't have much to do w statements or no, just about when we stop accepting new candidates, and start focusing more intently on who we are choosing between. Sam Spade 03:51, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What if we have the election a few days after nominations close? Do we really need to cut off nominations while we discuss these things that have not yet been finalized? User:Alex756
Clearly we need more time, I agree to waiting until there is a concensus to set any precise time for anything (here! ;) Sam Spade 08:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, let's extend the deadline for nominations one week beyond the deadline originally proposed by Sam. Then maybe we can have a week for "campaigns" and a week for voting. As for the voting procedure, I have no problem with an open ballot. However, if we do want a secret ballot, I would recommend we ask a trustworthy Wikipedian who is not a member of the AMA to administer the election by email. --Michael Snow 20:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the deadline date of March 30, 2004 at 7:15 (UTC). Perl has still note made a statement. Is there anyway we can encourage him? Does anyone have any ideas about the election protocol? — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 04:38, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here are my proposed guidelines:

  • All dates in these guidelines are by UTC.
  • The electorate shall consist of all members of the Association of Members' Advocates, except the ballot counter and anyone banned from participation in the election.
  • Nominations may be made at any time prior to the election, even immediately after an election
    • A nomination must be accepted by the nominee so as to prevent someone from nominating everyone else for the purpose of becoming ballot counter by default
  • Elections by open ballot ending on March 31 and November 30 to select impartial ballot counter
    • Nominees may not be elected ballot counters
    • If every member is nominated except one, that person may not be nominated and becomes ballot counter by default.
    • Whoever is elected ballot counter may refuse the position if they will be unable to fulfill their duties.
  • From April 1 to April 7 and from December 1 to December 7, electors shall e-mail their votes to the ballot counter. The ballot counter shall post the results as soon after the election as possible.
    • Only nominees may be voted for.
    • An elector may change their vote if they contact the ballot counter before the end of the election and make it clear who they are voting for instead.
    • If an elector does not clearly state their vote to the ballot counter by the end of the election, an abstention shall be counted in the election results.
  • If there is any evidence that the ballot counter has lied about the votes, anyone has voted for more than one nominee, anyone has voted for the same nominee more than once, anyone has voted for someone else, or the ballot counter does not reveal the results, the AMA shall discuss whether to have another election in a manner to be proscribed when the time comes. If the consensus is to do so, the election shall be held again after one week and all those who have committed fraud banned from participation in AMA elections for 1 year.
  • If, for any reason, the election does not take place, another election shall be held after 1 week.
  • A Coordinator's term begins immediately after they are pronounced winner of the election.
  • A Coordinator may be removed from office by the consensus of the AMA's member or by resignation.
    • After the Coordinator announces their resignation, 48 hours must pass. After that period, the Coordinator will have 48 hours to confirm their resignation.
  • In the event of a vacancy of the office of Coordinator, an election shall be held 3 days after the office is vacated.

Last amended April 10, 2004.

A bit overly complex, but you never know what kind of people you'll get on Wikipedia. Comments? - Woodrow 17:42, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but how about having someone impartial being the ballot counter, i.e. someone who is not a member and someone who is seen as impartial and trustworthy like a developer or someone on the Wikimedia Board of Trustees (just suggestions). Since we are a small association even having one person's vote invalidated could be significant, no? — Alex756 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 06:38, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm a member of the AMA who doesn't know any of the candidates, making me impartial. For the same reason, I probably wouldn't vote in the election anyway. I'm a sysop and haven't yet been accused of being a troll, a communist, or a vandal, so I guess that mean's I'm trustworthy. If there's concern over not having someone to be a ballot counter, I'll be willing to do the job. --Alex S 16:14, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about having two inspectors of the election? This is what is normally done. The vote goes to each elector and they individually verify the count. We could also just have an open election, though secrecy in democracy is one way to make sure that no issue ever comes up like, "I voted for you, now do what I want you to do." Secret elections are always better. — © Alex756 22:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If it is desired by the AMA, I am an outside party who would be happy to be the second inspector. I am glad there is an AMA, but feel for various reasons that I don't want to list myself there right now. I like and get along with all of the candidates, I believe, and yet don't consider myself a close "crony" of any of them (such that I might be suspected of biasing the results). If a second isn't needed, I've no desire to impose myself, but if you would like another inspector without further limiting the voting pool, I humbly offer myself as a possibility. Please don't think you'll offend me if you refuse. Jwrosenzweig 23:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Excellent. Jwrosenzweig is actually precisely the person I would have recommended we ask, so it's great to have him volunteer. --Michael Snow 17:41, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Voting

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)

Everything is going on at Wikipedia:AMA Coordinator Election. Nominate, vote, etc. Shouldn't you have just put this under "Election"? - Woodrow 02:33, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I took the liberty of copying the above proposal over at the elections page. The only problem with that proposal is I think Ed Poor nominated himself (correct me if I am wrong), thus he would not be allowed to be a candidate under these rules. — © Alex756 22:57, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance

did anybody see my request? Sam Spade 00:59, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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)

This was posted at Association of members' advocates -- as it was in article namespace, it was deleted. what is the proceedure to get membership of the association. thanks and best regards. sabir shah: ssabiradv@yahoo.com Jwrosenzweig 20:26, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Guidelines

Perhaps we can now proceed to the consideration of further ethical guidelines to advocates, and also establish any sanctions for those who violate them. -- Emsworth 21:47, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Checking up on the election

Just making sure the election is still okay--- no problems with the way it was organized, handled? -- user:zanimum

Silent partner

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)