Jump to content

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Message board/December 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is the AMA Meeting board for December, 2006! The following items are up for discussion by anyone and everyone, but only AMA Members may vote. Please leave your signed comments in the appointed areas:

Meet & Greet

Result: We have many, many new members since the last meeting.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

Meet & Greet Discussion

Previously Unresolved Issues

Result: The proposal for an Election Officer was withdrawn by the nominator. The idea of developing a system of accountability will be carried over to the next meeting after several good proposals were made and plenty of discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

  • Roll over from last meeting - A system of accountability - clarification and consensus required on the proposals brought up last time.
  • Creation of Election office- carry over

Previously Unresolved Issues Discussion

Possible Deputy Election

Result: A new third deputy will now be elected.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

  • With Aeon1006 on extended wikibreak, it has been proposed that we hold an election for a (possibly temporary) Deputy Coordinator.
I have returned however if the AMA wishes to hold a new election I'm cool with that. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Deputy Poll

All in favor
  1. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Wikiwoohoo 18:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Martinp23 19:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Geo. 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neigel von Teighen 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Addhoc 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. ßottesiηi (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Brian | (Talk) 22:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Jord 22:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. FrankB 04:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. "Snorkel | Talk" 15:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. rob77
All opposed 5.38, 21 December 2006
All neutral
  1. User:Pedant 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion

Would those interested in the role(s) like to submit their names here for eventual consideration? Wikiwoohoo 23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Deputy Discussion

  • It would be useful to have another helping hand in the meantime and when Aeon gets back, with some of the changes that I sense may happen after this meeting, it may be a good idea to have three Deputies. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with you Steve. The more of us to share the load and carry out designated functions, the better. Wikiwoohoo 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Two new deputies would be best, one of whom to fill in for Aeon until he returns, or to take his position fully if he does not. Wikiwoohoo 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that Aeon has returned, unless there is call for different, we should only seek to elect one new deputy co-ordinator. At present, Geo and Martinp23 have stated their interest in the position. If Steve is alright with this, I suggest we begin an election with the two as candidates. Wikiwoohoo 19:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
All in favor
  1. Wikiwoohoo 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Addhoc 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. But no more than three. --Neigel von Teighen 15:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strikes me as the perogative of any exec to appoint a staff to his liking, and with our budget constraints, any size as well (Double my salary please!). Might I suggest you write that into the bylaws, with the assumption that any vote by the membership would have to be to veto any appointee. // FrankB 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sounds good. But let's keep it low, deputies need to have some sense of responsibility :D \/\/slack (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. In favour of 2 deputies (if that's what this poll is for). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
All opposed
All neutral

Deputy election

Result: Martinp23 has been elected as a deputy coordinator.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

Following discussion above, an election for the new position of a third deputy co-ordinator shall begin.

As of the time on my signature, the candidates are Geo. and Martinp23. Could voters please place their vote below the username of either candidate.

I declare this election...open. Wikiwoohoo 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting will close on 13 January 2007 at 19:47 (UTC). The meeting will also be completely closed down at that time. Wikiwoohoo 16:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo.

Martinp23 is a fine candidate, who will do a better job then I can. Acting in the best interests of the AMA, I am therefore withdrawing my nomination, making him the Deputy by default. Congrats Geo. 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Martinp23

Neutral

AMABot

Result: AMABot is working rather well and is facilitating the Advocacy process.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

AMABot discussion

  • Martin, would you care to give us a report on how AMABot is working? :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The bot is great! It is much better than having the request page on the watchlist. Really useful, isn't it? I wouldn't change anything of it unless there was a programming bug. --Neigel von Teighen 12:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The bot is indeed a great addition to the AMA. Martinp23, you have created an extremely useful bot. Thank you! Wikiwoohoo 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to work ok. Always 4 cases listed though... Addhoc 12:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I've seen it all over the place, myself. At one time we had 14 cases listed and due to Advocate dilligence we brought them down to zero. :-) The template disappeared for all of... well a few hours. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 18:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm - for some reason, recently, it's not been accessing wikipedia. I think it's the system it's running on starting to need a restart (having been on over a month!). I'm restarting it now, and normal service should soon be resumed! I full report will be coming soon Martinp23 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Ooops, I lied! It turns out I've had the wrong version of the bot running (the one that can't access wikipedia). That explain the problems we've had both on IRC and here - I've now deleted the old file! Martinp23 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Status report AMABot has, in my opinion, been working well. It updates the case total in the AMA Alerts system, and has a major role reporting all cases on IRC, as well being able to deliver the current alert. The only problem is occasional channel flooding (caused by network errors) as well as the occasional internet downtime (which I can't do anything about :(). The first issue seems to have been easy for me to fix (based on my tests), but unfortunately the server on which I'm running it cannot, as yet, support the safeguards I've implemented (I'm going to look into this). For now, myself and Royalguard11 on IRC have the ability to immediately kill the bot (this is hard coded into it). The problems which may result in the bot needing to be killed all stem from network errors (or sometimes too many cases!), and have no effect whatsoever on Wikipedia itself. As always, I'm open to any questions about the bot, and any requests for functionality. Before I close the report, I'd like to formally offer my thanks to Royalguard11 for his work in picking out errors in the bot. Thanks Martinp23 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that bot is sure great. It's even better in IRC... The only thing now is that the AMA alerts template never disappears because we always have cases. But that can't be helped. Although, the bots had some problems lately, but I think it's fixed now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done on the bot ! Ge o. 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so we're having bot troubles again. Tis how it works I guess. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you make the bot countdown. Do you just have to wait for another case to be added? Can the template count the number of pages in a category instead? \/\/slack (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're asking. AMABot automatically generates the number of cases by analizing the number of pages in WP:AMARQ (which is a category). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Advocates IRC Channel

Result: The "never been on it, but want to" section wins by one vote. New ways to connect to the system could well encourage an increase in use.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

IRC Poll

Q: How often do you use the IRC channel?

On it often
  1. Whenever I'm on IRC Martinp23 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes. Always. From 2200-0400UTC usually. I'm the other "op". -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. I'm on a bit (it connects automatically whenever I'm on IRC). Useful for quicker responses. Trebor 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
On it sometimes
  1. ßottesiηi (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
'Never been on it, but want to
  1. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Borderline want to go on it/never will go on it :) Anthonycfc (talk • email) 09:21, Thursday December 19 2024 (UTC)
  3. Jord 22:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Would like to. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. I'm always on IRC, I should really start joining the channel Brian | (Talk) 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. "Never have been but might be some day" -- personally can't see a reason why I would need to join it. In general I use IRC and the #wikipedia- and #wikimedia- channels sparingly, usually only if I need to get in contact with someone real fast. / Fred-Chess 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
'Never and never will
  1. Neigel von Teighen 12:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. My computer does not accept the IRC protocol but I feel discussion here is better since it includes more people. Wikiwoohoo 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. No access Addhoc 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. I do not accept IRC protocol. <g>
       I have too many distractions all ready for real time feeds.
       Hats off to you brains that can handle it and wikipedia work too. // FrankB 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Probably never, I prefer email and wikipedia discussions, the former for confidentiality when needed and the latter for transparency and archivishness reasons.
  6. Never did like IRC. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

IRC Discussion

  • Can I have a quick poll as to who regularly uses the IRC channel? :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As a major user of, and with Royalguard11, manager of the channel, I feel compelled to give a report (probably because I've just done two others!). Also, for those who would like to go into the channel for a chat, would you like me to set up a webbased interface for it? Martinp23 19:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Report: The channel has had moderate success. Unfortunately, we have not experience a huge surge of interest in it, with users who do visit frequently not returning due to lack of activity. Usually, myself, Royalguard11 and recently Rowntree have been present at times, where we'll just chat with each other about wikipedia generally, about a new case that the bot has thrown up, occasionally for assistance in cases (such as where Royalguard11 was able to easily ask me to undelete a page involved in his dispute, and move it to his user-space (as well as subsequently fixing a cut-and paste move by the advocee)) and even more occasionally a problem with the organisation as a whole will be thrown up, which has been duly noted on the meeting topics page (as a matter of fact, quite a few of the topics there came from brainstorming (without discussion) on the channel!). Of course, there will be concerns about the possible cabal like appearance of the channel to outsiders - of course, this isn't true, and we never make decisions which may impact the organisation on the channel - anything we come up with will always be posted to the rest of the AMA for consideration. The benefits of using IRC in this way are huge: quick chat can help to quickly resolve problems, and it's a nice socializing medium, outside of, but related to wikipedia. I genuinely hope to see more members in there at some point! As an aside, if you can arrange a meeting in the channel between yourself and an advocee, you can proceed to move into a private conversation with them and discuss the case quickly and easily. Thanks, Martinp23 19:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Tis good. I really wish that othere people would go onto the channel. It helps that Martinp23 is now a sysop too (!). Most of the topics were brainstormed by us in the channel, and it helps for situations that need quick responces (like quicker than wiki). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Right - I've found a way for anyone who wants to to access the channel. Go to [2], type a desired username (one that won't already be in use!), the server is "irc.freenode.net" and the channel is "#AMA-Wikipedia". After a short wait, you should be able to chat in the channel. For security reasons, the channel will be closed to advocates usingt hat service when myself or Royalguard11 aren't there (anyone could access and flood it, otherwise). By "closed" I mean that you'll be able to see what's being said, but not able to contribute. If you find that you've been muted, but we're there, use "/msg (one of us) please unblock us!" or words to that effect! I hope it works! Martinp23 00:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, we've been doing some testing and such, and it does work. You can still register with nickserv by typing /msg nickserv register <password>. Then, you just have to type from then on /msg nickserv identify <password> to identify. We can give you autovoice if you just tell us your IRC nick at WP:AMAIRC. And, if you just want to come on for a few minutes, we can give you tempory voice (if we're on). Go on, try it now! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

New Requests for Assistance System

Result: Everyone seems to like how the new system is working, and Martin has interfaced AMABot with it.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

The new AMA Requests For Assistance system that I put together seems to be working rather well. Fellow Advocates are taking the initiative to take on cases as they come up, and as of this moment we have handled 90 cases total of which 52 have been successfully closed. I believe that this is, at least on the surface, quite an achievement. :-) The next step would be to go over case feedback and do a bit of datamining on the results to see how we can improve things. Is there anyone in particular who would be ineterested in helping with interpreting the results? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

New Requests System Discussion

Result: No new policies enacted. Any MyWikiBiz related action should be separate from the AMA.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

MyWikiBiz Discussion

  • Uff... It sounds like a case for a real justice court and for a real advocate; it could imply penal responsabilities either from MyWikiBiz or Jimbo. Dismission was perfect... --Neigel von Teighen 12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't mess with Jimbo. Endorse dismissal Geo. 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing we can physically do about it. Unless someone want to ask Jimbo himself, alienate themselves from the community, and have a good chance of getting indef-banned either by an admin or by community decision. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimbo doesn't like to do much, a community decision would force a result. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 23:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As Jimbo is above the ArbCom, any decision by him is technically binding (it's not a democracy), especially if supported by the board. Jimbo does, at the moment, have absolute power on Wikipedia, so there isn't much we can do against him, is there? (Apart from getting community opinion, but that's already been clearly voiced on the MyWikiBiz issue). Martinp23 17:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with all the above views. I know there isn't much we can do against Wikipedia's founder, but I think we should try. Having just read the case details I am fully in sympathy with MyWikiBiz, and think Jimbo Wales has acted unreasonably and exercised dictatorial powers in this case. The trouble with Wikipedia is its authoritarian structure; the admins have far too much power (and some of them abuse it). I know I would be putting my own standing in the Wiki community on the line by taking this case, but if given permission by the Co-ordinator, I will take it on. I think that we, as advocates, have a moral responsibility to fight for justice - and MyWikiBiz is clearly in the right, morally. Walton monarchist89 08:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Jimbo is, categorically, a benevolent dictator. :-) This is how most web forums and websites work, and so far he's doing a pretty good job keeping this organism we call Wikipedia fed, watered and weeded. However, when it comes to the MyWikiBiz case, I always get a knot in my stomach thinking about exactly what happened. I know that MyWikiBiz was trying to make a buck off of the system by writing articles for pay, and that Wales believed that such an act violates the spirit of Wikipedia. The scuffle that followed left no one happy, but now the question is how does this impact -us- as a Wikipedia organization? Are we to take on cases that are accusatory against members of the Board? What would happen to the AMA if such an action was taken? What policies should we enact (if any)? What does everyone think? :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 01:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, but personally I think MyWikiBiz is in the right. And, as a student of political science I would challenge the validity of the term benevolent dictator; all dictators, however enlightened, are bound to have to suppress dissent or minority views at some point in order to maintain their own hegemony. Yes, it's true that there's no authority or 'court' we can go to that has any power over Jimbo Wales - but as an advocate, a Wikipedian and a human being, I want to take this case, even if all I can do is enlist sympathy and raise awareness of Wales' repressive and unjust treatment of MyWikiBiz. I'm not saying that MyWikiBiz has acted particularly well in writing articles for pay - this seems fairly dishonest to me - but that doesn't change the principle that they should have a fair hearing, rather than being simply banned by an edict from 'on high'. Just as, in the regular court system, even murderers have the right to a fair trial; few people would be happy if President Bush started unilaterally issuing death warrants against criminals and having them shot on the White House Lawn. Therefore, with your permission, I will take this case. If you do not give your permission, I will resign from AMA and take this case independently. Walton monarchist89 10:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If we have something to offer, I think we should take the case, but I'm not sure what we can do. If MyWikiBiz was a newbie stuck in a dispute with Jimbo, we could explain policies to MWB, explain MWB's position to Jimbo, etc. As is, though, MyWikiBiz knows the ropes well enough that I don't know what we can offer him. If anyone here has a good relationship with Jimbo, maybe they could try some diplomacy to see if a positive resolution is possible, but just restating MWB's and Jimbo's positions probably isn't going to do much good. TheronJ 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe, we can request the ArbCom to ask Jimbo revert the 30 years ban. It's the only serious strategy I can think of. Although a less serious one crossed my mind too: formally present a Request for Comment against Jimbo Wales in name of the AMA in favor of MyWikiBiz... but forget it, maybe we all get banned for 30 years too. --Neigel von Teighen 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I think that's a good idea. Wikipedia is bigger than Jimbo Wales, and if we can demonstrate the strength of opposition to his dictatorial rule, we can at least take the moral high ground. If we present that Request for Comment, and get banned, then it will be a case of Jimbo Wales clearly stifling freedom of speech in order to perpetuate his own personal hegemony. In short, we can make him look bad. Walton monarchist89 09:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Assuming that Walton goes ahead with this plan, do we have an opinion on whether he should do so as an AMA advocate? TheronJ 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to state my severe opposition to doing this - MyWikiBiz usurps the basic principles of wikipedia - a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If someone pays mywikibiz, it's not free, and they feel they can't edit us, as they can (at least, that's a risk). MWB is a shared account, which is quickly blockable without any fuss at all, so even if Jimbo went against some agreement with MWB, he's perfectly entitled to do so! An RfC will only provoke the rest of the community to support his decision (most probably) and if it were to go to ArbCom, I doubt that they'd overthrow Jimbo's ruling. Martinp23 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO, if Walton wants to do this, I think it needs to be on his own, not on behalf of the AMA. (1) I don't see what we can do for MyWikiBiz, for the reasons stated above. I suppose that the block wasn't an OFFICE action, and therefore is theoretically reviewable, but by the same token, Jimbo's supposed promise to MyWikiBiz wasn't an Office action either, so I don't see that it's enforceable; (2) MWB knows all the policies, and has argued them. I suppose that there's room for some very delicate shuttle diplomacy between MWB and Jimbo, but if Jimbo has decided that paid editing is contrary to the Encyclopedia, I doubt we're going to move that stone; (3) IMHO, AMA should not be in the business of declaring war on people or overthrowing the powers that be, at least not without some careful thought. TheronJ 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ahem, (*cough*, *cough*) For what it's worth, I've been in contact with and exchanged a flurry of emails with Greg Kolhs (sp? Sorry, don't want to reopen the email client now, I've too many windows open and it chews up resources.) in some long distant hand holding over at least a couple of months, and whilst I'm sympathetic to his situation, I'm pretty sure got through to him on two salient points when he asked me to represent his side in this.
       The first was his business plan depended upon an asset he didn't control—the assumption that he could do for money what he'd done for free and continue doing so but he was really always at the sufference of Jimbo, as are we all.
       The second, the true tale of an laser company I used to consult with that set up a branch in Taiwain, investing hundreds of thousands in plant, recruiting, travel, training, the whole nine-yards.
       Save George didn't really control his assets either and all his nice legal documents were shams in a big scam; as soon as he left the country they were moving his equipment down the street to an place of their own and selling to his customers at lower prices. George got to service the debt on all those purchases sans the former customers he'd serviced quite well from here in Boston, plus pay the rent on the vacant lease on Taiwan.
       The moral is obvious, and Greg got it right away. Greg Kolhs got off easy in comparison and should do better next time to ensure the means to accomplish his business plan were things he could control.
       Since then (Circa the end of October?) he's contacted me (around the first) on a new scheme and asked me to look it over. In sum, my read is the issue is dead. He's convinced. And this isn't one I'd have taken to the ArbCom, much less pestered Jimbo over. I did do some behind the scenes hand-holding. // FrankB 05:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In that case I will drop this issue. I wasn't all that sympathetic to MyWikiBiz to begin with; I was mainly interested in challenging the principle of arbitrary power that governs Wikipedia. So ignore my earlier comments; it doesn't matter. Walton monarchist89 10:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If that's your goal, do an RfC, that's what it is for! It would be interesting to see someone constructively opposing (not attacking, nor overthrowing) Jimbo Wales. He would have to clarify some points and he'll have to subject under consensus as anyone in this encyclopedia. Isn't it an attractive idea? I'm beginning to sympathize with it. Of course, outside AMA --Neigel von Teighen 13:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Neigel. In order to actually deal with a dispute against Jimbo, we should follow our own philosophy and use WP:DR as individuals rather than as the AMA. The AMA isn't really supposed to be a political entity on Wikipedia. Our mission is to help people, rather than test the bounds of "Wiki-law." :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 23:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Membership Roll

Result: Response to the template was apparently not as was hoped. Some suggestions were made as to how to improve the template and could well be worth a try.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

  • Discussion of the response to the recent {{AMA Are you active}} template spamming by Martinp23 to most members, and what to do about those who repeatedly don't reply.

Membership Discussion

  • Martin, would you care to give us a report on this, too? :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Spamming is illegal! ;-) Seriously talking, most people won't never reply to an automated message... excepting me; my comeback to AMA was thanks that message! But I doubt it is an effective way to gather members --Neigel von Teighen 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest we remove users from our membership list who aren't active and haven't replied. Probably could clear out list of inactive members too. Addhoc 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Report: In October (I believe!), I left {{AMA Are you active}} on the talk pages of all listed advocates at Wikipedia:AMA Members (except those who I knew were active, or who were co-ordinators!). Of course, technically speaking, these were solicited postings, so it was the fault of whoever recieved it for not removing themselves from the list earlier if no longer a member - despite this, I added a pre-emptive apology to the end of each message! From this spamming messaging :-) I had one or two responses to my talk page, either notifying me that they were rejoining or complaining about the message. If I remember correctly, we had a couple of members join, and a few were delisted, which was disappointing based on the fact that I contacted around 100 members, and it certainly seems that some users have ignored the message. Martinp23 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, due to the large number of inactive/unknown advocates, it's hard for us to easily leave an individual message to each, but this would be the ideal solution, and then should no response be gleaned, delisting from the page. As it is, I see this as unlikely to happen (but hope to be proven wrong!), and would suggest that we remove the personal member statements of users who are no longer active, and put their usernames alone into a table, perhaps removing them only after a certain period of inactivity, and with a warning notice. Martinp23 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. Users who have not replied to messages (and the last one was in October) should be listed under a general "inactive members" collumn, without any notes or anything. If they wish to officialy resign, then they may do so. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I say that anyone who doesn't take at least one case a month should be moved by bot to "inactive," and moved by bot to "active" once they take a case. It would give everyone a mild incentive to take cases, and save Martin the spam work. TheronJ 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh Bravely said lad! Bravely said for a kid with that college gleam in his eyes and still blinded by all that idealistic tripe served up in the colleges. Perhaps you were planning to take up a collection and make sure my mortgage and auto and kids school tuitions were paid because I didn't have time this last month while rearing a family for taking on a case. Never mind that most of what I have done or acted within has ever been as an official case as you would have it? Sorry lad. You need some seasoning before you're in any position to judge me and my schedule. AMA is not the be-all and end-all of my wikipedia priorities either, and neither is it for all those who didn't bother responding to the spamming message, you can be assured. Think you need to rethink that from scratch. It would certainly give no incentive to be effectively slapped down... or do they think of it as a get out of jail free card. (Whew! Guess I'm off the hook there!) Volunteers are volunteers, you can nag them, but you can't force them through the information superhighway.
       Now as to nagging, why is it so much trouble to update a template like I get the Signpost, or have a BOT drop a message, like the Miltary history club does. 100 or so names is not a terribly long list, and can be readily done in an hour-and-a-half or so, I'd estimate by hand and a list of links. Add another half hour to check 'contributions' for recent activity. While you're dropping a messaging template. When there is no message, blank the template. I thought this is what you've been doing?!?
       Has anyone worked through that way and checked to see if the members are still actively editing, Admining, or at least on occasion? Now if that check shows them inactive for three or four months, then I'd move them to inactive. Anything else means you probably ought to be working on a new you with some added outside priorities to improve your own perspective. There is life off wikipedia and the commons after all. Let me see there's wiktionary, wikispecies, wikinews, wikibooks, wikisource, wikichick, wikimovies, wikibars, wikibeach, wikicars... and oh, yeah, wikisex! <g> // FrankB 06:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Theron, there's my case, for example. Now, I'm on a great and difficult case (see here) and, obviously, I can't take anything else; altough I'm very concerned about the amount of cases that aren't answered yet I would like to help. Then, If I'm not taking cases, am I inactive? I know of cases that lasted longer than a month. This is volunteering, not a job. --Neigel von Teighen 13:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a good point - I guess rather than taking a case, the test could be whether you have been listed as advocating for any open matter within the past month. (That would raise some technical issues, but they're not complicated). Generally, though, what's the harm in being marked inactive if you're not, you know, "active?" TheronJ 14:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy considerations

Advocate screening and bar

Result: Good points were raised by all. It is a contentious issue and should be discussed in greater detail at the next meeting.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

Two related issues:

  • It has been proposed that the AMA screen advocates.
  • It has been proposed that an Advocate Bar (like a Bar exam/setup) be created. Membership in the Bar would be voluntary but would help with QA

Advocate screening poll

It has been proposed that a required minimum of 300 edit counts and 2 months experience be a pre-requisite for membership in the AMA.

All in favor
  1. Neigel von Teighen 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

#I'm in favour of the 2 months at least. We need to make sure that our advocates understand WP:DR, and what to do. It's what we do. I agree with Steve that current members should be Grandfathered in. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to strike my vote for now, and have proposed a second option below. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. If someone joins and is below this amount, we could suggest that someone else co-chairs their first case or something... Addhoc 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely -- ßottesiηi (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. In favor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Martinp23 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. We need something, this looks like a good compromise Brian | (Talk) 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. A test would be better. Computerjoe's talk 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Not bad. TheronJ 05:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Should be uncontroversial Fred-Chess 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. I agree but also think you should be recomended but at least one advocate. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 01:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
All opposed
  1. Edit counts is a very poor measure. How many edit wars has the editor skirted and skated through might be a more rationale basis. If you must have a limit, those aren't high enough. Triple them at least. // FrankB 06:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. When I joined I actually asked via e-mail to tag along on another case, apparently being the first to ever do so. I like Addhoc's suggestion, but oppose requiring anything. Those who want to be in should be in. Edit counts aren't accurate in this regard, but they can be useful in offering help to newbies. \/\/slack (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. I'm not sure of the rationale behind the criteria. 300 meaningless edits can be achieved by an immature editor using AWB in a day, while a sensible, intelligent editor may only make one large but brilliant edit every day. Another person may spend two months trolling and causing problems, while an experienced counsellor who has worked on mediation in real life may have just joined the site because a fellow Advocate suggested they could be of use. The ethos of Wikipedia is that anyone can join in - the qualifying factor is people's personal judgement. If an individual feels they can be of use, let that be the qualifying factor. If there are problems, they should be dealt with as they happen. Let this part of Wiki be filled with the same spirit as the main part of Wiki. SilkTork 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
All neutral
  1. I'm honestly not sure that these are the right numbers, or even if we should do this at all; however, I do believe that we need -something- in place to ensure that the people who are doing the helping are experienced enough and that editors who are currently members be grandfathered into this new policy, provided we draft it. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 17:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Pro's and Con's seem balanced. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Advocate screening discussion

  • This isn't going to happen. Swiftly removing advocates who cause problems is more realistic. Addhoc 12:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that it would be too tricky to implement, as it would require comittee formations and politics and ... ick... I'll just stop right there. :-) However, I cannot shake the feeling that we at least need -some- sort of Advocate training due to some problems that we were having with editors who are brand new to Wikipedia (who weren't very familliar with the rules) signing up as Advocates. Don't get me wrong, I encourage that kind of enthusiasm; however, sometimes it becomes difficult to deal with a lack of experience on a practical level (at least that's what Aristotle would say :-) ). So, do we impose an edit count limit? Enforce a training session? Have required reading? Honestly speaking, I don't seem to like -any- of those options. As for taking any sort of disciplinary action against an Advocate this came up at the last meeting and our solution was a 360° review on a case-by-case basis, which seems to be the fairest procedure that we could arrive at. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 300 edits, not higher nor lower. I think it's a quite good number to state that the user has gained some experience in Wikipedia's community and the possiblity (s)he already had been related in any way in a dispute is very likely. --Neigel von Teighen 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • How about "and no recent major conflicts" on the end of that (of course, we then have to define "recent", by which I'd say a month (since the resolution of said conflict)). Martinp23 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should add two months (total time) to that. First month is just interest, second usually means your here to stay (for a while at least). Many people at WP:RFA use 3 months as a minimum amount of time to gain the knowledge needed. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Perfect! --Neigel von Teighen 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What if it is that the major conflict; and subsequent resolution of that conflict, has given the user the experience and motivation necessary, for AMA? It is true that experience and handling it well would count better to a user hoping to join. Just something to consider. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 21:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, how about a version 1.1: Something similar, but we will not reject anyone who would like to join. Instead, newer editors that don't have much experience on their first case are helped/overseen by an experienced advocate (kindof like interning). Any thoughts? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bar poll

It has been proposed that, as a method of accountability, the AMA create a Bar system as a certifying body for Advocates. Membership would be voluntary.

All in favor
All opposed
  1. I just don't see it panning out in a beneficial way. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I don't think it would help. If you wanted, you could have Martin or somebody watch various advocacies and rate the advocates, but I think an exam wouldn't really capture what makes a good advocate. TheronJ 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. . Strongly Opposed. We are not Lawyers and NEVER will be. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I think our advice is what should be taken into account during a dispute, not a badge of quasi-authority. SilkTork 11:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
All neutral
  1. I may be more in favor if this idea is further fleshed out and we find a different name than "Bar". :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I think it's not as clear as necessary yet --Neigel von Teighen 20:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agree with above concerns, also what if someone gets top marks from advocees, but has views that are subjectively deemed incorrect... Addhoc 00:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Parts of the community already think that we're Wikilawyers - I don't see why we'd want to cement that opinion of theirs by setting up a bar (or, for that matter, make people scream WP:NOT at us if we implement any system of accountability). Martinp23 15:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Bar discussion

Ties in with accountability. The bar would give competency exams. Those who pass can display a Bar certified next to their username. If they screw up the Bar would revoke the right. Geo. 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This would probably make us sound a little too much like official wikilawyers. I think that this is related to the discussion about screening advocates too. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And what kind of drinks should we sell? Really, I don't undertand what would be this helpful for. --Neigel von Teighen 22:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Seconded - apart from as an aspect of "screening", but a slightly more biteful (not a word...) one. I'm concerned about the effect this could have of driving advocates away, and the best way for an advocate to impress on the community how good and advocate he/she is, they should advocate, and build up a good reputation! Martinp23 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not so hot on this particular issue. Besides the fact that if we call it a "Bar" that we'll be stuck in a Wikilawyering mindset (imagine how Advocees may interpret it...). As I've stated above, I believe we need some form of experience encouragement, but this may be very tricky to implement. Since it has been seconded, though, I'll list a poll. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's a good idea in principle, but might provoke opposition/hostility from the rest of the Wikipedia community (as per Wikilawyering). The experience of Esperanza, and their nomination for deletion, shows that any organisation like ours has to be careful not to alienate non-members. A Bar Exam might make us look too much like an "élite". Walton monarchist89 08:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of opening it up to all advocates. I just called it a bar because that is what it's close to. Ge o. 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Is there anything similar on other Wikipedia associations? --Neigel von Teighen 13:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is just meant to say , "OK, this advocate knows something." Geo. 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm convinced that advocating in WP is almost intuitive. Yes, you must know the basic policies and be a good faithed user, but that's a requirement for any user, excepting maybe the fact that we need to know a bit more on how the DR system is and changes. --Neigel von Teighen 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that I'm thinking about it, instead of messing with any sort of Bar, I would think that a case count or finding some way to use the lichert scales that are part of the followup questions might be more beneficial. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 01:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That seems to be more reasonable. But if we use followups as the objective parameter to measure advocates, then we'll have to agree that we must use more than five of them for each of us to really have an ojective evuluation. Followups can be very passionately answered by an advocee that hadn't got what wanted. --Neigel von Teighen 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. An upset Advocee can tarnish a review, which is why I think that we should also integrate some 360° review into the exit poll to get some weighted results. However, an appropriate mechanism that would be relatively free of bias is currently eluding me. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • An idea for unbiased evaluation would be to use a logical-mathematical model based on results rather than opinion. Or maybe opinion could be treated as one factor among many. My proposal here in my sandbox. --Neigel von Teighen 14:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's pretty mathimatically complicated. The only thing that doesn't seem right about it is that it overstresses winning as opposed to following the rules/consensus. The math revolves around whether your advocee was banned/lost/had sanctions. Some of the advocees we get here want us to wikilawyer till they get their way, and might be just plain wrong. So it might be not right to base numbers on winning and how long they get banned for. Just a thought. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yep, you're right; but I actually didn't know what data to take from an arbitration case instead of the brute case decision. Then, as you say, the stress must be like I put it in Mediation "scoring" (if an agreement was/wasn't reached). Anyway, the idea, IMO, should by something like that. A math model capable to bring qualification based on objective results but also not letting the advocee's opinion down. Notice that I'm not a mathematician (I'm a writer interested in greek and languages) and that my Analysis knowledges are very poor; if there's someone that really knows about this, please help! --Neigel von Teighen 13:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Royalguard. It is a bit.. complicated. And missing some critical method of determining "good" cases. Perhaps we should be investigating a set of criteria that makes a case a "good" one? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We must do it, Steve. If we want to measure, we need to know what we're measuring! In my opinion, a good case is that in which the advocate reaches the requests of his advocee. If these are totally unrealistic, it is very improbable to get them achieved, so it will in most cases a "bad case". Just some thoughts that are behind my complicated evualtion system... Opinions? --Neigel von Teighen 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Re:a good case is that in which the advocate reaches the requests of his advocee.??? A good case is one which settles down and ceases to be contentious. One which stops sucking up editor time in conflict and moves the article into stability... or gets the editors to go separate ways and avoid one another. A case which reaches the ArbCom or RFC stages is a no-win situation for the project, as are all varieties of edit warring and all must be considered as a loss. So I would count those as losses no matter what.
       Some, such as Martin did above, can cringe when I use plain blunt speech in a milieu a bit too concerned with WP:CIV imho, but once in a while it's appropriate and gets to the crux of the issue when someone is acting out immaturely. Not a lot one can do with hardcore pov editor, save act as a challenger others will rally along side with and generate systematic voting. More often than not in an edit war, you have one or a group holding up a majority of editors who aren't willing to confront them and call a spade a spade. But what needs done in every matter I've been involved with is different and personality driven, hence I can't imagine a rating system that would be effective.
       In variably, I've put myself in the middle agreeing with one on this point, and the other on that point, walking on a knife edge to move agreements and while avoiding taking sides myself. So how do I rate myself when I disagree with what I'd prefer to gain accommodation from the parties at war? My point is you have to be what they call a fair broker in international relations, and maintain neutrality, and especially not edit in the articles outside of trivial things. Otherwise, one party or the other will feel you're unfair and biased, and credibility vanishes.
       I'm not sure I'd make a good partisan (advocate) for one side. I signed on here when this was the Mediation committee, and that's what I do when I can. // FrankB 00:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you're talking about mediation rather than advocacy. We must take a side on a dispute; we're requested to help people on their cases, so we cannot remain neutral. But, of course, if you advocate for someone that yourself believe is acting against any WP's policy, it is your responsibility to resign from the case after advicing the advocee firstly. Mediators, on the other side, have to bring stability into the article and/or both sides. You say that a case in ArbCom is a lose, but I really think it is not: ArbCom is proven to be a respectable institution to solve disputes; if you go there, is because you have a hope to find there the solution of the dispute after passing by Mediation and other previous resorts. --Neigel von Teighen 11:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

E- Bay

All in Favor

All opposed

Neutral

Advocees demanding wikilawyering

Result: This proposal should be considered in more detail at the next meeting.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

In a number of recent cases, Advocates have been expected by advocees to "make their (incorrect) point of view be accepted" (with persistance after the advocate has offered advice) - It has been proposed that we construct a potential rewording of parts of the request system to emphasize an Advocate's true role.

Wikilawyering discussion

  • Yes, I believe that Martin added this one, after some short discussion in #AMA-Wikipedia. The thing is that advocee's are coming to the AMA saying that "so-and-so keeps deleting my additions, and I want you to tell them that I'm right". For a specific case, see Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/September 2006/Yembi. I advocated on behalf of User:Yembi, where he was added an external link that violated WP:EL. By complete coincidence, User:Yankees76 and User:Glen S showed up and also offered advice. Of corse, the followup indicated that the user was mad at the whole process (duh), but I still got top marks for politness. There might be some stress that you may in fact be wrong. It isn't our job to tell people that they can do whatever they want. We need to tell them that there's a policy on _insertpolicyhere_ that says "whatever" and you need to follow that in whatever way is most civil. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Advocates on either side of a dispute

Result: The idea is a good one, further discussion at the next meeting is in order.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

There has been a request for clarification of the section of the FAQ regarding Advocates appearing on multiple sides of a dispute and it has been proposed that the section be re-worded to make its point more effectively.

Both sides discussion

Team structure

Result: The proposal for teams to tackle recurring topics is a good one, discussion will continue at the next meeting.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

There has been a proposal to build AMA teams that can work on difficult cases or act as support for difficult cases, including some sort of determined structure ("pyramidal").

Team structure discussion

  • CyclePat, could you elaborate the description for Team Structure, as it was your proposal. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 06:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an old proposal, I think. It could be interesting to have teams for different kind of cases (content disputes, uncivility, blocking, admin abuse, etc.) and, for content disputes, we could have a list of advocates interests, so users can request a specific advocate that knows about the topic --Neigel von Teighen 13:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It sounds good, especially with advocate specialties, and could become ever more necessary as our case load increases. However we'd need to be careful not to force advocate to join one of these teams, and allow them to take a case which might fall under the jurisdiction of one team even if they're not on that team - if we didn't some advocates may get bored and leave, and some cases may be left waiting. Martinp23 23:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Martin, that's an important detail. Yes, teams should be one way to work, but not the only one. It should be like WP Projects: anyone can edit Politics-related articles no matter if the user is member of WikiProject Politics or not; and anyone is free to join there. (AMAProjects???) --Neigel von Teighen 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
A team structure would be great for me, for guidance and experience. I'd be happy to join and perhaps one day lead a team. Many hands make light work. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 07:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Are we going to do it or not? --Neigel von Teighen 13:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • With respect, I don't see the point of this. If we're not (1) assigning advocates to specific cases; or (2) even qualifying advocates to be part of the project, what good will it do to divide the advocates up into "Politics" advocates or "No personal attacks" advocates or whatever? If anything, I would rather see the requests divided into categories or difficultly levels or something, so advocates with those interests could take them.
  • On a related point, the only major difference I see in advocates is style - some advocates are pit bulls and charge in on behalf of the advocee, and some advocates are more subtle, and spend a lot of time trying to get the advocee to understand the Wikipedia way. It seems to me that some problems call more for one than the other, but I don't know how to divide them beforehand. TheronJ 02:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't want more structure, but I'm willing to help anyone who wants it, with anything, any time. If some other advocates would throw in with me in the same spirit, then anyone who wanted some 'team help' could just ask any of us who are willing, and we could just do it without adding any new structure other than a list of names of Advos who will help other advos on request. User:Pedant 07:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, my original idea for the team structure was to have a "mentor" team. We would not be changing AMA structure but we would be giving an little help for AMA's advocates. (mind you, asside, I think if anyone of us would like to form an AMA Team that could be really interesting! Specially if you just want to specialize for example: a review of critical parts where 1 guy does the article, 1 guy does the opponent, 1 guy does the defence, and 1 guy closes it up, while deciding what implementing the strategy... Nahhh! To cool!) Anyway, Originally I was thinking someone that would be of the same level or with a little more experience whome you could ask for direct help in sticky situations. It came to because I often only take AMA cases from a direct email. My most recent one was user:Cplot which ends up having roots going almost as far back as that bottle of expired salad dressing in my fridge which no one wants to use. (and the recent arbitration with Seabhcan... anyways) I am currently managing approx. 1 to 2 cases at a time. If we where part of a small team, I could maybe email my direct teamate or "superior"(I say superior but lets be honest... You need a team leader!) The Cplot case had me wondering... who is the good guy and who was the bad guy. I trully was baffled and in that circumstance, of what I perceived to be extreme prejudice and a ganging up by certain administrators against my "client" (if I can say that), I realy could have used (and maybe I could still use) a fellow AMA member to help understand the frustration. Finally, if not for that reason a team can be a good learning experience for everyone! A mentor could motivate new AMA members to give that extra little bit like "hey! all you have to do is... and you should be done for this case." Or vis versa, I might have one advocate under me ask... "Hey Pat! This one is a little hard for me... got any advice?" I direct mentor? Or as I said a team, where we all have someone we can look up too (figuratively speaking), have an amicable time (when cases seem outright funny for us but perhaps not for others), and most definattelly trust! Dunno maybe we can be Team AMA Rika! --CyclePat 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I was thinking in something similar but more based on competences. I mean: advocates with experience in sockpuppetry accusations form a team (by themselves and voluntarily), those more experienced on POV pushing in another team, those (like me) specialized on NPA in another, etc. Then, if you have a problem, you know where and whom to ask for help and inside the team itself, people can advice each other. Mainly, to know who is who in AMA so we can work better as an association. But never forgetting that this is volunteer and that if you're in the NPA-Team, you can also deal with an Admin abuse case or whatever you do without any rstriction nor obligation to be in any team. Such as WikiProjects is for editing articles. --Neigel von Teighen 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I think such an idea could be easilly implemented with hardly a hick-up. (Just make another page called AMA Teams)(a link perhaps from the side bar or members list) and let the AMA members post their team idea! But do we go along with it? --CyclePat 07:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The idea is that anyone can create a team proposal and, after an evaluation by someone (maybe by consensus, as Requests for adminship), it is started. --Neigel von Teighen 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Co-Op

Result: The proposal unfortunately died (for now) when Esperanza did.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.
  • There has been proposed that the AMA investigate the possibility of co-developing with WP:Esperanza some sort of a referral program to handle cases that only require minimal "helping hand" interventions.

Esperanza Co-Op Discussion

Deputy Coordinator Review

Result: The community response seems to be that I am seen to be doing alright, I felt suitably humbled. Wikiwoohoo 19:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive. One of our Deputies, Wikiwoohoo, has requested a review of his role and actions within that office.

Thank you for your very kind comments so far :). I had been thinking that my role as one of Steve's deputies could be overseeing the running of the AMA, such as organising the meeting rather than assigning cases. What do other members think of that? Wikiwoohoo 22:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you would like to review my actions on Wikipedia, please vote either to support, oppose or remain neutral on my RfA. Any vote would be greatly appreciated. Bear in mind, I am not forcing you to vote either way or to vote at all, I would just like to get more feedback from the community. Thanks! Wikiwoohoo 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Deputy Coordinator Discussion

Result: Image:DFRAMA.png by Dfrg.msc was voted the replacement to Steve's original design. Implementation of the image as the official AMA logo is down to Steve.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

The copyright status of the AMA logo has been brought into scrutiny. It is a composite logo made up of the stylized AMA (designed by Steve) superimposed upon the proprietary Wikipedia globe logo. There was also a request to go over possible alternatives (if required) (per Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates).

AMA Logo poll

The following are proposed new AMA logos up for voting. As new logos come to the forefront, remember that you may always change your vote until the Meeting closes. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

File:AMA logo.png

Image:AMA logo.png

Image:DFRAMA.png
  1. My only criticism is if there could be a solid white line around the black stylized AMA to give more contrast against the puzzle piece. Other than that, I like it. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I am in favour of image 2, the AMA on the jigsaw piece. It is a good enough replacement of Steve's image for me, plus it looks good inside a userbox. Logos should always be versatile so that there are no issues with size, etc Wikiwoohoo 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. There're both so good! I like this one just a bit better, as it's the same as now, but with no attatched issues. I only have one concern (that I thought of after), and that is that it might make us look more like a society instead of a member's advocates organization. Re-upload'm both to Commons is probably a good idea too. Maybe we'll encourage AMA-like structures elsewhere (I was going to link to an inter-wiki related case, but right now I can't remember what it was under). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. I really think (though the time I spent designing logo 1) that 2 is better as AMA's official logo. Maybe, mine could be used for Coordinator's Desk or Deputies or whatever... Anyway, I don't withdraw my proposal. As a footnote, the problem with my logo on userboxes is the shadow under "AMA" and that I had to use some blue reflexes on the fonts (by the way, AMA is written on a greek font!!! so it is Alpha-My-Alpha). --Neigel von Teighen 13:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. I'd go with the second one (having been pleasantly suprised by both when I actually stopped reading the discussion by diffs and scrolled down :)). Martinp23 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Loving number 2. \/\/slack (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA Logo discussion

  • I designed the old logo and released into public domain (I want it back and will fight for it no matter if I shall die!... just kidding). What do you think about? Maybe I can improve it or someone can make a better one. The idea is not to use WP's logo; we may have some problem. --Neigel von Teighen 13:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer the current logo designed by Steve. To get away from the problem of including the Wikipedia logo, I think it would look just as effective to remove the WP logo and simply have the stylised interlinking AMA letters. Neigel von Teighen, your logo is good but I would refer the style deisnged by Steve. Wikiwoohoo 18:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Now here's the thing, the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines are specifically about the Wikimedia logo, but also seem to apply to all Wikimedia-related logos due to editor and board interpretation (I would personally love to have clarification on the Wikimedia wiki). The Counter Vandalism Unit had a similar scuffle over the copyright issues inherent to their own adaptation of the Wikipedia globe and the wikimedia commons deletion case is here. So, I suggest that we first request permission to use the Wikipedia logo properly, and in the event that we are not allowed, I'll come up with some alternative that still has the same "look and feel" but is ultimately not connected to the copyrights in question. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that, before we take action, we should get board confirmation of the rules. I'd have that the as the image displays the WMF tag, there shouldn't be a major issue, but then the Visual Identity Guidelines come into play. Are ther any policies on wikipedia relating to this, and could we have link to the relevant ones on meta and WMF wiki (I've found one, which doesn't seem to clarify the issue for me). Martinp23 19:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why dont' we just eliminate the globe from the background? Ohh, Wikiwoohoo already said that. I guess we have three options: 1. We ask the WMF about it and get their permission to use the logo status quo 2. We get rid of the globe in the background, and that will eliminate the problem 3. We get an entirely new logo. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the Current logo is excellent, but to remove the globe, why don't we just put the AM on a puzzle piece? Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it really have to be "lawyer-looking"? I thought one of our problems we were trying to get rid of was a lawyer-esque image. :-) If we look too lawyerly or act too lawyerly (or in this case are branded lawyerly) then we'll have more problems with Advocees demanding wikilawyering and other such things... which will cause us a larger number of problems. In our last meeting we went over how powerful a mindset using the word "Client" can enforce which is why, in the end, we went with "Advocee" and this is the same reason I'm really hesitant about a Bar. Just my thoughts. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Here it is: my proposal, based on the current one but with a more "modern" style... --Neigel von Teighen 19:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That looks very good at full size, however in a userbox, not so good..
File:AMA logo.pngThis user is part of the
Association of Members' Advocates.
Addhoc 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we have much of a choice. The fact is that we will need to replace the current one. So, unless someone comes up with something else (I personally like the big "M"), I think that one will do. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hold on, I've still got to do mine. Uploading now. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Here she is, not as good as the original, but it will do temporarily. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 05:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So, the userbox version will look like:
This user is part of the
Association of Members' Advocates.
This user was a part of the now closed
Association of Members' Advocates.

It's the same thing, but no more copyright problems! I think Steve will have to set up a poll for this one. (by the way, {{clear}} works better than <br>). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is much better than mine. I like it! --Neigel von Teighen 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree it looks better at userbox size. Addhoc 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I knew I'd find some use for the other logo! I'll use it as part of the general welcome. If anyone wants to make that look better too, just go ahead. The image makes it look less...bland. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"The image makes it look less...bland." because its gray background does the contrast with Wikipedia's white. Personally, I' thinking in using my own logo in my userpage as a link to AMA, but clearly stating that it isn't the official logo (I know the poll is not finished, but it's very unlikely that my image wins) --Neigel von Teighen 13:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we ready to make the changeover then? I know it's only been 9 days, but I think that we've gathered enough consensus on what to do. We just need to discuss what to do with the old logo now (or if we do nothing it'll probably get deleted). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • No - we don't want to suddenly kill all the image links when it gets deleted. I say move the current image to Image:AMA old, delete the redirect and move the new image there. If this is OK, I'll do it (as I can delete the redirect easily and move the images). Of course, we'll get a few moments without a logo, but it shouldn't be too long. Thanks, Martinp23 21:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • [edit conflict] I'd say wait until the end of the Meeting (we're half way through :-) ) before we make the switch so that everyone who will vote does so. If someone complains about it in the meantime, we can push our schedule up a bit and explain our discussion and proceses. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 23:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this even necessary? Best I can tell is that the CVE logo used the Wikimedia logo, not the Wikipedia logo. That's just based on reading the relevant discussions; the images have been deleted from existence, so that we may never know them. (Yay institutionalized irony.) - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Other Business?

Result: Greater co-operation with Arb Com is an idea that should be developed further. This discussion will be carried over to the next meeting.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

If there is any other business, please bring it up here. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA-ArbCom Co-Op

This is something I proposed a long time ago. It would be interesting to coordinate tasks with ArbCom such as "experts'" third opinions or maybe advising arbtrators in some cases. Also, it can help ArbCom work faster and we would be doing our job. Obviously, this should be cooperation and not subordination to ArbCom. Thoughts? --Neigel von Teighen 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA-ArbCom Discussion

  • I agree wholeheartedly that we need to work closer with ArbCom. Perhaps we should get in contact with them and see if one of their board members would be willing to comment here at the Meeting? Overall I think that we would benefit greatly if all WP:DR- and help-related parties get together and see how we can help one another (MedCabal, MedCom, ArbCom, Esperanza, etc.). אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 19:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
How about we propose a giant meeting of all the groups? Something like Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Associations Meeting? I think overall we have nothing to loose and much to gain if the AMA, MedCab, MedCom, ArbCom and EA get together and discuss where we all fit in. Maybe we'll all step on eachother's toes less too (I know that some AMA cases are probably better for Mediation). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm thinking not only about meetings, but a constant cooperation between parts. Anyway, we can propose this on a meeting. --Neigel von Teighen 23:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - that'd be good. Shall we contact the relevant groups at the end of this meeting and arrange ours with them then, or try to have the two running concurrently? Martinp23 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Or we can get representative of each of the processes to come to this meeting now, then have a bigger meeting afterwards. Martinp23 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. AMA's representative must be, of course, our Coordinator Steve. --Neigel von Teighen 13:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd want our Deputies in on this, too. :-) In the meantime, let's gather a list of who we want to get in touch with. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you Steve if you want me. Wikiwoohoo 20:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Some ideas:
These are all (AFAIK) co-ordinators in their respective organisation Martinp23 19:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That looks good. I think Bauder would be best from ArbCom since he seems to be the most active. The rest of us will watch from the sidelines, or just keep discusing here (or somewhere on what we think). Our coordinator/deputy can relay the information to the group. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ehm, I partially disagree with Bauder alone. I think ArbCom should be represented by, at least, the absoulte majority of its active members, as they are used to work. If it happens to be any election during the meeting, they'll have the enough quorum to decide it also as an official ArbCom decision inmediately. Of course, I also believe Fred is our best contact and we should try to 'negotiate' with him first. --Neigel von Teighen 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For Mebcab you may want to add Cowman109 Ge o. 17:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should be more buddy buddy with the ArbCom. And I think that the coordinators of each orginization should be the ones to meet up. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sadly, Aeon, ArbCom has no coordinator/chair. Here it's where we must get our organization working and approach ArbCom seriously as AMA and just not as individuals. This issue has great influence on our job and functioning. Maybe, (considering the "Disappoiting link" problem) the best should be to make P.R. with ArbCom before with the other DR entities. For that, I recommend to send out not just Steve and our deputies but also one or two of us that have been somehow involved with ArbCom before. --Neigel von Teighen 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Currently all I see is a problem, (even in the original proposal). The problem is we want to coordinate with Arbcom (for whatever beneficial reasons). To resolve this I believe:
1) We must formulate a proposal with a few ideas/solutions to the problem. (ex.: To coordinate with Arbcom we will create a special section in AMA... or have a team that is specialized in Arbcom... or create a link that is posted in the gabari of ARBCOM cases. etc...)
2) List the pros (I think there where a few arleady... but that was for the idea of communicating with ARBcom) but I didn't see to many cons. (ex.: will we be able to handle the extra publicity which will bring extra work or will publicity help increase our AMA members that are interested in the Niche of Arbcom... can we sustain this growth with our current level of AMA members)
3) Implementation (how we are going to do it!) (For example that we contact Fred... Or What if we right a proposal letter... and explain our concrete propositions that we found in step 1 and 2 (Ie.: We will make a division call Arbcom, or we are implementing an Arbcom Team, etc...)(think of it like a business proposal/merger with Arbcom to help them and the people that are there, however I could see that some people will still not want to use such a Team because they may feel they are biased... all these ideas of paranoia, trust, conspiring... in some of my cases I get someone that is looking for trust worthy source) This is a difficult plan which will require a difficult discussion and some inovative model to accomade the needs (and problems that still need listing). So, all that to say, it's a good idea! It's going to take some carefull planing and what I think an "official" type of letter that we should send to the entire Arbcom... with possibly a RfC on the pro and cons. --CyclePat 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the best would be that firstly Steve, our deputies and one or two advocates that had been on arbitration cases contact one or two Arbs as a first approach. This will be a hard discussion that will be better held if few people is involved; then, when things begin to seem better, the discussion should be opened to all arbitrators and all advocates willing to participate on it. Of course, I would wait until the new arbitrators take their seats.
My proposal on improving our relation with ArbCom some time ago was to give AMA official status such as MedCom and ArbCom self. Nowadays I think such a thing is impracticable due the unstability of our association. Probably the best for us now is to ask ArbCom what do they expect from us and try to see how to apply it. We're who are on disadvantage, not them. --Neigel von Teighen 20:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Of all the proposals at this meeting this was the one I was most hoping would go ahead. But is it going to? Is there any more discussion needed? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, I start with a draft letter for ArbCom. --Neigel von Teighen 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Draft letter

<!--BEGIN OF LETTER-->

To all arbitrators:

The Association of Members' Advocates (AMA), as a result from its December 2006 Meeting, would like to propose ArbCom a way to solve the differences that have arose between both entities and also to find a way on how can AMA advocates be more helpful on arbitration cases.

We propose a meeting between the AMA Coordination, representing all advocates, and ArbCom in which these and other issues should be discussed. After, we also could invite representatives from MedCom, MedCab and maybe Esperanza in order to establish a Dispute Resolution Associations Meeting. We believe this can be helpful on recognizing which is each association's/committee's function in DR.

Sincerely yours, signature

<!--END OF LETTER-->

Is it right? Any change you might do, just do it directly. --Neigel von Teighen 11:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest the following for a draft email instead...
"Following the AMA December 2006 Meeting, could we suggest an informal discussion take place with the aim of enhanced cooperation in the dispute resolution process?
We propose a meeting between a representative of ArbCom and the AMA Coordinator, representing all advocates, and possibly later, we also could invite representatives from MedCom and MedCab to establish a Dispute Resolution Associations Meeting.
Regards,
signature"
Addhoc 13:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Much better, and less formal. I prefer this rather than mine self. --Neigel von Teighen 18:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Just make sure that Esperanza is not included in there (they're gone now). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Page organization

Result: The somewhat varied styles for AMA pages were fixed by Martinp23 and Royalguard11 who have made all pages subpages of the main AMA page.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

Maybe I'm the only one who's noticed this, but the AMA seems to have pages all around Wikipedia. Maybe we should try to move them all to subpages of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates or something. It might make us look a little more organized at least. Or am I the only one who thinks this? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Page organization poll

It has been proposed that we re-organize the AMA's pages within Wikipedia as described in the discussion section.

  • This poll is not necessary. Those against the proposal set down by Royalguard should do so within the discussion section, rather than listing oppose votes. Basically, we're waiting for Steve to cast his opinion over this and either agree or disagree. Thanks to those who have taken part in discussions. For what it's worth, I'm in support :). Wikiwoohoo 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
All in favor
  1. I didn't really think that we needed a poll, but support anyways. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support This idea is bold, yet lovely, like a flower upon my finger. Also looks to be necessary, if I may be serious. \/\/slack (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. yes we should be as coherent as possible, subpages of Wikipedia:AMA seems better to me than subpages of Wikipedia:Association of Member Advocates for simplicity's sake... User:Pedant 07:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Please, this is common sense; we don't need this poll. But, if we must vote, I support. --Neigel von Teighen 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support but why on earth are we doing this poll?! :). I suggest close per WP:SNOW that a dissenting opinion will ever materialise. Martinp23 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Apologies for not casting my opinion sooner. I'm all for this idea, and I believe we should also expand our shortcuts too. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
All opposed
All neutral

Page organization discussion

Result: The message was disappointing, though it gives us something to work on. Improving co-operative work with the Arbcom is something which will be carried over to the next meeting for greater consideration.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

Link

While old, this comment is something I think should be considered very carefully. Feelings like this aren't helpful to us at all, especially from Arb Com members. Thoughts? What can we do about this? \/\/slack (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

o_O. That is, well, extremely disappointing. Above we have suggested more cooperation, but it seems like they want less of it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
There are some of us who are part of both groups so there is already cooperation. One of our main purposes is to help avoid the need for arbitration, by solving problems informally, right? So it seems to me that it's a good thing that we haven't presented a lot of cases for arbitration. And that comment is old anyway. I think we can just keep on how we are, and try to avoid having a need for arbitration. With arbitration, the disputants have no say in the outcome, so it seems less desirable than a consensus or compromise between the two conflicting parties. The ArbCom has enough to do without trying to coordinate with us. User:Pedant 07:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ehem! at least I received this for my work once. I would rather discuss this grave issue with ArbCom seriously. --Neigel von Teighen 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too surprised. Maybe Neigel did a good job in his Arb Comm, but having watched a few advocates participate in Arbitrations, and actually assisted a participant in one, I tend to think that we need to refocus on what we can add to the process. Advocating in Arbcomms tends to be difficult because the people who need advocates tend to have very difficult cases, to be unfamiliar with the process, and to have very time-sensitive needs. IMHO, Arb Comm should keep the link because advocates are better than no assistance at all, which is the alternative. I propose that we pick one person to approach Arb Comm and ask (1) whether they think advocacy can contribute anything to arb comm proceedings, (2) if so, what, and (3) whether they would like to see any changes in the way AMA approaches arbitrations. TheronJ 14:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that we AMA advocates should be more participtaive on the Workshop page rather than in the raw discussions between parties. This is, try to help with proposals to resolve the dispute instead of compiling lots of evidence for backing the advocee's statement up. --Neigel von Teighen 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use images pollcy

Result: Royalguard11 and Martinp23 both gave good responses to an enquiry relating to fair use and how Wikipedia deals with it.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

The Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 which states "Fair use images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus that doing so is necessary to the goal of creating a free encyclopedia (like the templates used as part of the Main Page)." This is un-fair and should be changed we need to take this to the attention of wikipedia staff to change the pollcy. I shall also bring this to the attention of Wikipedians against censorship. Thank You, Cocoaguy (Talk) 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated on that page, this has nothing to do with censorship, it's about covering ourselves legally. Fair use is written in US copyright law, and fair use can be claimed if it is only used to illustrate the subject of an article. This is wholly outside our control, and I (even before joining the AMA) delt with something like this on Template talk:Canadian federal political parties. If you want to lobby to have this changed, then you'll have to lobby the WMF itself, and it's legal council Brad Patrick. In short, it's an unwinnable, steep uphill battle. I can't talk for others, but I can say that I have no desire to jump on that one. The consensus in stacked against you I'm afraid (they're practially sacrificing fair use images on the mailing list). You can't win this one I'm afraid, unless you convince Jimmy himself. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The WP:AMA is primarily here for advocacy between regular users on issues of importance - in theory, were fair use a wikipedia policy, we'd be able to take it to ArbCom and try to get it repealed (still nigh-on-impossible). As it is, fair use is enshrined in US law, so there's not much we can do about it, or the carefully worded interpretation by the Wikimedia Foundation of the law. If we were, as an encyclopedia, to drop fair-use completely, we'd lose millions of fair use images, and would drastically decrease the overall (intellectual!) value of wikipedia. Thanks Martinp23 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cases

Result: Royalguard11 provided an excellent answer to a new member's query.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

Hi I am new to this but, how do you get assigned to a case. Do you assign yourself or do you have to be assigned by another. Sorry if this sounds overly simple and If I am asking in the wrong place. Thank you. — Seadog 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you think that you know what you're doing, then you can assign yourself a case (as most of us do). Just select an open case (it will appear in WP:AMAREQ), and under AMA Information you can set it to "open", and record under "advocate status" that you are on the case. The technical details (regarding the status template) are on the talk page. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests by email

Result: The idea is a good one and should be discussed further at the next meeting.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.

I propose that for cases entered by email, advocates should be advised by the AMA policy to create a case page. This will, primarily, keep the reason for the case public, although the communication can remain private. The reason I'm suggesting this is so that we can keep track of what advocates are working on, and see if we can help. Martinp23 14:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. That's a good idea. TheronJ 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is necessary. --Neigel von Teighen 21:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am for this in a way. I think that there should be the ability to communicate with an advocate privately, off-wiki. But, emails should remain private, and a case page shouldn't be created until the on-wiki part starts (like discussion on talk pages) or until the case is finished, and the advocee doesn't mind some information being published. If it's just some private advice on a situation, then it should probably remain confidencial (not laywer-client confidential, but not too much information). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I disagree. I see where this one is coming from. Martinp23 suggested I create a page here on AMA for prosperity in regards to my "client" (if I can say that) user:Cplot. I refused because; I don't think it goes hand in hand with our AMA guidelines. Cplot appears to be causing a feisty case. Personally I appreciate the attempt to create a help regime by implementing "you need to do this" but I think this is a step toward trying to take control of AMA members (who are volunteers). It is inadvertently the creation of a type of control hierarchy. (I don't mind a hierarchy but some people appear to be opposed to a hierarchy, aforementioned in the "making teams" section.) The most important element is how you not undermine the idea of confidentiality and anonymity. Though it appears to be a good faith idea, I think it contradicts the AMA guide to advocacy and the possibility or remaining anonymous. [4]. Furthermore AMA are volunteers, so I don't know if everyone is ready to do such a thing for every case. Not only that but for the last year or so I have probably done 15 or some cases. (All my cases where requested by email!). Finally, I think a poll should be done on how many AMA members do cases by email. What are there estimated numbers? And would they file an AMA report? Earlier, aforementioned, I suggested that a team structure (voluntary) would be best! A structure where we can "look up to someone, we trust." I'm not about to put everything that is said during my emails. That would be plain ridiculous and probably make things, often worse. And I'm not in support of having to make a report every time I have a case. (Maybe, if for controversial one’s like Cplot, there was a team structure but not having to write up an AMA report.) --CyclePat 07:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Another reason is maybe because I've never really done a page. I may be reluctant to change "technology." This is a bias that is often formed by employe that have been working in an industry for a little while and have a method that appears to work fine. I think in principal the feedback of many people on this case would have probably made thing a little faster and maybe a little better --CyclePat 07:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand CyclePat's primary objection, and think we can accomodate it. IMHO, there are two relevant goals, both of which we should acknowledge. (1) In almost all cases, there should at least be a page identifying that an advocacy exists, and reflecting its status. (2) In some cases, client confidentiality will prevent adding much more information than that. Nevertheless, except in the very most exceptional cases, there should still be a page. (For example, Martin and I recently conducted a fairly sensitive advocacy. Although all of our advice was offered by e-mail, you can still see a note about the scope of the advocacy and its status here. As to the secondary objection - that reports are too much work for volunteers - I don't agree. If editors are going to represent themselves as acting on behalf of the AMA, I think it's essential that the AMA be at least aware of the advocacy. TheronJ 14:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this for a proposed policy:

Advocacy pages: All advocacies in which advocates represent themselves as acting on behalf of the AMA must have an advocacy page listing, at a minimum, the existence of the advocacy and its status. In most cases, an advocacy page should also list the problem being addressed and the identity of the advocee. Typically, this page is created as part of the advocacy request procedure, and should be updated where appropriate by the advocate. If an advocate receives a request directly and chooses to take that case on behalf of the AMA, the advocate should create an advocacy page. Alternately, the advocate may choose to advocate privately, in which case he or she must make clear to both the avocee and any other involved parties that he or she is not representing the AMA or acting as an AMA advocate in the matter.

Anonymous advocacies: In some cases, advocees may wish to obtain advice or advocacy without revealing their identity. This is reasonable, and advocees not wishing to reveal their identity publicly should email any of the AMA coordinators or deputy coordinators to intiate an anonymous advocacy, or may e-mail an advocate directly. If an advocate chooses to accept an anonymous advocacy on behalf of the AMA, the advocate should create a page identifying the existence of an anonymous advocacy and its status, and should be prepared to discuss the advocacy with the AMA coordinators on request. If the advocate believes that a conflict of interest prevents him or her from sharing the information with any of the coordinators, he or she should work with the coordinators to develop appropriate procedures.

Thoughts? TheronJ 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea... Addhoc 14:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Stating that one is anonymously advocating for someone (correction - stating that one is advocating for someone at all) does not mean that advocates are not required to follow all of our policies and guidelines. For instance, if a client tells you to file an ArbCom request on their behalf that is a transparent attempt to harass and pester the editor that they were banned for harassing and pestering, it is not appropriate to file said request, nor is it appropriate to taunt the editor that the banned editor asks you to taunt. In fact, such taunting can and will lead to sanctions against "advocates" per WP:HAR. It is obviously apparent that such information needs to be consistantly stressed and restressed in this clause, as it is readily obvious to even a casual observer that perminantly banned users have found that the "AMA" is a good way to continue harassing wikieditors even after they have been told to leave. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We must do it, specially if we're going to implement a bar. If there's no public record, it will be highly difficult to have objective evaluations on each of us. --Neigel von Teighen 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Good idea in principal, but all I see is headacks and double-double (That's what alot of people say for our Timy's (Tim Hortons Coffee) here in Canada, meaning 2 creams and 2 sugars.) Maybe a decentralization of power which can allows for the possibility of speeding-up the certain AMA cases. This can be good and it can also be bad. Are there other reasons why a case would need to speeded up or maybe even closed a little early. Maybe some interest are involved? AMA should attempt to remain at arms lenght. Placing pressure on someone to hurry a case or release information may not only hinder a case but may in fact destroy the pleasure of many editors for many months. Personnally, I see this as a good thing in principal. But, I'm a little confused, because on one hand we indicate that AMA is not wikilawyering but on the other hand we are talking about keeping certain conversations "confidential" (Isn't that like a client & lawyer privelge). If I have information... is it my responsibility to release that information. (ie.: IP through an email that confirms sockpuppet) and up to what point... timely fashion should it be released. One last thought, this feal like, "I get the work, I say I'm doing the work, I plan the work, I discuss it, then I repeat the work again." The only reasons we should divulge the fact that we are advocating is 1) for statistic and 2) if we need help! We are the good shepards after all!--CyclePat 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
p.s.: should AMA member have an oath to swear to?

CyclePat wrote: "we indicate that AMA is not wikilawyering but." You're using the term in a Wikilawyering way. Look it up. Wikilawyering does not mean acting as an advocate for an advocatee. I wish admins, advocates, bureaucrats and so on would just once take a glance at the policies they cite so much.. --USCIAUberAlles?... 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • What we need is a record of cases, maybe not the whole communication between advocate and advocee. About privacy, I believe each conversation is private unless the parties agree in making it public. --Neigel von Teighen 14:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Designation of interim Coordinator

Result: Discussion will be put on hold until the next meeting.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive.

NOTE: If you would like to re-open this discussion, please start a new thread below the archive.


Rather than an election office, I propose that the Coordinator designate an individual to run elections in the event that he and all the deputies must suddenly resign. Geo. 19:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In Favor
The last year's experience tells me we need it. --Neigel von Teighen 14:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Opposed
  • per Martin23. Addhoc 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose as there's a "per Martinp23" here before I've even !voted, it must be oppose, per my comments below (I think we've got enough members, and the wiki for communication (even IRC..) that in the unlikely even that everyone senior would go, we'd be able to struggle through). Martinp23 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 16:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC) (See below)

Discussion

What are the benefits? --CyclePat 05:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It would provide a safety net to ensure that the AMA keeps going in the event of losing leadership. Geo. 08:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Won't it just be too much bureaucracy? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and nor, it appears, should any of its organisations (take a look at the Esperanza MfD for some insight into the community opinion in this area). I think it could be too much fuss for an office which will (probably) never be used - in what circumstances would the coordinator and deputy have to stand down? Even if the leaders of the group were to suddenly drop off the face of the AMA, I'm sure we'd b e able to potter on and perform an election without the need for another elected office (after all, what if the co-ordinators need to leave, and, for some reason the eletion officer - would we need an officer for the elecetion of the election officer? - you see where I'm going :)). That's my thoughts on the matter - sorry if they were a bit rambling! Martinp23 12:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It is a great idea, considering what a mess happened in AMA when it hadn't a coordinator (after Alex's sudden resignation). Maybe the best should be that a deputy appointed by the coordinator take the charge if necessary. If it happens to be no deputy available, then, it could be anyone. Just to have things ordered, but without bureaucracy: the coordinator should only send a message to the AMA and that's it... The real question is what attributes should the interim coordination have and how much time would have for calling to new elections or if it can be somehow ratified to remain in charge as titular coordinator. --Neigel von Teighen 14:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I can completely understand why we would want such a person, because leadership failsafes are important (and with how splotchy my attendance has been these past two months, I can understand some people being a bit nervous; but thus is the plight of a new father ;-) ). However, I think it would be easier for us to deal with such an issue now adays because of the AMA Alerts system. If I were to suddenly resign, everyone who checks AMA Alerts would know about it, and I'm certain that we'd be able to pull together enough of a quorum and candidates for an election. As such, I'm not strongly against such an office, but at the same time I'm not really for it. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 16:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I personally would say that is Steve were to resign abruptly, the deputies would pull together and ensure the running of the AMA was not affected. Were a deputy to resign, the problem would not be so great. Wikiwoohoo 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The only power the interim would have is to hold an election. Geo. 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Proposed: "An Interim Coordinator will be appointed by the Coordinator during the first week after its election. This Interim Coordinator will assume the coordination of the Association iff all Coordinator and Deputies resign. Its term will last one month, extendable only by consensus in AMA, to bring stability and order into the Association. During the last week of interinate, an election for new Coordinator and Deputies must be held. The Interim Coordinator will not be able to run for Coordination in that election." Of course, this assumes that Deputies take the coordination if only the Coordinator resigns. --Neigel von Teighen 13:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Message_board/December_2006&oldid=1143859465"