Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Message board/Topics/Archive 1

Membership Meeting Agenda

First Meeting

At the first AMA Members on January 23, 2005 the following agenda was provisionally adopted:

1. That the association should be more proactive.
2. That we should somehow figure out what the members are doing.
3. That we might be able to benefit by some written rules of organization (like a constitution) for our own group.
4. That we needed to communicate better within the group.
5. That our relationship with the mediation and arbitration committee should be discussed
6. That there is also the establishment of some permanent guidelines, including terms, for the office of the Coordinator and other possible offices.

This agenda will be discussed at upcoming meetings and may be modified.

A procedural proposal was also made by Wally but it was not voted on. It was tabled (or ajourned) until such time as the discussion of the above agenda reached a point where members had some concrete proposals:

"The following procedures ought to be considered appropriate for this meeting: first, that any proposals adopted by majority vote here will be presented for discussion on Wikipedia for AMA members; second, that any proposals made there stand individually, rather than collectively; third, that after a period of discussion on the boards there should be a quickpoll vote on each; and fourth, that proposals presented to the board might be modified by agreement of those present at this meeting, and additional proposals considered on the boards by concurrence of the same."

Second Meeting

At the second meeting on January 30, 2005 several proposals were discussed for a new structure for the AMA. The above agenda was deferred to the third meeting to be held Saturday, January 12, 2005 at 12:00 UTC. None of the below proposals was voted on, just discussed.

Alex756's proposal

To have a consultative body or Working Group that provides input and insight to the Coordinator. Membership would be drawn from AMA members and former arbitrators and current mediators would also be asked to participate in the Working Group. The members from the AMA would be elected for one year terms and half would be elected every six months so that elections would be staggered. This would be separate from the election of the Coordinator which would be every year, with the next election to be in April 2005. All past Coordinators and the current Coordinator would be ex officio members of this working group. The working group would have no "legal" power. They would make suggestions regarding activities that the association could undertake such as conferences, studying the dispute resolution process and other activities. All AMA members could attend the meetings of this Working Group which would be held on a regular basis on the IRC channel with reports of their meetings posted on the Wikipedia:AMA pages.

Wally's proposals

Proposal for the Organization of the Association of Members’ Advocates

I. Mission

The mission of the Association of Members’ Advocates exists for the purpose of representing users in need during any disputes that may arise in the course of their participation in Wikipedia. Any organization, committee, or officer which constitutes the AMA should further that goal.

II. Structure

The AMA should consist of the following:

A. Advocates

Advocates are the basis of all AMA activities. Their duty is to engage in representation of aggrieved users.

B. Working Committee

The Working Committee should consist of elected advocates and appointed eminent Wikipedians in the following proportion:

- Four advocates, elected to six-month terms. The first group of four should be staggered, with two taking six-month terms and two taking three-month terms, so that elections will be on a three-month cycle. The election will be by approval voting, where each advocate selects any and all candidates that he or she finds acceptable and using the same format as elections to the Arbitration Committee.

- Two former members of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, who hold positions for six-month with an option for renewal at the Coordinator’s discretion. Their role will be mostly advisory.

- If applicable, the Coordinator who has held office immediately prior to the current one. If this is not applicable, or if the Coordinator Emeritus chooses not to remain on the Working Committee, then this will also be an elected seat of the first cycle.

C. Coordinator

The Coordinator would be an elected member of the Working Committee chosen from amongst the committee to lead the AMA. Alternatively, the Coordinator might be the elected committee member with the highest percentage of approval-votes. The Coordinator would have a six-month term from their own election, with an option for a single consecutive or non-consecutive second term, so long as the Coordinator again receives the highest number of approval votes.

III. Duties

The Working Committee and Coordinator should have the following roles:

- Provide guidelines and instructions, when the situation requires, for the proper conduct of advocacy duties

- Give advice to advocates on policy, procedure, ethics, etc.

- Discipline advocates who engage in unethical behavior

- Help put forward the goals and services of the AMA to the wider Wikipedia world

IV. Functions

The Working Committee and Coordinator should function in the following ways:

A. Actions

Between Committee meetings, any actions necessary and proper for the AMA may be taken by the Coordinator pending the following Committee meeting, which will be open to the public and can allow for review of that action. If it is reviewed, it may be voted upon and upheld or overridden. If not reviewed at the meeting immediately following the act, it is upheld. Any member may request such a review. Any member may vote on these questions. This should be the Coordinator’s main role.

B. Proposals

Any proposals may be offered by any advocate in a specific part of the meeting dedicated to just that. At this point the proposal will be discussed and voted upon, tabled, or assigned to a committee member or advocate for further review. These proposals, if adopted, will be AMA policy, enforced by the Coordinator. Only advocate-members (elected committee members and former Coordinators) may vote on proposals.

C. Advice

The committee should be available at every general meeting, and at times in special session, to dispense advice to advocates on any matter. This advice should preferably be that of the unanimous committee, and failing that agreed upon by a majority. The advice should be drafted and sent, in writing, to the advocate in question, and should be placed on the site for others seeking guidance on that particular issue. All members may vote on advisory issues. This should be the Working Committee’s main role.

V. Submissions

Any item for submission to the Working Committee should be submitted, with flexibility at the Coordinator’s discretion, two days before the meeting is to commence. This applies to all those with business before the committee, be they advocates or committee members themselves, and exceptions should not be made based upon one’s status as a member or not.

VI. Quorum

A quorum for a meeting should be five members, at least one of these being a former ArbCom member. Absent a quorum, meetings should be held informally.

VII. Procedure – Formal Meetings

Meetings should be presided upon by the Coordinator or, failing that, the most-senior committee member or, failing that, a committee member upon whose chairmanship there is no initial objection. Presiding officers shall have the ability to entertain motions on matters of procedure and guide debate; they do not, however, have the authority to set the agenda, which should always be fixed as follows: discussions on advisory matters, discussions on Coordinator actions, discussions on proposals and, finally, any miscellany not covered by the above three. Within that agenda the Coordinator has leeway to decide which issues gain precedence insofar as all are dealt with.

The Coordinator is at leisure to bring the meeting to order and recognize non-member advocates to speak but not to recognize Working Committee members – they have a right to speak at any time which should be exercised judiciously. The Coordinator is also at leisure to set the time for the meeting to adjourn, if the committee has not already done so.

VIII. Procedure – Informal Meetings

If at an appropriate time the Coordinator decides that there are insufficient submissions for a formal meeting, or if a quorum is not present at the appointed time, an informal meeting will be held. If a majority is present, advisory matters may be dispensed with; other issues will be carried over to the following meeting. If a majority is not present, the meeting shall be discursive, regarding matters of interest to the Association as a whole. Regardless, at informal meetings all present shall be allowed to speak without consideration for precedence, including on advisory issues. Voting procedures remain unaltered.

Other Comments and Suggestions for Consideration

This section is for members who have participated in IRC meetings.

Statement by Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

I think I was misinterpreted as being a purposeless naysayer at the most recent IRC meeting. I feel it was repeatedly wrongfully assumed that my disagreements with the proposals being made were without a set of solutions to replace them with. Ergo, I am writing a summary of what I feel has been proposed, why I disagree with it, and what I feel to be efficient goals towards which to progress.

Things proposed which I disagree with

1. having a committee
2. having elections
3. offering lengthy (perhaps even permanent) positions
4. offering positions of import to inactive members, and perhaps even non-members
5. allowing an elected committee to censor members in extreme circumstances

I have never, in all of my life, heard of anything good coming out of a committee. I feel that while our last election for co-ordinator pleasantly resulted in a near complete consensus, voting and elections generally should be avoided. For one thing they are a waste of time and energy. For another they often result in individuals unqualified for tasks other than being elected possessing authority (I am not in any way speaking here of Alex, whom I feel is if anything overqualified, and to whom we all should be thankful for his learned involvement). It is difficult for me to envision such authority, be it elected or based on seniority (membership on other committees, etc..) being used in a manner not restrictive or coercive upon the members, resulting in even less activity than is already occurring. Indeed, at best, a committee is inactive, a lumbering behemoth restrained by its own red tape and bureaucracy. At worst it impedes the progress of those whom it seeks to place within its oversight.

Things I propose

1. That we discover methods of providing incentive and encouragement to active members
2. That we discover means by which to quantify and qualify the work of members’ advocates
3. That we create a division of labour, delegating certain key tasks to those who are willing and able (such as the compiling of research regarding members activities)
4. That rather than creating lengthy positions of power based on majoritocracy, we respect successful and prolific members to undertake positions of responsibility (rather than authority)

In conclusion, those who can, do, and those who can't... form a committee in order to restrict them ;)

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 08:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But what, if any, of this is concrete? Per what you've proposed, what can we actually, constructively, tangibly do? Wally 20:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statement by KeithTyler

My motivation (and time to commit) for AMA has dwindled for a lot of reasons, but FWIW:

1. I remain annoyed and disappointed at the fact that, despite a unanimous vote to hold a new election, we never had one. Instead, we had three arbitrarily scheduled online weekend meetings, attendance to which has become a divisive element, and the logs of which (like nearly all amateur IRC meetings) contain discouragingly little signal to noise. As a matter of fact, Alex had rather little visibility around here for a while until I piped up with the fact that we were overdue for an election. Suddenly he became a meeting planner. I must confess I am not clear on what the AMA Coordinator is, but it doesn't appear to mean "coordinate activities of the AMA" except for having meetings.

2. Spreading the word of AMA shouldn't be a big deal. I for one have added a link to AMA in my sig. It was pretty easy, and it means AMA is at least mentioned anywhere I sign my name. I'm sure there are other ways. Putting them into practice is pretty easy and usually harmless. Any we can come up with, we should immediately start doing.

3. Our responsiveness to open requests is an important factor in how we are viewed. If we promote advocacy as a group concept (i.e. the AMA as a whole), then we had better be prepared to handle it as a group concept. This means that Requests for Assistance need to be taken seriously. Not everyone is comfortable picking an advocate from the list and bugging them individually (and then maybe having to throw the dart again). Happily, I see wgfinley has recently done a lot of work on that page, and that's awesome.

4. Our effectiveness is also an important factor in how we are viewed. Unfortunately I have to say that our effectiveness where it would count the most is probably not all that good, and it has more to do with the organization and tacitly permitted power of the higher ends of the dispute resolution process. If the ArbCom accepts a case, it is because they already have an agenda for it. If the ArbCom rejects a case, it is because they don't want to be bothered with it. Arbitrators view recusal as an option, not a principled necessity. Arbitrators believe they can unilaterally change the rules that affect them as they see fit. My beef with that high court goes on.

5. We could stand to put our understanding of the DR process to good use beyond direct use in individual isolated incidents. For example, RFM is lacking. But there is a need for levels of dispute resolution above talk page chatting and below Arbitration. Being familiar with the needs of the dispute resolution process as we do, we could find ways to provide new levels of dispute resolution. Such as Negotiation.

6. As member's advocates, if we really believe in that term, we may want to consider using our knowledge and experience to fuel new developments or adjustments to dispute resolution policy. We see it from the bottom up, where as the executors of dispute resolution see it from the top down. The trend is towards ivory towerism in dispute resolution policy; as we are an organized group working from the other side of it, we could work to bring the field back down somewhat, where both regular members and admins and abitrators are on a consistent and even field.

Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 19:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Members comments

Members who did not attend the meeting may comment below and make suggestions. Thank you.

Comment by Wikityke

(Ooops! - does "Members" mean members of the AMA? - sorry ! I'm just a WIKIMember.. Please delete if appropriate, ok?

Yes, we're referring to members of the AMA. If you want to join the AMA, see Wikipedia: Association of Members' Advocates. Metasquares 01:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikityke did join at the same time posting this comment, so I think it does qualify as a member comment, at least now. — © Alex756 06:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen (gentlepersons ?) many thanks for your work on behalf of the community in the "AMA" !

I'll try to follow the evolution of this group and it's discussions, as time permits. (You really are a brave bunch - the need for arbitration seems to grow exponentially ! ).

I'd like to raise a topic for discussion, if I may...

I expect most of you would agree that, in any community, most members will be loath to participate in the "nitty-gritty" of the day-to-day organization/administration, for one reason or another, but will be vociferous in their criticism of any new regulations or guidelines which come to be implemented, or even suggested.

With regard to any new administrative decisions/poposals (of the AMA and all other admin' forums) maybe it would be advisable to include a very brief menu of recent items to be formally implemented (with links to equally brief descriptions of these items) as a new option in the menu which appears at the top of the page after login File:Suggestion 1 ama.PNG.

At least, no one would be able to complain that they were unaware of current admin events, or say that decisions were being made "behind closed doors", (yes, I know anyone can easily find info' on what the admins / AMA etc..etc... are doing if they want to but, I suspect few actually do!).

Wikityke 00:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That may work if it is used for general issues on Wikipedia. I doubt that this would be done specifically for the AMA, though. Still, it's an interesting idea. Metasquares 01:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's too bad that that and the side menu aren't user-configurable templates. I guess they are, ultimately, if you have the time, patience, and know-how to swim through all that CSS and make a user-custom CSS, but that's a high bar for what would be an immensely helpful "power user" feature. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 19:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Statement and Proposal by Neigel von Teighen

About the AMA Coordination

I think we actually need a head, a Coordinator, who represents the AMA. The 'legal' powers of the Coordinator should be focused on the representative and coordinating function. How would be an excellent coordinator for me? Someone who's constantly reviewing the Req. for Assistance and trying to contact a member for it. Someone who cares for the promotion of the AMA and to represent us over all Wikipedia.

Remember that the AMA was almost dead before the Election Call (because of Keith Tyler's comments) I did almost a month before. Who is making things begin again? Our Coordinator. Without him, my election call would have been another vote in the Wikipedia universe. I think we need someone, not to rule us, but to help the AMA to be an increasingly known WP voluntary association.

About the creation of Election Calls

I propose to create this when a member feels that the head of the AMA should be deposed and a new election should be performed. Any member should have the right to call for an election. If the supporting vote reaches an absolute majority (50% of the active members + 1 vote), the election should have to be performed. This will preserve the 'association' spirit of the AMA

About the Working Group

I strongly agree with the idea of having a head, but disagree having a commitee as proposed by our current Coordinator on the organization of the AMA. Also, I don't like to have former Arbitrators inside the association unless they were former AMA members (see below my statement about the Guidelines), this would mean that people who never advocated would become an influential group on the association.

About the Guidelines

I would propose to state our guidelines inmediately after the AMA Coordinator election if this is performed. I really think that it's unacceptable to have a 'guidelines proposal'. Or we have guidelines or we have no of them. It's not serious.

This are some guidelines I would propose:

1. AMA Members becoming ArbCom members should not leave the AMA, but be declared Standing-by. They would have the right to vote on any AMA election, but not the right to advocate. Also, they would have to recuse on any case they were involved. This could also be applicable to members becoming MedCom members. I consider this proposal as a very important one.
2. Members should have the AMA pages on their watchlists. For this, Presence lists could be perfomed by the coordinator where members should have to sign as a form of knowing if they're watching the AMA. Any member not answering the list should be automically declared Inactive.
3. The coordination elections inside the AMA should be supervised by a non-member commitee named by all the candidates.
4. If there's a dispute resolution against an AMA member because of his/her behaivour as an advocate, (s)he should explain the situation to the Coordinator and be declared inactive until the situation is solved.
5. The AMA Coordinator election should be performed:
   1. 6 months after the last election.
   2. If the coordinator becomes an ArbCom member.
   3. If an Election call vote is performed and the supporting votes are absolute majority.

These are my statements. --Neigel von Teighen 19:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nigel, I think you are confusing the appearance of activity with activity. Just because there were no meetings does not mean there was no activity regarding advocacy, which is the reason we started this activity, not to make all kinds of fancy pages that people never read. Quite frankly unless there are people who talk to the Coordinator, what is he or she going to coordinate? I am not a secretary and I don't think I was elected to do busy work, but to be used as a facilitator. Really, the AMA is a very young association, people have only been advocating since April, 2004, which, in the scheme of things is a really short period of time, so maybe we shouldn't be doing too much until people get some experience at being advocates. Also, I did not suggest a committee. I think a working group has a specific function, to suggest and organize activities and its job is consultative, to get the Coordinator coordinating, not to be some kind of overlord. There is a great need for training, for some kind of certification, for some kind of role call of members and nothing much is happening? Why I don't know. Around the time I was elected I started writing a Guide to Advocacy, and no one even commented on it or added much to it! Only five advocates edited it besides me and there have been only approximately 15 edits (not counting the minor ones) to date. That seems pretty apathetic and I think that is not my fault, if the members have no interests or express no interest in anything I think that it is not necessarily the job of the Coordinator to force things to happen, we did not elect a president or an executive director, but a coordinator. Since I became coordinator I have had only a few people who have contacted me either by email or on one of the pages that I check very often. I asked for people to write a short statement about their activites as AMA members and out of 30 people I only got about 8 responses, that is not my fault either. Am I supposed to keep posting things on people's talk pages until I am blue in the face? It takes me about an hour to post notices on thirty members talk pages, if Wikipedia does not crash in the process. What kind of notices should I post if there is nothing anyone has suggested?

Also, we already have membership guidelines and some of your suggestions are in direct contradiction with them but you don't mention that. Are you aware of those contradictions? I don't think Sam or Wally or I are changing anything that was previously decided, just expanding on it. As far as former arbitrators are concerned there is no rule against them joining. It only says in our guidelines that current arbitrators cannot join or that if one becomes an arbitrator they are not a member while arbitrating. Also since we don't really discuss cases together (we are not like a law firm, more like a bar association) I don't see why someone should recuse themselves just because they had been an advocate, that seems silly to me. If you think that former arbitrators participating in our organization is bad, well I don't understand that, because such people can give us a lot of knowledge and we can work with them to help improve the image and status of advocates; better than anyone they know what arbitrators do, and they can help teach us what is going on in arbitration to help us advocate better, no? The AMA is not an exclusive club, but open to anyone that agrees with the miminal rules that exist, why make it more restrictive? We also already discussed mediators becoming members of the AMA, did you review all those materials before you decided it was a bad idea? I think the discussion was quite detailed and I would hope that you might clarify, in relation to our previous decisions, why you think that those decisions were wrong, since you are asking us to revisit something we have already decided upon.

Regarding elections we had decided on the inspectors of the election being two non-members, so I don't know why you are suggesting the same thing again, when it was already clearly decided at the time of the first election and everyone thought it was a good idea and worked well then. It was the first real secret ballot "election" that ever took place on Wikipedia (something we should be proud of), and I think, set the bar for other elections that happened afterwards.

Thank you for your interest in advocacy and I hope to see you participating in the next Membership Meeting. I moved your comments down because the top comments were for people who came to the IRC meetings and were making proposals there. It was just gesture of coordination, nothing more. — © Alex756 06:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Member Activity

I had another thought recently. It's difficult to decide on quorums for voting and whatnot when we don't actually know how many active members we have! Therefore, I think it might be a good idea to send messages (and God knows people have gotten enough recently so that they know stuff is happening) to all users asking them to check in — perhaps in continuation with Alex's attempts to take a poll of advocate activity. After a certain period, any member who doesn't reply is moved to an inactive list, and those who are active constitute all voting members. This will also let users looking for help know which advocates are available for duty and which are not. This might be an ongoing process, too, so we always know whose ready for duty. Note, naturally, that people on the inactive list remain there indefinitely until they declare active status or asked to be removed from our membership altogether. Mightn't this help things along? Wally 20:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statements by Non-Members

AMA Suggestion - Critique Group

For a year I have called attention to fact that a clique (be they white supremacist or support holocaust denial, etc.) can control any page where there are less or equal authors than clique members.

This happens whenever it is an obscure subject the general Wikipedia community feels it does know enough to be able to 'edit' or judge the merits of the sides put forward; or when they are aware of past heated debate and wish to avoid such.

A Critique Group or multiple groups could be formed of any 6 Wikipedians willing to volunteer to Critique pages under dispute for either / or both Form and Substance. Form is everything from spelling and grammar to style and graphics; Substance are any 'facts' claimed in the article or being disputed (and can be the title itself), based upon the on-line evidence provided by the opponents in dispute or others.

For Substance issues a single discussion page can be overwhelmed. Suggest each side is provided a separate discussion page to present their evidence; and that the Critique Group discuss on a Critique discussion page where others may not edit. Once the Critique Group feels satisfied about their views - - all six members submit their views to the article's discussion page.

This should deal with any subject where both sides claim to be 'reasonable'. Finally, ideally a Critique Group should have at least two female and male members.--Daeron 04:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what this has to do with the AMA, perhaps some clarification is needed. — © Alex756 06:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I thought something like a 'Critique Group' could be a good resource to aid your members resolving some requests; also, I thought your members would be both well suited to discussing such, and organising such if they though something like it would be worthwhile.--Daeron

Such an advisory committee is, in my opinion (and I think Alex would likely concur) one of the main, if not the main, tasks of our proposed working committee. In a less formal matter, however; I nonetheless think this is good, because if we have a standing committee for the unsolicited commentary of various pages, we will seem both like we're invasive and holier-than-thou. Wally 03:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. I was meaning such a group could respond when requested.--Daeron

I was suggesting that the Working Group would not be a kind of "group advocacy" process, i.e. people who in a group were working as advocates, that is something between the advocate and their "client", if two advocates wanted to work together that would be up to them, not to the association. The Working Group would be looking at associational issues, training of advocates, ways to increase the visability of the association, conferences on advocacy issues, meetings of advocates and communication between advocates would be some of the things that such a Working Group would foster. It would not be a committee of advocates that would be telling other advocates what to do. Each advocate is independent of the association, has their own decision making power and has the right to do whatever they feel is appropriate to help the WP editor they are working with as long as they remember that the editor is ultimately the one whose reputation and future as an editor is at stake. IT would never be a critique group of other AMA members, that is why I was asking for clarification about this "critique group" idea, it seems at odds with an organizational working group to deal solely with organizational activities. — © Alex756 14:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree, that's why I said any Wikipedians, I would not expect AMA members would be part of such a group themselves; but could find such a group usefull for resolving some desputes. I thought the AMA members could discuss the merits & cons of such a group & if wanted organise such (not be it) by asking the Wikipedian community for volunteers. Sorry if that was not clear before. All Best. :)