Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Discussions on Wikimedia governance
User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
kołdry
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:38 pm

SneakySasha wrote: Actually what everyone who ends up in the public shaming that is Arcom really needs is their own personal public defender.
ArbCom, for all its pseudo-legalism, is really not set up for that. It's very strongly discouraged, as far as I can tell. I tried taking that role in the Richard Norton case (he not being a friend of mine, but my sense of fair play being jolted by the way he was treated over ancient Crimes Against the Wiki) and I'm sure that it helped him a little. The "defendant" in these cases is penalized for fighting back, there really have to be outside voices coming to their aid for any reasonable defense to be possible.

There is probably also some "Stanford Prison Experiment"-type bully behavior that is inherent in the process and the insertion of opposing voices who are not those of the defendant may well attenuate this situation.

This is an excellent point — there needs to be some organized "legal defense" for good faith content people who wind up wearing white smocks and facing the executioners.

RfB

User avatar
AnimuAvatar
Critic
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 12:33 am

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by AnimuAvatar » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:46 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:This is an excellent point — there needs to be some organized "legal defense" for good faith content people who wind up wearing white smocks and facing the executioners.
In concept I like the idea quite a bit, but it's always the implementation where good ideas get fudged. For something like this, it really depends on the people on enwiki, and that thought fills me with doubt of it's potential effectiveness. Again, not a bad idea, but it has high potential for being done badly.
>greentext
>on a Wikipedia criticism board
ishygddt

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Vigilant » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:52 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
SneakySasha wrote: Actually what everyone who ends up in the public shaming that is Arcom really needs is their own personal public defender.
ArbCom, for all its pseudo-legalism, is really not set up for that. It's very strongly discouraged, as far as I can tell. I tried taking that role in the Richard Norton case (he not being a friend of mine, but my sense of fair play being jolted by the way he was treated over ancient Crimes Against the Wiki) and I'm sure that it helped him a little. The "defendant" in these cases is penalized for fighting back, there really have to be outside voices coming to their aid for any reasonable defense to be possible.

There is probably also some "Stanford Prison Experiment"-type bully behavior that is inherent in the process and the insertion of opposing voices who are not those of the defendant may well attenuate this situation.

This is an excellent point — there needs to be some organized "legal defense" for good faith content people who wind up wearing white smocks and facing the executioners.

RfB
The best reason to join a wiki-prison-gang.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Starke Hathaway
Critic
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 10:19 pm
Wikipedia User: Starke Hathaway

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Starke Hathaway » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:12 pm

SneakySasha wrote:
Actually what everyone who ends up in the public shaming that is Arcom really needs is their own personal public defender.
A quality idea, and as such will never happen. ArbCom, when it's not busy smelling its own farts with "certiorari" and "recusal" and "un-recusal," is quicker than anyone to point out that ArbCom cases are not legal proceedings. This is illustrated amply by the example of TDA's banning, where ArbCom saw fit to dispose of him without notice of the charges or opportunity to be heard, and so far has refused even to acknowledge that they did so without notice or opportunity to be heard. Due process, or indeed any process at all that might interfere with a good railroading, is apparently anathema to this ArbCom. It's shameful that they can't be bothered to even half-ass pretend that they are trying to do a good and conscientious job.

Carcharoth
Habitué
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:44 am
Wikipedia User: Carcharoth

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Carcharoth » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:17 am

AnimuAvatar wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:This is an excellent point — there needs to be some organized "legal defense" for good faith content people who wind up wearing white smocks and facing the executioners.
In concept I like the idea quite a bit, but it's always the implementation where good ideas get fudged. For something like this, it really depends on the people on enwiki, and that thought fills me with doubt of it's potential effectiveness. Again, not a bad idea, but it has high potential for being done badly.
It is not a new idea, but apparently lasted only a few months when it was tried (many years ago now):

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates

Liz99
Critic
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:42 pm

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Liz99 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 12:27 am

Carcharoth wrote: It is not a new idea, but apparently lasted only a few months when it was tried (many years ago now):

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates
There have been a variety of attempts to make Wikipedia a friendlier place for new editors, to provide support. I think the Teahouse is one of the success stories but it's also interesting to see why other groups didn't work. Most often it comes down not to concept, organization or execution but the simple fact that people are flawed human beings who can form functional or dysfunctional relationships with each other.

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by The Joy » Wed Jan 20, 2016 1:33 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
SneakySasha wrote: Actually what everyone who ends up in the public shaming that is Arcom really needs is their own personal public defender.
ArbCom, for all its pseudo-legalism, is really not set up for that. It's very strongly discouraged, as far as I can tell.
RfB
Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (T-H-L) was an attempt to have advocates for Arbcom defendants. It failed. Poor CyclePat (T-C-L) nearly sacrificed his wiki-life to keep it alive.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Kingsindian » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:02 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
SneakySasha wrote: Actually what everyone who ends up in the public shaming that is Arcom really needs is their own personal public defender.
ArbCom, for all its pseudo-legalism, is really not set up for that. It's very strongly discouraged, as far as I can tell. I tried taking that role in the Richard Norton case (he not being a friend of mine, but my sense of fair play being jolted by the way he was treated over ancient Crimes Against the Wiki) and I'm sure that it helped him a little. The "defendant" in these cases is penalized for fighting back, there really have to be outside voices coming to their aid for any reasonable defense to be possible.

There is probably also some "Stanford Prison Experiment"-type bully behavior that is inherent in the process and the insertion of opposing voices who are not those of the defendant may well attenuate this situation.

This is an excellent point
— there needs to be some organized "legal defense" for good faith content people who wind up wearing white smocks and facing the executioners.

RfB
I try a bit of this, informally of course, at AE. One of the people I "helped" was an SPA who was topic banned despite my "amicus" brief, the admin banning him had second thoughts and unbanned him. Then he was topic banned again a couple of weeks later, probably for the best.

I think newbies working in contentious areas need the most support in this way. Regardless of the actions and viewpoints of the poor fellows, I feel sad seeing them staggering around from one trap to another. Of course many are likely socks, so not all of them are "deserving".

User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Kingsindian » Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:48 am

The Joy wrote: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (T-H-L) was an attempt to have advocates for Arbcom defendants. It failed. Poor CyclePat (T-C-L) nearly sacrificed his wiki-life to keep it alive.
I read a couple of discussions linked on the page as to why it was disbanded. Mostly it seemed to be due to inactivity and complaints by some admins/ arbitrators. I consider the latter a good thing (if anything).

Also, it was almost ten years ago. I would be interested in reviving it myself. The scope could be tightened up though, so as not to duplicate other venues like DRN.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:30 pm

Kingsindian wrote:
The Joy wrote: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (T-H-L) was an attempt to have advocates for Arbcom defendants. It failed. Poor CyclePat (T-C-L) nearly sacrificed his wiki-life to keep it alive.
I read a couple of discussions linked on the page as to why it was disbanded. Mostly it seemed to be due to inactivity and complaints by some admins/ arbitrators. I consider the latter a good thing (if anything).

Also, it was almost ten years ago. I would be interested in reviving it myself. The scope could be tightened up though, so as not to duplicate other venues like DRN.
I'd commit to joining and helping to defend one or maybe two cases a year if you want to get it going again.

Actually, probably one... Richard Norton gets dragged in about once a year by his enemies and I'm already committed to fighting the good fight on that front until the bitter end...

RfB

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by The Joy » Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:42 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Kingsindian wrote:
The Joy wrote: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (T-H-L) was an attempt to have advocates for Arbcom defendants. It failed. Poor CyclePat (T-C-L) nearly sacrificed his wiki-life to keep it alive.
I read a couple of discussions linked on the page as to why it was disbanded. Mostly it seemed to be due to inactivity and complaints by some admins/ arbitrators. I consider the latter a good thing (if anything).

Also, it was almost ten years ago. I would be interested in reviving it myself. The scope could be tightened up though, so as not to duplicate other venues like DRN.
I'd commit to joining and helping to defend one or maybe two cases a year if you want to get it going again.

Actually, probably one... Richard Norton gets dragged in about once a year by his enemies and I'm already committed to fighting the good fight on that front until the bitter end...

RfB
The common argument against the AMA was that it created an adversarial environment. Having an advocate/"lawyer" at Arbcom assumed bad faith in Arbitrators. That is not the "Wiki-Way." Arbcom may not be like a traditional court in the U.S. or U.K., but you are on trial so it already IS an adversarial environment. I never understood the logic of the AMA opponents. Strange demented hippies ruled Wikipedia in the early days.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

Carcharoth
Habitué
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 1:44 am
Wikipedia User: Carcharoth

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Carcharoth » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:00 am

It would be interesting to see whether the current community would look kindly on a 2016 version of the AMA, and/or whether ArbCom would deign to listen to advocates.

User avatar
Dennis Brown
Gregarious
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Dennis Brown
Actual Name: Dennis Brown
Location: Lexington, North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Dennis Brown » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:36 am

The Joy wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Kingsindian wrote:
The Joy wrote: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (T-H-L) was an attempt to have advocates for Arbcom defendants. It failed. Poor CyclePat (T-C-L) nearly sacrificed his wiki-life to keep it alive.
I read a couple of discussions linked on the page as to why it was disbanded. Mostly it seemed to be due to inactivity and complaints by some admins/ arbitrators. I consider the latter a good thing (if anything).

Also, it was almost ten years ago. I would be interested in reviving it myself. The scope could be tightened up though, so as not to duplicate other venues like DRN.
I'd commit to joining and helping to defend one or maybe two cases a year if you want to get it going again.

Actually, probably one... Richard Norton gets dragged in about once a year by his enemies and I'm already committed to fighting the good fight on that front until the bitter end...

RfB
The common argument against the AMA was that it created an adversarial environment. Having an advocate/"lawyer" at Arbcom assumed bad faith in Arbitrators. That is not the "Wiki-Way." Arbcom may not be like a traditional court in the U.S. or U.K., but you are on trial so it already IS an adversarial environment. I never understood the logic of the AMA opponents. Strange demented hippies ruled Wikipedia in the early days.
I'm not in love with the idea because I think it would attract adversarial type people to do the job, so it would open up a lot of drama, and I could see some of these wikilawyering/contrarian advocates getting blocked by uninvolved admin, which would open up the floodgates for more criticism, AND hurt the person who asked the advocate to help them. Not in all cases, but in many. I'm not saying I would automatically oppose any such system, I just can't envision a system that I would support. That could simply be a lack of imagination on my part. I do think it would be foolish for Arb to volunteer for such a system, as it would end up costing them more time per case, dealing with two people instead of one, and having to debate side issues by advocates looking to simply wear them down.
“I'd far rather be happy than right any day.” - Douglas Adams
"My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite." - Scorpius (Farscape)

User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Kingsindian » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:23 am

Could a mod split off posts discussing the advocate system? I think it is independently interesting and I don't want to clutter up this thread.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Poetlister » Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:15 pm

The Joy wrote:The common argument against the AMA was that it created an adversarial environment. Having an advocate/"lawyer" at Arbcom assumed bad faith in Arbitrators. That is not the "Wiki-Way." Arbcom may not be like a traditional court in the U.S. or U.K., but you are on trial so it already IS an adversarial environment. I never understood the logic of the AMA opponents. Strange demented hippies ruled Wikipedia in the early days.
You're not on trial. Everyone is assembling, full of wikilove, to seek a harmonious resolution of any petty problems disturbing the otherwise unruffled calm lake. :sarcasm:

Seriously, even if it isn't a court it's an arbitration; that's why it's called Arbcom. Nobody goes into a serious arbitration without support.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:19 pm

Poetlister wrote:
The Joy wrote:The common argument against the AMA was that it created an adversarial environment. Having an advocate/"lawyer" at Arbcom assumed bad faith in Arbitrators. That is not the "Wiki-Way." Arbcom may not be like a traditional court in the U.S. or U.K., but you are on trial so it already IS an adversarial environment. I never understood the logic of the AMA opponents. Strange demented hippies ruled Wikipedia in the early days.
You're not on trial. Everyone is assembling, full of wikilove, to seek a harmonious resolution of any petty problems disturbing the otherwise unruffled calm lake. :sarcasm:

Seriously, even if it isn't a court it's an arbitration; that's why it's called Arbcom. Nobody goes into a serious arbitration without support.
I really like the idea of restarting AMA. It probably would have a certain number of cases that are very nearly under the purview of the Teahouse: "So You're New Here and You're In Trouble for Something. Here's the Problem and How to Fix It."

Otherwise, it would be a form of editor retention.

One key would be keeping up some sort of a gate to weed the Trolly McTrollensteins and the Nationalist Maniacs out of the process. "Oh, AMA is on the case, we had better treat this seriously" is the attitude to be cultivated, as opposed to "Oh, no, not them again."

RfB

P.S. Agree with Kingsindian above that this needs to be split into a new thread with a title something to the effect of "AMA: Pseudo-Public Legal Defense for ArbCom Pseudo-Trials?"

User avatar
Starke Hathaway
Critic
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 10:19 pm
Wikipedia User: Starke Hathaway

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Starke Hathaway » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:27 am

Randy from Boise wrote: I really like the idea of restarting AMA. It probably would have a certain number of cases that are very nearly under the purview of the Teahouse: "So You're New Here and You're In Trouble for Something. Here's the Problem and How to Fix It."

Otherwise, it would be a form of editor retention.

One key would be keeping up some sort of a gate to weed the Trolly McTrollensteins and the Nationalist Maniacs out of the process. "Oh, AMA is on the case, we had better treat this seriously" is the attitude to be cultivated, as opposed to "Oh, no, not them again."
Any Defender Association on Wikipedia would be toothless because ArbCom doesn't have any rules that it can be compelled to follow. Just check out the ArbCom talk page right now. Multiple people are pointing out that ArbCom flagrantly violated its own policy about private hearings and there has been nothing but crickets for days.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:38 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
The Joy wrote:The common argument against the AMA was that it created an adversarial environment. Having an advocate/"lawyer" at Arbcom assumed bad faith in Arbitrators. That is not the "Wiki-Way." Arbcom may not be like a traditional court in the U.S. or U.K., but you are on trial so it already IS an adversarial environment. I never understood the logic of the AMA opponents. Strange demented hippies ruled Wikipedia in the early days.
You're not on trial. Everyone is assembling, full of wikilove, to seek a harmonious resolution of any petty problems disturbing the otherwise unruffled calm lake. :sarcasm:

Seriously, even if it isn't a court it's an arbitration; that's why it's called Arbcom. Nobody goes into a serious arbitration without support.
I really like the idea of restarting AMA. It probably would have a certain number of cases that are very nearly under the purview of the Teahouse: "So You're New Here and You're In Trouble for Something. Here's the Problem and How to Fix It."

Otherwise, it would be a form of editor retention.

One key would be keeping up some sort of a gate to weed the Trolly McTrollensteins and the Nationalist Maniacs out of the process. "Oh, AMA is on the case, we had better treat this seriously" is the attitude to be cultivated, as opposed to "Oh, no, not them again."

RfB
P.S. Agree with Kingsindian above that this needs to be split into a new thread with a title something to the effect of "AMA: Pseudo-Public Legal Defense for ArbCom Pseudo-Trials?"
You should start a pro bono newbie defense league.
See someone at ANI about to get bent over? Here come the Justice League to the recuse!!

Unhand that poor boy!!
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:39 am

Starke Hathaway wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote: I really like the idea of restarting AMA. It probably would have a certain number of cases that are very nearly under the purview of the Teahouse: "So You're New Here and You're In Trouble for Something. Here's the Problem and How to Fix It."

Otherwise, it would be a form of editor retention.

One key would be keeping up some sort of a gate to weed the Trolly McTrollensteins and the Nationalist Maniacs out of the process. "Oh, AMA is on the case, we had better treat this seriously" is the attitude to be cultivated, as opposed to "Oh, no, not them again."
Any Defender Association on Wikipedia would be toothless because ArbCom doesn't have any rules that it can be compelled to follow. Just check out the ArbCom talk page right now. Multiple people are pointing out that ArbCom flagrantly violated its own policy about private hearings and there has been nothing but crickets for days.
Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Kingsindian » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:07 am

(Assuming the posts would be split in the near future, I am just replying here)

I think one can start with baby steps. Here is my rough idea:

I think the defence should primarily deal with people accused of various wiki-crimes on ANI/AE/ArbCom. Because otherwise it will overlap with other venues like DRN, DRV, Help Desk etc. One can of course point to other venues if some confused newbie wanders in.

For people accused of wiki-crimes, the idea of the defence is to simply advise them (as neutrally as possible) on the best practices for survival, so that content issues can come to the fore. From my own little experience, it basically boils down to:

1. TLDR (very important)
2. Anything you say in your defence can and will be used against you. So say as little as possible.
3. Be polite.
4. No bludgeoning.

That probably covers 95% of the newbie (and oldbie) mistakes.

The defence should be informal, simply one more voice to the discussion.

Many disputes have underlying content issues. I find that simply stating neutrally what it is also helps.
Randy from Boise wrote:One key would be keeping up some sort of a gate to weed the Trolly McTrollensteins and the Nationalist Maniacs out of the process. "Oh, AMA is on the case, we had better treat this seriously" is the attitude to be cultivated, as opposed to "Oh, no, not them again."
I am not sure how much this is feasible.

Firstly, chances are that some people would hate the AMA regardless of who one defends. I looked at one discussion which is linked on the page and it was totally innocuous - some guy just wanted a deleted page userfied and the admin who deleted it threw a hissy fit because he wasn't notified of the discussion.

Secondly, "troll" is a much abused word. I think the operative principle should be whether newbies denied their "rights" (such as they are), not the views expressed. Of course, some judgement comes into play.

User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Kingsindian » Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:13 am

Starke Hathaway wrote: Any Defender Association on Wikipedia would be toothless because ArbCom doesn't have any rules that it can be compelled to follow. Just check out the ArbCom talk page right now. Multiple people are pointing out that ArbCom flagrantly violated its own policy about private hearings and there has been nothing but crickets for days.
It would indeed be toothless, but one can still petition the king. Sometimes helps.

Hopefully, if done right, it will also help in the creation of a culture of minimal rights and due process on Wikipedia, neither of which exists now. It can only be a part though, other measures would be needed.

Regarding TDA's case: I was checking out whether one can appeal to the Ombudsman using the privacy policy and non-public information policy. I didn't see anything there which I could use.

TDA could appeal to ArbCom based on this, perhaps they might privately admit some things they aren't inclined to admit in public. Chances are slim though.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Poetlister » Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:59 pm

Just having an expert on hand to make sure you don't say anything stupid and to help you rebut the other side's claims must be helpful. The expert needn't post anything, just advise you by e-mail.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

ArmasRebane
Gregarious
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 7:04 pm

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by ArmasRebane » Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:41 pm

Poetlister wrote:Just having an expert on hand to make sure you don't say anything stupid and to help you rebut the other side's claims must be helpful. The expert needn't post anything, just advise you by e-mail.
There's nothing that's stopping users from doing that now, or from filing evidence in support of a party at ArbCom. In that sense I don't think AMA makes much things run any more fairer or efficient (I actually was a member of the AMA but if I recall correctly it exploded basically as soon as I got there. My wiki-history is spotty at best.)

Run a cabal of devil's advocates (hah ha) via an ad-hoc and non-central system and you could certainly do it on Wikipedia right now with no one able to raise much of a fuss.

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Zoloft » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:16 pm

ArmasRebane wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Just having an expert on hand to make sure you don't say anything stupid and to help you rebut the other side's claims must be helpful. The expert needn't post anything, just advise you by e-mail.
There's nothing that's stopping users from doing that now, or from filing evidence in support of a party at ArbCom. In that sense I don't think AMA makes much things run any more fairer or efficient (I actually was a member of the AMA but if I recall correctly it exploded basically as soon as I got there. My wiki-history is spotty at best.)

Run a cabal of devil's advocates (hah ha) via an ad-hoc and non-central system and you could certainly do it on Wikipedia right now with no one able to raise much of a fuss.
Run it from here. We have private messaging, and can even provide moral support.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Vigilant » Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:30 pm

Zoloft wrote:
ArmasRebane wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Just having an expert on hand to make sure you don't say anything stupid and to help you rebut the other side's claims must be helpful. The expert needn't post anything, just advise you by e-mail.
There's nothing that's stopping users from doing that now, or from filing evidence in support of a party at ArbCom. In that sense I don't think AMA makes much things run any more fairer or efficient (I actually was a member of the AMA but if I recall correctly it exploded basically as soon as I got there. My wiki-history is spotty at best.)

Run a cabal of devil's advocates (hah ha) via an ad-hoc and non-central system and you could certainly do it on Wikipedia right now with no one able to raise much of a fuss.
Run it from here. We have private messaging, and can even provide moral support.
The kiss of death for any ARBCOM case participant.

I love it.
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

Liz99
Critic
Posts: 226
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:42 pm

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Liz99 » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:06 am

I think that beside posting supportive evidence in an arbitration case, the best way one can help an involved party in an arbitration case is to have an email correspondence with them so you can advise them when they are getting too close to the ledge.

Being in arbitration is stressful if you are an involved party and the pressure can cause even the most level-headed editor to lash out in defensiveness to protect themselves. Offering off-wiki support can help an editor keep their cool and keep things into perspective.

This kind of interactive contact isn't for everyone as most editors on Wikipedia tend to be lone wolves. But if you do feel moved to come to someone's aid, offering to be a sounding board and decrease the inevitable paranoia than can arise could be a great gift.

MisterTester
Contributor
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:51 am
Wikipedia User: MisterTester
Actual Name: Randy Neal

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by MisterTester » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:17 am

Liz99 wrote:Being in arbitration is stressful if you are an involved party and the pressure can cause even the most level-headed editor to lash out in defensiveness to protect themselves. Offering off-wiki support can help an editor keep their cool and keep things into perspective.

This kind of interactive contact isn't for everyone as most editors on Wikipedia tend to be lone wolves. But if you do feel moved to come to someone's aid, offering to be a sounding board and decrease the inevitable paranoia than can arise could be a great gift.
Offering off-wiki support can be helpful, in most cases. But it can also provide a propulsion of narcissistic behaviour from someone who believes they are right and being unfairly targeted. Sometimes a glimpse of knowing that others also see you are being wronged, is an event that propels this type of behaviour.

And one can hardly communicate without acknowledging the subject may have a point.

Which leads to what we saw in this case.

User avatar
Dennis Brown
Gregarious
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Dennis Brown
Actual Name: Dennis Brown
Location: Lexington, North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Dennis Brown » Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:59 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
ArmasRebane wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Just having an expert on hand to make sure you don't say anything stupid and to help you rebut the other side's claims must be helpful. The expert needn't post anything, just advise you by e-mail.
There's nothing that's stopping users from doing that now, or from filing evidence in support of a party at ArbCom. In that sense I don't think AMA makes much things run any more fairer or efficient (I actually was a member of the AMA but if I recall correctly it exploded basically as soon as I got there. My wiki-history is spotty at best.)

Run a cabal of devil's advocates (hah ha) via an ad-hoc and non-central system and you could certainly do it on Wikipedia right now with no one able to raise much of a fuss.
Run it from here. We have private messaging, and can even provide moral support.
The kiss of death for any ARBCOM case participant.

I love it.
I think you've nailed it and that is one reason I don't like it. I can imagine the groans in private once the advocate shows up, and the arguments about defense by proxy plus the assumptions that the party must be guilty because he had to bring in a wikilawyer to muddy the waters. If Arb was an actual court, it would make sense, but no court is that incompetent. Like you, I can see the assumption of guilt by virtue of having an advocate. Sadly, the one who would suffer is the poor innocent schmuck who thought he was being helped by an advocate, when the very act of agreeing to one signed his death warrant.
“I'd far rather be happy than right any day.” - Douglas Adams
"My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite." - Scorpius (Farscape)

User avatar
Starke Hathaway
Critic
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 10:19 pm
Wikipedia User: Starke Hathaway

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Starke Hathaway » Sat Jan 23, 2016 4:25 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:
Vigilant wrote: The kiss of death for any ARBCOM case participant.

I love it.
I think you've nailed it and that is one reason I don't like it. I can imagine the groans in private once the advocate shows up, and the arguments about defense by proxy plus the assumptions that the party must be guilty because he had to bring in a wikilawyer to muddy the waters. If Arb was an actual court, it would make sense, but no court is that incompetent. Like you, I can see the assumption of guilt by virtue of having an advocate. Sadly, the one who would suffer is the poor innocent schmuck who thought he was being helped by an advocate, when the very act of agreeing to one signed his death warrant.
I could be wrong, but I believe the "kiss of death" Vigilant had in mind was the association with WO.

User avatar
Dennis Brown
Gregarious
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Dennis Brown
Actual Name: Dennis Brown
Location: Lexington, North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Dennis Brown » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:02 pm

Starke Hathaway wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:
Vigilant wrote: The kiss of death for any ARBCOM case participant.

I love it.
I think you've nailed it and that is one reason I don't like it. I can imagine the groans in private once the advocate shows up, and the arguments about defense by proxy plus the assumptions that the party must be guilty because he had to bring in a wikilawyer to muddy the waters. If Arb was an actual court, it would make sense, but no court is that incompetent. Like you, I can see the assumption of guilt by virtue of having an advocate. Sadly, the one who would suffer is the poor innocent schmuck who thought he was being helped by an advocate, when the very act of agreeing to one signed his death warrant.
I could be wrong, but I believe the "kiss of death" Vigilant had in mind was the association with WO.
You are correct, but I think it would often hurt the defendant regardless of where it was based from. Liz's idea is the right one; give moral support via email. I've done that plenty at Arb and even RFA, and it doesn't interfere with the case or their chances.

I will say that I think WO is getting a better reputation than it had a year or two ago, evidenced by how often you see active editors, admin and arbs here. My gut says it is being seen less as a hangout for banned users, and instead as an independent hangout for people who simply want to discuss flaws, and who (mainly) want to improve Wikipedia, not destroy it. I would hope Zoloft et al see that as an improvement, making WO more relevant, and making it more of a positive vehicle for change. As an example: before I joined, I have patrolled the "bad article" sections, then went and fixed the articles, giving a nod to WO or the editor here in the summary. To me, that serves a purpose.
“I'd far rather be happy than right any day.” - Douglas Adams
"My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite." - Scorpius (Farscape)

SneakySasha
Contributor
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by SneakySasha » Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:30 pm

Vigilant wrote:Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging
What, pray tell, is a good hanging? :blink:

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Zoloft » Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:51 pm

SneakySasha wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging
What, pray tell, is a good hanging? :blink:
For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


SneakySasha
Contributor
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by SneakySasha » Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:06 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:
You are correct, but I think it would often hurt the defendant regardless of where it was based from. Liz's idea is the right one; give moral support via email. I've done that plenty at Arb and even RFA, and it doesn't interfere with the case or their chances.

I will say that I think WO is getting a better reputation than it had a year or two ago, evidenced by how often you see active editors, admin and arbs here. My gut says it is being seen less as a hangout for banned users, and instead as an independent hangout for people who simply want to discuss flaws, and who (mainly) want to improve Wikipedia, not destroy it. I would hope Zoloft et al see that as an improvement, making WO more relevant, and making it more of a positive vehicle for change. As an example: before I joined, I have patrolled the "bad article" sections, then went and fixed the articles, giving a nod to WO or the editor here in the summary. To me, that serves a purpose.
The issue I would have with taking advice from you, is that you don't come across as genuine or trustworthy to me. There appears to be a constant pervasive undercurrent of unctuousness with all your comments. (Except when you finked on your ex and whom I'm going to personally believe the last straw was buying three bottles of unicorn pee because it's funnier story to me!)

SneakySasha
Contributor
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by SneakySasha » Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:10 pm

Zoloft wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging
What, pray tell, is a good hanging? :blink:
For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

:banana: :bow: :rotfl: :applause: :bow: :banana:

Clearly, I was being way to cerebral. Forgive me!

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Zoloft » Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:08 am

SneakySasha wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging
What, pray tell, is a good hanging? :blink:
For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

:banana: :bow: :rotfl: :applause: :bow: :banana:

Clearly, I was being way to cerebral. Forgive me!
I can be cerebral!

Just not on this forum.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Dennis Brown
Gregarious
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Dennis Brown
Actual Name: Dennis Brown
Location: Lexington, North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Dennis Brown » Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:29 am

SneakySasha wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:
You are correct, but I think it would often hurt the defendant regardless of where it was based from. Liz's idea is the right one; give moral support via email. I've done that plenty at Arb and even RFA, and it doesn't interfere with the case or their chances.

I will say that I think WO is getting a better reputation than it had a year or two ago, evidenced by how often you see active editors, admin and arbs here. My gut says it is being seen less as a hangout for banned users, and instead as an independent hangout for people who simply want to discuss flaws, and who (mainly) want to improve Wikipedia, not destroy it. I would hope Zoloft et al see that as an improvement, making WO more relevant, and making it more of a positive vehicle for change. As an example: before I joined, I have patrolled the "bad article" sections, then went and fixed the articles, giving a nod to WO or the editor here in the summary. To me, that serves a purpose.
The issue I would have with taking advice from you, is that you don't come across as genuine or trustworthy to me. There appears to be a constant pervasive undercurrent of unctuousness with all your comments. (Except when you finked on your ex and whom I'm going to personally believe the last straw was buying three bottles of unicorn pee because it's funnier story to me!)
That's the beauty of it: You don't have to trust me. As far as tone, I've been in marketing and sales (manager or owner) almost all my adult life, there is a very good chance that bleeds though in how I parse my words, which is in contrast with the average Wikipedian. I am what I am, without apology.
“I'd far rather be happy than right any day.” - Douglas Adams
"My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite." - Scorpius (Farscape)

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by tarantino » Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:20 am

Zoloft wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging
What, pray tell, is a good hanging? :blink:
For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.
They couldn't possibly sneak them in until Monday, though, because Boris is booked solid.

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by The Joy » Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:45 am

Zoloft wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging
What, pray tell, is a good hanging? :blink:
For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

:banana: :bow: :rotfl: :applause: :bow: :banana:

Clearly, I was being way to cerebral. Forgive me!
I can be cerebral!

Just not on this forum.
Being Kafkaesque again?
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Zoloft » Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:10 am

The Joy wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Zoloft wrote:
SneakySasha wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging
What, pray tell, is a good hanging? :blink:
For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

:banana: :bow: :rotfl: :applause: :bow: :banana:

Clearly, I was being way to cerebral. Forgive me!
I can be cerebral!

Just not on this forum.
Being Kafkaesque again?
I identify more with this guy:

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
spartaz
Critic
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 3:38 pm
Wikipedia User: Spartaz
Wikipedia Review Member: Spartaz

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by spartaz » Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:50 am

:offtopic:

Perhaps the Ama chatter and tasteless discussion of lynching could be split off?
Evil by definition
Badly spelled by crappy tablet
Humbugg!

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Zoloft » Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:35 am

spartaz wrote::offtopic:

Perhaps the Ama chatter and tasteless discussion of lynching could be split off?
Done. Relabeled posts to remove original subject, as it was in members-only area.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Poetlister » Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:44 pm

SneakySasha wrote:
Vigilant wrote:Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging
What, pray tell, is a good hanging? :blink:
That is actually a serious question. Shakespeare says "He that is well hanged in this world needs to fear no colours." Basically, that means that you can be hanged swiftly and painlessly, or slowly and agonisingly.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

MysteriousStranger
Critic
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:18 pm
Wikipedia User: Muhahaha...I'll never tell!

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by MysteriousStranger » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:04 pm

Dennis Brown wrote:
The Joy wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Kingsindian wrote:
The Joy wrote: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (T-H-L) was an attempt to have advocates for Arbcom defendants. It failed. Poor CyclePat (T-C-L) nearly sacrificed his wiki-life to keep it alive.
I read a couple of discussions linked on the page as to why it was disbanded. Mostly it seemed to be due to inactivity and complaints by some admins/ arbitrators. I consider the latter a good thing (if anything).

Also, it was almost ten years ago. I would be interested in reviving it myself. The scope could be tightened up though, so as not to duplicate other venues like DRN.
I'd commit to joining and helping to defend one or maybe two cases a year if you want to get it going again.

Actually, probably one... Richard Norton gets dragged in about once a year by his enemies and I'm already committed to fighting the good fight on that front until the bitter end...

RfB
The common argument against the AMA was that it created an adversarial environment. Having an advocate/"lawyer" at Arbcom assumed bad faith in Arbitrators. That is not the "Wiki-Way." Arbcom may not be like a traditional court in the U.S. or U.K., but you are on trial so it already IS an adversarial environment. I never understood the logic of the AMA opponents. Strange demented hippies ruled Wikipedia in the early days.
I'm not in love with the idea because I think it would attract adversarial type people to do the job, so it would open up a lot of drama, and I could see some of these wikilawyering/contrarian advocates getting blocked by uninvolved admin, which would open up the floodgates for more criticism, AND hurt the person who asked the advocate to help them. Not in all cases, but in many. I'm not saying I would automatically oppose any such system, I just can't envision a system that I would support. That could simply be a lack of imagination on my part. I do think it would be foolish for Arb to volunteer for such a system, as it would end up costing them more time per case, dealing with two people instead of one, and having to debate side issues by advocates looking to simply wear them down.
You think it would attract adversarial people to the job. ArbCom doesn't? Doesn't everyone accused by ArbCom deserve someone in their corner so they're not pitchfork-and-torched out of town?

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31490
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Vigilant » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:23 pm

MysteriousStranger wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:
The Joy wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Kingsindian wrote:
The Joy wrote: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (T-H-L) was an attempt to have advocates for Arbcom defendants. It failed. Poor CyclePat (T-C-L) nearly sacrificed his wiki-life to keep it alive.
I read a couple of discussions linked on the page as to why it was disbanded. Mostly it seemed to be due to inactivity and complaints by some admins/ arbitrators. I consider the latter a good thing (if anything).

Also, it was almost ten years ago. I would be interested in reviving it myself. The scope could be tightened up though, so as not to duplicate other venues like DRN.
I'd commit to joining and helping to defend one or maybe two cases a year if you want to get it going again.

Actually, probably one... Richard Norton gets dragged in about once a year by his enemies and I'm already committed to fighting the good fight on that front until the bitter end...

RfB
The common argument against the AMA was that it created an adversarial environment. Having an advocate/"lawyer" at Arbcom assumed bad faith in Arbitrators. That is not the "Wiki-Way." Arbcom may not be like a traditional court in the U.S. or U.K., but you are on trial so it already IS an adversarial environment. I never understood the logic of the AMA opponents. Strange demented hippies ruled Wikipedia in the early days.
I'm not in love with the idea because I think it would attract adversarial type people to do the job, so it would open up a lot of drama, and I could see some of these wikilawyering/contrarian advocates getting blocked by uninvolved admin, which would open up the floodgates for more criticism, AND hurt the person who asked the advocate to help them. Not in all cases, but in many. I'm not saying I would automatically oppose any such system, I just can't envision a system that I would support. That could simply be a lack of imagination on my part. I do think it would be foolish for Arb to volunteer for such a system, as it would end up costing them more time per case, dealing with two people instead of one, and having to debate side issues by advocates looking to simply wear them down.
You think it would attract adversarial people to the job. ArbCom doesn't? Doesn't everyone accused by ArbCom deserve someone in their corner so they're not pitchfork-and-torched out of town?
Someone who can't be ad hominemed/WP:NOTHEREd/IsThisYourFirstAccounted to death by the ravenous peanut gallery.

Since it isn't in article space, it could be a paid service...
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
Dennis Brown
Gregarious
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Dennis Brown
Actual Name: Dennis Brown
Location: Lexington, North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Dennis Brown » Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:13 am

MysteriousStranger wrote:
Dennis Brown wrote:
The Joy wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Kingsindian wrote:
The Joy wrote: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (T-H-L) was an attempt to have advocates for Arbcom defendants. It failed. Poor CyclePat (T-C-L) nearly sacrificed his wiki-life to keep it alive.
I read a couple of discussions linked on the page as to why it was disbanded. Mostly it seemed to be due to inactivity and complaints by some admins/ arbitrators. I consider the latter a good thing (if anything).

Also, it was almost ten years ago. I would be interested in reviving it myself. The scope could be tightened up though, so as not to duplicate other venues like DRN.
I'd commit to joining and helping to defend one or maybe two cases a year if you want to get it going again.

Actually, probably one... Richard Norton gets dragged in about once a year by his enemies and I'm already committed to fighting the good fight on that front until the bitter end...

RfB
The common argument against the AMA was that it created an adversarial environment. Having an advocate/"lawyer" at Arbcom assumed bad faith in Arbitrators. That is not the "Wiki-Way." Arbcom may not be like a traditional court in the U.S. or U.K., but you are on trial so it already IS an adversarial environment. I never understood the logic of the AMA opponents. Strange demented hippies ruled Wikipedia in the early days.
I'm not in love with the idea because I think it would attract adversarial type people to do the job, so it would open up a lot of drama, and I could see some of these wikilawyering/contrarian advocates getting blocked by uninvolved admin, which would open up the floodgates for more criticism, AND hurt the person who asked the advocate to help them. Not in all cases, but in many. I'm not saying I would automatically oppose any such system, I just can't envision a system that I would support. That could simply be a lack of imagination on my part. I do think it would be foolish for Arb to volunteer for such a system, as it would end up costing them more time per case, dealing with two people instead of one, and having to debate side issues by advocates looking to simply wear them down.
You think it would attract adversarial people to the job. ArbCom doesn't? Doesn't everyone accused by ArbCom deserve someone in their corner so they're not pitchfork-and-torched out of town?
I'm not saying that the sentiment is problematic, I'm saying that no good deed goes unpunished, so it is frequently going to work against the accused, not matter how good the intentions.
“I'd far rather be happy than right any day.” - Douglas Adams
"My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite." - Scorpius (Farscape)

User avatar
Kelly Martin
Habitué
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Location: EN61bw
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Kelly Martin » Tue Jan 26, 2016 5:55 am

The problem with "advocates" in the ArbCom process is that the ArbCom process isn't about determining whose behavior was "right" or "wrong", it's about the ArbCom determining who is "of the body". An advocate is of no use in this process; if you are "of the body" the body will rise up to wrap you in its protective embrace, and no harm will befall you, and if you are "not of the body" you will be thrown out into the cold outer darkness, never again to bask in the warm glow of the love of the pah-wraiths holy acolytes of knowledge.

In some situations, if there is question as to whether you are truly of the body, but the Committee is not convinced, you may be given a partial reprieve if you abase yourself sufficiently before the judges.

Having an advocate who intercedes on your behalf with arguments of logic will avail you not at all; if you are not of the body, the most you can hope for is a temporary reprieve, and only if you fully submit to the will of the prophets ArbCom, without any reservation. An advocate arguing for limitations on that submission will only harm your appeal.

User avatar
Kingsindian
Habitué
Posts: 2593
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:07 am
Wikipedia User: Kingsindian

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Kingsindian » Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:06 pm

I have started a section on Village Pump on reviving this.

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by The Joy » Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:49 pm

Kingsindian wrote:I have started a section on Village Pump on reviving this.
Will this be another bureaucracy to help people navigate another bureaucracy?
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

Newyorkbrad
Gregarious
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:27 am

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by Newyorkbrad » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:05 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:The problem with "advocates" in the ArbCom process is that the ArbCom process isn't about determining whose behavior was "right" or "wrong", it's about the ArbCom determining who is "of the body". An advocate is of no use in this process; if you are "of the body" the body will rise up to wrap you in its protective embrace, and no harm will befall you, and if you are "not of the body" you will be thrown out into the cold outer darkness, never again to bask in the warm glow of the love of the pah-wraiths holy acolytes of knowledge.

In some situations, if there is question as to whether you are truly of the body, but the Committee is not convinced, you may be given a partial reprieve if you abase yourself sufficiently before the judges.
In seven years as an arbitrator, I never thought like this, ever ... and I don't believe any other arbitrators I served with did either, although I disagreed with some of them often enough.

User avatar
iii
Habitué
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:15 am
Wikipedia User: ජපස
Wikipedia Review Member: iii
Contact:

Re: Wikipedia Association of Members' Advocates Redux?

Unread post by iii » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:09 pm

Newyorkbrad wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:The problem with "advocates" in the ArbCom process is that the ArbCom process isn't about determining whose behavior was "right" or "wrong", it's about the ArbCom determining who is "of the body". An advocate is of no use in this process; if you are "of the body" the body will rise up to wrap you in its protective embrace, and no harm will befall you, and if you are "not of the body" you will be thrown out into the cold outer darkness, never again to bask in the warm glow of the love of the pah-wraiths holy acolytes of knowledge.

In some situations, if there is question as to whether you are truly of the body, but the Committee is not convinced, you may be given a partial reprieve if you abase yourself sufficiently before the judges.
In seven years as an arbitrator, I never thought like this, ever ... and I don't believe any other arbitrators I served with did either, although I disagreed with some of them often enough.
I sure you didn't, but it's a pretty accurate description of what it feels like to be a party to an arbitration case, especially on the losing end, but even to some extent on the winning end.

Post Reply