Wikipediocracy

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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!!

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vigilant wrote:Following the rules means that sometimes you don't get to have a good hanging

What, pray tell, is a good hanging?

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?

For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

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!)

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?

For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

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

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?

For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

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

I can be cerebral!

Just not on this forum.

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.

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?

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.

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?

For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

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

I can be cerebral!

Just not on this forum.

Being Kafkaesque again?

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?

For a lynch mob, any hanging is a good one.

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:

Perhaps the Ama chatter and tasteless discussion of lynching could be split off?

spartaz wrote:

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.

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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

Kingsindian wrote:I have started a section on Village Pump on reviving this.

Will this be another bureaucracy to help people navigate another bureaucracy?

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.

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.