Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/AMA 2006 Coordinator Election/Archive

Candidate Statements

Wgfinley

I withdraw. I'm leaving this here for posterity but it can be removed if deemed not needed. --Wgfinley 03:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been an editor here (with an account) for a year and a half, I was recently elevated to Admin and I have formally advocated on two Arbcom cases as well as in many other instances that didn't involve Arbcom.

It's my belief that dispute resolution is one of the biggest issues facing our community right now. We have wheel warring, cabal accusations, an Arbcom docket a mile long, a contentious Arbcom election underway and a number of other issues that all pertain to dispute resolution. The community needs a healthy AMA now more than ever and I would like to help see us get there.

As part of this, I propose the following:

• I think the interim term should be six months.
• I will resign from The Mediation Cabal so as not to create any undue burden on my time or create a conflict of interest.
• During the six months more formal rules or bylaws for this group will be drawn up, I will attempt to lead us to that point.
• I will listen to all points of view on the creation of these bylaws and will see that all voices are heard in their creation, the goal is consensus.
• Coordinator job duties, additional coordinators, term of office, and elections will be part of the bylaws.
• I would like to see more online live meetings using IRC if we choose that or maybe something a bit more available and user friendly like Skype, I believe this will cut down on the number of problems we seem to have right now with voting, etc.
• The three main areas of focus will be maintaining the requests page, training and mentorship for new advocates, and better establishing ourselves within the dispute resolution process.

Further Thoughts

I just wanted to make a couple of positions clear to everyone as it just about appears we're ready to start with voting (I hope, sometime soon maybe?). Right now I think our standing in Dispute Resolution is not what it should be, I believe that we should have a great role there in assisting other users. That's what this organization was designed for.

As part of that I believe it is imperitive we have good relations with Arbcom. One of my opponents has called it a "kangaroo court" and " not wikian" and even tyrannical [1]. I couldn't disagree more. The Arbcom has been selected by the community, everyone had an opportunity to voice their opinion in its elections, it's the will of the community. The community needs the Arbcom to take care of many issues that come up front time to time. In short, Arbcom is not going anywhere so I think having the best of relations with them is important.

Additionally some of my other opponents are new to the group (one put his name up for coordinator the day he put his name up as a member) and while I don't oppose their candidacies I don't believe they would be the right choice to lead our group. I ask you to pick a candidate who has a lot of experience with the group, has shown he/she is in it for the long haul and wants to make AMA better. As I said, I welcome everyone, even brand new members, into that discussion I just don't think that brand new members or those who haven't been active in quite some time should be leading us.

_{Updated -- Wgfinley 20:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)}

Questions for Candidate

1. Do you endorse my 5 point plan to reform the AMA? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

   I agree on 2 & 5. I don't support 3 (too intrusive). I generally support 1 & 4 but would want some more group input. --Wgfinley 21:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

2. On 3, the intrusive part is apparently the email copies. Could you post your view on the phenominon known as "wikilawyering," using specific examples from a recent AMA/ArbCom case, in this case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti. What do you believe that the AMA advocate did right, and what do you believe they did wrong? What actions would you, as the coordinator take, if a situation identical to this were to happen again? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

   As someone who has made the mistake of wikilawyering I can say that it is inherently bad and not a good idea. It never works the way one intends it to. I don't like to Monday Morning Quarterback but I believe that advocates from refrain from making "briefs", elaborate motions or whatnot. The primary goal should hopefully be to aid the "client" in acting themselves and in rare cases actually present arguments for them where needed. --Wgfinley 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hipocrite

The AMA is broken. I will fix it.

Too often, AMA advocates have used their superior knowledge of the rules and procedures of the encyclopedia to wikilawyer their way into what they hope would be a victory. This does not work. Wikilawyering distances people from each other, and does not serve to help create an encyclopedia.

Too often, we offer the wrong kind of help to the people who request AMA assistance. When requesters are not just misguided souls who need to be assisted in how to speak truth to power, but rather truly disruptive users who need to change how the operate, it is our responsibility to help them.

To this end, my candidacy is a proposal for a massive overhaul to the AMA. My first week plan follows:

1. I will remove all mention of mediation from our rule set. Medcom and TINMC exist for such purposes.
2. I will blank the membership page, and require all active advocates to add their name to one of two sections -> active or full. No one will be allowed on the membership page who is neither on a case nor willing to take a new case. If an advocate is listed as active and a case is sitting untaken for more than two days, I will assign the mentor who I feel is most able and available the case.
3. I will patrol all advocacy discussions on talk/RFC/arbcom and other pages. I will be copied on all outgoing emails from advocates to their requestors. In the event that I determine that there is wikilawyering from an advocate, I will put the kibosh on it. We will no longer be seen as thorns in the side of Arbcom, but rather as a useful tool to help ArbCom deal with unruly parties, while at the same time helping such parties with ArbCom
4. I will reform the job of the advocate to be not only an enabler but also a mentor. If a user requests an advocate to RFAr some troublesome user, that advocate will be instructed first to review the conflict and see if there is a better way to handle it than RFAr. Perhaps the person requesting advocacy can be better helped by a gentle reminder about one of the three policies, and our need to cite sources for factual statements and to attribute all statements to the speaker. While we are required to help our requesters, we are not required to help them violate NPOV, NOR and V.
5. There will be monthly open to the public IRC meetings.

Thank you. While I am a new member to this august body, I am in no means ignorant to its past successes and failures.

Further Thoughts

I note that one of the other candidates has mentioned that I am new to the group, and that this is a reason enough to oppose me. I disagree. I lay out an entirely new direction for this organization - a direction which no other candidate has explicitly accepted or rejected. If you feel that that my proposals are the wrong thing - please do not vote for me. I promise you, that if you are here to play political games with Arbcom, "wikilawyer," and help difficult users "get off," then you do not want me in charge. If you feel that my 5 point plan to fix AMA is right, then I suggest you vote for me, or insist that other candidates endorse my plan without modification.

If elected to this position I will serve it with dedication and distinction - for the "long-haul" as one might say. I run as a new member becase I do not see how one can expect a long term member to radically rewrite what the organization does.

Nominees Considered by Some to be Ineligible

Please see Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates.

Hipocrite

I support Ambi.

Call for Election

Call made by Neigel von Teighen

The AMA Coordinator page says the AMA Coordinator should be elected but the term of the office was not specified. One proposal was that it should be for 6 months. As the last election was in April 2004, the next election should have been performed in October 2004 according to that theory, but this was never decided upon by the members.

Obviously, the election must be performed with the consensus of this association's members. Thus, please leave your opinion in this vote. Remember that this is only a poll. Voting is ended.

Final result (Support/Oppose): (10/1) (out of 30 members).

Should new elections be performed? (Sign with #~~~~)

Support

1. Neigel von Teighen 17:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Keith D. Tyler [flame] 21:06, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
3. Pedant 21:37, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
4. Michael Snow 22:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. Andre (talk) 22:59, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
6. Pakaran 23:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) - however I would like to note that I have not been active, or received calls for my services and have no explicit objection to Alex's leadership
7. Same as Pakaran. ugen64 01:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
8. Wally 03:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) — I would like to, however, salute Alex's leadership of the AMA throughout his tenure, and concur that the call to election is not due to any unhappiness on my part with his execution of his duties.
9. +sj + 16:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
10. Metasquares 15:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) - If we continue to have a coordinator, I vote in favor of an election (not to imply that Alex756 has been doing a bad job). However, I also agree with Alex756 in that a coordinator may not be necessary. This should probably be discussed at the forthcoming AMA meeting.

Oppose

1. — © Alex756 19:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)I have no problem per se with the idea of holding an election; however, before having an election I would rather see some evaluation of our activities and the usefulness of our current structure. See my comments on the talk page.

Please, place any comment in this article's talk page. Thanks.