Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/2004 Election

This page has information about the first AMA (Association of Members' Advocates) Coordinator Election; some of the material below has been copied from the Wikipedia talk:Association of Members' Advocates. The election took place from April 16 to 30, 2004. Only those who were members of the AMA as of the start date were eligible. The information below has been refactored to present the materials for the candidates as of that deadline. A new election is planned in the near future.

On behalf of Wikipedia and the AMA, ballot counters Jwrosenzweig and Zanimum would like to congratulate Alex756 on his 16-1-1-3 election win. That's 16 votes Alex, one vote Ed, 1+3 abstentions.

AMA Coordinator

 * Opening: Association of Members' Advocates, Coordinator
 * Qualifications required: No particular experience necessary, but you should probably join the AMA if you want to be the coordinator
 * Job description: Connect users who request general advocate assistance with individual advocates who can represent them, co-ordinates policy discussion and maintains meta page
 * Salary: Ha!
 * Other perks in lieu of salary (such as power, authority, position of importance): Fancy title
 * Term of service: Currently undetermined. 6 months?
 * Duties would consist primarily of having AMA Requests for Assistance on your watchlist. When requests come in, you would then need to find a suitable advocate who is willing to work with that client, and put the two in contact with each other.

&#8212; by User:Michael Snow, with some modifications by others

What is clear to me is that we need a co-ordinator, and that their 1st duty should probably be to provide leadership/proposals in regards to members comments and the process of becoming a member. I clearly prefer a stricter structure, and others clearly prefer a near unmitigated freedom (even going so far as to edit other members comments). One thing I think we can all agree on is a need for clarity, and I feel a co-ordinator will help us in pursuit of such a goal. Sam Spade 02:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AMA Coordinator Nominations

 * User:Ed Poor (self-nominated)
 * User:Alex756 (nominated by AMA Member Sam Spade)

Statement by Ed Poor

 * I have been a Wikipedian since late 2001 (my User ID is #188). I have been a developer, admin and Wikien-l mailing-list admin for a couple of years. I have over 25 years experience communicating with people from several foreign countries. I'm especially good at helping people discover what they have in common, so they can work together. Everyone who has ever asked for my help and followed my advice at Wikipedia has found a satisfactory solution to their problem.


 * I help resolve NPOV disputes so frequently that other contributors are hardly aware they have even arisen, and my favorite activity is to resolve disputes at protected pages so that everyone agrees that the page can be unprotected (see: Silesia).


 * I have been harsh on users who have deliberately undermined the goals of Wikipedia -- some people applaud this, but others say I have been too harsh. So when the office of bureacrat was made available I did not use my developer power to grant myself bureaucratship; I called for an election. I wanted to start a trend toward WikiDemocracy, and I think it's been successful. Already the office of steward is being discussed.


 * And I have consistently been pushing for more admins with more clearly defined duties. The era of the "sheriff" is coming to and end, thank goodness. What remains is to figure out how to minimize trouble; quickpolls are the latest experiment.


 * I'm not good at welcoming newbies or distinguishing between genuine newbies and sock puppets of established users. But I have helped, and will continue to help, anyone who (a) has a specific, article-related request or (b) is being harassed in talk pages. Wik, Lir and Sam Spade have complained (in general terms) that I didn't "treat them nicely" but that is not my job. When they asked for help accomplishing a specific task, I gave them the help they asked for. No one can deny this. But when they demanded approval or immunity I stood fast. Lir used many sock puppet accounts, but I tolerated this evasion of a hard ban as long as he behaved himself. I had no obligation to pretend I believed Pizza Puzzle or Vera Cruz was a newbie, and I have no such obligation to Sam Spade. Trolls cause trouble; everyone else helps build Wikipedia.


 * Regardless of who is elected AMA Coordinator, I will continue to give specific help to Wikipedia contributors who are trying to create accurate, neutral articles. If giving a bit of prestige to Alex or me will make it easier for us to help the community, then by all means vote! --Uncle Ed 13:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Questions to Ed Poor
I asked you for assistance when I was new to the wiki, and I found you to be unhelpful and accusatory. What do you say about this contridiction of your claim to unbroken success? Sam Spade 18:29, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I can only help people who share the Wikipedia's goals of making an accurate, neutral encyclopedia. I don't help people who oppose these goals, as you seemed to do then (when you went by the name "user:JackLynch". If I misunderstood what you wanted then, please restate it now. --Uncle Ed 20:42, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I wanted the same thing I have always wanted here, which is to be a part of making a high quality, verifiable encyclopedia with as many citations as possible. In order to do that I expect a minimum of respect for my work here as a volunteer. When you and other members of the "unwelcoming committee" harass and persecute a newbie like I was, it makes things very difficult for them, particularly when they only knew you as "uncle ed" who was some sort of authority figure to ask for help. I never received any such help (after multiple requests), only harassment, and I find your claim above and in your members comments in particularly poor taste. Sam Spade 00:06, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You ARE part of making a high quality, verifiable encyclopedia with as many citations as possible.


 * I think that your Jack Lynch and Sam Spade user accounts are sock puppets. Aside from voicing this suspicion, I have shown you no disrespect.


 * When Kenneth called you a "clown" and a "vandal", I chided him as follows:


 * Let's not call anyone a "troll" or describe their actions as "immature". Trolling means throwing out bait while fishing -- in on-line terms, deliberately stirring up trouble for trouble's sake. Carelessly making inflammatory remarks is not trolling. 


 * We should avoid making personal remarks. 


 * Here is an example of something I asked you for help with months ago, and which I have seen no effort on your part (much less resoloution) in regards to. Sam Spade 00:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The example you cite proves that I DID help you. --Uncle Ed 13:41, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You suggested, "Everyone who has ever asked for my help and followed my advice at Wikipedia has found a satisfactory solution to their problem." Are you implying that you have never erred in giving advice? -- Emsworth 01:12, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * If I may interject, in defense of Ed's character and integrity. The statement being questioned is, in my opinion, what you might call "puffery". That's a kind of sales talk, meaning that the statement is for advertising purposes and not necessarily meant to be evaluated as to whether it is literally true (truth is a very elusive thing). In this case, the statement is supposed to persuade people to consider Ed's services as an advocate, or to consider supporting him for AMA coordinator.


 * In my personal observation, Ed has always tried to help people and resolve disputes. He and Sam did have an unfortunate conflict, but I would say that the "advice" Ed gave at the link Sam has cited was actually reasonable. In my opinion, their problems stem much more from a failure on both sides to assume good faith during their conflict, and it may be difficult to get over that. The end result is that Sam feels that Ed's "help" was far from satisfactory for him. I think both Sam and Ed are good people who care very much about the Wikipedia project, and react strongly when they see behavior that may be harmful to the project. I wish they could just forgive and forget, if that is possible. Not that I expect Sam to support Ed for AMA coordinator, but since I know Sam likes to read :-), perhaps he would consider studying Ed's efforts to deal with the many long-running disputes over Polish-German border areas. I apologize for being sappy, but I think a little WikiLove would really help here. --Michael Snow 04:38, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually I think ed is a great admin, I'm just mad that he assumed bad faith on my part, and his member statement clearly rubbed me the wrong way. I have seen him behave well numerous times, and have even complimented him on it. Part of what I do as a members advocate (actually I do it anyways) is holding admins to a high standard, and defending policy generally. Anyhow, if you noticed, while I am clearly still P.O.ed about his statement, and interactions w me generally, it's not like I have a wide variety of negative things to say about him. I simply wish he wouldn't have assumed bad faith on my part. Sam Spade 04:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Some of your personal views are controversial. Do you think you could advocate impartially on behalf of a user who you disagreed with personally?  Exploding Boy 03:36, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)

Statement by Alex756

 * Having initially conceived of the AMA (formerly the OMA) I see the rôle a coordinator is to keep in contact with the members. While much of the actual service that this association accomplishes is outside the actually activities of the association (i.e. the actually advocacy is not conducted by the association) a coordinator can be useful to help Wikipedians find and communicate with AMA members. It is important that we develop some kind of training for Advocates, this was my idea about beginning to write the Guide to Advocacy, but we could also have a correspondence course that could be written and then the coordinator could review the answers of the member (this would occur off wiki) and help them develop their advocacy skills. As well there will be times when those who use Advocates have problems and have complaints, a coordinator can help to develop (with the consensus of the members) a policy to deal with these issues. It is important for any coordinator to keep communicating with the members (on their talk pages or via email) and to get their input and encourage them to participate in the association's developing dialogue regarding advocacy issues on Wikipedia.


 * I'd like to add in light of the exchange between Sam Spade and Ed above that I do not think it necessary for an advocate to show favoritism to users who agree with any of the policy issues of Wikipedia. As an advocate if someone disagrees with the principles of Wikipedia I would try to explain those principles to them and try to get them to understand why those principles such as NPOV exist, however it is not my job to convince them that they are wrong if they had a good faith basis in having such an opinion (though I must admit that is hard to imagine). The job of "enforcing" NPOV goes to the Mediation and Arbitration Committees as well as the Board of Trustees of Wikipedia. I would not treat people who are trying to change Wikipedia any differently than I would treat those who agree with its principles. I think that is one of the reasons that advocates are necessary and as coordinator I would not try to discourage someone from seeking help from a member advocate because they had an erroneous idea of what Wikipedia was all about, that would seem to me to create a dangerous precedent. We should be here to help those who disagree with the status quo. Though of course helping such people may necessitate helping them to understand the extent to which certain ideas are held invariant as matters of principle.


 * If anyone wants to ask me specific questions I will answer them here:

Questions to Alex756

 * It has been suggested that advocates need to be trained. I beg to ask if you could indicate if you have any experience or expertise in the area of law. -- Emsworth 20:31, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am a lawyer in New York City and have been practicing here for more than six years. You can find out a bit more about me here. I have recently become a volunteer arbitrator for NYC Civil Court handling hearings and inquests in Small Claims (under $5,000). I have two law degrees (LL.B. &amp; B.C.L.) from McGill University Faculty of Law having graduated with distinction in 1997. Both before and since becoming a lawyer I have done a lot of volunteer work for non-profit organizations and participate in several pro bono activites as a lawyer to help people resolve their disputes. Regarding the training of advocates I would like to stress that they need not be lawyers, they are just trying to help members out in the dispute resolution process the result of which could lead to the banning of a Wikipedian. Standards that could insure some level of quality in that represenstation would be to the benefit of all and would help to make sure that our association can stand behind its members activities (unless they fall below the standards we set as a group). I should stress that even if I am not elected coordinator I will continue to participate in the AMA to try and develop those standards with other members here.


 * I am interested in how we will handle policy issues, such as surveys/evaluations of members proformance, factual accuracy of members statements, and other policies I would like to see coordinated. Sam Spade 20:39, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * My basic approach as the interim defacto coordinator when I first started this group was to get the participation of every member in making a decision. I believe we should be an example of democracy at work here on Wikipedia and can thus be an example to other groups that want to help develop a voluntary association culture within Wikipedia. I agree that the issues that you bring up need to be further discussed. We need to learn if members are perceived to have performed adequately, to deal with the accuracy of all our statements here and top determine that other decisions that need to be made in the day-to-day coordination of our fledgling group are done in a manner that respects the input of all members. A coordinator can help to make that happen. [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756 talk]] 20:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I am glad to hear you say that, and agree strongly. I would be interested in hearing any proposals you (or others) might have regarding "the standards we set as a group", but thats not something I think we need to (or even should) deal with substantially until after the election. Sam Spade 20:59, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you believe that private e-mails should be permitted as evidence at the hearings? -- Emsworth 01:25, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not sure it is the job of the Coordinator to determine issues of law or even to argue them. I didn't think that the role of Coordinator is to render any kind of legal opinions. Having said that I can make some general comments about emails as evidence. Note that in most arbitration proceedings the rules of evidence are not usually adopted by the arbitrators who can usually make up their own rules.  I would say that emails that are irrelevant should definitely not be admitted as evidence. If there is a determination that the email has some relevancy then it can be used as one of the elements upon which a decision is based. How would this relevancy be determined?  If it has some use to show what a disputant was doing on Wikipedia. Should it be admissible if one only has made some kind of derogatory statement? They should go to court for that and bring a libel action against the person publishing the libel. I doubt that such an arbitration belongs in the Wikipedia arbitration scheme.


 * There is also a question of authenticity. How does one prove an email? An entry on a wiki is recorded and can be reviewed through the page history. An email would need some forensic analysis of the physical delivery system (review of hard drive, etc.). An email may be useful evidence in some cases but it would seem to me that arbitration hearings are about one's behaviour on Wikipedia, not what one might say in an email. There would have to be some clear probative value for the email to be useful. [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756 talk]] 05:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The relationship of the question to the election is not direct. I asked to find out what you believe as an advocate. I agree that e-mails should not be admitted. Firstly, revealing their exact contents would violate copyright. Secondly, as you suggest, authenticity comes into doubt. Finally, the hearsay rule - if the Arbitration Committee choose to enforce it - could come into play. -- Emsworth 01:44, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not sure about the violation of copyright issue. If one of the disputants is the author of the email and it is relevant posting then as part of a dispute resolution process it would probably be looked upon as fair use (i.e. it is the search for truth and ideally that is not a economic right). There may be privacy issues if it is a third party as well as the issue of hearsay, but wouldn't that be resolved if the person who was offering the email got the permission of the writer or receiver of the email? Remember there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule (and Canada has a very liberal approach to this problem) and if there is a "statement against interest" by one of the parties then such an email could be very relevant. These are fascinating issues to apply in a wiki dispute resolution system. We really should start discussing these things as a group if they come up in specific instances. Such discussions could really help develop the advocacy process...IMO.  [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756  talk]] 04:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cutoff date for registration
While voting as not yet started, it has not been determined if only members were part of the association when the nomination process started will be allowed to vote. The cutoff date for voting registration (i.e. the date after which new members will only be allowed to vote in the next election) has not be determined. See: main page for list of current members.

Voting procedure
No procedure has been adopted for the voting. The members may decide on a secret ballot or an open ballot. That needs to be determined. A secret ballot will require someone who is not a member to conduct the ballot through some confidential or anonymous means. There is a discussion on the talk page regarding this process. An open ballot can be conducted here.

Questions for the AMA
Is a secret ballot desirable? Zanimum and I are discussing the issue, but honestly I think we'd do whatever you preferred, open or secret. And is Alex S officially not a ballot counter? Alex756 implied such in a note to me, I believe. I think Alex S might prefer to have his vote, but of course it doesn't matter at all to me if Alex S would rather be a ballot counter. Also, is it fair to say that only AMA members listed with the AMA prior to April 1, 2004 are eligible to vote? If I can get some responses to these questions quickly, I think Zanimum and I can get this election under way. Jwrosenzweig 16:58, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * My personal response, though obviously I can't speak for the AMA as a whole. I would choose a secret ballot for the reasons articulated on the talk page. I would also prefer that Alex S be allowed to vote, although if he doesn't want to, then he can do what he likes. I think the April 1 cutoff should be fine, since as of now no new members have been added after that date anyway. --Michael Snow 04:39, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * No one has joined since April 1st, but is that just for lack of publicity? Is there anyway we could promote the AMA a bit more, before closing the membership? -- user:zanimum


 * A few people have joined since April 1. - Woodrow, Emperor of the United States 14:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't discussed this with Jwrosenzweig, but unless any AMA members or Jwrosenzweig have objections, the date will be Friday, April 16, 2004, at 11:00 EST. Members who have joined up until this time can vote in the election. -- user:zanimum
 * I have no problems with that. If people are concerned about sock puppets.....heck, that's why you have ballot counters. :-)  On the 16th, an email address will be posted here that both Zanimum and I have access to, that has been set up for the purpose of this election.  Votes can be emailed there.  Unless the AMA objects, this shall be the method of casting ballots. So let it be written, so let it be done. Jwrosenzweig 16:22, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * So speaks Ramses the First! -- Emsworth 22:25, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * When should the elections close? Any suggestions from the AMA? Is two weeks okay? That would take it to 11:00 EST on Friday, April 30, 2004. -- user:zanimum
 * All of this sounds okay to me. --Michael Snow 19:50, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can start at noon EDT rather than at eleven o'clock. -- Emsworth 22:26, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Mandatory voting
zanimum wrote: "AMA members who wish to abstain from voting must also e-mail wikipedia_ama_voting@yahoo.co.uk with notice of that intent."

Who promulgated this policy? This appears to me to conflict with the statement on the AMA main page that "Membership is open to anyone who wishes to help members with the dispute resolution process..." in that it adds additional prerequisites to volunteer in what was suggested as an open association. Was there an opportunity for AMA's voluntary members to discuss this requirement before it was stated as policy?

My perception, based on the statement on the main AMA page, is that this is a place where people having problems contributing to Wikipedia could post requests and perhaps offer contact information where any willing advocate could reply, privately if so desired, with offers of assistance, or so those requesting assistance could contact prospective advocates, privately if they so desired.

How is it that non-members are now adding a new membership requirement not related to advocacy, apparently developed in private off-board discussion, that serves to limit who will be permitted to offer assistance? Mrs.HippieBurning 03:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * This isn't mandatory voting. It's just if say 17 people want to vote, and the other 5 don't, than I know all 21 member's opinions, and can close the election before the two-week period is over. If you, or anyone else, doesn't want to send me/Jwrosenzweig a notice saying that you want to abstain, be my guest. It just simply means that I won't be able to close the election early. I don't see how this limits who can be helped. -- user:zanimum


 * I see. It could be that I didn't read it as a guest invitation, I read it as a summons to which I must respond. I was inclined to vote late anyway because it better assures private polling, but that was just instinct -- not really a response to any perceived intent by the polsters. Mrs.HippieBurning 05:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Eligible voters

 * Alex756
 * Alex S
 * Anthere
 * Calmypal
 * Denni
 * Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
 * Lord Emsworth
 * Ludraman | Talk
 * Metasquares
 * Michael Snow
 * Mrs.HippieBurning
 * Pakaran.
 * Perl
 * Pharotic
 * Philwelch
 * Sam Spade
 * Secretlondon
 * Sj
 * Spikey
 * ugen64
 * Zestauferov

Eligible voters who abstained through the proper procedure

 * Alex756, who properly contacted the AMA ballot counters in notification

Yet to vote or abstain

 * Mrs.HippieBurning
 * Pakaran.
 * Philwelch

Inspectors of the Election/Ballot Counters

 * AMA Member Alex S has volunteered to be an inspector of the election.
 * Jwrosenzweig (non-member) has also volunteered to independently validate votes.
 * Zanimum (non-member), if you need any other inspectors, independent of the organization itself.