Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/ABC

Part 0: About this page
This document is intended to provide a set of guidelines for the AMA, acting as a framework upon which the AMA will base its activities and process. Thus, it provides instruction to advocates on how to go about advocating as an AMA volunteer, and describes what requesting users should expect from the AMA advocate assigned to their case.

Should any of these guidelines prove useless or deficient, they may be edited or removed as necessary, according to the bold-revert-discuss cycle (see WP:BRD). Ignore all rules applies equally well to both WikiProjects and general Wikipedia editing, and this application further extends to the AMA, provided such applications are rational and in the interests of the Wikipedia project.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to User:Greeves for and User:Aeon1006 for,  and ; these edits were done on another page, thus not appearing on this one's History.

What is advocacy?
AMA advocates provide an unofficial and volunteer-run service to users that need help with solving disputes.

This assistance should always be provided with a view to bringing the dispute to resolution, and should specifically not be a pseudo-legal representation of the requesting user &mdash; put simply, AMA advocates must not act as lawyers, but instead work as assistants. Advocates must also undertake their work in a manner that benefits the Wikipedia project. In particular, it is important that advocates refrain from concentrating upon the letter of policies and guidelines when acting as an advocate, and should ensure that their activities are not disruptive to the project.

The overall goal of the AMA is to be a component of the Wikipedia dispute resolution system, but not necessarily operating in a neutral manner towards all parties; in contrast, mediators are committed to treat all parties in a dispute without bias or prejudice, whereas AMA advocates are not.

This assistance generally includes, but is not limited to:


 * Providing information and advice on Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly pages such as Conflict resolution, Tutorial, Help desk, Foundation issues, etc.)


 * Direct involvement in article editing and discussion on user talk pages affected by conflict, and participation in other Conflict resolution processes where it is deemed necessary. AMA advocates shall also assist users in seeking other external assistance where these avenues of dispute resolution have failed.


 * Representing the requesting user's side in the dispute and helping to articulate the user's point of view. This may also include representation in mediation or arbitration; however, this shall be undertaken in a manner that is not disruptive to these systems.


 * Setting a good example of civility and adherence to Wikipedia's standards of behaviour, especially when involved in advocacy of an "official" nature.

What Advocacy is NOT

 * Advocacy is not mandatory, neither the advocate nor the advocee is obligated by wikipedia policy to engage in the advocacy process. Some editors appreciate the informality that this optional nature affords the advocate.


 * Advocacy is NOT a lawyer-client relationship. - Although Advocates are the closest thing to lawyers on Wikipedia, an Advocate should see their Advocacy relationship more like that of an older sibling, or an informal wardship or charge; Advocates should at all times stand against wikilawyering.


 * Advocacy is NOT an official Wikipedia procedure. - The AMA is a voluntary user-group and, as such, Advocates will take cases on a volunteer basis. It is the advocates themselves, by consensus and as individuals who determine how to best solve disputes.


 * Advocacy is NOT a method to coerce the breaking up of a dispute by Administrative action. -- Some Advocates are Administrators, others are not. The advocacy process will very rarely involve the use of any special 'admin powers' on the part of an advocate.


 * Advocacy is NOT a Complicated and Difficult Wikipedian Procedure -- For those requesting an Advocate's help, the procedure is usually as simple as talking to a friend who will listen. For the Advocate, the process is often as simple as giving good advice to a friend.  For more difficult cases, an Advocate can obtain help or advice from other Advocates.  New and unique problems rarely arise, and almost anything can be solved with good communication between all parties concerned.

Advocates duties
Advocates are allowed to be non-neutral in a dispute, specially when representing a party in an arbitration or mediation case, but advocacy must follow this rules:


 * 1) Respect for Wikipedia's policies: Advocates' behaivor must always respect all Wikipedia's policies. Advocacy does not give you immunity to policy; advocates can be banned or penalized by an administrator or an arbitration ruling just as any other user in Wikipedia can. Moreover, advocates are expected to be an example for the community.
 * 2) Avoid conflict of interests: No advocate can act in a same case as mediator and advocate. When participating in Mediation, users who are both Advocates and Mediators should state clearly the capacity in which they are acting. Users who are also Arbitrators should not serve as Advocates while they are members of the Arbitration Committee.
 * 3) Principal duty is towards the community: Advocates' principal duty is to serve the community. If an advocate takes a case is because he good-faithedly believes that helping that user means helping the Wikipedia community. If an advocate takes an action aimed to defend a user that is well-known disruptor, AMA Coordination will be able to ask him for an explanation and to subsequently expulse it from the AMA.
 * 4) Transparency: All communication between the advocate and its advocee must be done on-wiki, because advocates' activities may be important for the community.

How to be a good advocate/Mini-handbook/Code of Conduct
This could be a good summary of the above:


 * Learn Wikipedia's policy and procedures: The first step. And always watch for policy changes.
 * Choose carefully: Before choosing a case, look carefully who is the requester, if his/her attitutes are respectable and if the request is not just a trial to evade policy. Also, learn about the dispute first... Ask yourself: "Am I able to manage it?". If you're not sure, ask a more experienced advocate or just don't take the case.
 * Make contact: Contact the advocee through his/her talk page or the case's discussion section.
 * Listen & discuss: Listen to the advocee and get familiar with the issue. Be respectful, clear and friendly. Don't be afraid to say your opinion if you see you begin to disagree with your advocee. You can leave the case and maybe other advocate may be better than you.
 * You're a wikipedian: Thus, use normal procedures, not legalistic traps. Common sense should guide you. And also, be comprehensive with the other party too. You're not obliged to be neutral, but to be polite, always follow the rules and make the rules be followed.
 * Be like water: Be swift, smooth, flexible. Write precise things. Do things considering the consequences and always keep your goal in mind.
 * Don't tolerate evil: If your advocee turns out to be a disruptor, leave him without fear; if (s)he gets angry and plans a revenge against you, don't fear: you'll be protected by an admin and the disruptor will get banned.
 * Process, not results: Like arbitrators, always focus on process, not in results. This is not a win-lose game... and be sure your advocee understands this too.

Organizative Principle
'AMA will be organized into a pragmatical entity with flexible structure capable to be de facto'' rapidly changed and adapted whenever it is necessary by anyone interested... and changes will only be discussed if controversial.'''

The AMA Coordination
The AMA Coordinator will be elected by the AMA advocates from the candidates that might want to run for it. The procedure will be discussed ad hoc for each election.

AMA Coordinator's functions are:
 * 1) Mantain the request system.
 * 2) Moderate discussions.
 * 3) Investigate cases "Under investigation".
 * 4) Assign cases if a request backlog occurs.
 * 5) Represent AMA in front of the community and other Wikipedia's institutions (e.g. ArbCom).
 * 6) Moderate the Teams structure.
 * 7) Any other function given by consensus.

AMA Coordinator's term can be terminated by:
 * 1) AMA members consensus.
 * 2) Resignation.

Delegates
The Coordinator is able to delegate functions to any user considered suitable (commonly known as delegates). These delegates will cease their functions whenever a new Coordinator takes its functions or AMA members decide it by consensus.

AMABot must be considered a model of a delegate: silent and efficient.

In case of Coordination vacancy, these delegates should lead AMA for the necessary amount of time until there's consensus on what to do.

Advocates' role
The rest of AMA members will work collaboratively and might take coordination functions whenever it is evident that it is needed. This must, of course, always be done by consensus... as in the rest of Wikipedia. But consensus does not mean to make polls or to have lenghty discussion... No: just do it and, if your change appears to be controversial and reverted, try to gather consensus (or consider that your proposal wasn't as good as you thought...).

AMA Message Board
The Message Board is a way for the AMA to keep tract of issues and suggestions. You needn't be a member of the AMA to post on the Message Board all you need to be is an editor that has an idea or two and a willingness to be bold.