Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/AMA Handbook

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

NOTE: This is currently a work in progress.

The Association of Members' Advocates is a volunteer organization at Wikipedia.

What is Advocacy?

Advocacy is that process in which an individual (an Advocate) provides assistance to a particular Wikipedian or group of Wikipedians involved in a dispute. This assistance generally includes, but is not limited to:

Providing access to and explanations of, Policy (particularly pages like Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Help desk, M:Foundation issues, etc...)

Involving oneself in the article and user talk pages in question, Wikipedia:Conflict resolution process (assuming it is necessary) and seeking out additional assistance as necessary.

Representing their party's side in the dispute and helping to articulate their point of view in accordance to policy through Mediation or Arbitration.

Being an example of policy accordance and civility, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

How to be a good Advocate

Being a good Advocate is not hard. Good communication is the key, both in assessing the problem, and in offering solutions.

The voluntary nature of the advocacy process means that some editors may be somewhat hostile at first, and not be especially cooperative at the outset, however, the fundamental policy of assume good faith allows you to be firm in expecting that all parties want to and will cooperate with efforts to reach an appropriate solution.

Patience is absolutely vital, as problems are often actually caused by one or more parties losing their patience and doing something rash. On the other hand, it helps to understand that you may be dealing with parties that have already used up all of their patience and to be gentle with everyone concerned.

It can help for an Advocate to be willing to read multiple long-winded pages of what can at times verge on irate and almost incoherent ranting, and to distill that down to a short paragraph of summation. Don't expect people who are already aggravated to be willing to read more than a few short paragraphs. Rather than a long thorough dissertation, dumped in one lump on an editors talk page, it is often very helpful to have brief exchanges of succinct dialog.

Short paragraphs are almost certain to be read thoroughly.

Respect the efforts disputants are willing to make to reach a resolution and be sure to thank everyone, in advance, for the time they have spent helping you reach an effective solution.

Being a good listener

Advocates should understand and try to present the advocee's point of view in a clearly understandable, rational and succinct manner, while staying detached from the conflict itself. Being a good listener takes time, patience, good reading skills, and the ability to get a feel for the situation. Often disputants are having difficulty in expressing their problem, and in this case it is good to present them with your interpretation of their position or question in order to clarify if this is indeed the case.

Clear understanding of policy

Wikipedia policies are in place due to the consensus of editors. They're not perfect, but then again their design allows for this.

Advocates are most useful to the dispute resolution process when they are able to provide authority to back up their advocee's perspective(s), (as well as to explain opposing viewpoints) and thus they should be quite knowledgeable in the following areas:

and all such similar information that is available in the Wikipedia namespace.

Don't abuse your tools

Being a good Advocate requires you to know Wikipedia policy, guidelines and customs. Think of policies as tools and know what tools are at your disposal, but don't abuse them. Nobody likes to be hammered on by a wikilawyer quoting policy to them.

Advocacy is a voluntary process, and just as you are donating your time, so is everyone else. Nobody has to talk to you, or help you, or even acknowlege you, so while being firm, be gentle as well. Remember WP:JERK.

Research

In addition, Advocates should acquaint themselves with the customs and policies of any of the various Wikiprojects which may be applicable, and in general research everything which pertains to the dispute in question, by reading previous versions of articles, by interviewing involved parties, and even if necessary, to read external references. The advocacy step and and the effort you spend researching your issue now can avoid burdening the community later with unnecessary arbitration, mediation, etc.

Patience and tact

It is very helpful for Advocates to cultivate their own patience and tactfulness, as sometimes these two attributes alone can resolve problems. The research and interview process can be lengthy in some cases -- being willing to thoroughly research the dispute, and to tactfully and patiently reason with people who may be feeling aggravated and exasperated already -- will go a long way to an equitable solution. Again, tact, patience and diligence during the advocacy step can avoid burdening the community with further dispute resolution procedures.

Common situations

Most disputes on Wikipedia fall into one of several easily-recognisable categories. These categories don't encompass every possible problem one may come across as an Advocate, but are a good framework to work from in deciding what course of action to take when confronted with particular recurring patterns.

Content dispute
Ad hominem or harassment
Vandalism
Trolling

Good questions to ask

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but a collection of suggestions that have been tried in many circumstances and found to be useful.

Opening questions

Although there are a number of questions that Wikipedian who files for Advocacy answers to begin with (see #Advocacy Procedures below), these opening questions are very useful to ask either side of the dispute as they generally help to ascess the situation.

Would you prefer to discuss this privately?/Would you mind if we discuss this on your talk page?
How would you describe the problem?
Is (insert summary as you understand it) an accurate summary of the issue?
Would you like me to try and articulate this to (insert username(s))?
Are you acquainted with (insert applicable policy)?
How do you understand (insert applicable policy)?
How do you see how (insert applicable policy) applies to this issue?
What outcome did you expect to obtain by requesting an Advocate?
What outcome do you think would be best for you? Would this be the best outcome for Wikipedia as a whole?
How important is this issue to you? How important do you believe this issue is to the community and to Wikipedia?
What do you feel caused this problem, and is there anything you could have done to avoid it?
Do you understand why (insert username(s)) believes what they did was proper?
Do you think it might help to take a break while we attempt to resolve this?

Content disputes

Would (insert a writing compromise here) be an acceptable edit?
Can you find a source for this information that has more prominent credibility than the source you originally provided?

Vandalism

Do you think you might be happier adding content to the encyclopedia that would not be immediately deleted?
Would you like some help building edits that our peers would view as more constructive?
Do you need help understanding how the Wikipedia tools work?

The "Five Pillars" of Advocacy

Above all, you should know these three policies by heart, as they are the crux of the Advocacy position.

Resolving disputes (DR): This is by far the most important policy that an Advocate should know, as it is the policy that the AMA was founded to protect and help along:

Talk to the other parties involved. This is number one for good reason and quite often is all that is needed, the more effectively you apply this step the more likely you will reach a quick resolution.
Informal mediation. See the Mediation Cabal for an example of informal mediation.
Discuss with third parties. Options for doing this include: Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for general disputes, Wikipedia:Third opinion, for disputes involving only two editors, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, for problems with uncivil editors, and taking the matter to some IRC or MSN channel, if time zones allow for that.
Formal mediation. Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute using the steps listed above, and that all parties to the dispute are in agreement to mediate. See Request mediation.
Finally, Arbitration. Again be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute using the steps listed above.

Throughout this process, The Advocate must be encouraging to the Advocee, and attempt to find a workable consensual solution between all parties. Each step should be conducted as thoroughly as possible, as the more thorough you are, the fewer steps you will have to take.

Civility (CIVIL): We are all encyclopedia editors and writers, treat everyone as a valued colleague that deserves great respect.

Etiquette (EQ): "I'm sorry to bother you...", "Please let me know...", "Thank you for your quick reply..." "I appreciate your efforts...." "I respect your position..."

Assume Good Faith (FAITH): Assume that others intend to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia participation, unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary. Sometimes this can be tricky as an Advocate, especially when the party who is against your case makes ill remarks or inappropriate actions. In some cases this can be even worse when your Advocee may break faith. The best shot at fixing this is to discuss the issues in a calm manner and always follow the AMA's motto: audi alteram partem. Also, always remember to keep yourself in check. If things get stressful, take a moment and relax from the case, and when you go back in at it, try taking it from another angle.

No Personal Attacks (ATTACK): If you don't know the value of this one, you are an idiot. (see how much that simple insult, even in this context, just grates on you? If not, you are a bigger moron than I suspected. How did you ever manage to find this page?) Personal attacks are, at best, of absolutely no benefit to anyone, and especially so if you are embroiled in a dispute with people who have already lost their patience. (By the way you are by no means a moron, and thank you for taking the time to carefully read this. :-) )

Advocacy Procedures

The AMA has several Procedures that are a bit more "formal" than the rest of our guidelines here, only in that they were developed to streamline the Advocacy process.

Request Filing Procedure

On the Category:AMA Requests for Assistance page, the Advocee uses the webform box to create a new entry in the format Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/December 2024/USERNAME.
The Advocee fills out the form that they are presented with at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Webform and follows the instructions as outlined at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Instructions. These both are presented to them through the webform.
The Advocee saves their work, and their request is filed under Category:AMA Requests for Assistance.

Coordinator and Deputy Case Procedures

For new cases

Periodically check the page for newly listed requests at Category:AMA Requests for Assistance.
Read over the individual requests and get familiar with them.
If the request is improperly formed, use good judgement whether to fix it, let it be as is, or delete it and request that the Advocee resubmit.
If the case can be assigned to an available Advocate:
1. Change the bullet under Advocate Status: to "* Pending on Advocate [[User:NAME|NAME]] ~~~~"
2. Set "{{AMA case status|new}}" to "{{AMA case status|pending}}"
Post a request on the Advocate's talk page with a link to the request.

For Pending cases

Periodically look over Category:AMA Requests for Assistance/Pending to see if Advocates have accepted pending cases.
If not, contact them again.
If a problem arises, add a bullet under Advocate Status: similar to "** Advocate [[User:NAME|NAME]] cannot due to X. ~~~~"
Look for another Advocate who is able to take the case.
If one is found add an additional bullet under Advocate Status: similar to "* Now pending on Advocate [[User:NAME|NAME]]. ~~~~"
Follow the same steps above if it happens multiple times.
If it takes a long time (a week or two) to produce an Advocate, contact the Advocee and inquire as to whether or not they still need Advocacy.

"Under Investigation" cases

If a case becomes problematic set "{{AMA case status|X}}" to "{{AMA case status|investigation}}". This can include when it appears to be:
1. An inappropriate listing
2. A serious problem with an Advocee that you cannot handle
3. A serious complaint by an Advocee about any Advocate (including yourself)
4. OR anything else where you would need further help from other AMA members.
Additionally, if you see any cases listed under Category:AMA Requests for Assistance/Under investigation, please take the time to look over them and give your input where necessary.

For other cases

Peridocally look over the other subcategories of Category:AMA Requests for Assistance and take appropriate common-sense action where necessary. This may include:
1. Asking the Advocate of old Open cases to update their case status.
2. Closing cases that state they are closed, but "{{AMA case status|}}" is not set to "{{AMA case status|closed}}"
3. Looking over the exit surveys of recently closed cases for anything unusual.
4. Etc. :-)

Advocate Case Procedures

Accepting a case

When you accept a case:
1. Set "{{AMA case status|X}}" to "{{AMA case status|open}}"
2. Add a bullet under Advocate Status: similar to "** Accepted by ~~~~"
Read over the preliminary Questions: section.
Use the Discussion section to discuss the case with your Advocee, or be sure to copy and paste dialogue from your talk pages so there is a record of it.
When the case is finished:
1. Set "{{AMA case status|open}}" to "{{AMA case status|closed}}"
2. Encourage your Advocee to fill out the Followup: section.

Problems with a case

If a case becomes problematic set "{{AMA case status|X}}" to "{{AMA case status|investigation}}". This can include when it appears to be:
1. An inappropriate listing
2. A serious problem with an Advocee that you cannot handle
3. A serious complaint by an Advocee about any Advocate (including yourself)
4. OR anything else where you would need further help from other AMA members.
Also be sure to contact a Deputy or the Coordinator.
Furthermore, if you see any cases listed under Category:AMA Requests for Assistance/Under investigation, please take the time to look over them and give your input where necessary.

AMA Alerts

The Wikipedia:AMA Alerts page is a broadcasting tool for members of the AMA. More coming soon. In the meantime, view the page for more info.