 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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. |
The Association of Members' Advocates is a volunteer organization at Wikipedia.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Above all, you should know these three policies by heart, as they are the crux of the Advocacy position.
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.
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.
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.