Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Association of Member Investigations/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Great idea

I really like this idea, although I hate the name (sorry Snowspinner). Lately I had been thinking of proposing something similar to this because I thought that it was a missing piece in the Wikipedia dispute process. However the model that I was thinking of, rather than being like a US-style District Attorney or even Attorney General, was something more on the line of the type of Investigating judge or Investigating magistrate that some European countries have (for example, Spain's Baltasar Garzón). I think that this would be in better keeping with WikiSpirit, since it is based upon an inquisitorial system, rather than an adversarial system. Perhaps a better title might be "Office of Investigations" or "Office of Wikipedia Investigations". BlankVerse ∅ 10:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I see your point, and it's a good one. I had concieved of the primary function being dealing with arbcom cases, but you're probably right that the current name is too adversarial. I'll mull on it while I travel over the next few days. If you feel like it, go ahead and change the name on me. :) Snowspinner 13:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

I ran across a link to the DAO by coincidence on Blankfaze's user page. I think what you're doing here is (in general) a good idea, but I have some qualms about the same. 'District Attorney's Office' (or BlankVerse's suggested 'Office of Wikipedia Investigations') might seem to imply some sort of official sanction or formal, policy-based authority. I unfortunately can't offer any specific suggestions, beyond 'The firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe'. :) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Avengers

DA's offices don't have Partners, they have ADAs — mebbe Wiki-Avengers? — Davenbelle 11:38, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

Although our counterpart, the Association of Member's Advocates, votes to determine its organizational structure, we believe that democracy is altogether too conciliatory. Instead, we are a dictatorship. Our head is User:Snowspinner. Is this supposed to be a joke, or is this meant to be a serious page? If it's meant to be serious I strongly oppose Snowspinner using the Wikipedia: namespace for such self-serving fluff. Move it to your user space. anthony 警告 12:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page is not a joke, although individual lines may have humor in them. This is a real organization on the level of a Wikiproject or the AMA. Its structure is as described. Snowspinner 13:59, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to read Wikipedia:Ownership then. Wikipedia runs by consensus, not self-appointed dictatorship. anthony 警告 23:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that the Ownership guideline is really meant to apply to organizations within the Wikipedia structure, so much as to article ownership. We, for example, have a general understanding that people own their votes in the Wikipedia namespace, their userpages, that the arbcom owns decision pages, etc. Snowspinner 00:47, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the Wikipedia: space is the place for a private organization page. In fact, I don't think there's any precedent for someone unilaterally assuming dictatorship over a page in the Wikipedia: space. The closest I can think of is Mark's dictatorship over the featured articles candidates page, but that was assumed after an explicit approval vote took place. anthony 警告 04:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shut up, anthony. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know of a user who routinely provokes controversies, abuses admin powers, disregards policy and seems to regard Wikipedia as his own private fiefdom. Would the District Attorney's Office consider taking action against this user? Everyking 04:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to e-mail me or a senior partner, or to list a request for consideration, and we'll look into it. Snowspinner 05:03, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to compliment your excellency on having a fine sense of humor, in addition to so many other virtues. Everyking 07:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question

Would the DA's Office accept members (or partners, or whatever you care to call them) who also belong to the AMA? --Michael Snow 06:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. Snowspinner 14:23, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

The name

I for one like the name "District Attorney's Office", but as some people seem not to, I figure I'd offer up a few suggestions:

The latter two suggestions have free shortcuts, WP:OCI and WP:WBI respectively. WP:CS is the shortcut for Wikipedia:Current surveys, however. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the sound of "Wikipedia Committee for the Suppression of Vice and Promotion of Virtue". What do you think? Everyking 01:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Or maybe "Wikipedia:Thoughtpolice". BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is more succinct. Everyking 02:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nah, that won't work. The shortcut WP:TP is already taken. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want an erudite name I suggest Wikipedia:Congregatio pro Doctrina Vicipediae (I think that's the correct genitive form of Vicipedia). With the group of users involved in it right now, I think a more forthright name would be Wikipedia:Bully Squad. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my new role as supreme overlord of this organization I've decided that I prefer the first title, so there it now resides. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition has laid claim to the title. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I say we put the matter of naming to a vote. Everyking 09:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I liked Grunt's idea: Torquemada Brigade. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Torquemada Brigade was my idea (though it was not entirely original; I don't remember where I heard it, nor who deserves credit); Grunt was the one who moved it back here. I find it disquieting that you actually like that name. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, this current name is too "Helen Gamble from The Practice". Case Squad would be too Dragnet. I think if you tried to name it something real, it'd sound like a police/lawyer TV show, and that's a bit laughable. Mike H 17:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of fairness and honesty

I feel that openly admitting that your single (to date) Senior Partner has issued a Request for Arbitration against your Dictator is a refreshing breeze of fairness and honesty. YMMV. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 10:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sacred Office of the Inquisition

The inability of secular authority in matters spiritual being well known, I have constituted the Sacred Office of the Inquisition to deal with the pernicious and widespread problem of heresy. Please see Wikipedia:Sacred Office of the Inquisition for details. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An appalling idea

This idea is appalling - officially empowering some users to hound and persecute other editors (well, I say editors, but neither of the two protagonists in this, Snowspinner and Grunt, have a history of actually writing encyclopaedia articles anyway).

We are here to contribute to an international encyclopaedia - not as part of some grand social experiment where some users have an elevated status that allows them to bully others and force their views through regardless of the aim of writing an encyclopaedia.

And a warning - these constant attempts by some Wikipedians to make our dispute resolution process like a lawsuit will only end up with us getting sued in real life sometime. The proposal is an unreasonable attempt by some users, including one Arbitrator!, to hound users they personally dislike. This is a dangerous step forward - we should be developing an encyclopaedia, not an archocracy, jguk 19:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe the impetus of this was this comment:
"Snowspinner is performing a thankless job and without any title to go with it to boot. It may in fact be a good idea to create an official prosecutor office to counter the AMA". by mav.
— Davenbelle 20:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be better all round if Snowspinner showed some introspection and considered why what he is doing is thankless, I also fail to see how an Arbitrator can both support this proposal and remain an Arbitrator, jguk 20:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Thank you, Masked Man!"

I think it would be better all round if Snowspinner...considered why what he is doing is thankless...

jguk 20:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's right, and something must be done!

Thank you, Masked Man!

  1. Calton | Talk 01:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

further commentary

There is a reason that Wikipedia:Annoying users became Wikipedia:Problem users became Wikipedia:Conflicts between users became Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I do not deny that troublesome editors exist, but singling people out as "problem users" who need to be "dealt with" is a really really bad way to work out peaceful resolutions. Peaceful resolutions are often difficult, but are absolutely necessary to the building of a proper neutral encyclopedia; banning or otherwise restricting one user ends the dispute, yes, but is a less-than-ideal solution. An organization dedicated to dealing with problem users is just going to encourage the latter course of action.

People who are targeted as "problem users" who need to be "dealt with" are going to feel attacked and are going to respond in kind. The majority of cases are going to be followed by counter-cases, and if this organization wants to be seen as a fair aid to dispute resolution, rather than a bunch of goons for hire, it is going to have to accept these counter-cases.1

The other problem is that there is already a large, well-established, and respected organization dedicated to helping people through the dispute resolution process: the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. If this "office" is to have a substantially different focus—dealing with problem users, rather than aiding anyone who asks in dispute resolution—then it should not exist, for reasons I hope I have explained above. If it is to do what the AMA does—simply help people with dispute resolution—then it will be a pointless duplication of effort. Either way, it should not exist.

I welcome explanations of how and why I'm wrong, of course. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

^1 Here is a problem with the current setup (key parts emphasized):

Out of concern for the existence of this office being co-opted to mount harassing crusades against good users . . . we reserve the right to decline any case if we feel it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia to pursue it.

Read this carefully. Digest its full implications. This office is equipped to deal with "problem users", but its actions, when taken against a "good user", could well be seen as a harassing crusade. "Well, okay,", you say, "but they're only going to deal with problem users, so this isn't so bad." But who decides who's a problem user and who's a good user? Why, this office reserves that decision to itself. How is it going to decide? Is it going to take evidence from each side, thus creating what would be, in effect, a self-appointed parallel arbcom that forwards cases that it's already decided to the community-selected real arbcom, just for the rubber stamp on the sentence? Or is it just going to use common sense and judgment (hoping that everyone will overlook the director's consistently controversial "common sense" and the open bigotry of the senior partner)?

So in effect, the organization's current rules could create an unaccountable clique of bullies; anyone who got on the bad side of any of its higher-ups would have to worry about being targeted by a "harassing crusade" and a probable arbcom case. I believe we've seen the first warning signs of this already. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:17, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Without addressing specifics, I agree generally with a fair amount of what Mirv has to say here. While I wouldn't go so far as to say this organization should not exist, I think its origins will make it difficult for the group to be effective without polarizing the community. It would be better to start fresh, and I do agree that much of what this is about could be accomplished within the AMA context.
I appreciate that as part of the dispute resolution process, there is a need to have people who are willing to advocate for the Wikipedia community generally, in a quasi-prosecutorial role, rather than just assisting individual clients. I have done this myself on a few occasions. As a member of the AMA since its inception, I felt that this was within the scope of my work as an advocate, even if I didn't specifically identify myself as an AMA member as part of my efforts.
Naturally, the AMA is not focused exclusively on handling cases on behalf of the community, but there is no reason it cannot include this element. I have been a little disappointed lately to see the AMA acquiring a reputation simply as defending individual users against charges of wrongdoing (although this aspect is still very important, and I admire and respect my AMA colleagues who have undertaken this work). I think it would be very appropriate, if people wish to represent community interests in the dispute resolution process, for them to join the AMA and organize their efforts within that framework. There is no need to be an outside counterweight, and this could help deal with the bad blood that has developed.
A final piece of advice. In modern society, judges are not policemen. The Arbitration Committee has rightly determined that it will generally leave the implementation of its rulings up to administrators. Likewise, prosecutors are not policemen either, although they work more closely with them than judges do. When taking on a case, I think in most situations it would be best not to personally intervene in the matter with blocks, but to let your colleagues or other admins make that determination. Limit yourself to issuing warnings, then gather and present evidence for others to act on. When a prosecutor gets too involved in the enforcement end of things, the results can easily lead to legitimate concerns about entrapment. In that situation, you know exactly what you want to get the defendant in trouble for, so you set him up to do exactly that. This tends to destroy the credibility of the role. --Michael Snow 06:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Office, or Association?

This page seems to be proposing (or establishing) an Association, but doing so terms that make it less than clear whether it's that, plain and simple; humour; or an official Wikipedia body or policy (the term "Office" being for me highly problematic in that regard). Can I suggest (a second go at) a page move? Alai 08:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely Invalid

Under what provision of Wikipedian guidelines or tradition does a group of users empower themselves to be a secret police? OK, not that secret? How about Hitler Jugend. It is also improper to describe any voluntary grouping of members as an "Office," which implies, especially to the non-involved, an official organ. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • A secret police? What in Creation gives you that idea? Do you even know what you're talking about? This organisation is nothing of the sort. It was created to as a resource for users who are having a conflict with another user but to whom the task of compiling an RfC or ArbCom case seems daunting. That's all. Secret police? Bizarre. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if that's all it's supposed to be, Association to Assist Conflict Resolution is a lot less hostile sounding. Even the official name of the Inquisition was mellowed out to Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.
    • I still question the speed at which Wikipedia is sliding from the hands of those who wish to build an encyclopedia to those who wish to build a pure community. Happens to a lot of voluntary organizations. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another Rename

Upon further advice that I think is well-taken, I've moved it to Association of Investigations. That said, I'm now irritated that it suggests the investigations comprise the members instead of the people volunteering. But I don't like Association of Investigators, because, well, I'm not an investigator. I'm a Wikipedian who's willing to look into disputes to see if there are signs of a real problem. Further comments welcome. No reason not to move it through even more pages. Snowspinner 23:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • "Association of Investigations" sounds awkward to me... like it's a group of investigations... Anyhow, I figure if we intend to counterpart the AMA, then a counterpartish name would work well... so "Association of Member Investigations"? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you drop the 's' it won't be an association of investigations any more. ANd making it "association for investigation will prevent it being an association of one :) --iMb~Meow 23:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but I'm afraid dropping the 's' (thus making it "Association of/for Member Investigation") will give off the false impression that we are devoted to investigating members... i.e. some sort of secret police as has been suggested before. In actuality, we run investigations into disputes for members of the community. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Just make it the Investigations Group of the AMA. Bar associations, the real-life analogue to the AMA (sorry, I'm adding another US-centric term to this discussion), have all kinds of specialty groups focused on different practice areas. --Michael Snow 23:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A definite improvement, though still not ideal. The general naming pattern seems to be "Association of [self-characterisation of members]" -- not "Association of [function]", which still carries the implication that [function] is some officially sanctioned purpose, as opposed to simply a voluntarily undertaken one. Alai 02:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Completing the cleanup

I voted "Delete" when the name was "District Attorney's Office". The renaming goes far to meet my objections, but I offer these additional suggestions, which I hope are consistent with the attitude reflected in the renaming:

  • Finish fixing the text. The first paragraph still refers to "Office of Investigations", one of the interim names. There's at least one "OI" later on.
  • In a comment above, Blankfaze says, "It was created to as a resource for users who are having a conflict with another user but to whom the task of compiling an RfC or ArbCom case seems daunting." That explanation helps to make clear that this entity has no "official" status in the sense of being empowered to make any binding decisions, other than the decision about which cases its volunteer members will choose to work on. The quoted sentence or one very like it should appear in the first paragraph. It's better than saying that the entity "exists to look into these cases", which still has at least some connotation of official empowerment.
  • Maybe I'm going too far in overreaction to the now-abandoned DAO title, but it would also help to include something to emphasize that this is a voluntary association of members, that our opinions carry no special weight in the dispute resolution process, and that anyone who wants to proceed through the various dispute resolution phases without consulting us is completely free to do so.
  • One drawback of the new name is the potential for confusion with the AMA. It might help to include an explanation of the difference -- not in the former terms, about whether democracy is too conciliatory (the removal of that passage is an improvement), but a more matter-of-fact statement addressed to an unsophisticated member who has a problem with a user, wants help, and isn't sure whether s/he's supposed to ask the AMA or the AMI for it.
  • I don't understand the current second sentence: "Sometimes this is because the problem goes unnoticed by the people who can or will deal with the problem." Does "deal with the problem" mean that they're ones trying to edit an article and encountering the problem user, or does it refer to the ones trying to assemble the RfAr or whatever? Or perhaps it means those who "could or should" deal with the problem? They don't notice it early enough? Perhaps: "Sometimes this is because the only contributors who are aware of the problem are not well versed in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, so the problem continues because it's not known to those who could and should deal with it."

I don't share some of the strong reactions of "Delete" voters to the AMI's structure, its members' unwillingness to work through the AMA, etc. I'd be willing to see it operate as a separate entity if there's no implication of "DAO"-type status and if the existence of this page doesn't sow confusion. JamesMLane 00:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Organizational changes

For reasons I have explained above, I have changed a few things in the organization.

  1. I changed Snowspinner's title from "Director" to "Founder". His contribution should be recognized, but unilaterally assuming supreme authority bumps up against the longstanding tradition that nobody owns Wikipedia pages.
  2. With the position of Director gone, I eliminated the distinction between "Partner" and "Senior Partner". To restate my reasoning: Having one person and his handpicked cronies decide who is a "problem user" and who is a "good user" is absolutely unacceptable and makes this group no better than a gang of bullying thugs. See groupthink, Disinfopedia:echo chamber, etc.
  3. With the distinction between "Partner" and "Senior Partner" gone, I eliminated mention of vetos. Instead, I empowered any partner or partners to take on any case they please, with the caveat that it is still possible that no partner will find any merit in a case.
  4. I noted that any partner who takes on a case should notify the subject of that case, to alleviate concerns of stalking, entrapment, secret police behavior, and so forth.

I believe this removes the very worst aspects of an organization like this. The focus on forceful dispute resolution is still worrisome, but as someone pointed out in the VfD, it's better to keep this sort of thing public and transparent than to have it take place in secret. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of totally changing the organizational structure of an association you're not even a part of, but no. Snowspinner 05:22, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your totally dismissive attitude towards serious concerns seriously expressed. Thanks for your dictatorial attitude on a page you—it must be said one more time—do not own. Thanks for fulfilling my worst expectations about this ridiculous bully squad. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:34, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Pah. Calm down, Mirv - you're really going over the top with this. Ambi 06:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Constructive additions to the discussion would be welcome. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Isn't he a part of the organization? He's listed on the page as being part of it. That being said, in whatever form this organization will continue, it would be nice to discuss the organization, rather than just edit war over it. --Michael Snow 06:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I recall, he was added to the organization rather than joining it. If he considers himself a member, that's fine, but considering his past vandalizing the page, I have trouble assuming good faith. Especially since he's made clear further down the page that his objection is in fact to me, not to the existence of this association. Snowspinner 15:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Addition I'd like to make

I made an addition shortly after the page was protected... I didn't notice it was, and reverted myself as soon as I did. Anyhow, I'd like to see if we can agree to insert it.

The passage is meant to establish up front the aims and purpose of the organisation:

The Association of Member Investigations is a volunteer organisation which was created to assist Wikipedians in investigating disputes and compiling requests and complaints to be used in the various steps of dispute resolution. The AMI is meant to be a resource for users who are having a conflict with another user but to whom the task of compiling an RfC or ArbCom case seems daunting.

Thoughts? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice work - it eliminates any confusion as to what the organisation is about, and makes even more abundantly clear that this is not some form of "sekrit police". Ambi 06:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with adding that as an introduction. However, it makes the AMI sound increasingly less distinct from the stated purposes of the AMA, and the possibility of confusion between the two is an issue JamesMLane raised above. I'd still like to hear articulated why the two can't be housed under one roof. I gather that there may be some reluctance to do this, but so far the suggestions to merge into the AMA have simply been ignored, so I can't tell whether the idea is opposed, why it might be opposed, or who opposes it. With a lack of response from one side, it's impossible to even discuss the issue. --Michael Snow 06:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd refer you to Ambi's comments below: We have the AMA to defend people before the ArbCom - a prosecutorial office is the natural counterpart to this, and I'm not the only arbitrator to be fully in support of this measure. Ambi 01:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) — The AMA is sort of like the public defenders of Wikipedia. A member comes to the AMA wishing assistance in defending themselves. The AMI, on the other hand, a member (theoretically) would come to the AMI with a complaint, and the AMI would look into it and then assist the user in compiling and submitting a complaint to one of the dispute resolution outlets, i.e. a prosecutor. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The AMA does not exist solely for the purpose of defending people in arbitration; that's a skewed perspective created by recent arbitration cases that have included advocate participation. The AMA gets requests both from people who want assistance defending themselves, and also quite often from people complaining about the actions of others. As I mentioned above, I'm an original AMA member, and I've done in the past exactly what the AMI apparently plans to do. I didn't make a point of identifying myself that way, but that's because the role depends on community support, not membership in a particular association. --Michael Snow 08:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, perhaps the AMA is drifting away from its original function. Either way I think that there should be some organisation to do this sort of work, and I think it should probably be a separate entity. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In what sense is the AMA drifting? I always assumed that it responded to the requests it received, so the composition of its work might change from month to month depending on what sort of requests happen to come in. Is it alleged that people with complaints hesitate to seek the AMA's help because it's perceived as "defense-oriented"? Can you elaborate on why there should be separate entities? The AMA is more like a bar association than a law firm, so there shouldn't be a problem even if, in a particular arbitration proceeding, one AMA member is helping the complainant while another represents the respondent. JamesMLane 08:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ambi's comments

I just wanted to echo Ambi's comments from the VfD. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. We have the AMA to defend people before the ArbCom - a prosecutorial office is the natural counterpart to this, and I'm not the only arbitrator to be fully in support of this measure. Ambi 01:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Association_of_Member_Investigations/Archive_1&oldid=413247247"