Wikipedia talk:Association of Member Investigations

This page was nominated for deletion on 2008, February 16. The result of the discussion was Keep and tag {{historical}}.

an alternative

Wikipedia:Association for Unbiased Prosecution—just like this group, but without the little tin gods. Give it a whirl. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 06:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please discontinue the personal attacks, Mirv. There's been an awful lot of them in the last day or two. It's quite clear that you do have a point - there is a need to decentralise power some, but instead of discussing this and trying to come to an conclusion acceptable to all parties, you've been particularly abusive and acted unilaterally. This is most unlike you - what gives? Ambi 07:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did you see my lengthy reasonings and explanations above? Did you see Snowy's response to them, and his reversion of nearly every single change I've made? If you have any idea how I'm supposed to carry on a constructive discussion in the face of that kind of smug stonewalling, I would like to hear it.

As to the unilateralism and abuse, let me be clear that I find this organization reprehensible to the core: I believe it is dedicated to assigning blame and resolving disputes through force, and I do not believe that I need to explain why this is a bad idea. Hence the vigor of my opposition, and my determination to soften it radically if I cannot do away with it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 07:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Might I ask, then, do you believe there is no place in the dispute resolution system for someone to have the role of representing the interests of the community generally, and the standards we have for the encyclopedia, against people who are violating our policies? Leaving aside the discussion of who should have such a role, be they made of tin or gold. --Michael Snow 07:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the community ought to represent the community's interests (or interest, because one takes primacy over all others: creating a free, neutral encyclopedia). I believe that the community should accomodate a wide variety of approaches to its goal, and I believe it does this best when it does so peacefully. I acknowledge that this is not always possible: some people do not share the common goal, or approach it so destructively that they hinder the project more than they advance it, and cannot or will not be won over. I believe that such people are rare, and I believe that forceful methods are an appropriate last resort for dealing with them.

I know that dealing with them is difficult, and members of the community may wish to delegate someone to do the job. I will leave the question of who that someone should be for another time and perhaps another talk page. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 08:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee are already delegated to do this task. Nothing here changes this. As to the rest, see my comments below. Ambi 08:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At some point you start to wonder, who's the bigger problem: the "problem users", or the people who feel the "problem users" need to be investigated and prosecuted? Why'd any of us start here: was it because we wanted to build an encyclopedia, or because we wanted to play politics and get on each other's nerves? I am currently listed as an AMI victim, and I have experience with this sort of thing: a handful of users will gang up on you no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try to appease them. You can offer them everything they want plus a little extra and it's no good, because you've been identified as a target and they'll never let up. If they win one battle, they don't sign a truce; they advance a little further and try to seize some more ground. Something has really got to be done. These people, Snowspinner being the foremost example, seem to have no interest in genuine dispute resolution; they are only about finding and harassing "problem users" until they either get banned or leave the project in disgust. This authoritarianism is a dangerous mentality that drives off users and distracts us all from the fundamental purpose of writing an encyclopedia. Everyking 07:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

אמן. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 07:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive users drive off a heck of a lot more users. If there is a chance that a user may reform, then they should be given every chance to do so. However, if a user's disruptive behaviour continues to outweigh their productive contributions, it is only appropriate that the Arbitration Committee acts in the interests of the vast majority of non-disruptive users, and deals with them, so that the rest of Wikipedia does not have to. Some people, even after one or more arbitration cases, just don't get the idea of playing well with others. This isn't about playing politics. It's about building a quality, neutral encyclopedia, and a prosecutorial office - to make things easier where arbitration may be necessary, but where a user may be afraid or unable to take the time to take that added step - is a useful addition to this goal. Ambi 08:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

to make things easier where arbitration may be necessary, but where a user may be afraid or unable to take the time to take that added step—A group designed to aid those who ask for help with the difficult and time-consuming arbitration process would have merit. In fact, we have a well-respected group, whose name I should not need to repeat, which does exactly that.

Now consider this gang. Look at its currently active cases. Were any of them started because someone was having unresolvable difficulties with another user and needed help preparing an arbitration case? Let's see:

WHEELER: Did anyone ask Snowspinner to bring this case? Or did he just decide, by himself, that WHEELER was a "problem user" who needed to be "dealt with"?
Netoholic: Same question. Same answer.
Everyking: You can guess.

I will leave aside the merits of these cases for now, but the pattern is instructive. Past cases involving Snowspinner, now closed, might reveal similar patterns. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 09:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, if Snowspinner or others want to harass you by bringing meritless complaints, they can do so now, with or without an AMI. I'm not taking a position on any particular complaint against you or anyone else; I'm just saying that I don't see how an AMI, properly identified as unofficial, would facilitate that kind of abuse. There seems to be an implicit assumption that the AMI's decision to take a case would function as an adjudication of the merits. I don't see why it should. No one is suggesting that the ArbCom be displaced. If you think that some members of the ArbCom are mindless Snowspinner acolytes who would be unduly influenced, and who would vote to uphold a particular complaint simply because an AMI member was identified as helping to present it, then you should be pursuing the obvious remedy, which is to get better ArbCom members. JamesMLane 08:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Arbcom has shown a remarkable inability to correct Snowy's misbehavior, even with something so mild as a verbal reprimand, even when its own findings demonstrated that he was clearly in the wrong. Maybe "mindless acolytes" isn't a fair description; I might speak rather of an unduly close relationship and level of influence. So how do we find better ArbCom members? —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 09:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow ArbCom actions closely enough to know exactly what you mean about correcting Snowspinner's misbehavior. If you mean that he's brought (or helped bring) RfAr's that were ill-advised, my response is that the bringing of a frivolous RfAr could be considered misconduct, but that a user who has concerns about another's conduct should have a pretty wide latitude to bring a complaint without worrying about being punished in response. The mere rejection of a complaint, or a finding that the complainant was "clearly in the wrong", doesn't indicate that there was "misbehavior". As for finding better ArbCom members, the answer is obvious. You note how the current members have acted on cases of concern to you. When they're up for re-election, you participate in the campaign, publicizing what they've done and why you agree or disagree with it. The election will be a rough indication of whether the community agrees with you. In the meantime, while we await the next election, you obviously disapprove of some of the things Snowspinner has done in the absence of an AMI. Do you think that giving such efforts a name and a TLA will worsen the ArbCom's "remarkable inability" to act correctly? (I appreciate your response, by the way, as well as the responses from the AMI's proponents about the flip side -- how creating AMI would improve matters. My tentative judgment at this point is that the advantages and disadvantages are both being overstated.) JamesMLane 14:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The case in question is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro 2. You may review the evidence, the principles, the findings of fact, and the final decision to see what I mean by "clearly in the wrong", "misbehavior", and "remarkable inability" to correct that misbehavior, even with something so mild as a verbal reprimand. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 15:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, don't worry - if this measure passes so that Snowspinner and Grunt, two Wikipedians who wouldn't know a major edit of an article if they saw one, have the effective right to veto users that they don't like, many WPians will end up leaving. There are alternatives - for instance, the BBC has a website, h2g2, where all articles get peer reviewed before posting and the emphasis is on sharing knowledge rather than letting people who have no intention of writing articles dictate to those who do, jguk 08:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where are you pulling this from? The only group on Wikipedia that has the right to take any action against users is the Arbitration Committee - of which Snowspinner is not a member, and of which Grunt was directly elected to by the Wikipedia community. This new organisation will have no right to "veto" users that they don't like, for the Arbitration Committee will still be able to reject (and indeed take action against the perpetrator of if necessary) any cases that are deemed to be frivolous, unwarranted or in bad faith. To suggest that the AMI will have some sort of mysterious "veto" on "users that they don't like" is sheer propaganda. (Also, accusing those who disagree with you of being here to boss people around instead of writing articles is downright offensive) Ambi 09:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grunt has made it quite clear by linking himself to this proposal that he is at one with Snowspinner here - Wikipedians are left in no doubt that whenever Snowspinner brings a case against someone, there is already one Arbitrator willing to go for a long ban against them. This whole proposal is about encouraging unpleasantness. The threat behind giving this proposal official status is clear: If you disagree with Snowspinner and Grunt, you get banned, jguk 10:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suppose pointing out that Grunt has raised an arbitration case against me, and that he almost always supports lighter remedies than I ask for in cases would be beside the point? As would pointing out that I'm not going to stop bringing cases if this page gets deleted, which means this page, rather than being some sort of shadowy group, is a practical proposal whereby I get input from other people before I start a case? That is to say, the power grab you're going on about is a deliberate decision to restrict myself? This would all be lost on you, I assume? Snowspinner 15:53, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

You may not stop bringing cases, but you won't have the screen of legitimacy that this page provides. You get input from other people, who are all selected by you; not much of a restriction, that. No, none of this is lost. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 16:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. I support the AMA, and indeed was a member of it until I was elected to the Arbitration Committee. That doesn't mean that I concede to every petition made by an AMA member - I take it into account, just as I would any other. I also strongly support this organisation, but that does not mean that I - or any other arbitrator - will be influenced by this organisation taking charge of a case. It is simply there as an assistant to those who may not be strong-willed enough to drag themselves through making a necessary case against someone alone. It is also of note that there are several cases pursued by Snowspinner in this way (Anthony comes to mind) where Grunt has indeed attempted to stonewall any action being taken - which makes it pretty damned clear, in my mind, that he's hardly bound to support an action just because it's being brought by Snowspinner or an organisation he founded. Ambi 10:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the Arbitration Committee will still be able. . .—In theory, yes, bullies who bring bad cases can be reprimanded. The outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WHEELER will be a useful test of this theory. accusing those who disagree with you—I rather doubt that the accusation is based solely on disagreement (over what, by the way?), for I've not seen jguk hurl this accusation against just anyone who disagrees with him. Some people do take more interest in controlling others' behavior than in contributing to an encyclopedia, and while calling them out on that may offend some people or make them uncomfortable, it is nonetheless true and important. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 09:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What the "Ding-Dong" is going on here at Wikipedia?

This is absolutely ludicrious!!!!!!!!!!! We want to "create" prosecutorial bodies on Wikipedia to drive "our" thorns from our side so we can have ideological purity on Wikipedia before ever considering the establishment of professional boards for each subject on Wikipedia? Kevin M. Marshall has pointed out where my contributions are well-researched and cited. Yet, my work comes up for frequent deletion. My edits are constantly reverted check out the history of Arete (excellence) and Ochlocracy where other wikipedians delete valuable information for what purpose? And then charge me with being "disruptive"? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. The system itself brings on trouble!!! On Wikinfo, One can write a SPOV article and another writes a "Criticism" of the SPOV article. People stay out of each other's hair. If the rules were changed or there were EXPERTS in each field to decide probelms, there wouldn't be any need for this stupid "Association of Member Investigations".

You people have got your priorities ALL WRONG!WHEELER 15:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi WHEELER. Snowspinner 16:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

he has a point though. dab (ᛏ)

Yeah, but if he parts his hair right and wears a hat maybe nobody wll notice. Herostratus 16:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made

I just wanted to explain the changes made to this structure so far, in the hopes of clarifying why many of the objections seem to me to be moot by now. First of all, there is no dictator. There is a director. "Dictator" was meant as a joke. It was apparently not funny. For those objecting to the past usage of the term, I suggest you also object to Raul's position as Featured Article Director, which was previously Featured Article Dictator as well. Regardless, there is no longer a dictator.

Furthermore, there are powers specifically denied to the director. He does not have veto power. He merely has the power to elevate people to senior partner. They then have the veto power. This goes hand in hand with another change, which is to demand that the director and senior partners seek approval before starting a case.

Finally, I have noted that the directorship is a finite position. I will not always run this association. Snowspinner 16:06, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The director doesn't have veto power, but he gets to pick those who do. Those holding the veto power will be his cronies. Thus he manages to give the appearance of devolving power while ensuring that things will go his way anyway. The director and senior partners are supposed to ask for review, but note that only the senior partners may veto cases; partners can voice their disapproval, but so what?

Changing an infinite term to an indefinite one means little, especially when no mechanism exists for picking a new director. (My guess: the new director will be chosen from among the senior partners, who were, guess what, hand-picked by the old director.) Spread the opprobrium but keep the power, eh? —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 16:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another rewrite

With the help of Kim Bruning, I've made another rewrite of the page. Snowspinner 17:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The snake is defanged. The issue of overlap with the AMA remains, but that is not so urgent. I consider all my specific objections dealt with, and I offer to tidy up (refactor, reorganize, and archive) this war-torn talk page if anyone wants that done. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is, however, beyond help. It is quite clear that its aim is to hound out Wikipedians that this page's supporters do not like - as the earlier drafts prove. What we really should be doing is encouraging a speedy and amicable resolution to disputes, not a speedy and hostile one, where certain well-established Wikipedians (I wouldn't say editors as at least one has not made a major contribution to an article as far as I can see) chuck out those other editors whom they dislike. Whatever happened to harmonious editing? jguk 20:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, Lir, Mr. Natural Health, CheeseDreams, Dr Zen, and Xed showed up, for one. Snowspinner 20:22, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget Wik, VeryVerily, Cantus, and of course Vogel. . . The problem, though, with taking these cases as some sort of precedent for dispute resolution is, they are atypical. Truly unreformable maladjustment is rare, as is relentless, unmitigated POV-pushing. Other users are difficult, but this lot is extreme, and placing everyone ever dragged in front of the arbitration committee in such a rogue's gallery is unfair. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not the AMA

How is the purpose of this organization different from that of the WP:AMA? Isn't the AMI a redundancy? Why did arbiters recommend this, and why do they continue to support it despite the community outrage? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The AMA is about allowing Wikipedians who get involved in the dispute process but who are not particularly articulate when defending themselves, to ask someone else to assist them in their defence. It's aim is to help the dispute get resolved better. The idea of the AMI seems to be to give Snowspinner, assisted by Grunt, a mandate to identify problem users, who will then be chucked out of here much sooner than is currently the case. You'll have to ask the supporters of this proposal as to why they continue to support it, jguk 10:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The AMA, in its current form, exists to assist users who are embroiled in a dispute in resolving that dispute. In terms of arbitration, it acts as a place where someone who has a case against them can have someone to defend them, in order to make things less stressful. The AMI, on the other hand, exists to fill the other side of this equation. A user may have a legitimate issue with another user, and one that may well need to be resolved by arbitration, but may not be strong-willed enough to go through the stress of bringing a case. Bringing an arbitration case is stressful. I've experienced it first hand. If the AMI had been around when I was a newer user, it would have spared me a lot of grief. With this in mind, I think the more pertinent question is to the the opponents of this proposal as to why they continue to oppose it.

As to Sam's comments - an outcry from the usual suspects (Mirv, Cecropia, Netoholic, Jguk and Sam Spade) does not maketh community outrage. It's a perfectly natural extension of the arbitration process, simply making it easier for those who may be forced into the unfortunate situation of having to bring a case against a user. Ambi 10:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see. Those who belong to the "usual suspects" (who share what, exactly, in common? A detest for authoritarianism, perhaps? A willingness to express dissent?) do not count as part of the community. Thanks for making that clear. Out of curiosity, where and when were you granted this power to decide who is and is not part of the community? (And why isn't Everyking included in your list of "usual suspects"?) —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 10:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not oppose the idea of a group dedicated to helping people with the arbitration process, as I believe I have made clear. I oppose this group because I consider it nothing more than official cover for self-righteous bullying. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 11:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a group for helping people with the arbitration process. That is its one and only goal. As you quite well know, it is an unofficial organisation, so suggesting that it is official is just propaganda. It just differs slightly in organisation structure from the AMA because of the potential for abuse (following the example of the Mediation Committee, which has similar issues), and has the potential to work quite well once a variety of people are "senior partners". Indeed, since you appear to agree in principle, it seems to me that these differences could be worked out.

However, please stop with the abusive remarks, personal attacks, and general incivility towards Snowspinner. I'm seriously considering filing an RfC at this point - this abuse has got to stop. Ambi 11:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is its one and only goal.—The only one it proclaims publicly, anyway. Stated goals and actual goals don't always coincide. Three of the cases open right now were brought solely on the self-proclaimed dictator's decision, without a single request for his help. Stated goals and actual goals are sometimes in open conflict.

As you quite well know, it is an unofficial organisation, so suggesting that it is official is just propaganda.—Propaganda that its proponents, including you, are only too happy to repeat:

Snowspinner: ". . .the DAO was started after the comments from Mav, Raul, and Ambi in rejecting the arbcom case I brought against myself, asking for an prosecutor's association to counterbalance the AMA.
Snowy again: ". . .noting specific requests from three arbitrators to create exactly such an office, and the membership of a fourth in said office."
Blankfaze: "I just wanted to echo Ambi's comments from the VfD".
You (the comments being echoed): ". . .I'm not the only arbitrator to be fully in support of this measure."

So if this organization is not in any way official, why should official support be emphasized? These comments might well lead to the impression that this organization does have some official stamp of approval.

has the potential to work quite well once a variety of people are "senior partners"—not if senior partners can only be selected by an unaccountable dictator who has shown little tolerance for dissent from his position. See cronyism, groupthink, false consensus effect.

seems to me that these differences could be worked out.—Not if a certain someone insists on playing dictator. Oh, is that another personal attack? That was the title he gave himself, and it is a role he has been quite happy to play. I note in passing that you have not explained why your list of "usual suspects" is suddenly excluded from the community, nor have you explained on what authority you made this exclusion. Telling. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 11:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ambi, can you give me a single case in the past six months where the complainant has not succeeded in seeing sanctions taken against the accused party? I looked recently, I could find none. Not a single one. In any case, the slant against accused and towards complainants (usually admins) is staggering. I don't accept the notion that it is somehow hard to carry through an arbitration complaint, once it is accepted by the committee. It certainly hasn't been for quite a lot of people. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ [AMA] 08:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying that your objection to this group is in fact a personal objection to me? Snowspinner 15:37, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the group's organization and practice as they now stand are entirely the product of your views, since you have zealously suppressed opinions other than your own, they are not separable at the moment. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 15:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AMA assists users in prosecuting other users, you are mistaken in thinking it is merely defensive ambi. Oh, and I approve of beneficial authoritarianism. Therefore the only thing I likely share w Mirv is a willingness to dissent, altho I have yet to dissent regarding the AMI, I merely find the situation confusing and begging the questions I have asked (and likely others as well, like what place do arbiters have in suggesting things like this officially, particularly things like this where a conflict of interest seems likely). (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I realise it may have been intended to work for both sides, but I don't think this is the way that it is currently working in practice. I'm also inclined to think that they're perhaps better as seperate organisations, as both tasks generally require people with different skills - the AMA needs people who are fairly diplomatic, and with mediatorish skills, whereas the AMI needs people who are good at things such as collecting evidence. Both are important tasks; I'm just not sure that having the same people doing them is necessary.

Finally, I'm not throwing my weight behind this in an official capacity, but rather as a user who's spent a lot of time dealing with arbitration matters. I do think it's a good idea, and I do think it would make things easier on the parties involved. I really don't see that a conflict of interest is likely - I used to be an AMA advocate, but that doesn't bias me in their favor now - I can't see why supporting the creation of this would be any different. Ambi 11:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not throwing my weight behind this in an official capacity—which is why, when you first voiced your support for this organization, you made sure to mention that you are an arbitrator: ". . .I'm not the only arbitrator to be fully in support of this measure." Okay. —Charles P. ^(Mirv), AUP, wants to know: Do you trust this self-appointed clique to judge your merit? 11:54, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good answers (and response by Mirv ;). As far as I am concerned, you can say what you like in a non-official capacity. Grunt being a member is a bit awkward, but I don't personally critisise it, rather I merely warn than someone might someday. It is worth noting that active arbiters can't be AMA advocates due to concern over a conflict of interest. If you think my position as an AMA doesn't involve collecting copious evidence or prosecuting troublesome users, I suppose I ought to refer you to User:Sam_Spade/Clients, or cases I have been involved in:

There is also the matter of User:El_C, who procured an advocate (User:Wally) in order to deal with "perpetual and outstanding conduct issues on the part of User:Sam Spade" (to little event thus far ;). I think it is safe to say the AMA has long possessed a prosecutorial as well as defensive status in its advocacy, and that the AMI appears at a glace to be redundant. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am going to find myself, at this point, in the very rare position of agreeing with Sam. However, given the events transpiring here I cannot but give his statements my full support.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding on the Wikipedia as to the purpose of the AMA. It exists, as a body, to represent any user who requires help navigating the dispute resolution process of the Wikipedia. As Sam noted, this specifically includes users who are initiating action against those they find disruptive, as well as users defending themselves against such accusations. I myself am involved in two (possibly three) such cases right now.

The way our dispute resolution process currently functions (for the record, as I suspect and very much hope that all present fully understand our judicial mechanisms) is that a user who is engaged in difficulties with anyone else initiates action as per the dispute resolution guidelines of this site. This specifically includes users who have had unfriendly encounters with those whom they consider "trolls", and those whose editing privileges they wish to get removed. Basically, therefore, we have a "citizens' arrest" system where vandals are concerned, which is, I think, in the spirit of communitarian action and cooperation that Wikipedia embodies. What some, including Ambi (and apparently other arbitrators as well) ask now is for a bureaucracy to be set up for the specific purpose of hunting down and "bringing to justice" those who are considered vandals. My reply is to ask what, exactly, is wrong with the current system? It's not as if too few people are being brought to the ArbCom — you all are having a pretty big job getting through all the cases. This project is, therefore, going to do one of two things: circumvent the dispute resolution process and therefore act unjustly, or utilize it against these "problem users" and clog the ArbCom so horribly that they will be hard-pressed to get anything done. Personally, I'm rooting for the latter, as I always prefer a non-working system of justice than a working system of injustice. However, that's a personal preference.

What's more, when I contested my last case before the ArbCom I was castigated by certain arbitrators for being overly formal. While they may well be right, since when do arbitrators stand in opposition to formality in cases themselves but stand in favor when considering the bureaucracy that leads up to cases. Why are the arbitrators even complaining at all? I am proud to say that I voted for most of them — most of you — and I certainly did not do so that they might bitch about not having enough meat thrown into the grinder.

Finally, if we were to even consider a body such as this, a Wikipedia "prosecutor" as it were, it is only right that the position be elected. This is absolutely a necessity. I could not, and I know many others would agree, ever abide or tolerate a bunch of self-appointed jackboots running around dragging anyone, problem user or not, before anyone simply because they felt it necessary. To have such a thing stands in stark contrast to our values as a group of people. Forget the fact that our present system works more or less fine or that the AMA satisfies any legitimate role this organization would (I say legitimate in that, as Sam noted, we will prosecute but not seek out opportunities for prosecution), but running around looking for users to pick on is just a prescription for disaster. What's more, it is shameful. Wally 02:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding about the intended purposes of the AMA - if so, it might be time that the AMA did some serious PR work. At the moment, it is acting solely as a form of Wiki-Legal-Aid for those brought before the ArbCom. I have never seen an advocate assist someone with bringing a case, and I personally struggle to picture any of the three current advocates assisting in bringing a case against someone.

Before you seek to summarise my words, you might do well to read them. This new body would not have the role of hunting down and dealing with "problem users". It would have the role of assisting those who feel that bringing a case is necessary, but are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. We've stated that time and time again, and to continually misrepresent this verges on bad faith.

I, along with most of the current ArbCom, have strongly opposed an increase in legalism when dealing with ArbCom cases. I don't think it's helpful in resolving disputes. This, on the other hand, is not an added legalistic step. It's just another organisation - just like the AMA (which I support and used to be a member of) - to assist people through a difficult process.

The AMA isn't elected - nor should it be. The same goes for the AMI. There would be no "bunch of self-appointed jackboots" dragging anyone to ArbCom. Just as the AMA would not seek out cases, neither would the AMI. However, they would quite happily assist with cases brought to them, where that user felt that they needed assistance with bringing an arbitration case. I really don't think it does you or Mirv any favors to continually throw propaganda around and to continually misrepresent the arguments of the proponents of this. I may not agree with Sam Spade, but at least he has had the courtesy to rationally discuss the issues at hand and not resort to such tactics. Ambi 03:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And you might do well to read mine. Why is this necessary? I have seen no plague of trolls suddenly infecting this site to prompt the creation of a body such as this. I further suggest that if someone has problems with a user but cannot be bothered to use good citizenship in bringing them to through dispute resolution to a just conclusion that they are being bad neighbors and a detriment to the community that this site represents. As for advocates bringing cases in a prosecutorial fashion, I refer to the above examples, and additionally suggest that far more people require assistance in defending themselves than in prosecuting others, as those engaged in prosecuting others under the "citizens' arrest" basis I outlined above generally have far better knowledge of the operation of the system.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that any unnecessary legalism — including that of which I myself have been guilty — is undesirable. However, concomitant to that is increase in bureaucracy, which is part and parcel of the former.

You mention that the AMI would not be "seeking-out cases", and therefore there's no reason for its functionaries to be elected. You might forgive me if, based on initial descriptions of this organization on its own page, I am somewhat wary. You might forgive me if I am also wary of any organization whose "investigators" search for behavior considered antisocial simply because of some sort of "user tipoff". I have difficulty believing this does not set off alarms to you as it does me.

Where courtesy is concerned, I will not stoop to discussion of your "propoganda" remarks but only note that on the AMA page you came very close to accusing me of being either a troll or a user purposefully aiding them. I will also note that you, as an arbitrator, ought to choose your words of censure a trifle more carefully. I also trust that you might assume good faith and not automatically censure me for what is much more likely a misunderstanding — if I have made any such error (I will cite an initial characterization of this body as more independent than that which it is intended to be), I apologize. Wally 03:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I have never seen an advocate assist someone with bringing a case, and I personally struggle to picture any of the three current advocates assisting in bringing a case against someone."

I again refer Ambi to User:Sam_Spade/Clients, as well as:

Wherin I successfully brought a case against users deemed by the arb com to be at minimum in need of censor. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I only know about the Charles Darwin-Lincoln Arbitration, but for that case User:Sam Spade's involvement was minimal and ineffectual. His participation in that arbitration certainly didn't help Vincent, and may even have hurt his position. Sam Spade's main contribution was the evidence against his nemesis User:Adraeus (who had initiated the RfAr), but since Adraeus was stalking and insulting innocent bystanders such as Neigel von Teighen only because of their association with Sam Spade, Adraeus was his own worst enemy.

As for the other member's advocate, Neigel had good intentions, but was basically clueless about Wikipedia dispute resolution and Policies and guidelines. For more of my comments on how the advocates failed in the Charles Darwin Arbitration, read this and this. As for the AMA itself: From what I've been able to see, they spend way too much time holding meetings. On the other hand, they seem to ignore many of the pleas for help that come their way.

I am not surprised that Sam Spade does not mention another of his clients, User:Dnagod. Sam Spade did a little whining in a few obscure places after an admin summarily banned Dnagod from the Wikipedia forever, but he never filed a WP:RFC nor did any other major action. In my opinion he should have since the admins had clearly violated Wikipedia banning and blocking policies. It is also clear to me why the admins did a permanent ban themselves instead of going though proper Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. If they had done that, and Dnagod had decided to contest an RfAr with his own evidence, I believe it very likely that the arbitrators would have had no choice but to sanction several other users and admins besides ruling on User:Dnagod. gK ¿? 14:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Dnagod requested by email that I not pursue the matter, and made it clear that he never ceased editing, and had no intent or desire to use that account again. I find the rest of your statements ignorant and intentionally insulting. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 04:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why not the AMI?

That's a pretty good question after the schoolyard catfight that accompanied the creation of this group. Almost everybody has behaved rather disgracefully and they should be ashamed of themselves. Before this association was created I probably would have said that I liked the idea and something like it should be created. After that unseemly display, however, I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus to delete this article over at WP:VFD. Even if this association survives the VFD vote, you are probably going to have serious problems having anyone take the AMI seriously. Your best bet would be to chose someone less controversial and less stubborn than Snowspinner as your figurehead, especially during the initial startup period where you will need the most support from the general Wikipedian citizenry for it to become an effective organization.

I really do believe that something like this organization is needed on the Wikipedia to handle problems that the WP:AMA really isn't set up to handle. There are a very small number of Wikipedia editors (probably less than ten) who are constantly involved in small edit and revert wars, who are involved in regular personal attacks, and who often break other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They are smart enough that their behavior related to any one article or individual is usually not enough to file an WP:RFC over, but the totality of their actions on the Wikipedia spread over dozens of articles and individuals can be much worse than someone who spends all of their time edit warring over a single article like circumcision. If nobody digs into the Contributions for an editor that they have had problems with, they would never know that the editor had been causing problems on dozens of articles. (A suggestion: The AMI should consider WP:RFC and Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance as part of an early warning system and should look to see who the participants in each article dispute are. They should also be alert to the fact that it might be the difficult editor who is the one who filed the RFC.) gK ¿? 14:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

Though the VFD was inconclusive - with a small majority of people voting to keep this page, per the last tally (as far as I could see), this page was apparently deleted. As a result, I've undeleted this page as having been illegitimately deleted in the first place. Ambi 03:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I presume it wasn't deleted by magic... Where can I find the notice of deletion issued by the respective admin who carried it out? El_C 04:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the deletion log: [1] —Korath (Talk) 05:34, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. El_C 06:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Open question to AMI members: mandate and original mission

Members of the AMI: your association's stated aims involves controversial activities. In light of the ~50% opposition/support you face/enjoy, do you still intend to carry out your original mission? El_C 04:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I encourage them to, for one. This isn't a policy proposal, and it doesn't require consensus support. Ambi 05:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And, again, 'you're not the only arbitrator who thinks so,' I presume. ;) To clarify, I was hoping for a more expansive answers from the members; I suppose, how they view the vfd, deletion, undeletion, and how will that, if at all, impact the manner in which the assosication intends to operate. But, I suppose I should first give them a chance to find out that it was undeleted before bombarding them with questions. El_C 05:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure this is the wrong answer, but I don't particularly view the VfD debate. I revised the idea heavily in response to the VfD debate, resulting in a large scale reversal of fortune, and I intend to carry on what I've been doing - raising dispute resolution against users who have been causing problems for too long. If people think this forms some sort of crusade on my part, I can only say that I trust the arbcom's rulings, and that there is little I can do to a user without their assent. All I can do is ask them to look at things. If what I point them to is a problem, they deal with it. I just point them towards things that I or others think might be problems. Snowspinner 06:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the very clear and direct answer, Snowspinner. As for it being the wrong answer, actually, I do see how it makes sense from your standpoint (i.e. current mission as product of revisions from the Office). I don't agree with it, but I'm sure you intend to prove me wrong. El_C 06:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD

On 24 March 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep or no consensus. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/District Attorney's Office for a record of the discussion. – AB CD 02:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unmaintained

Can I just say it's a shame to see this Wikipedian organisation go so unmaintained. Compu te r Jo e 22:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. -- Netoholic @ 22:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say find Snowspinner and see if there's still a reason for this to be here. If not, I'd consolidate their role into the AMA and be done with it. CQJ 22:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive