Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Guide to Advocacy

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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.

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.

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

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

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

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

What is an advocate?

De-escalation

Generally, an advocate can be considered the second step in an escalating series of steps which make up the dispute resolution process (the first step of course being making a good faith effort to resolve the issue in question, or preferably, to attempt to work without conflict in the first place). In many cases, formal dispute resolution processes are not necessary when parties make a good faith effort at resolution through the advocacy process. In a best-case scenario (which is actually not uncommon), the Advocate will -- using their good judgement, patience, and tact -- facilitate a satisfactory resolution without the need for further escalation.

General assistance

Editors involved in, or on the brink of, a dispute may wish some general assistance, or to have their point of view represented by an advocate. The advocate can work with the editor to solve problems, and failing an informal resolution, help them to better present themselves should mediation or arbitration be necessary. The advocate may speak for the disputant to help to present the disputants point of view in a clear, concise manner to help facilitate the discussion process in mediation or arbitration or other matters.

Advocates are volunteers

Avoiding the need for Mediation and Arbitration through preventative problem solving and instruction is obviously optimal. The advocate as a facilitator attempts to reconcile disputes by understanding the core issues from which disputes arise, and applicable customs and policies. Even so, Advocates are volunteers who are willing to serve in this capacity and are not elected or appointed, and advocacy is an unofficial and voluntary process. Should you decide that an advocate would be of some use to you, one can be contacted through the voluntary Wikipedian association known as the Association of Members' Advocates.

Anonymity

Advocates may work anonymously, when they are requested to privately help a member. In some cases, nobody will ever be aware that advocacy is taking place, and some advocates consider this to be ideal. Advocates participating in a mediation or arbitration process as publicly acknowledged representatives of the disputant(s), will formally become a "representative" of the disputant(s), and their usernames will then be publicly announced.

It is not acceptable, however, for members to use advocates as a shield to continue bad behavior, such as harassment, under the guise of anonymity. Member advocates who are working anonymously for a member should be aware that any bad actions they take at the behest of the member are their responsibility alone.

Basic principles behind advocacy

Besides a clear understanding of wikipedia policies, good communication and research skills are of paramount importance to the Advocate, as are patience and tact.

Communication

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. 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

Advocates are most useful to the dispute resolution process when they are able to provide authority to back up their disputant(s) perspective(s), and thus they should be knowledgeable in the following areas:

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

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.

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 towards reaching an equitable solution. Remember, the advocacy step can avoid burdening the community by eliminating the need to use more formal dispute resolution procedures.

Escalation

Once in a while good communication; understanding; reason; patience; and tact are not effective in reaching an equitable resolution. In such a case Advocates can also help someone to navigate through dispute resolution procedures that have become increasingly complex. If desired, an Advocate can help the Advocee throughout the dispute resolution process, helping to clearly express the Advocee's point of view during Mediation, Arbitration or Requests for Comment proceedings.

Advocates as counselors

Advocates can be useful during and prior to mediation by discussing their disputants point of view with them, reviewing the evidence and helping the disputant to gain or maintain perspective on the evidence and related policies.

This should be done in a non-judgmental manner as part of a good advocates job is to better understand their advocee's perspective with the presumption of the reasonableness of that perspective. As the advocate learns more about the disputant's interactions he or she may naturally form their own opinion about the merits of the disputant's contentions.

If the advocate is open and willing to listen, the disputant may begin to see the other perspectives on the situation. The advocate may find it useful to discuss the 'opposing perspective' with the advocee to help the disputant to better understand the true nature of the dispute. Thus it is very helpful to consult with the other parties to the dispute, to gain a clear understanding of their viewpoint as well. In fact it is preferable (and firmly established policy) to assume that the two 'sides' are not opponents, rather they are colleagues working towards the same goal -- that of producing a collaborative encyclopedia.

Helping a user who is experiencing difficulties to better understand their circumstances and options, as well as applicable policies, is the primary task of an advocate.

Representation by an advocate

Advocates are also expected to make representations of their disputants' positions, and provide evidence as needed, to mediators and arbitrators.

Advocacy within the Mediation process

As mediation is consensual -- not compulsory -- the advocate should explain the benefits of reaching a mediation settlement between disputants. Should a matter go to arbitration the disputant has lost control of the outcome. Disputants should be aware of that loss of control before abandoning mediation: a mediated settlement may help preserve an editor's privilege to edit -- preventing a block or ban, as may be imposed by the arbitration committee.

The advocate is not a substitute for the mediator however. The advocate is able to frankly discuss the issues with disputants in a way that allows the disputant to better understand their own position. This may not always be possible with a mediator, as mediators are bound by policy to strict impartiality.

Every advocate will have their personal point of view, which should not be allowed to interfere with an open and frank exchange between the advocate and the advocee. An advocate should be someone who is guaranteed to try to understand their advocee's point of view without being judgemental. Even someone who is 'wrong' deserves a chance to express why they think they are right. The (rarely needed) policy that all rules are subject to change when they conflict with the one absolute policy (the goal of writing the best encyclopedia, using verified facts from reliable sources) is useless unless every contributor has someone who will listen without judgement.

Advocacy during arbitration procedures

An arbitration case often involves considerable uncertainty regarding what the issues are, even regarding which users are properly involved in it. Often evidence presented is voluminous and irrelevant. An advocate can help the Arbitrators by pointing out which issues are significant and which evidence is a good example of problems. In addition to preparing a statement on behalf of the member and gathering evidence an advocate may also propose principles, findings of fact, and suggest remedies on the /Workshop page. This page also offers an opportunity for comment regarding suggestions.

A Request for Arbitration invariably focuses on specific issues. The case itself may focus on the editor who made the arbitration request, or on their contributions -- it may also involve other editors with whom the requester has a perceived conflict. These other editors may also need representation. For example if the conflict involves edit warring, each editor involved may wish to be assisted by an Advocate during Arbitration.

It is possible to carry your concerns with the progress of an arbitration case into the mailing list and onto the talk pages of the Arbitrators as well as onto other fora at Wikipedia. This is sometimes effective with some Arbitrators and sometimes counterproductive.

Generally, claims that the Arbitration Committee 'has no jurisdiction over' a matter or that 'evidence ought not be considered' are ineffective as are 'requests for recusal' which are not well founded.

The advocate as community representative

Though advocates are most widely recognized for publicly representing an individual, an advocate may also represent the interests of an individual in a way that circumvents personal aspects of a conflict, and provides parties to a conflict an opportunity to explore the interests apart from ideas about the other party in a conflict.

An important role that Advocates may undertake is to be a voice of the community attempting to improve the dispute resolution process to develop relationships with mediators and arbitrators so as to be able to discuss issues, suggest changes and participate in further development of a fair process that respects such principles (generally speaking) as due process, fundamental justice, or fairness. An effective advocacy technique is to work towards resolution without ever calling attention to the advocate's role in catalyzing change.

By way of example, a person drowning may praise rescuers who threw a rope in a raging torrent, but never realize that the group who threw a rope in the water stood idle until an unknown advocate offered the group a rope and a plan for saving the drowning person.

Advocates may otherwise represent the interests of a community without taking a stance as a spokesperson for a community. In an environment that attempts to collaboratively represent the combined knowledge of the human community as a whole, an advocate may employ strategies that expand the concept of community by compromising or challenging ideas that otherwise attempt to define boundaries arbitrarily formed by a collective of authors, each of which is necessarily attached to a limited point of view.

Thus, keeping an open mind and cultivating an ability to entertain multiple points of view simultaneously can be a valuable asset to both the Advocate and the community the Advocate serves.

In general, communities worldwide often benefit from the assistance of advocates whose help was never recognized, and whose methods are sometimes not apparent to the community whose interests benefited from advocacy. In Wikipedia, this approach might be applied by refactoring disputed portions of an article. Disputes may often be resolved by as simple a technique as providing a version of the disputed text which is acceptable to all parties. This can best be done without fanfare, and without stating an interest in any of the viewpoints in question.

Advocate reading list

Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines - This is the crux of Advocacy. Specifically:

"The Five Pillars of Advocacy":

List of Policies for the rest of policy. To Advocate well you will need to know these cold.
List of Guidelines for rules of thumb. To Advocate well you will need to be at least familiar with these.
Wikilawyering - Be sure not to. Although an Advocate, to be most effective, must know all applicable policies as well as customs and guidelines, it is not the goal of advocacy to win or lose, or to over-emphasize trivial nuances of policy. Rather, the advocate is most useful when they are merely helping all parties to achieve a mutual understanding.

"audi alteram partem"

By assuming good faith we also assume that the proper outcome will result from everyone understanding each other. Wikipedia editors are not opponents, but collaborators working towards a common goal.