Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

Archives:

• 1 (to 26 January, 2006)
• 2 (to 28 January, 2006)
• 3 (archive of a discussion on the role of clerks and the head clerk started on January 29, 2006 at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee.2FClerks; copied here to keep it from getting lost amid the daily hubbub)
• 4 (to 28 January, 2006)

Former discussion points

Refactored discussions, simplified down to quasi-FAQ minute-style for clarity.

Should Clerks be able to read as well as write to the Arbitration mailing list?

Raul initially suggested this, but later withdrew from supporting it. It was pointed out that the lead or "Chief" Clerk, as a former Arbitrator, would be able to read the list anyway, and that expanding the list too much worked against its effectiveness.

Will temporary replacement Arbitrators be drawn from the pool of Clerks?

This was agreed as a posibility, but concern was expressed both about Clerks feeling required to be happy to later be Arbitrators, and overly restricting the choices in appointing the temporary Arbitrators.

Is there a need for a Chief Clerk?

Radiant! queried the need for a chair when very few other Wikipedia activities have one; Raul suggested that having an explicitly guiding hand (with the Chief Clerk as a former Arbitrator) could speed things up a great deal, and that it would be better to have one unneccessarily than find the process hamstrung. Kelly pointed out that a single point of contact would allow quicker and clearer discussion, and that the Chief Clerk could help raise to the attention of Arbitrators cases which were languishing, and note objections and discussions that might have been raised over current cases.

What will be the social costs to and by Clerks?

Phil Sandifer noted the danger for Clerks of being considered easy routes for people to lobby so as to alter the decisions taken by the Committee, and also that were the Clerks to come to their recommendations on-wiki, the resultant text would likely be edit-warred (or otherwise modified) by interested parties so as to remove the value, so making the ability to email advice to the Committee directly more attractive to them; he also expressed concern as to how the Clerks would be regulated. Mindspillage suggested that, instead of locked pages, Clerks be given free rein to refactor and trim down workshop and evidence sub-pages as necessary, to avoid cutting out the input of others; Radiant! thought that Clerk input would be most appropriate on-wiki, but supported Clerk-and-Arbitrator-only pages (presumably the proposed decision sub-pages). Tznkai supported Phil's recommendation for self-regulation. Dbiv, Tznkai and Phil Sandifer all expressed concern about the danger of Clerks being blamed by those who dislike the way in which cases turned out, and that this might well prejudice any future Arbitrator elections involving them; Ryan Delaney said that ignoring such complaints where unmerited should not be a major problem.

Note that people try to get to arbitrators all sorts of ways. User:Arkady Rose was most displeased to receive contact from arbitration defendants trying to influence me via her (summary: is so not a happener). I didn't know about this until she mentioned it to me recently ...

Also, the greatest guard on clerk misediting will be that they know that people will be watching their every move like hawks - David Gerard 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Delaney said that ignoring such complaints where unmerited should not be a major problem. Er, what? I don't understand what I said, apparently. ;-) --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerk Applications

• Split out to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Candidates. Radiant_>|< 20:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Carrying out remedies?

Apologies if this has been brought up before (I haven't really been following the discussion), but one thing I've noticed is that the ArbCom doesn't carry out the remedies - mainly blocks and bans. Instead, other editors have blocked per the ArbCom rulings in the past; however, some cases have fallen through the cracks and some editors have never been blocked. Would the clerks be responsible for carrying out the remedy of blocking once the case closes? This would make it more standardized and seems like a logical task for the clerks. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If people are really "slipping through the cracks", making many fewer people responsible doesn't seem the most sensible thing to do. OTOH, having clerks monitor the enforcement, remind people of remedies, and report back to the arbcom would seem entirely reasonable (though as before, this is something anyone could do). Alai 20:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I really hope not. I think ArbCom decisions should be enforced by all admins, not just the clerks. I know that you didn't mean that only clerks should be enforcing ArbCom rulings, but if we are expected to, then I guarantee that someone will complain that we are shirking our responsibility if we don't. Now, if a clerk happens to be closing a case where one of the remedies is that the user is banned, it would make sense for the clerk to block them as part of the closing procedure. But I don't think it should be the responsibility of that clerk to chase them down. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If admins would actually make use of the admin enforcement requested page then people wouldn't be slipping through the cracks in the first place, though I don't seen an issue with clerks making sure that remedies are listed there as needed and if they're an admin and the enforcement calls for a block or ban then enforcing the remedy as needed as well as making sure it's listed on the requested enforcement page, though in no case should clerks be the only one doing it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry if I was a bit unclear; I was referring specifically to the remedies involving blocking - i.e. the user is blocked for one year, three months, etc. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Have there really been any of those that have gone unenforced? As per Kelly, below, I can understand why clerks may not want to be seen to be acting with multiple "hats" below, and may wish to be less involved in direct enforcement than Generic Admins. There's also the at-least-theoretical possibility of non-admin clerks. If the issue really is just one of "slipping through the cracks", then co-ordination, and (ever-escalating as necessary) announcements/poking seem entirely sufficient. Alai 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I specifically do not enforce ArbCom decisions. When the ArbCom issues a ban, I see my job as to get the ban announced in the appropriate places. I usually also poke someone on IRC to enforce the ban, but I will not do it myself. The only situation where I am likely to block myself will be to block people who try to disrupt the RfAr process through vandalism. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

So when the ArbCom decides to block someone, admins should actually do the blocking? Wouldn't it make more sense for the clerks to block after the ArbCom case is closed? There seems to be no system right now; whenever a case is closed, I've noticed several times where the person is not actually blocked until a week or more later; in some cases, people have never been blocked and have even edited afterwards. If the clerks did the blocking per the ArbCom ruling, wouldn't this eliminate the problem? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the motion to ban Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing) just a few hours after it passed, and being an administrator reasonably familiar with the case, though not involved to any great extent, I implemented the ban by a block of 365 days. Later I noticed that Kelly had placed a note about the ban on WP:AN/I or WP:AN (something I think I've seen arbitrators do themselves in the past). It occurs to me that it may be helpful to put some boilerplate into enforcement section of arbitration final rulings to remind the community of their responsibilities, but I do agree that clerks are, by the nature of their functions, better placed to administer enforcement orders. But it is still up to the community to carry them out. No clerk should be required to execute an enforcement order. Some clerks may not have the power to do so in any case; the post is open to all editors, not just administrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way in response to Flcelloguy's concern that in the past some enforcement orders have "fallen through the cracks" I suppose it might be a good idea for the clerks to examine past cases and determine whether this has happened to any great extent, and if so what kind of circumstance has led up to this, and whether great harm to Wikipedia resulted from the failure. Arbitration should certainly have a reputation for efficiency and good clerks can help oil the wheels. I guess the flying monkies had better get onto it pretty fast. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I may be missing something here, but I don't think there is any requirement that clerks be admins. For obvious reasons it won't make any sense to expect clerks to do something they don't have the authority to do. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the specific case that prompted me to ask this was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others, where Nobs01 was banned/blocked for both a month and a year. The case was closed in December, and he's never been officially blocked. To his credit, he hasn't edited since then (with the exception of two posts to Jimbo requesting an appeal) and hasn't been a problem, which is why I didn't bring this up earlier. I've also noticed this many other times - people who should be blocked per the ArbCom ruling either aren't, or are only blocked days or weeks later when an admin stumbles upon the case. Shouldn't there be a better way of doing this to make sure no one falls through the cracks? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know, I'm a process wonk, but I think it's important to keep the roles distinct. Clerks do clerkish things. WP isn't a government and ArbComm isn't a court but I see the admins carrying out the findings of ArbComm as more like bailiff functions. Now it may well be convenient that a clerk who also HAPPENS to be an admin can carry out the banning (or whatever) directive, and there should be no reason not to do so, it's efficient, but it should be with a clear notion of differing roles (and summaries should clearly show that), because, IMHO, that will help reduce criticism of the clerk function. (n.b. I'm not saying anyone above ISN'T keeping them distinct, just saying that they should be) ++Lar: t/c 22:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The routine of closing a case should include posting on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested. This was not done in the Nobs case. Fred Bauder 22:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Under a minimal interpretation of the ban, I've now blocked him until the 23rd December, this, and placed a notice to this effect. If the bans were to be consecutive, this should be extended to 23 January, next; if his messages on Jimmy Wales' talk page is construed as avoision of this ban, to 12/13 months after the dates of those edits. The arbcom should feel free to clarify on the first point, and any other admin to review either. Alai 23:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that up to now we've relied on having a very strong culture and a relatively small community--when somebody was banned enough people knew about it that no banned editor could feel comfortable about using his banned account.

Well that's over and done with. It's the Eternal September of Wikipedia (as the userbox nonsense has demonstrated all to forcefully). Perhaps we need, you know, some kind of system. :)

I definitely agree with Lar that clerks should avoid executing enforcement orders. No way am I announcing a ban and performing a block. Ugh! Unclean! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Luckly we're at the point where we have more than enough admins that we can avoid it.--Tznkai 23:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if you ANNOUNCE it with your LEFT hand, and PERFORM it with your RIGHT hand, you'd be OK, yes? (or is it the other way round??? I forget) More seriously, I'm just sort of suggesting that when you announce the block on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, sign it "Tony Sidaway, Clerk, on behalf of the ArbComm" and then when you implement, the block log should show "Tony Sidaway, Admin, on behalf of the ArbComm". I seriously do NOT think it is never OK for the same person to do both. That seems needlessly restrictive (although I wouldn't fault any clerk for not wanting to do so). ++Lar: t/c 23:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing will stop being a problem when we stop thinking about it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite. I don't think we need to say "never"; we just don't need to say it "must"/"really ought" to be performed by a clerk, either. I assume it's a given that clerks will take over the task of posting the "request for enforcement" notice, thus solving any future issues like the above instance of Nobs01 "falling through the cracks" (for a while). If an admin request is posted, and no action is taken, then we've something worth worrying about. (Which I think is simply not going to happen.) Alai 04:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we'll ever be in a position where a clerk has to enforce an arbitration decision by executing it. I don't intend to do so; we have hundreds of admins who are each and every one of them capable of doing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive archiving

Is there some reason that this page keeps getting archived when it gets to 60k? That's certainly a lower threshold than usual.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

High traffic?--Tznkai 23:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I archived last time. Lots of heat, little light. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, please stop. The discussion is important, and farming it off into an archive is, for all practical purposes, deleting it. Newcomers to the discussion are poorly served by a page that presents the impression that this has been all happy skies and fluffy bunnies. We do not, as a rule, simply remove discussions that we disagree with. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron that Tony's farming out the discussion was a bad idea (as I described above) which is why I refolded it all back into this page and the archive. So all the conversation is easily accessible, in more-or-less chronological order, for people who are interested enough to go reading back through it. On the other hand, this page attracts a very large number of comments so archiving is sort of necessary. Raul654 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I as well recall (vaguely) a certain webcomixxx RfAr aggressively refractored by... Aaron Brenneman, probably! El_C 04:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so nobody's perfect, but how did it help to bring that up? ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we established imperfection for all, but how didn't it help? El_C 05:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How didn't it help? OK, I'll spell it out. IMHO only, of course... Because there was an RfAr about it, a long and painful one, with lots of not very pleasant talk (including some from me, mind you, which I regret), sanctions and admonishments were handed out, and in what HAD to be a very difficult thing to do, Aaron said he was sorry, said he was taking the admonishments to heart, said he was going to try to do better, everyone else hopefully learned from it, and bringing it back up again strikes me as just picking at scabs for the purposes of making people squirm. Is that perception correct? If it is, is doing so useful? Is that past incident what we're here to talk about on this page? I hope not. Further, Tony already said he wasn't going to refactor this page that way again, said HE was sorry, and Raul said regular archives were the way to go, and I just don't see how this helps matters at all. If you really think it did, I'm sorry if I have given offense. But it just seems like this whole convo is at least partly degenerating into a re-dredge of past beefs. I'm a newb, maybe I should have taken this to your talk page. Feel free to flame me back on mine if needful. ++Lar: t/c 05:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lar, it still seems a bit too equivocal of a realisation, but this aside, I'm not really interested in discussing (nor am I even that familliar with) that case, and remain content with my nudge (again), as per that practice. Yes, I as well find it interesting that the actors are still the same (myself included). Regards, El_C 06:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

60kb is too little? I archive my talk page when it gets to 30 odd. I don't think it's a lower threshold - just a lower point at which someone's been bothered to do it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I as well look forward to when we have to archive the archives in their own archive of archives! El_C 04:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They've had to do that with RFA I think, as well as doing it for AN, AN/I and AN/3RR Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 05:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this page will probably have to be archived frequently as long as it attracts a lot of traffic. I'm certainly no fan of large, indigestible discussion pages (or large, indigestible archives, for that matter). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And I, unlike Tony am a fan (to borrow the term), of long, unrefactored discussion pages that preserve the continuity of commentary, as it unfolded. So, to not put too fine a point on the discussion, refactoring and splintering discussions is A Very Bad Idea. Happy to add my voice to that side of the debate. Hamster Sandwich 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is for use by the clerks so it'll probably end up being archived by, and for the convenience of, clerks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And I would hope, for the benefit of the interested Wikipedia community at large. We do still count as a community, don't we? Regards, Hamster Sandwich 03:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Provided the archiving is done with efficiency, I don't think the community will have any cause to complain about the operation of its clerks in that regard. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Efficiency is fine, but try to keep things from moving too fast - archiving a discussion that is still ongoing is a problem. Try to refrain from archiving until it is needed. I don't think 60-100k is really all that huge, even if this page does get some traffic. In the interests of readability, it is better not to be moving through multiple pages, IMHO. Congrats on being selected for Clerk duty, Tony. I've still got my fingers crossed in hopes I will make the cut as well. (Hi Kelly! Smooches!) --Dschor 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Caveat regarding evidence presentation

• Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee.2FClerks

Following concerns expressed by several people, the Committee decided it would be best to include this caveat to this page. Effectively, it's a compromise between the arbitrators who want things to be transparent and those who want to avoid cross debate with querulous parties to a dispute. Evidence will be presented on the proposed decision page for all to see, but only clerks and arbitrators are allowed to edit the page itself. Raul654 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't satisfy me, actually, as I don't care about transparency in their statements, but rather that they are inserting a filter between the arbitrators and the evidence. Since the clerks now standing have said that they think it's fine if they add new evidence of their own, that they clerk cases they're involved in, and since some of the present clerks have already, two days in, had credible charges levelled that they've been prosecuting instead of summarizing, I think we've demonstrated already, with no further action, that this function is ill-considered, ill-planned, unpoliced (clerks decide amongst themselves what duties they think are good? are you serious?), anti-editor, and the richest troll food ever concocted. No one has any explanation of any advantage for clerks offering summaries, and yet the lame duck arbcom, at the 11th hour, in the dark, has been willing to venture not its own credibility, but future credibility by insisting, to quote the charming phrase, "Tough luck." No, this is not satisfactory. Clerks should not be writing executive summaries. They aren't ArbCom, and even I am starting to believe this is a backdoor. Geogre 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please list what things clerks can do that you are not allowed to do.

"No one has any explanation of any advantage for clerks offering summaries"? Are you serious?

"even I am starting to believe"? Really? Big shock. Again, what are clerks doing that you could not do yourself? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

By all means feel free to suggest an alternative method for dealing with evidence pages that look like this. This is the best we could come up with, but we're always open to better ideas. Raul654 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Note - "Suck it up and spend many, many hours sorting it out" is exactly what we are trying to avoid and is thus not an option. Raul654 19:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives? You bet! I'm good at that. In fact, if I had been asked, I might have been a great help. Ok, with less than a minute's thought, here are some alternatives that come to mind.

1. All evidence presentations require a summary paragraph or two written by the presenter.
2. Any evidence presentation that does look like a shambles is reprimanded and sent back to mediation (not acted upon). These two put the onus back where it belongs: the plaintiffs.
3. Have summaries, but have them by users requested by the litigants the way that mediators are agreed to.
4. Have a large (large) pool of names of clear writers to call upon, and have the litigants pick.
5. Have a process for clerk selection where the AC names names and then there is a 72 hour waiting period to see if there are strong, substantial objections raised to the person, with the understanding that objections need not be proven, as what is at stake is the appearance of propriety and trust, not criminality and law.
6. Get more ArbCom members and "tough luck" to the same degree that foisting biased, questionable people on the community is "tough luck" the other way. (Sorry, but I need one bitter statement in the lot.)

I'm happy to help, but "no one yelled about it in 12 hours, so everyone loves it" is not valid logic. Geogre 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• (edconf) Geogre, could you please give some links to indicate what you mean? From your allegations, it mainly seems that while the concept of clerking is reasonable, there are certain individual clerks that really shouldn't be. But from the comments so far I cannot make out which that might be, or whether those allegations are factual. Radiant_>|< 19:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, given that "All evidence presentations require a summary paragraph or two written by the presenter" is a pipe dream and isn't going to happen, who else do you propose is going to be doing the summary?

On sending back to mediation for bad presentation of evidence, that's not going to happen either. What happens (I've done it myself on two occasions) is that some civic-minded person steps in and organises the case. On your proposed selection process, it seems to me that you're suggesting the there is a question hanging over the propriety of some of the present incumbents. If this is a correct reading of your meaning, it's a pretty extraordinary suggestion. Are people "biased, questionable" because you say so? --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So, "not going to happen" is sufficient to pass off a bad, unthought out system? That's no answer. As for my view of the individuals, Radiant is incorrect: it's not about the personalities. It's about the personalities that are not trusted who then pass on summaries. Again, set up an extremely large pool of editors who write clearly and let the disputants pick people to present the summaries, and this part of my objection would be removed. Otherwise, what you have is people who may be mistrusted by the disputants. As for the current list, there are a few who are widely mistrusted, but that's just chance. My central objection is to "official summary" being written by an "official" summarizer. That immediately creates a more equal than others summary. Once you do that, you open up the whole process to accusations. When those particular individuals include Snowspinner, Tony Sidaway, and Kelly Martin, all three of whom engender widespread disquiet, or even Johnlemeek, who is currently being accused of prosecuting instead of summarizing, then you foster the loser's discontent and give that person a platform from which to recruit others. Again: set up a huge pool of writers who are drafted to write summaries. Don't have Summarizers who get a halo about them bestowed solely by this arbcom. As for whether this particular ArbCom is disliked, it is. Is it disliked by me? Some folks, sure. However, it is generally disliked. Although I stay as far from it as I can, I keep being told, as a standing verity, that ArbCom is evil by people who otherwise are contributory and sane. Geogre 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've said this in other places and I find myself saying it again. Practically any person qualified to do this job is going to be controversial with someone, and the complainers will always complain. It's phenomenally unimpressive to me to say that a person is controversial as if that is somehow pejorative. Controversy is practically a law of nature, so controversy itself means nothing. If you actually have a reason to suggest that someone is not qualified, that would be interesting and worth talking about. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There are almost 900,000 registered users. Of that number surely there are many thousand capable of doing the job of clerk, only a handful of which could be said to be truly controversial. Having clerks who have the power to summarize (thus spin) the evidence, for whom the community has little faith, trust, and confidence will in turn reduce the communities faith and trust and confidence in the ArbCom itself. That is harmful to Wikipedia. Paul August ☎ 05:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

800,000 of those 900,000 users (are there really that many?) are trolls or throwaway accounts. Really. There are around 10,000 active editors of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So, unless I can indict, try, and convict a particular person, the entire system must stay, because I must be a "complainer?" That's the kind of illogic that gets us into deep, deep, deep trouble. Can you show me the credentials of each clerk above the credentials of other people? Can you prove them? The system is rotten, and it's not rotten because Snowspinner has been through 3 RFar's or so this year. It's not rotten because Tony Sidaway has been through at least two this year. It's not rotten because Kelly Martin's RFar engendered more outright hostility and hatred than any I've ever seen. It's rotten because there is no control whatever on who gets the Official Provider of Summaries title and because the people being prosecuted could very easily campaign with other users that they were harmed by the presence of one of these users. There is a readymade pool of people who will agree with the disgruntled. On the other hand, we have dozens of knowledgeable editors who have been in the political side who didn't jump forward mysteriously wanting to be the Official Voice. Draft them. Have the disputants pick them. Then you can overrule the losers. Instead of addressing any of these issues, though, you just chalk it up to "complainers." That's horribly irresponsible. Geogre 03:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you volunteering? I'll be glad to recommend you to the Committee. I'm willing to overlook your error in claiming that neither my judgment nor that that of the ArbCom qualify as "controls". Kelly Martin (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Point of process

• Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee.2FClerks

Okay, all this arguing back and forth is getting annoying and forest firey. I think that the issue for most people isn't that clerking is a bad idea, but that individual clerks are perceived as a bad idea. But simply put, if a clerk isn't trusted by the community, then this reduces trust on any decisions in which the clerk was involved. Hence, I suggest the following.

1. Community input to clerk appointments. We don't need any kind of formal process, but just let there be a page where people can state "I want to be a clerk because of so-and-so", then this is left open for community discussion for a couple of days (no voting!), and on grounds of that discussion the ArbCom decides whether to accept the person or not.
2. Since the Head Clerk's main role seems to be appointing other clerks, this seems to obviate the need for one. Most wikiprocesses do not have a leader anyway. It was stated as beneficial that the head clerk can read the mailing list, but I haven't seen any reason what the point of that is; the ArbCom can provide clerks on a case with CC'ed mails as necessary.

• Radiant_>|< 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of starting another RFA-like structure (which seems to be exactly what you are proposing), I have created a community commentary section on this page where people can voice their concerns. However, I would prefer not to start planning for the next group of clerks until I have a grasp on how the current group is doing. I would also prefer to keep the head-clerk as is. Raul654 20:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Split out to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Candidates. Radiant_>|< 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. However, it seems to be the current group of clerks that people have problems with (about half of which are controversial people), rather than clerkhood in general. The two easiest solutions for that would be (1) dropping all clerks and let community discuss on them for a bit, or (2) instate more clerks quickly to dilute the amount of controversial ones. Radiant_>|< 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've said it before. I don't want to be the sole crank, but I'm getting more e-mail than ever before over this issue from "you're our champion in this" people, so I suppose it's my duty to say it again: the stakes are too high to wait and see. What we'd see if we waited was someone saying that Snowspinner, for example (who has had multiple RFar's on him), carried a grudge and wrote derisive comments in a summary and that he was on IRC all night poisoning the atmosphere, etc., and that his "official summary" was the only one forwarded. Whether it would be true or not would be irrelevant: there are enough people who really dislike Snowspinner that the charge would carry credence. That is what I've been complaining about. When there are controversial people and controversialists writing summaries, we arm and feed the trolls. Geogre 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The trolls who spread complete lies like that are why there's controversy, and I hope you are not seriously suggesting they be given an inch of say on this issue. Phil Sandifer 22:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• You're saying you're only controversial because of trolls? Well, that's a lot of trolls then. Radiant_>|< 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, Phil, you mean all five of those admins who've e-mailed me are trolls? You need to get rid of them, quick! All those people who sided against you in the past are trolls? All those unhappy with trusting Kelly are trolls? All those unhappy with trusting "I'll undelete even when AfD says not to" Tony are trolls? As Radiant says, that's a lot of trolls. The project is lousy with them. Geogre 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Or we could just wait and see for a bit. No need to rush. Everything the clerks do is out in the open. People can just watch the clerks and see how they go. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. Rather than scurry around trying to come up with fixes for problems that do not yet exist, how about we simply let them do their job for a while and see what comes of it. For all the hundreds of kilobytes of discussion this topic has generated, I have yet to see a single word generated by the clerk's office, and yet already people seem to think it's a failure in need of a drastic fix. Raul654 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm not saying this suggestion is necessary or anything, it just seems like the simplest way to get people to stop complaining. For what it's worth. Radiant_>|< 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I find geogre's reasoning on this quite difficult to follow. Is he suggesting that we let trolls choose our clerks for us? For if we give the community the veto he demands, this is the logical conclusion. Nobody about whom a troll has ever written an unkind word would be fit for the job under such a regime. Not Theresa Knott, not Sam Korn, not Raul654. Arbitrators perhaps, but under geogre's proposal we couldn't possibly let them be clerks because someone might say something, you know, nasty and untrue about them. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, Geogre's saying that having controversial people involved in an ArbCom case makes it easy to say the outcome of the case is tainted by them. As we've seen from recent user RFCs, attacking any controversial user gets you instant support from a large amount of other users; the last thing the ArbCom needs is such feedback on case outcomes. And it's easy to say that that might not actually happen, but it's really easy to avoid the entire possibility by simply not taking on controversial people as clerks when there's plenty of people willing. Radiant_>|< 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's a novel thought - rather than arguing about the hypothetical possiblity that the outcome of a case is "tained" by the participation of a controversial clerk, why don't we actually wait to see the outcomes of some cases? Raul654 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• The reason we don't, Raul, is that the first one will be the last one. I'm also getting e-mails from people who I don't put in the ranks of the august who are already saying that they're getting railroaded by summaries. I'm not easily swayed (obviously) and I'm not disengenuous (unlike people who seem to understand me perfectly well until the points start scoring), so I'll make no hay of it -- it hasn't concerned one of the big three of seriously controversial folks. The first time Tony or Snowspinner or Kelly writes a summary, though, someone is going to howl that it was all because of them, all because they couldn't reply to his or her lies on the summary page, etc., and that's going to generate a big swell of discontent. Again, what exactly is the advantage to clerks writing summaries that can't be answered another way? I keep asking this, and all I've gotten so far is Tony Sidaway, who has a bit of a vested interest, saying, "Pbbt, that won't work" to the ideas I tossed off in a minute. Couldn't you guys think it over a bit, come up with another way? Geogre 03:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • To this end, I've added this to the Clerk's page. Raul654 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• While I don't think that a troll should have the availability to veto a clerk, I do think that a party involved in an arbitration dispute should have the right to request that a clerk not work on his/her case. There might be some limits to set, such as there can only be one request per arbitration case, so that the person can't veto everyone in the clerk's office. I know that Arbitrators on some cases publicly recuse themselves. I do think that it should be open and transparent as to what clerks worked on what evidence and that, should the need arise, a clerk should publicly recuse himself/herself. Sue Anne 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestions: 1) Abandon the idea of clerks summarizing evidence, in public or private; 2) tell parties that they must limit their initial statements to 500 words and their evidence to 1,000 words (or whatever) and that any text after that will be deleted; 3) draw up a page offering advice on how to submit a well-written case; 4) if clerks must be chosen for administrative work, start by inviting applications from the pool of candidates who gained over 50 per cent in the election before opening it up to anyone else; 5) there's no need for a head clerk, just as there's no need for a head arbitrator or head admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  Suggesting that people will write concise, clear RFARs because there is a friendly reminder to do so is a healthy dose of wishful thinking. Having clerks summarize evidence is, to my mind, the whole reason this process was started. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  The dilemma is this: either the clerkships are relatively unimportant administrative positions, not requiring any kind of community consensus, in which case there's no problem with the way the current clerks were chosen — but that means they can't get involved in writing summaries. Or the clerks will involve themselves in summarizing cases and deciding on evidence presentation, in which case the positions are very close to those of arbitrator — and that means controversial people the community has only just rejected for those roles shouldn't be chosen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually either way it isn't a community matter since it's an arbcom internal matter so if you want to get all technical about it then they can do this without community support since it is within their general zone. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• There comes a point where community concern becomes politically irrelevant. All authority on Wikipedia to do anything comes ultimately from Jimbo and the board. The Arbitration Committee derives its authority directly from that source. If the Arbitration committee thinks the clerks office will help them do their jobs, then there isn't much the naysayers can do about it except naysay. Look, I'm not making Wikipedia out to be a dictatorship, and I do think discussion is important. But I'm sick to death of the phenomenon where every time someone comes up with a good idea, someone comes out of the woodwork screaming about how it's going to wreck everything and the sky is falling. Let's look at the real important questions here:

  • Do I think the clerk's office will have an effect in general? Yes, and I think it will help the arbitrators do their jobs.
  • Do I think the clerk's office will have some significant political influence on Wikipedia? I honestly don't know or care. Personally, I don't plan to use the position to influence anything. Summarizing evidence is a clerical job, and anyone here who has gone to law school or taken law-related courses will know that writing briefs is not a task taken with a particular aim in mind other than distilling the basic facts about a case so someone can review it quickly.

  The bottom line here is that the clerk's office serves at the pleasure of the Arbitration Committee, not the rest of the wiki. This sounds odd coming from a clerk, but bear it in mind anyway; the arbs picked people they thought could do the job. If any of us doesn't do the job, they'll remove one or all of us. Again, our purpose is to help the arbcom do their job, and if we aren't helping, we'll be dissolved. That decision is entirely up to the people whose opinions on this issue actually matter. For my part, I've done for more work arguing about the office than actually doing clerk work, which is something that's going to change after I post this. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  You wrote: "There comes a point where community concern becomes politically irrelevant ... If the Arbitration committee thinks the clerks office will help them do their jobs, then there isn't much the naysayers can do about it except naysay." Well, the arbcom needs admins to enforce its decisions, Ryan, and the encyclopedia needs a community to write its articles. As much as I agree with encyclopedia before community, no one agrees with encyclopedia without community, which is where you seem to be headed. The point is that, by having these discussions, the community is very politely requesting that the committee rethink its recent decisions about clerkships, and if you look around at the people making those requests (if you can find them all, given the fragmentation of this discussion), you'll see that it involves people who don't often (or even never) criticize the arbcom, so I hope that might tell you something. Given the attitude you just expressed, I'd say concerns will have deepened considerably. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

  Yes, there are some very respected members of the community who don't care for it, based on problems which are at this point entirely hypothetical. The committee (at least myself and Theresa, as well as most of the clerks) have made the emminently reasonable point that we would like to see this experiment get started before writing it off as a failure based on suppositions. Raul654 02:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  Raul, the committee has agreed there will be no summarizing by clerks in private, which will put some minds at rest, so thank you for that. Are there other aspects of this the committee might be willing to look at too? In other words, how flexible are the parameters of the experiment? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  As I said in the diff above, we'll re-evaluate the clerk's office (in its entirety) come March. If they aren't producing good results for lack of new clerks, we add more manpower. If they aren't producing good results for structural or organizational reasons, we can reorganize it - scrap the position of chair, or make it so that it can be done by non-arbitrators. If there is no prospect of fixing it, we'll scrap it. But, I will say again (for about the 100th time) we are going to go forward and see how it works as is before we do any major restructuring. Raul654 02:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  You seem to have ignored the whole point I was making there. In the very next sentence I said I'm not making Wikipedia out to be a dictatorship. This kind of selective interpretation is what makes me disillusioned with discussion. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(Indentation) Raul, in the face of ... not insignificant protest, however. Tony, in answer to your earlier question: where is the need to impose summaries? Imposition-wise, why not try finding a way to enforce (and add where applicable) recommended word limits? It looks underhanded to opt for this route first, and appearences count. This filter is unheard of in Wikipedia; to involuntarily (viz. the AMA) have someone speaking for you is very different from having someone's own words limited to something or other within a given framework. Failure to operate within such limits should count as a forfeit, not rewarded by —or from a troll's standpoint, punished with— an ArbComm-mandated social worker. El_C 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

El_C, in answer to my request that you explain to me what kind of thing you object to, you have simply asked another question. Could you please give me examples of what you would describe as an "imposed summary"? What, precisely, would it involve? I'm trying to understand what you mean by this so that I can formulate some kind of opinion on the matter. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I presume these are summaries written for someone who is unwilling or unable to adhere to the recommended word/format limits. What I am saying is very simple: enforce the word limit. Anyone is free to respond to a summary they find geared at obfuscation, in their own section. This clerk task force (& admins, in general) should be removing summaries which are over the limit. Writing a summary for someone who cannot or will not adhere to the word threshold, is less productive and more open to abuse than having them forfeit their right to a summary. El_C 07:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly gives an excellent rebuttal of this to which I have nothing to add. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The community isn't doing anything wrong, in general—it's arbitrators and similarly powerful users who are obstructing its efforts to move things in a more natural, workable, cohesive direction, and actually trying to move things in the opposite direction (arguably as a reaction to the first direction). The community isn't moving with much coordination; it moves because of a natural tendency in the system, which is a constructive tendency: the improvement of the operation of things to better reflect present conditions (for Wikipedia, the main change is rapid growth and the simultaneous broading of the user base to better reflect society at large, albeit still on a very small scale now). Try to think about how Wikipedia can be best run, what is the sort of administration that could involve less inherent controversy and combat, and what sort of things we're doing wrong now (hint: the problem is not that the community is full of idiots who need to be treated more harshly). Everyking 09:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the rant above, Kelly, I can see that resigning this post is probably in your best interest, as well as the interest of the community. I think it is unfortunate that your disdain for the community is growing, as this is certainly a large part of the reason your ArbCom candidacy was so heavily opposed. I hope that you can focus more on the good in the community, and that through editing and contributing to articles, you might rediscover the joy of wikipedia. Sweet dreams, Kelly. --Dschor 11:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Complaints are not useful, help is

To echo Ryan up there, I have spent more time defending the existence of this office, then executing its obligations. This is silly. Give it a chance. If you're unhappy with the process, lend a hand in improving it. If you don't like the current clerk composition, find someone better. This is a wiki, and we should improve it like one. By improving, helping, working together, not arguing on whether to keep or delete.--Tznkai 08:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So, you're complaining about the complaints...? I, for one, wish to see something that responds to my rational. Considering I'm currently under the impression that to "give it a chance" is likely to do more harm than good, I see no reason why I shouldn't continue to object. El_C 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Tznkai is missing the point of many, at least, of those complaining. We (I've joined in the criticism elsewhere, though not here before) are concerned, not that the institution might not work, but that it's a bad idea in itself. "giving it a chance" is therefore irrelevant to our concerns.

Wikipedia is an encyclopædia project, not a national government; we don't need civil servants with titles like "Head Clerk" to do the work for busy ministers of state, and instituting this sort of thing strikes many of us a bad decision. Is there a department of New Page watchers, with a Head Watcher? A Department of AfD-Closers, with a Head Closer? A Department of Speedy-Deleters, with a Head Deleter? No — when work needs doing, we either do it or ask for help. It's very unclear why we need a Clerks Department, with a Head Clerk.

So I'm not saying "Kelly Martin can't be trusted, it should be me (or one of my chums)" – though, in common with very many editors, I don't trust Kelly Martin, which admittedly doesn't help – I'm saying that no-one should be appointed, because this sort of appointment is un-Wikipedian.

It's true there's a secondary concern — that a person who has been very widely voted and argued against as a memeber of the Arbitration Committee should almost immediately be given a newly-created official position working for that committee smacks of the chums-network that sees a notorious lecturer and attacker of other admins defend the same behaviour in one of his friends or associates. OK, it's unrealistic to suppose that this sort of thing doesn't happen in any human enterprise, or that it could be prevented — but this is just rubbing our noses in it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Mel. I agree completely with this assessment, and your comment has very neatly encapsulateed the concerns of very many editors/wikipedians. Has there been a single comment supporting this initiative from anybody not directly connected to ArbCom or its freshly minted Clerk Corps? The sheer hauter of some of the rebuttal to this opposition has given me much pause, considering the implications of these appointments, primarily the appearance of the "chums network" gaining a toehold here, and then spreading to other areas of the wiki. I will further state, that over and above this, the points brought up by Mel, Slim Virgin, El C and particularly Geogre sum up very articulately what I think about this whole (to coin a rather trite phrase) "kerfuffle". Although I have not thought to email any of these editors, I thank them for persevering against the stonewall that is being haphazardly built by the defenders of this Very Bad Idea. Hamster Sandwich 13:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Has there been a single comment supporting this initiative from anybody not directly connected to ArbCom or its freshly minted Clerk Corps?" Yes: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/archive4, first comment, by yours truly. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We have always allowed anyone to present evidence. With the creation of the /Workshop page anyone can make proposals and comment on them. What the creation of the clerks does is give a few people that role. We have work that needs to be done. For example requests for arbitration often make hardly any sense at all and sometimes even when they have a good case they don't present diffs that illustrate it. When we make finding of fact we have to spend hours looking for diffs which illustrate the problem. Opening and closing of cases was done in a haphazard and often incomplete way. Exactly what clerks should be doing is a bit up in the air, but there is a lot of paperwork. Fred Bauder 13:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fred, as you say anyone is allowed to present evidence, and anyone can make proposals and comment on them. If the clerks are not special why do we need them? Paul August ☎ 14:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Resignation

I have resigned as head clerk. It is obvious that the community, for its own inscrutiable reasons, is unwilling to accept the services I am willing and able to provide. I have no doubt that I have the trust of Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee itself. However, it's evident that the community has no intention of allowing me to provide any service of an administrative nature to Wikipedia without having to deal with endless sniping. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A complete and utter shame, and one that could have been avoided had people never lost focus. For what it's worth, I'm sure Kelly has the trust of a considerable number of bureaucrats, administrators, users - and developers too. I hope, sooner or later, that those sniping at her will get their comeuppance. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Rob Church (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)