Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive5

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. ;-) --causa sui ^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. --causa sui ^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. --causa sui ^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. --causa sui ^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. --causa sui ^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. --causa sui ^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. --causa sui ^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. --causa sui ^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)

I disagree. Sme people are not skilled a presenting evidence. That does not mean they should not be herd. Someone who is skilled summarising for them is better than simply deleting thier evidence. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that deleting it and recommending an AMA advocate is a better route in that event. El_C 22:10, 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)

Not even where this rebuttal is? I urge you to add that. El_C 14:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted by a meddlesome editor who felt that it was a personal attack. Hopefully it won't be deleted again. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's odd. Anyway the answer to the question (in question form) of "[h]ow is requiring parties to make well-formed pleadings going to help when we can't even get them to observe the 500 word pleading limits" is: can't we? Let's really try to do that, and impose other limits where applicable. Otherwise, my fear is that it will tend to backfire. El_C 19:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The idea that parties will, if asked nicely, write meaningful summaries of cases betrays an ignorance of the entire history of the arbitration process. The fact is that, in virtually every RfAr, at least one, and usually most, of the parties, are being completely unreasonable, and will not do anything reasonable to make the process less painful for everyone else involved. In many cases their very intention during the arbitration process is to continue to make it painful for the other parties. These people have no interest in voluntarily summarizing their cases -- which they are going to lose -- because doing so will just result in the case ending against them faster! They'd rather be obstructionary because it drags the process out and lets them troll longer. The other type of problem litigant is terminally convinced that he is right and all others are wrong, and doggedly sticks to that point no matter what. They're less of a problem, although their evidence and arguments tend to be stream of consciousness and full of irrelevancies, and they never show any evidence of understanding why they've been sanctioned.

I've just described 90% of ArbCom cases. This is what the ArbCom is facing. How is requiring parties to make well-formed pleadings going to help when we can't even get them to observe the 500 word pleading limits as it is? Either (a) we stop requiring the ArbCom to waste time on writing nicely argued summaries with long drawn out opinions and just let them smack the heads of people who act like shits, or (b) we provide the ArbCom with the support required to "properly" analyze the evidence, arguments etc. so they can produce the summaries and opinions that people have come to expect from the ArbCom. Frankly I'm in favor of (a) at this point. It doesn't take long on the ArbCom to learn how to spot the bozo in 90%+ of cases from a mile away. We could make ArbCom go a lot faster, and deal with the real issues, by just whacking the problem users straightaway without letting them use RfAr as a platform from which to rant from for an extra two months while their case is being heard. But I recognize that the "community" (an entity for which my disdain grows by the day) will likely not accept such a solution, and so do not advocate it.

Quite honestly I'm thoroughly fed up with the Wikipedia "community" and am rapidly losing interest in doing anything to assist it. I'm seriously tempted to resign my special roles (other than administrator) and stick to editing articles. It's far less stressful, and more satisfying, to boot. I even got a "thank you" from someone for cleaning up some articles he had written. I just hope that the community gets its problems sorted out before it destroys the encyclopedia. I am not hopeful on that, though. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, turn off your computer and take a break. Your rant is too much. --FloNight 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bed. I'll probably resign in the morning, but I won't make that decision until then. I swear, this place is fucked up. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:50, 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)

They are people we (The AC) trust to open/close cases and summarise evidences neutrally. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is understandable, but given the large amount of volunteers (including a number that want to help but don't want the title of clerkhood), it would be preferable to get people to do it that the community also trusts to open/close cases and summarise evidence neutrally. If clerking is not a big deal, then it doesn't require the title, committee and official appointment. If clerking is a big deal, then the community reaction should be taken into account. >Radiant< 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Clerking is not a big deal, and that's why you should just drop it. --causa sui ^talk 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Community reaction has been taken into account. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's easy to tell people to put up or shut up, but that doesn't change the fact that this situation is rapidly escalating to a forest fire. Maybe yet more diplomacy is called for, or maybe we could get a neutral party to mediate. >Radiant< 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hold on, we elected/appointed the arbcom to have the final say. The community endorsed them, remember. They have a very fresh mandate. We don't need unelected mediators to sort this out, we need to trust those we elected. This is only a 'big deal' because some people are making it one. Let it settle down and it will go away - unless the clerks do something foolish in which case the approproate action can be taken.--Doc ^ask? 15:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So from Theresa's response they are special. They do have special powers. In particular they will have the considerable power to summarise (and thus possible spin) the evidence. In my view that qualifies as a "big deal". I have a lot of faith, trust, and confidence in most of the ArbCom members (some I simply don't know). And they all deserve the communities respect and appeciation — they are volunteers (as are we all) doing a difficult, unpleasant and thankless job. But that job, in my view, which the community has entrusted them to do, is to read and summarize the evidence for themselves, rather than to rely on others to do that for them. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Paul. Summarizing evidence accurately for a case you've not been involved in is a difficult job, and there are probably very few people who could do it well. During the election, people voted for the editors they want to do that job. Asking non-arbitrators to open, chose, and archive cases is fine, but evidence summarizing and discussion of summaries is best left to the committee. Perhaps word limits could be enforced as El C suggests above. That would cut down instantly on the amount of material the committee has to plough through. Why invent new rules and positions before enforcing and using existing ones? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 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)

I agree it's a shame, but understand Kelly's motives. I am hopeful that the detractors will now be satisfied and give the idea a chance. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This (personalization) wasn't an issue to me; I've yet to see my rational addressed anywhere. El_C 14:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole anti-Kelly thing was nothing but juvanile mass-hysteria. An assortment of trolls and idiots imagining up a 'hate figure' and conducting their own horrid witch-trial. Having said that, I did feel that Arbcom appointing Kelly, so soon after that fiasco, was somewhat unwise - the frenzy of the rabble was somewhat predictable. However, I'm even more disturbed by this resignation. What did Kelly expect when she accepted? And the resignation is now only going to whet the crowd's taste for blood. Either we appoint the best qualified people, and to hell with the mob, or we employ only those who will command with 'popular' (one might say vulgar) respect (an oxymoron?). Now we have the worst of both worlds.--Doc ^ask? 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Doc, it is both a ridiculous overstatement and a needless attack to classify all people who distrust Kelly as "juvenile mass-hysteric trolls and idiots". While there probably are a few trolls among those, most of them are sensible editors that are disturbed by some dubious judgments Kelly made in the recent past, and her apparent disdain for the community. >Radiant< 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just fucking shut up about it, already. Do you have nothing better to do than twist the knife? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

While I applaud the resignation as a good and sincere choice, it is never acceptable to tell other to "fucking shut up". That this was even typed is more evidence why a resignation is good for the community. Xoloz 19:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Xoloz, can you really, honestly, after all that's gone on, blame Kelly for this comment? I'm not saying it was justified, but do not seize upon any chance to make your revenge. The community of which you speak is hardly worthy of its name. Sympathy for Kelly appears to be beyond you. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam, "sympathy for Kelly" is one among many reasons that I have commented on this much. I just find it ludicrous that anyone would say such an incredibly tactless thing at this moment, and ludicrous that you'd defend it by insulting the "community hardly worthy of its name." I have never in my entire life told anyone to "shut the fuck up", and I have never seen an adult type such before while not in an altered state. It is plainly unacceptable from any adult in any serious circumstance. Xoloz 19:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you please give it a rest, already? El_C 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to me, El C, the answer is no, because hearing an arbitrator say that the "community is not worthy of its name" is pretty serious. I have continued the discussion at Sam Korn's talk. 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, on account of forgetting to press "save" for twenty minutes) While agreeing with El_C, I want to just make it clear that I am referring to the section of the community that is violently against Kelly, not the main bulk, which is good-tempered and well-natured. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly has spared the community a lot of upheaval by making this decision, so she should be applauded for that. If the arbcom really feels a head clerk is necessary (I don't myself see the need for one), perhaps someone could be approached from among those with high percentages who weren't chosen as arbitrators.

Regarding the issue of summaries, another suggestion would be to allow an opt-in/opt-out option. People bringing cases could say at the time of making the RfAr whether they opt in or out of having a clerk summarize their evidence. Those who opt out but whose cases are badly presented could be advised by the committee that opting in would be in their interests. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Kelly has shown wisdom in resigning at this time, and I applaud her wholeheartedly. This will help her to regain the trust of the community, and shows a maturity of uncommon caliber. For an administrator to give up any kind of administrative power is a great sacrifice. Acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia and community can be difficult, and I am impressed that Kelly was able to summon the fortitude to do so once again. --Dschor 18:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This will help her to regain the trust of the community Fat chance. The "community" of which you speak (unworthy as it is of the name) is like the tabloid press: it wants its pound of flesh. Then another pound. Then another pound. It will not give up until Kelly has been harassed off this site. I strongly disagree that this is in the good interests of the community or the encyclopaedia. It is, however, in the selfish interests of a few people who don't help either at all. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

These comments aren't helpful. There are other issues people are concerned about, so let's deal with them and move on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aye, there are valid issues that can be discussed. You, Geogre and El_C all have good points to make. However, a good number of people have been doing nothing but going after Kelly. That is completely unacceptable, and it is that that I am commenting on. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly (for the record: I think Kelly was a very good arbitrator, and that she would have been a very good clerk; I'm sorry to see her resign). But I don't know that such a comment was helpful. The harassment of her is unacceptable; it needs to stop, for everyone's benefit. But lumping all of the community together in a sweeping statement isn't doing anything to help it end. There are reasonable people with reasonable objections and an arbitrator lumping them in with the tabloid press isn't constructive. I trust the people who are just carping are recognizable by everyone but themselves; it's the people whose judgment I trust who are, indeed, raising real concerns that I'm concerned with. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I clarified above (sorry for the confusion), that is precisely my own opinion. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam Korn's and Doc glasgow's comments above have done nothing to enhance their own reputations I'm afraid. This section, in fact, is a microcosm of the debate, in that:

1. Defenders of the system fail to answer or even to acknowledge the arguments of its critics, preferring (like the tabloid press referred to above) to focus on a minor element that suits their purposes.
2. Those who disagree woith the system, such as me, are lumped together and insulted. It's those who blindly defend the proposed clerking system – and Kelly Martin's rôle in particular – who are raising the emotional tone of the debate. I wish that they'd calm down, and try to see past their (false) conviction that this is a witch hunt carried out by irrational and vindictive people. I for one have seen no sign of that, even when I've disagreed with some of the arguments offered. Sam Korn, at least, seems in his latest comment to retract his earlier outbursts, and that's a good sign.
3. After the announcement of Kelly Martin's resignation, a few editors kept up their insistent comments on the issue — but in her defence. Only when one of her critics responded were we told that the issue should have been dropped (with the childish response that strengthened my opinion of her, as I'm sure it did that of others; if she doesn't want to see herself discussed, after all, she needn't read this Talk page). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel, if I have overstated I apologise. I had not intended to attack 'critics of the system' (I've never even really defended it - I just don't think it is a big deal). What I found absurd was the personalising 'anti-Kelly' campaign and incivility that some have been involved in. Userboxes were deleted and quickly restored and, instead of measured criticism of a not-unique dispute, we got mass hysteria (nasty RfC, attack-userboxes, and general incivility). Unfortunately, when Arbcom appointed Kelly to this new position, more personalising reactions to her obscured any valid discussion of the clerks' roles or method of appointments. People not previously interested in Arbcom process saw this as more of the Kelly-war and those same people will see her resignation as a 'victory' for, yes, their tabloid style debate. Of course rational discussion and criticism of the process is valid, and indeed may now be possible. --Doc ^ask? 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't so much that I have changed my opinion, it's just that my original statements didn't say what I meant! I apologise to anyone offended by my comments, and point you to a conversation I have had with Xoloz on my talk page for more on my reasoning and comments. I just want you, Mel, to know that I am very keen to get the community's opinion on this matter, and shall be opening a structured discussion on the matter tomorrow. I really do think the majority of people objecting to clerking have extremely valid points, but there are nonetheless a set of people who have not had that aim. I fully echo Doc's statements. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both Doc glasgow and Sam Korn for clarifying their positions; sorry if I over-reacted to their original comments. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few statements up and down this page which had to be quite painful for the person they were directed to. Can we please all remember everyone is a human being with feelings? So let's be a little more temperate and try not to pile stuff on, OK? Jonathunder 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• This resignation has improved my own opinion of Kelly Martin a notch. Thanks, Kelly, for having the dignity to step down. Hopefully this will ease some of the controversy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What skills are needed?

Fair enough, Sam. I think Geogre's point all along has been that, in making these decisions, the committee has opened every single one of its decisions to even more attacks and suspicion from people who might have attacked it anyway, but who would suddenly have a legitimate complaint. And people who aren't normally critical of the committee would also start to feel uneasy. It's extremely difficult to summarize evidence accurately and neutrally for a case you know nothing about.

My suggestion is to forget the summaries, enforce word limits (why aren't they being enforced?), and if you need clerks for the other administrative tasks, invite applications from less controversial people (e.g. people who did well during the election). If you must allow summarizing, have an opt-out system where parties can insist their cases not be summarized by clerks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's very hard to summarize and rule on a case you know nothing about. Which is the job of the clerks. To go in and explain the case for the arbitrators so they don't have to do that. Phil Sandifer 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but why can't the arbitrators do it for themselves? Or if there aren't enough of them for that, why can't more be appointed from the pool of people who got over 50 per cent?

If there must be clerks, they should either be chosen because they were eligible to be appointed as arbitrators, or because they'd be particularly good at the job (and preferably both). So what does being good at it entail, if summarizing cases is included? You'd need to be an excellent writer, be able to use sources well (the diffs), have a thorough understanding of our policies so you can highlight which policies are relevant to a case, and also so you can keep an eye on committee rulings to make sure none contradict policy. Geogre would be a great clerk, for example, because he's a great editor, but it's a job many good editors won't want, because it's going to get tedious very quickly. Have all the current clerks shown particular aptitude in these areas, and if so, who judged that and when? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(decreasing indent) There are three skills a clerk needs - the ability to summarise huge piles of data and edit them into somethat that is coherent but that still preserves the germane points and the "voice" of the person presenting the evidence, the ability to see the big picture and extract the things that matter in the context of the role of the arbcomm, and the ability to remain neutral and not get attached to his/her contributions and summaries.

The first part issue requires a good editor - not in the sense of "Wikipedia editor", but in the sense of a professional copyeditor - someone who writes well and is able to cut the chaff without losing the meaning. The second part requires a good understanding of the role of the arbcomm - not to be punitive, not to deal out punishment, but to come up with solutions to problems. This means that a good clerk should be able to come up with principles and summaries that are relevant to the process. In other words, a clerk should study what Fred does in /Workshop pages (and learn from it). The third requirement is a matter of character. In the process of summarising someone's contributions, the clerk needs to be sensitive to the fact that they are never going to get it right the first time, and they must be willing to take criticism (some of it very personal, since people in arbcomm cases often feel like they are fighting for their Wiki-lives) without being defensive. They need to be able to create summaries to which they are not at all attached. They need to be able to work with the participants without getting offended when their summaries are called "crap". Do we have any Buddhist monks who are professional copyeditors or ghostwriters? Guettarda 21:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To the above, I'd add a fourth skill: the ability to understand the spirit and letter of our policies and to be able to translate them, along with the details of each case, into workable principles that won't contradict some other policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate what I said above, I'd rather those people turn to a sympathetic advocate than an apathetic clerk. But I want to stress that deleting items that are over the limit and enforcing format standards, is worth a try. This as never been attempted before, but it should. El_C 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'll second that. >Radiant< 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I adamantly wouldn't second that - such moves are arbitrary, and risk giving a random selection of facts. They are rules dealing with process, willfully ignoring product. Yes, we ought ask people to scale back to where they are in line with the rules, but we ought not arbitrarily cut them off at their first X diffs, or terminate their evidence at Y words, mid-sentence or not, or whatever. To do so would actively get in th eway of making reasone decisions based on what happens, and turn the arbcom into a complex game of Nomic. Phil Sandifer 23:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not if you tell them in advance. We already reject and delete RFCs that do not follow the RFC structure (which is rather rigid but easily figure-out-able). Give people ten lines of free prose; ten links to policy/guideline pages with a one-line explanation for each on why it is relevant; and thirty diff or history links, once again with a one-line explanation on why it is relevant. Any case that cannot be made in such a structure, is not worth arguing for. Since lengthy rants get rejected anyway (and they are, because they generally fail to have a point), might as well state that in advance. >Radiant< 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above concerning the skills that a "clerk" should have — but even more with whoever said: "but why can't the arbitrators do it for themselves? Or if there aren't enough of them for that, why can't more be appointed from the pool of people who got over 50 per cent?" It strikes me as bit odd for someone to run for and to be elected to the ArbCom and almost immediately to turn round and say: "But I can't do the job, of course, so I need help". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of where a failure to understand policy and the way the committee works can cause problems (not meaning to single Johnleemk out; it's just that this is a recent example I know about, and John has been put forward for clerkship). John came up with a proposed decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu: "When rolling back edits, especially non-vandalism ones, admins should notify the editors whose edits were reverted. (See Wikipedia:Revert.)" When someone objected, because this was taken from a page that isn't policy, John added: "[T]his is academic, as the arbcom ruling only deals with the present case at hand, and not necessarily the whole 'pedia, and does not set precedent." But this is just false. Committee rulings do set precedent for the entire Wikipedia (unless otherwise stated) or else they reinforce past decisions or uphold current policy. John refers to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy to support his view that rulings don't set precedent. But again, he has misunderstood: all that page says is that past decisions are not binding on arbitrators when they make new decisions. The whole discussion is here. Clerks need to be experienced editors who have a really good understanding of policy and who are sufficiently experienced that they can step back and see the big picture, and can advise parties who are having difficulty doing that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

But this is exactly analogous to the role that law clerks play for judges. It is the judges responsibility to ensure that these misapprehensions are eliminated from the final decision. The skills that a clerk needs are to be knowledgeable, efficient and dispassionate enough that they effectively support the arbitrator; if they lack these skills they will make work for arbitrators, but this should not contribute to worse judgements, if the arbitrators know their stuff. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And sometimes it takes a little feedback to get any helper to help in just the right way. The example given by SlimVirgin certainly needs correcting but it's not irreperable harm at this stage in that case... Presumably the whole idea behind the clerks office is that, even if there are errors in the first few things the clerk does, over time the net efficiency of the whole process goes up. So I would repeat my plea, can we give this process time and see how it all transpires before we let loose the baying dogs and drive anyone else screaming from the room? If the clerking process ends up causing more work for the arbComm I'm betting they'll look at it come March 1, when they said they would, and decide it wasn't winnage... till then, can everyone chill? ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are people here who have the required skill set (SV, for example, although she is not interested in the post). If we are going to have clerks, it is because they have the requisite skill set. At best a person without the skills will make more work for the arbs. At worst, they will create additional biases and cause more strife with the participants in an arb case. Someone interested in serving as a clerk should show (by their previous contributions) that they are good editors (in the technical sense of the term, not the Wikipedia sense), that they are careful contributors, and that they are thick skinned. The simple fact is that a poorly suited person can further antagonise the situation, increase the workload for the arbs, andadd subtle biases. The fact that John reacted defensively to criticism suggests a sense of ego about the job. Quite frankly, in my opinion it is a good thing to have an outsider looking in and commenting on the proposed principles and decisions.

I had no idea that John was a clerk - his highly defensive stand and obvious investment in his suggestions left me with the impression that he was connected to one side of the issue. Since I was not invested in the case to any real degree (I had commented on Larvatus's RFC) I saw no point in getting into a fight there (and I that if my comments were useful they would be seen by the and if they weren't they would be ignored). I don't mean this as a personal criticism of John - presumably he can learn from constructive feedback on his actions (though not from me, given his rejection of my comments). But if people are to serve as clerks they should show some promise, they should show the right skill set. I don't think it has anything to do with whether they were accepted or rejected by the community - if someone applies to be a clerk their contributions should show that they are capable. At the same time, if someone shows the skill-set, then they should be actively recruited. Not everyone has followed this discussion - I had not paid any attention until today, mostly because it seemed to be nothing more than a nasty fight about what role people thought Kelly should play. This is not to say that I would make a good clerk - this is to say that there are many competent editors out there who have no idea what this whole thing is really about.

So rather than asserting that people will either "get it" or be fired, we should find people who have shown that they have the skill set before they serve as clerks. In a sense of fairness to the people who are or will be before the arbcomm in the next month, we should ask no less. Guettarda 04:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly agree with that, and I'll further cede that you have more time in reading the case in question. However, I'm going to nevertheless give everyone the benefit of the doubt at this point, and assume that this is at most a minor slipup, that some mentoring by ArbComm members will correct the issue if they feel there is one, rather than some uncorrectable flaw, and hope for the best. Perhaps (and I fear introducting process needlessly) some better screening might help? ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda and Lar, I disagree with pretty much everything that Johnleemk put up in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu. I ignored them and did my own. But, in all fairness, he was not a clerk at that time. The clerks were posted on 01/28 and his comments were made before that date. [1] --FloNight 05:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to write it off as a minor slipup too were it just one instance from John, but it seems to be part of a pattern, see the KDRGibby case. Splash mentioned it to John and the clerks two days ago, Jan 30. [2] [3]. I'd be curious to know what was done to address this issue in the interval between the clerks being made aware of the issue on Jan 30 and it being raised publicly here by Guettarda today. FeloniousMonk 07:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk's statement on adoption of non-policy items as principles was absolutely and completely correct. The Committee can and does adopt principles that are not policy (Wikipedia:Assume good faith is not policy but is commonly adopted in Arbitration cases). Such adoptions are not binding on the Committee so any precedential value they may have is limited. I myself have drafted principles that came straight out of my own head, and seen them go on and be adopted by the Committee, after discussion and editing in workshop, in its final decision. Whether he was or was not a clerk at the time is immaterial; this is precisely what workshop pages are intended for. --Tony Sidaway 07:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that arbitration-committee rulings do not act as precedents unless they're simply reiterating a policy? If that's what you're saying, what do you base your understanding on? Rulings are, of course, not binding on the committee, in the sense that it may update its decisions, but that's not the point. Rulings are binding on the community until the committee says otherwise. It was this latter point that John said was false. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I was being too polite. I was surprised that he was elevated to clerk. He wasn't helpful in the workshop of our case. Enough said! I'm not going to pick him apart here and now. --FloNight 08:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Too rude. --FloNight 08:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying, SlimVirgin, is that it is perfectly in order for a party to a case, an arbitrator, or anyone else to propose a principle in a workshop, and that I personally have composed, as a joined participant to a case, at least two principles that have been unanimously adopted by the members of the Committee presiding over the case, in their final ruling.

Further, I'm saying that because such proposals are non-binding on the Committee (by the specific clause of the Arbitration Policy which says this, and which John cited) their precedential value is limited.

The principles are usually statements about policy in the wider sense, and may reference written policy and other documents. Principles adopted in a case serve to illuminate and guide the deliberations of the Committee during that case. While the principles are not binding on the Committee or the community, they are interpretations, by experienced Wikipedians, of the sense of policy, and have a great deal of persuasive value. --Tony Sidaway 08:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you're repeating what John said: that rulings/principles are not binding on the community after the case. But of course they are. They're not binding on the committee, because the committee can change or update them, but as Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions notes, consistency between rulings is desirable. I suppose the community could also overrule arbcom decisions via policy or a poll, though I don't think that's been done. But until the rulings/principles are explicitly changed, they are binding on the community. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration rulings are binding on the community in the sense that the community is expected to implement the remedies and enforcement clauses. This doesn't--absolutely does not--mean that any Wikipedian is forbidden to propose principles, findings of fact, remedies or enforcement clauses in a workshop. Which I believe is what John did. I can do it (and have done), you can do it, John can do it, anyone can. And sometimes the principle is adopted by the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 09:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is disputing that, Tony. What John said is that rulings are not binding on the community, but are only made for guidance within the case or something. He said: " ... the arbcom ruling only deals with the present case at hand, and not necessarily the whole 'pedia, and does not set precedent." This is clearly false. Anyway, it's not fair to say more about John in particular. The general point is that clerks need to be very familiar with policy and past principles, so they can predict contradictions, advise the committee, and see the big picture, if they're going to be involved in formulating summaries or advising in any other capacity. If they're only doing administrative work (opening, closing cases and so on), those skills are less important. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I happen to agree with John. I'm as familiar with policy as anyone. Moreover I'd say that the idea that clerks ought to enforce consistency with past rulings goes against the spirit of the arbitration policy: the it should not be bound by precedent and it should learn from experience. John seems to understand the policies that he cites; the only problem here, and it's a minor one for our purposes, is that experienced, knowledgeable Wikipedians can differ on this point of interpretation. --Tony Sidaway 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You happen to agree with John on what point exactly, Tony? No one is saying editors can't propose principles. I've done it myself. No one is saying that past principles are binding on the committee. The policy says they're not, and common sense tells us they're not, otherwise how could anything ever change? No one is saying that clerks ought to enforce consistency, though it would be good if they were knowledgeable enough to warn of a clash. What John said, and what I am saying is false, is that principles are not binding on the community after the case is closed. If you agree with that part of what John said, please say so explicitly. If you agree with something else that he said, we're talking at cross purposes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I "happen to agree with John" that rulings are not binding on the community. It goes even further than that. The Committee could make an enforcement clause but there is no requirement that the enforcement be implemented. This limits the Committee to making rulings that the community is prepared to enforce. Enforcement is completely at the discretion of the community. It's fair to say that the rulings have a lot of persuasive power and should not be ignored or contradicted without a very good reason, but I don't think I can accept that Committee rulings are binding in any meaningful sense--although I'm open to persuasion on this. My point is not that you're wrong and John is right, but that experienced Wikipedians can have legitimate disagreements on this. --Tony Sidaway 10:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this was what was at the heart of the Stevertigo administrator confirmation case. You may recall that I started a motion on the RFA, an eventually successful one, to return the case to the Committee with instructions that they should make the decision to flip his bit. My argument on that occasion was the arbcom was seen to encourage the worst kind of pile-on. The contrary argument is apparently that the arbitration committee was itself not willing to approach a steward and ask him to flip the bit without community input (which I suppose it got, in the rather unwelcome form of my motion) because this would take it too close to a committee that both makes and enforces rulings. --Tony Sidaway 10:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Convenience break

Arbcom rules are, in fact, enforced (more or less). So whether they must be is a little moot. --Doc ^ask? 10:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

See above. I'd propose the Stevertigo case as one where the community volubly declined to participate in what was widely viewed as a charade of a reconfirmation. As a result, the Committee took the case back and resumed its deliberations. --Tony Sidaway 10:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, but that was perhaps exceptional. --Doc ^ask? 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But definitive. "The community has made it pretty clear that they wish us to deal with the matter. Therefore this case will be reopened."

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo

--Tony Sidaway 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No admin is obliged to enforce policy or principle so in that sense there's no requirement that enforcement be implemented. But principles are mandatory in the sense that, as with policy, a person could be taken to the arbitration committee for being in violation. Principles are not, as John said, applicable only to the case in hand.

Regarding rulings contradicting each other or contradicting policy, I'm not aware of any case where a principle has been passed in deliberate contradiction of a policy, though in the BCE case, there was a brief discussion on the mailing list about whether the committee was in danger of making a ruling that would make part of the MoS policy, rather than, as now, just a guideline — and most people are opposed to the MoS becoming policy, so there was a brief flurry of concern that the committee was possibly about to pass part of it as a principle, concern caused precisely because it would then have been regarded as binding on the community.

I'd say there's no question that committee decisions are seen as binding, and indeed, the committee is building up an impressive set of precedents at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions. What would be great would be to have a couple of clerks (or whatever you wanted to call them) who were able to become very familiar with these, and advise the committee on implications, because as policy gets more complicated and principles more numerous, inadvertent contradictions and unforeseen consequences are inevitable. Those who don't like rules and process may scoff at this, of course, but nonetheless, I find it impressive that the committee has been so effective in expressing the spirit of the policies; and my earlier point is that it's a minefield for clerks not thoroughly familiar with policies and past cases. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

BCE? You mean Requests for arbitration/jguk 2? I'd be pretty surprised if the Committee made a ruling on precisely what style dates were presented in. Looking at the proposed decision, I see that Jayjg] and JamesF made various versions of a proposd principle that looks like a finding on style. These were not accepted, but not because they'd be binding but "we should not subvert the consensus development of style guidelines by approving a particular formulation of a style guideline." This is not so much that such principles would be binding as that, coming from a body such as the arbitration committee, they would tend to have persuasive effect which would subvert the development of style guidelines by the community. There was no question at any time of the manual of style becoming policy by fiat of the Committee. That is not how policy is made.

I'm already very familiar with the so-called "precedents"--one of my qualifications for the position of clerk is a knowledge of policy and practise. These are not really precedents, but useful background information that arbitrators, clerks, participants and others may use in learning about the decision-making process at arbiration level. In my opinion it is not for the clerks to tell the arbitrators that their proposed decisions are inconsistent with earlier ones. Consistency is neither required nor particularly desirable in this context, and it certainly should not be imposed by a clerical body. Clerks should never become policemen of the arbitration process; their function exists solely to take administrative burden from the shoulders of the committee. --Tony Sidaway 14:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it doesn't hurt for clerks–or anyone else–to politely and reasonably pose a question along the lines of, "The ArbCom stated foo as a principle in the arbitration regarding User:Bar. This case seems to be parallel for reasons X, Y, and Z; is there a reason why foo shouldn't be adopted here, too?"

Reasonable responses might include

• "That's a good idea. We forgot about foo."
• "We tried foo, and it caused a lot of trouble in retrospect; we're not going to do it again without a good reason."
• "While foo was reasonable at the time, we'd like to try a different approach."
• "This new case is similar, but unique from the old case for reasons A, B, and C; foo probably isn't appropriate."

I'd note that I think it appropriate for the ArbCom to ignore the question if it's posed in a manner that violates WP:DICK.

While the ArbCom shouldn't be bound by precedent, it's certainly worthwhile for them to be guided by it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sort of, but what you will actually see happen is a clerk (or for that matter, an arbitrator, participant or any other person able to edit a wiki) will put up a proposed principle, remedy or enforcement from an earlier case on the workshop and add "as V Andal, Pusher and Trolle, 2004" as a comment with perhaps a link to that case. This already happens, it's not like the arbitrators were being nudged or anything. Maybe sometimes, when we get a handle on the job and know what the arbitrators expect, a clerk will also haul out a list of relevant proposals and plonk them onto the proposed decision as well as the workshop. But this will simply be a way of saving the arbitrators doing it. It should never be done in the manner of advocating consistency with past decisions per se, but rather how to anticipating how the present committee is likely to want to deal with the case. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

On the question of someone being hauled before the Committee for breaching a principle adopted in another case, this doesn't happen. The Committee steps in when it is convinced that it needs to do so. No case is accepted solely because someone failed to observe "Assume good faith". Principles are not to be ignored, but they are not binding in that sense. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are we arguing about this on the clerk's office talk page? --causa sui ^talk 15:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it pertains to some disagreement over the duties of clerks. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, apologies for not responding sooner -- in case you missed the red and black announcement at the top of my userpage, I've been without internet for almost a week (except for an hour on Monday). While Sarah (SlimVirgin) has assessed the situation WRT the WebEx case correctly, when I said that arbcom rulings do not set precedent, I was referring to the fact that the arbcom is not bound by its past decisions. While principles the committee accepts are typically good advice to the community, from my experience, they are not binding on the community. I've never heard of anyone waving an arbcom case and yelling "Hey, you need to assume good faith!" Instead they cite the relevant guideline/policy/whatever. I see nothing in Guettarda's comment(s) to disagree with, and would like to point out that I didn't take offense at his comments in the WebEx workshop -- I was just defending the way I read policy. And I think the "Should clerks recuse themselves from cases they presented evidence in?" question has been resolved at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration. Johnleemk | Talk 13:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist

There's been next to no evidence presented in this case in almost two weeks. I'd like it if the clerks could make this a priority, so it doesn't languish. Also, any prodding of the parties involved would be helpful, too. (And, by the way, is there way for me to contact all of you at once than here?) Dmcdevit·t 18:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm busy, but I'll {{prod}} the users (oh, you mean the other prod?). And although I watch all the clerk-related pages (I think), generally we should see anything posted on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration, as that's where other arbitrators like Raul have posted requests. Johnleemk | Talk 04:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating the clerk concept?

Sorry if I missed any relevant discussion, but I could not find any mention of a community discussion evaluating the (somewhat new) concept of clerks, which was supposed to take place in March. I think such a discussion would be indeed good to have. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

IIRC the page referred to the arbcom reviewing the concept of clerks, not the community. But it's not that we can't; feel free to bring up any problems or suggestions you have. :) Johnleemk | Talk 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean this statement and this, both by Raul654? I agree with John above that the re-evaluation he was referring to was to be one carried out by the arbitrators--the group that decided to institute the Clerks Office. He'll correct me if I'm wrong.

I think we could almost certainly use more clerks. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the clerks have been efficient, helpful, and useful—though I comment in my usual role as arbitration gadfly without any particular authority or specialized knowledge. While I think any comments from Arbitrators and Clerks about their estimation of the success of this experiment would be welcome, I also think that remarks from other editors would also be appropriate.

Is there anything that isn't working? Anything that's working better? Working well? Could be fixed? Needs to be fixed? Shouldn't be messed with because it ain't broken? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We need less busy clerks (Tznkai, Phil and Ryan have been helpful, but aren't around a lot) who won't constantly involve themselves as a party in cases (Tony...). Aside from that, I don't think much else needs improvement. Maybe we need a former arb to chair the clerks again, since being totally cut out of the arbcom loop can hamper us occasionally, but it's not a big deal at all. Johnleemk | Talk 21:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of my own experience, my case was opened ineptly and incompletely by a non-clerk who simply created a workshop page, no evidence page, no main page and no proposed decision page. I didn't feel comfortable about completing the opening myself so it took several days to get it opened properly so that the case could proceed. I feel that this was a failure of the clerk system and would prefer that a more pro-active approach were taken to the kind of car crash that can develop when parties start workshopping without any evidence. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent discussion on the arbcom mailing list indicates that the other memebers are generally satisfied with the performance of the clerks office, except that it's primary failing is that it doesn't have enough members. This should be remedied easily enough. Raul654 23:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I see now that the evaluation of clerk's office was meant to be done only by the arbcom, and it is good to know that the arbcom is satisfied with it. I agree that the clerk's office is overall doing a good job. It is because some past criticism from Radiant! and -Ril- (I know Ril's history and current status :), that I thought that a community discussion on this may at some point be helpful. But this is more of a remark than a suggestion. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh? You mean you brainwashed found more people insane community-minded enough to want to do a thankless, but important, task like this? Well, that's scary good news! ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my lax performance as a clerk. This semester has been homicidally mean to me. Phil Sandifer 23:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Scope creep

Subject of discussion:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clerk_notes

Full text of section:

Clerk notes
This appears to be a case of a community-imposed indefinite block resulting from extensive discussion [21] [22]. If the block is to be reversed, this can be done by further discussion; there seems to be no suggestion that Wikipedia policy is being breached, and the paths of dispute resolution appear to be open and operating to the full. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Massively cross-posted:

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Something_a_clerk_writes_.21.3D_Clerk_writings
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_review_of_.22clerk.22_actions
• User:Aaron_Brenneman#Edit_to_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

While there's been enough back-and-forth over the reversion, re-reversion, and blocking, this is probably the appropiate place to discuss the actual issue of what a clerk's role is. For anything else, please use anothe venue. We apparently need to re-iterate that clerks have no "powers" at all, that they merely serve administrative functions and get to wear a shiny badge as they do so. They aren't intended to make recomendations, do fact finding, or anything of that nature at all. If this is to change, than some much wider discussion needs to take place. brenneman^{L} 01:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That looks like little more than a summary to me. Phil Sandifer 01:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Summary or not, I appreciated it. I had missed the discussion on the other pages. Sue Anne 01:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To quote from the Clerk's page, Clerks are not empowered to vote on decisions, nor do they have exclusive right to summarizing evidence, suggesting decisions, analysis or other methods of assisting the Arbitration process. I think the quoted text above straddles the line between summary and analysis to assist the Arbitration process, but I can see nothing in the Clerk's charter which prohibits this. InkSplotch^(talk) 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can submit analysis or suggestions to the Arbcom in any case. Clerks are not an exception. Saying that clerks do not have exclusive rights to submit analysis is intended to specify that the creation of the clerk's office does not mean that we now have a monopoly on analysis of RFARs. --causa sui ^talk 07:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Surely this is intended not to imply that clerks can submit analysis and recomendations in their official capacity as clerks, but to indicate that they in fact have no additional authority? That anyone can say "please reject/ please accept" if they want to? Can we look at this another way: What in this section needed to have the wax seal of a clerk affixed to it?
• Imagine the horror if in some random AfD I created an "admins opinions" section, based upon the logical extension of this argument: Admins aren't forbidden from stating opinons. Of course we are discouraged from implying that their opinion has any extra weight, which is what this section appears to do.
  brenneman^{L} 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite Aaron's efforts to construct a straw man large enough that we can have our own personal Wikipedia Burning Man, I continue to fail to see the impending apocalypse here. Phil Sandifer 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm trying to say, nothing on this page prohibits a clerk from submitting analysis or recommendations. And I agree, it even indicates their analysis carries no additional authority...so I don't see why this has become an issue. Look at it this way, if Tony involved himself with that RFAr request because he felt it his duty as a clerk why should he not affix his seal?
• For someone bold enough to reformat their RfA, I don't understand where this is coming from. Go ahead, start an "Admins Opinions" section in an AfD (and I would never be silly enough to suggest there wouldn't be a commotion, but) it's just formatting. There's nothing improper about it. It's when the admin working AfD starts saying, "per the Admins' Opinions (because I don't like the other bits), I'm doing X" that it becomes a problem. I've seen you working AfD, and it's some of what's most impressed me about you since you became an Admin. It's hard, and I can tell you're doing you're best to do what right by the job (when that's your duty). If you can extend that same faith to the ArbCom, I think you'll see why your fears are misplaced. Tony's just doing what he was appointed to do as a clerk..I've not seen him suggest once, here or elsewhere, that it makes his opinions worth anything more than another's. --InkSplotch^(talk) 13:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is to my mind a case of an editor taking an over-literal reading of the wording of the Clerk's page. My actual personal opinion on the case, which I did not give in the summary above, had been given on WP:AN/I in response to a plan to unblock rgulerdem, who had agreed to a stringent but informal mentorship.

My analysis introduced some facts that, while not raised by the parties, may be relevant to the case. I also emphasized other facts of possible relevance. This was an unusual arbitration request because it appeared to be an appeal against a community-imposed remedy. I know that historically and philosophically the Arbitration Committee has been wary of pre-empting the community's decision-making mechanisms, although I myself sometimes adopt a more liberal view and, had I been an arbitrator, I might well have been inclined to support a more interventionist iterpretation of the Committee's role. I thus, to some extent, briefed against my personal opinion. Yes, Clerks do that. We take our job seriously.

Events since that request have tended to bear out my analysis of this particular case: community discussion was renewed and a mentorship was discussed. If this discussion should fail, it would be relevant to a renewed request for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 08:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning that your analysis of the situation as it was then was accurate. I'm not even questioning the use of pink boxes with "clerk notes" on them. I think your comments were useful and helped cut through a thicket, and I think the idea's useful in general, it would cut through a lot of ghafla. (I have a small question, does "clerk notes" imply consensus among all clerks, or the thinking of the clerk assigned to the case, or just the thinking of one random clerk that popped by? That is not clear as it is formatted now. But the ArbComm already said they'd be talking about this and clarifying, which is good enough, even for a process wonk like me...)

What I'm questioning is you and Phil giving the appearance of jumping on Aaron in a fit of pique instead of discussing whether this apparently new process introduction makes sense. Aaron knows better than to futz around that way, I have no idea what he was thinking, but you guys way overreacted and you both know better too. There are so many ways you could have handled this better. You could have talked. You could have asked for help on AN/I from some other admin to avoid the appearance you were jumping on him. And even now you could handle it better, because you could admit that maybe that perception that you guys were jumping on him exists among some of us, and that you could have acted differently then, (and still can now) instead of just sticking to "Tony is right". Tony, you're one of our most effective clerks and I think clerking is a good thing, but geez. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The original clerk note does not appear in a pink box. I do not use color for highlighting, and I strongly deprecate such use. Clerk's notes have no special status, it is rather their purpose and nature that marks them out.

This is what the original note looks like:

This appears to be a case of a community-imposed indefinite block resulting from extensive discussion [4] [5]. If the block is to be reversed, this can be done by further discussion; there seems to be no suggestion that Wikipedia policy is being breached, and the paths of dispute resolution appear to be open and operating to the full. (signature)

Since two clerks independently and simultaneously blocked Aaron Brenneman, the suggestion that anybody just capriciously jumped on him is untenable. I can't do anything about your perceptions, but I can point out that they're unjustified. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I think you're missing the point. If it had been a different two clerks, your comments might make more sense. Your own history, and your talk page comment about not wanting to "take any crap" from Aaron sure make this look like a temper block. I think your faith in your own infallability is clouding your perception here. Friday (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Friday is not alone in his concerns. Any blocks instituted by members of this so-called "Clerks Committee" against editors who have voiced their critisism against either individual members of said "committee", or who may have expressed critisism against the concept of the institution of said committee, could be seen as capricious. Better to find an uninvolved and neutral party to review your wish to block any such editors, so as to negate the possibilty of the appearance of caprice or fiat on the part of the "committee's" appointed membership. Hamster Sandwich 16:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Friday: Nod. That's it exactly. It's perhaps a general case good principle as Hamster Sandwich suggests, (although Hammy may be stating it too strongly for a Clerk supporter such as myself), but one that I think particularly and especially applies to Aaron vs. Phil/Tony. Now and forever more, apparently. This was a tough lesson for me to learn in a previous life... there just are people I was not able to effectively censure and I would have served the project better by asking someone else to do it, serving two purposes, validating that it wasn't just my animus baying for blood, and preserving impartiality of the office. ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors you know better than this. This sudden construction of an ad hoc rule that clerks are in some manner involved with anyone who has expressed reservations about clerking is simply not acceptable. Criticising clerks or the institution of clerking doesn't give you an "out". It doesn't make clerks "involved" with you.

My observation that two clerks simultaneously and independently blocked doesn't demonstrate, nor was it ever intended to demonstrate, the infallibility of clerks; that is a complete straw man. It does, however, demonstrate that the thinking amongst at least some clerks on this issue tends to coincide. It is always a bad idea to engage in edit warring on WP:RFAR.

Friday raises another issue. He seems to be exercised by the fact that these two clerks chose to block. There's a converse to that: Aaron chose to edit war. Editors who have a history of vandalism, sock puppetry and allegations of serious malfeasance against arbitrators probably shouldn't try their luck in edit warring. Anywhere. --Tony Sidaway 08:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about "no one opposed to clerking should ever talked to by any clerk". This is about YOU (and Phil) and AARON. NOT an ever expanding circle, just you three. Yes, Aaron should have known better (whether it was edit warring or not is a matter not completely clear to me, it turns on interpretations of events) than to even futz around at all. But you should have too, and you were the big escalator, and you're not internalising that. Repeated for emphasis: there just are people I was not able to effectively censure and I would have served the project better by asking someone else to do it.

This rule seems to apply across just about every project I've ever seen enough of to have some visibility to norms, and I've seen a lot. I admit it. This is not ideal. In an ideal world there is no past history, no bad feelings, no preconceived notion of who is and isn't (anything). We, however, don't live in an ideal world. You may be right that there shouldn't be such a defacto restriction, but there is. Either you abide by it in advance, or you get messes. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. What we have here, is a mess. The question now is does this continue to escalate, or do we find an end to it? One end to it is that we all decide to agree you're always right and subsequently it drives Aaron off the project (because if you continue to censure him in future that's the outcome, I guar-on-tee it). Another end to it is that you admit there may be some validity to what others are saying and modify how you approach things a bit, as you have been asked/forced to do in the past. Maybe there are others? ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner and I happen to be clerks and Aaron deliberately acted disruptively on WP:RFAR. You can't write that off as a personal spat. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disruptively in your opinion. Not every one shares that opinion. From where I sit, the block was far more disruptive than Aaron's edits to the page. He made a good faith effort to work things out on the talk page. Surely you've heard of WP:AGF? Friday (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

He edit warred. That is not assuming good faith. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

He edit warred all by himself? That's talent! Friday (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

More creeping

What's up with Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser and "Clerk assistance required?" Where was this discussed?
brenneman ^{L} 10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are checkuser clerks being referred to, not ArbCom. They are supposed to reduce the burden on those performing checkuser (who are overloaded) by organising and streamlining requests. I recall it being discussed before the volunteers started, but I can't recall where at the moment. Not sure it has anything to do with ArbCom clerking at all. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 11:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lar is correct. Arbcom clerks have nothing to do with this; until recently, I wasn't even aware we had checkuser clerks. Johnleemk | Talk 11:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of clerk authority to all editors

The main page here used to have the caveat

February 2006 will serve as an evaluation period to see how the Clerk's Office is doing. Starting on or around March 1, 2006, the performance (and existence) of the Clerk's office will be re-evaluated and if necessary, changes made.

Is there any reason that we can't dissolve the position of the clerk now that the project-page structure is in place? Allow anyone to open or close a case, with the caveat that rollback will be used for any mal-formed examples. There are plenty of eyes around to revert if there was any funny business. - brenneman ^{L} 04:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fez

FloNight doesn't want to wear a fez. Personally, I think it should be required but I can't say I feel all that strongly about it.

Petty officials in all ages have worn one sort of fez or another to announce their office and shield them from at least a portion of the slop that is otherwise tipped upon their heads as they go about their officious business. Time and usage have proven the value of such ceremonial gear. I suggest that clerks will be wise to give it a try. If it does not do you any good, I promise to refund your entire purchase price or replace the defective item with alternate headgear of your choice. John Reid 09:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

John, I think this "fez" business, which was originally maybe a little cute, has become completely unhelpful. Can we drop it soon? Newyorkbrad 11:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Helpers

I have been bold and rewritten the clerks' page to reflect the existence of "helpers" and the lack of a formal appointment process. Obviously we currently have helpers, from regulars like Daniel Bryant and Newyorkbrad, to wikignomes who pop up to fix typos here and there. The issue is how to deal with helpers, and anyone new who wants to become a clerk, while respecting the arbitration committee's oversight role but at the same time avoiding unnecessary hierarchies, bureaucracy and instruction creep. There are two competing mandates:

• The arbitration committee established the clerks, they are arbcom's official representatives, have arbcom's confidence, and are trusted to give authoritative answers to questions and complaints (paraphrasing an e-mail from Dmcdevit to me).

• On the other hand, closing all clerk tasks to all but official clerks would violate the wiki principle, plus deprive us of a pool of experienced volunteers from whom to recruit new clerks when there are vacancies.

Without much in the way of specific guidance, I tried to list all the things that only an official clerk should do, taking the point of view of a complaintant or party. What would make me say, "Who the hell do you think you are?" The list is longer than I thought it would be, but it still leaves a lot of things that informal helpers can jump in and do. Comments and suggestions appreciated as always. (I'm unsure about having helpers open cases. We expect that clerks will sign their initials to cases they open and be available during the case to answer questions from the participants. Helpers can perform the technical task of setting up the pages, but would have to coordinate with a regular clerk who would agree to be listed as the clerk of the case. Might need to rethink that part.)

Currently, in addition to the formally appointed clerks, Cowman109 and Eagle 101 are getting additional experience in opening and closing cases (tenure-track helpers?), with an eye toward submitting their names to Arbcom if, having gotten their feet wet, they are willing to stick with it for a while. We don't have any plans to seek more formal trainees at this time, but anyone may offer informal helps, gnomic cleanups and so forth. Thatcher131 03:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems good overall. The bit about who is going to have their initials on the case in the template likely will play itself out over time, I think.

As soon as Cowman109 and Eagle 101 are comfortable opening and closing cases as well as answering questions, I think we could take on another official trainee if anyone is interested. Trust me when I say that we do not want to get caught in the situation again with only one official clerk that is active working as a clerk and no active helpers. It was too much for one person and cases were slow to get opened at times for various reasons such as conflict of interest. Keeping a steady flow of people in the pipeline is the best remedy, I think. FloNight 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Contributors here may wish to see/comment on Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Clerks_of_all_types_need_to_be_deprecated --Durin 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Initials

It occurred to me that as more people become clerks or helpers and take cases, they all need initials for Template:ArbComOpenTasks - and so as to make identification easy, it's probably best to avoid duplication. Here are the two or three letter combinations that have been used by clerks and helpers over the last two years (we're on the two year anniversary of the creation of the position in a couple weeks): AGK CB Cm DB DM Dr Ea FN JL MGM NYB Pi PS RD RL Sr TS TT TZ. So, future additions, please choose something different and add it below here. Picaroon (t) 03:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You missed PW. Also, I believe DB had already become Da by the last time he helped out, so add that to the list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I still like "DB" (I sign many of emails and occasionally comments to people who know me with that), not that I have any time or intention to be taking cases at the moment :) Daniel 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarify text and Question

Greetings. Under "Becoming a clerk," it says: "or who have listed themselves on the noticeboard." Which noticeboard's list? Perhaps you could put in the link?

Also, is this an appropriate place to ask the following question? (If not, where?)

• Q: At recent Israel-Palestine case, Arbcom decided to set up a working group and stated: "The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case." Has the group been appointed? Where would the appointment be announced? Thanks. HG | Talk 04:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The group has indeed been appointed; Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars has full details on the working group. If you are interested in applying, you may wish to see this thread on Wikipedia talk:Working group. Incidentally, I contribute to the group as an observer; if you have any queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. Regards, Anthøny 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded bureaucracy

I think official clerks should be abolished. Anyone should be able to help out on these pages. Having "clerks" and "clerk helpers" is needlessly bureaucratic imo, and the official clerks system should be abolished, and changed to system like clerking for RFCU and CHU. Al Tally (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been hashed over and over. I can see how a non arb/clerk person might feel this way, but from my perspective, there is ample reason for this, including but not limited to, the crucial nature of the cases (last resort etc). — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not understanding, could you clarify please? Al Tally (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see the need for a clerk as a position of some authority - to be able to block people for disrupting the case pages, etc... but what does a "clerk helper" do that couldn't be done by just anyone? --Random832 (contribs) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a clerk in training - users need experience first before they can be let loose on their own, and the time as a clerk helper is where you gain the experience to become a clerk. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Majorly makes some interesting points here. I'm going to try and offer some thoughts from the position of a third-party editor, rather than as an arbitration clerk; I am, however, a supporter of the clerking system (fundamentally–in other words, I think cases should have a clerk to handle it, whether that clerk by appointed by the arbcom or not), and any readers of this comment should bear that in mind.

The core question to be considered is "are clerks necessary?". I think the obvious answer is yes; clerks of the committee fill an essential role in the arbitration process, freeing up arbitrators of a very cumbersome task (opening and closing cases; maintaining requests for arbitration; maintaining open cases; et cetera) and allowing them to focus on tasks that are more central to their appointed role. In other words, it frees the committee from the administration and paperwork of the system.

What I think Majorly's concern (and the concern of a number of other Wikipedians, I am sure) revolves around, is the fact that clerks are appointed by the committee. Majorly makes parallels between the clerking process on changing username, and on the arbitration process. That's not a fair comparison to make here: arbitration clerking is a much more complicated, time-consuming process, where much more can go wrong, much more effort and thought is required, and much more experience is necessary before one can be "let loose" on a case (on a related note, that is the idea behind the 'helper clerks'). I have heavy experience in both arbitration and CHU clerking, and there is a huge difference between the two. The system that perfectly fits the latter is just not suitable for the former; and, I am sure, vice versa.

To address your points as to the system being bureaucratic, I don't find that fair either. Again, perhaps I may be biased (in that I'm trying to bargain my way off of the chopping block, so to speak), but I view the system of vetting editors interested in clerking arbitration cases, not as bureaucracy, but as a necessary check on competence and trustworthiness. The arbitration process is heated as it is; allowing an editor to clerk but one case, and mucking it up, could interfere rather drastically with the smooth operation of the committee's arbitration of that dispute. To be frank, some editors would bring more harm than good to a case if they were permitted to clerk it; the appointment process ensures that that is not allowed to happen. The "trainee" process simply allows new clerks to 'settle in', so to speak: I know for myself, that my time as a trainee allowed me to refine my existing knowledge of how arbitration works (from a clerking point of view, as well as an observing Wikipedian), and that it also allowed me to brush up on some weak areas of how it worked.

Replacing the current clerk system, with one modelled on changing username is a recipe for disaster. I would certainly oppose any moves to do so–as would, I imagine, the arbitration committee, and anybody fairly analysing the facts of the matter.

Anthøny 21:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this summary, but I reserve the right to run around screaming should there ever be a position of "assistant clerk helper". Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget it then. Al Tally (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Where can one get the experience necessary to become a clerk helper? Is there a training position? Neıl 龱 08:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness that was said with a smile :) Daniel (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Synchronising this and the guide page

Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration guide#Synchronising this and the clerks page. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking arbitration clerks about their actions

Should there also be some guidance on where the right place is to ask arbitration clerks about their actions? I raised a few points with a clerk yesterday, and I was told: "I'd appreciate it if you stopped commenting here attempting to criticise everything I do against either a written page of procedures or some unwritten guide." and "There's a difference between criticism and three otherwise-unrelated posts in the space of less than 12 hours." (followed by archiving of the talk page a minute later). This left me rather nonplussed. I don't want to get into the specifics again, but would like to focus on the general case on how this could be better handled in future. When it is OK to talk to an arbitration clerk on their talk page about their actions as an arbitration clerk, as opposed to raising the issue at the case page or at the clerk noticeboard? How open and approachable should arbitration clerks be? I had no intention of criticising any specific arbitration clerk, and would have raised the issue in the case of all three actions regardless of which clerk had carried out the action, but I do appreciate that raising three issues in fairly quick succession on the clerk's talk page might have seemed a bit overwhelming. Is the clerks noticeboard, as a neutral venue, more suitable for that? Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerks need to be available to answer questions from involved parties and other users. This would include answering questions on their talk pages, yes. Generally our Clerks are very helpful. Perhaps the clerk was having a bad day. That happens to the best of us, right? FloNight♥♥♥ 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Three questions on unrelated matters from someone, asked in what I percieved to be a hostile and misrepresentative manner, is not something which I consider acceptable on my talk page. Due to the fact that, as an established editor, I have leeway over the use of my talk page, I decided that after my initial reply to all three that no further correspodance was necessary. Daniel (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(Responding to your first post first): I disagree with that, fairly obviously, and I could go into a great deal of detail, but that would probably be unhelpful. The other side of the coin is should I have to bite my tongue and let you misrepresent what happened? You replied to my first question with a smiley, and then two minutes later clarified your clerk action. That doesn't tally with your "Three questions [...] asked in what I percieved to be a hostile and misrepresentative manner" comment above. Do you usually add smileys when responding to comments you perceive as hostile? The second comment I made (about the OrangeMarlin request removal) was added to by an arbitrator, and as I said, I have no qualms whatsoever about having raised that matter. I fully accept that you felt my third comment to be misrepresentative, and I have already clarified that and apologised for that. I was hoping that would be the end of it, but you didn't seem to want to accept my apology (which I had repeated on your talk page). Part of my reply at that point said "I'll be happy to continue on my talk page if you have any further concerns", and that offer still stands. I have (again) gone into too much detail here, but what I want to see sorted here is the general point about whether it is OK to ask arbitration clerks questions on their talk pages, which Flo has done. Daniel, I want to be able to come to your talk page in the future and ask you questions without you feeling I am criticising you (the first two points), and to be pointed somewhere else if I have direct criticism (the third point), and not just brushed off. I don't want to have to tip-toe around you, worried that you might get upset. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The hostileness was a perception built up over time, and not solely through the tone of the comments themselves, although that played a part in the later comments.
• The fact that I raised your misrepresentations does not mean I did not acknowledge your apology. The fact that misrepresentation occured is pivotal to the facts of what happened; an apology does not mean that the facts are ignored, but rather that they are to be considered resolved. However, the mere fact that you fixed it does not change the fact that, historically, it happened, and therefore when discussing the events of yesterday, it is historically relevant to note that your comments were misrepresentative. If you didn't decide to dredge this up for review, I wouldn't have raised the fact that you misrepresented me, and the apology and resolution would have been in effect.
• I have no intention of readdressing the issue by initiating discussion, on my talk or yours. So your offer is respectfully declined.
• Feel free to criticize. Please, just don't do it in a way which suggests I, at the time, believe suggested you've been going back through my edits to RfAr over the past couple of months and then piling them onto my talk at a rate of a new section every three hours, which is exactly what seemed to be happening yesterday. The fact that I was most likely wrong in my assessment of how you were coming across these diffs doesn't change the fact that the way they were presented - both with such frequency, disconnection from each other, and with the unfortunate misrepresentations - made it understandable that I was going to react in a slightly hostile manner to what I considered (at the time, probably less so now) unfair badgering. Daniel (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See reply below. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify: I answered all three questions. The comments quoted above were mere addendums. Daniel (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(And now coming down here to respond to this point): Yes, you are quite right. I should have made that clearer, and I apologise for that. The full context of the quotes, for anyone reading this, can be seen at the following three threads: 1, 2, 3. I hope people reading those threads will be able to see that they are not what you are making them out to be. From what I can see, the first two threads are fine. It was only when we got to the third thread that you began to lose patience. I did not expect you to react the way you did, which is why I'm reacting the way I am, if you see what I mean. I'm still baffled by the "three otherwise-unrelated posts in the space of less than 12 hours" comment. I've explained how I came across these actions while watching the RfArb page and while researching a previous case, and I thought asking you about them was the logical first step. Should I have stopped and thought "hang on, he might get upset, I should wait a week or so before going to his talk page again"? If I had waited until the end of the day, and put the questions all in one post, would that have helped? Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See bullet point four above. Daniel (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> I still take issue with large parts of what you are saying here. In particular: "in a way which suggests you've been going back through my edits to RfAr over the past couple of months" is ridiculous. I remembered one specific comment that appeared to be missing, and then went looking for the edit that removed it. I had no idea who had removed it, only that it had been removed. And note that the comment was made on 21 April 2008, and you removed it over a month later on 26 May 2008. My point about iterating though the page histories was literal. The comment was made on one page, removed on another, and then the thread was archived to the case page. It took an age to find out when the removal had taken place. Anyway, I need to go now, but hopefully others will have said something here when I get back. I'll see if I can make things clearer then, if I need to. Carcharoth (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I think you missed later on in that comment: "The fact that I was most likely wrong in my assessment of how you were coming across these diffs...". My comment "in a way which suggests you've been going back through my edits to RfAr over the past couple of months" was honestly admitting that I probably assumed bad faith of your intentions due to my frustrations (achieved due to what I thought, at the time, was badgering - I also qualify my opinion as to what I think in the light of a new day with regard to this in the above comment), rather than repeating it as a fact I maintain to believe. Daniel (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see the problem - I used the wrong tense. It should have said "which I, at the time, believe suggested", rather than simply "suggests". Fixed for clarity. My apologies for that comment, which I understand would be not appropriate without the relevant qualifier which I have just added (an error in conveying thought rather than a deliberate omission, as I hope you understand). Daniel (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for clarifying that and thanks for the apology. I'll try and be clearer next time I drop by your user talk page whether I am just asking a question, or whether it is more a direct criticism. Hopefully we can move on from this. I'd much prefer to see some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration guide#Synchronising this and the clerks page, and some effort to make sure what is currently being discussed at WT:RFARB, specifically here, results in an update to the documentation so that future confusion can be avoided, even if it is only to say that arbcom clerks have wide latitude to judge what to do in such cases. I've got a suggestion that I will add over there. Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for update

Resolved

 – List updated by Rlevse. AGK 17:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Of active arbitrators at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee - the last update is from October 5... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The list was up to date, but they forgot to change the date, so I fixed that. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Resolved. Thanks for pointing that out Piotrus. AGK 17:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring other users comments on arbitration talk pages

I hardly want to start a revert war on arbitration talk page, but I would like to stop a certain user from refactoring my posts: [6], [7]. Is this something within clerk's responsibilities? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Your clerk is Ryan. I'll notify him. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please check the diffs and note that no comments were "refactored" (It's truly pitiful that I have to continually point out that the comments of another administrator on Wikipedia are basically not truthful). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Delinking Dates case

This editor TJRC (talk · contribs) appears to be either ignoring the injunction or, more likely, is unaware of it. Could someone take a look please? Thanks, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure - but you're going to want to put this on WP:AC/CN next time boss. --Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

True. (I was looking everywhere for that). --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I've seen more then one person "violating" the date delinking case, though I AGF and point them to the injunction, and they comply after seeing it. Keep an eye out though. Wizardman 06:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Clerk assistance

Could a clerk please review Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFringe_science with an eye towards seperating the issues of "let's sanction SA more" and "clarifing the appropriateness and validness of SirFozzie's actions?" I can't see the relevence of statements by Jehochman, ScienceApologist, Middle 8, and ImperfectlyInformed to the request for clarification I made - perhaps they could be segregated into their own "request for more sanctions" section? Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

English Wikipedia now German?

Why are nouns randomly capitalised on this page? Seems a silly idea imo. This is English Wikipedia, not German. We Don't Randomly Capitalise Words For No Reason (See How Silly It Looks?) Majorly talk 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Without speaking positively or negatively for it, "Arbitration" and "Committee" are capitalized across most of the wiki as proper nouns. Arbitrator (occasionally Arbiter) is capitalized as a title (President, Justice, Minister), Clerk is more rarely capitalized for the same reason. Not entirely sure if we should - but I'll admit to not caring particularly much. No idea why "zone" was capitalized though.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee is the name of a group, so should be capitalised. Arbitrator is a title as you say. Capitalising clerk is really unnecessary though. Majorly talk 22:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly attached to the capital either way myself. The similar meatspace positions include law clerk, bailiff and Sergeant at Arms and agent, so take your pick.--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also Page and the more generic "staff"--Tznkai (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)