![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Refactored discussions, simplified down to quasi-FAQ minute-style for clarity.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. R adiant _>|< 20:49, 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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.
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
-- Tony Sidaway 10:30, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Subject of discussion:
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:
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, citation needed 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
He edit warred. That is not assuming good faith. -- Tony Sidaway 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What's up with
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser and "Clerk assistance required?" Where was this discussed?
brenneman
{L}
10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The main page here used to have the caveat
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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?)
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)
Forget it then. Al Tally ( talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration guide#Synchronising this and the clerks page. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Refactored discussions, simplified down to quasi-FAQ minute-style for clarity.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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. R adiant _>|< 20:49, 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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.
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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."
-- Tony Sidaway 10:30, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Subject of discussion:
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:
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, citation needed 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
He edit warred. That is not assuming good faith. -- Tony Sidaway 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What's up with
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser and "Clerk assistance required?" Where was this discussed?
brenneman
{L}
10:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The main page here used to have the caveat
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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?)
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)
Forget it then. Al Tally ( talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration guide#Synchronising this and the clerks page. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)