Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Former discussion points 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What will be the social costs to and by Clerks?

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

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

text: I archived last time.  Lots of heat, little light. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I as well recall (vaguely) a certain webcomixxx RfAr aggressively refractored by... Aaron Brenneman, probably! El_C 04:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so nobody's perfect, but how did it help to bring that up? ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so we established imperfection for all, but how didn't it help? El_C 05:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: They've had to do that with RFA I think, as well as doing it for AN, AN/I and AN/3RR JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 05:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Aggressive archiving 

message: *Also see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_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.
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 01:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Kelly gives an excellent rebuttal of this to which I have nothing to add. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even where this rebuttal is? I urge you to add that. El_C 14:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm busy, but I'll  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)
thread_title:  Lapsed Pacifist 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Expansion of clerk authority to all editors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fez 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relevant discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Initials

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarify text and Question 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *Resolved. Thanks for pointing that out Piotrus. AGK 17:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for update

message: 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: , . Is this something within clerk's responsibilities? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. Your clerk is Ryan. I'll notify him. — Rlevse • Talk •  18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Refactoring other users comments on arbitration talk pages

message: This editor  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  True. (I was looking everywhere for that). --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Delinking Dates case 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Clerk assistance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also Page and the more generic "staff"--Tznkai (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Wikipedia now German?