Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive2

message: I posted this above:
The AC has used unofficial clerking before. This is establishing a bunch of people to do the job as more of a job, i.e. to make sense of crap. No-one on the AC objects who's been through the job of being an arbitrator, you'll see - it's more like "OH GOD YES PLEASE! HELP US WITH THIS CRAP!" and picking people they have a good idea will do a good job of it ;-)
I wouldn't see a clerk as doing anything that anyone couldn't do on a /Workshop page; the difference would be that the AC is saying "Right, here's some crap needs handling. Please do it." Giving them opening/closing is also safe 'cos that's a mechanical task. (When it isn't, they're bright enough to ask.)
The AC has talked about having a function like this for a few months, and the proposed setup is basically least disturbance to the way things are and shouldn't lead to crossing the streams we think. - David Gerard 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite literally I've seen arbitrators state "OH GOD YES PLEASE! HELP US WITH THIS CRAP!" and they've been more than happy to have all the help they can get. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, they wouldn't be assistant arbitrators, more just like court clerks which entirely falls within the arbcom's power to appoint themselves without outside approval... Unless Jimbo or the board where to intervene and veto it.  It is also true (to a certain extent) that the arbcom derives it's power from Jimbo and the board not from the community even though they rely on community support to implement any decisions they make and Jimbo at least this far has allowed community involvement in the arbcom selection process. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And somewhere I heard a denial that WIKI is a social experiment? Arbcom is there because it has to be there, jimbo has no choice but to delegate. But what comes (is coming) next?Sandpiper 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcom is there because it has to be there, jimbo has no choice but to delegate. - Things are like they are because they have to be that way? No, sorry, I think not. Jimbo delegated to the arbcom because he was overworked (and for the benefit of those who were not around prior to the arbcom - Jimbo intervened in VERY FEW cases - fewer than a half-dozen per year). Now, two years later, with almost 100-fold more users, and FAR more cases -- we're saying we are overworked. Somehow, I think we (the ones actually doing the work) are in a far better position to judge how necessary this is than you are. Raul654 02:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no doubt that Arbcom is overworked. One need only look at the current case load to see that. My objection is specifically to the method of selection and to the decision to select extremely controversial individuals rather than those editors who have more widespread support in the Wikipedia community. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 03:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter whom you pick, they are going to be controversial. There are disagreeable people here who will oppose everything and any time there is change there will always be someone who runs around screaming about how the sky is falling. I'm not so convinced that controversy itself is a reason not to do something. --causa sui talk 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask which you'd prefer, good clerks or popular ones? If it's the latter, then you have entirely the wrong idea about what Arbitration is on Wikipedia. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting aside all speculation as to who might fit the bill of being "popular" (or indeed, "good"), I think it's fair to observe that not being "extremely controversial" is a different desideratum entirely.  Alai 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The arbcom have the right to choose whoever they want to assist them. They could choose MSK for all we care. If the arbitrators' actions permit the clerks to push their own POVs, then we can vote them out in the next election. We elected the arbitrators because we trust them to make the right decisions. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That first statement would appear to entirely correct, the second entirely false, and the third and fourth each only partially or qualifiedly true.  Alai 19:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pray, why did you elect the arbitrators if not because you trust us to make the right decisisons?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the "vote them out" and "elected" parts that I think require the qualication.  Alai 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes we would care if they chose MSK as a clerk but we'd have no recourse since as mentioned before it's entirely up to the head clerk and the arbcom to decide who the clerks are. I also trust the arbcom to appoint good people as clerks and to strip any one abuses the position of their position and if needed the right to edit arbcom pages at all. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see what's wrong with the second statement -- if the arbitrators really feel MSK could be of service to them as a clerk, they could appoint her. As for the third statement, there are clearly going to be elections in the foreseeable future where we can vote out arbitrators whose performance has been less than satisfactory (obviously by not voting for them, or voting oppose if we still use the RfA style system). And as for the fourth system, it's correct that technically arbitrators aren't elected, but rather appointed by Jimbo. However, clearly the recent non-binding referendum/plebiscite/whatever has a major impact on his decision, seeing as the top eight candidates were all appointed to the arbcom. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: They probably did but that doesn't mean they have to do anything about it and they are under no obligation to act on this criticism since appointing clerks is well in their power. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 19:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, either tonight or tommorow night I'm going to have to knuckle down and go through the entire TFD backlog for category moves and deletes and cut those down.  Thank god AWB will make my job a little easier when doing category work. JtkieferT | C | @  ---- 21:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *AWB? Why haven't I heard of that before? Ooooh, shiny! Me want! Radiant_>|< 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why a clerks' office doesn't cross the streams