Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive1

Comment on the merits of the proposal

It's difficult to comment on the internal process of ArbCom when one has not actually seen it in operation, but from the outside the slow pace of some decisions does clearly show the workload and anything that lifts it is therefore valuable. One of the things that came up in the ArbCom election was an idea from Improv that a full explanation should be given of ArbCom decisions, and that met with general approval from his voters. This is perhaps an ideal job for the Clerks to do the drafting. Some users, however, felt that too often the process of Arbitration was confused with a Judicial process, which it isn't (a point made by Fifelfoo in his vote explanations), and I wonder whether an idea lifted from the Courts is perhaps straying into that area. My question above wasn't particularly motivated by a desire to offer myself as a Clerk but just wondering whether this would be expected by everyone else, given that it would seem to be logical; obviously the Chief Clerk as an ex-Arbitrator would be involved as an Emeritus position not as a potential replacement.

All in all I think it's worth trying. The issue of mailing list access may need to be viewed afresh if Clerks start writing opinions which are completely different to those expressed by the Arbitrators in their private discussions, but that's a bridge that can be crossed if it is arrived at. David | Talk 09:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I share the concerns about making the arbcom to much like the Judicial process, but I think opinions aren't neccessarly a bad thing. However, clerks work for the commitee as a whole. To take a page from the real world, if you disagree with the people you work with critically, quit, don't publish.--Tznkai 19:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I like this

From my post on WikiEn-L:

I think this is a swell idea. Not only would I be glad to volunteer for this, but it would greatly speed up the process of arbitration, IMO. Currently the main problems causing the slowness at the arbcom are (IMO) the lack of staff to look into the evidence and add "eyeballs" (as per Linus' law) to the cases, and the lack of a lower-level form of binding dispute resolution (currently being hashed out at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcement). It would be great to have clerks for the arbcom, since many hands make light work. Without actually judging the cases themselves, the clerks could help compile evidence, propose things at the workshop, help format new cases properly, and deal with enquiries from the Wikipedia public.

Naturally, I'd be glad to help out. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Radiant edited the proposal to encourage potential clerks to help out, I've been adding proposed principles, findings of fact, etc. to workshops based on the evidence. It's not as difficult as I thought it might be, and I might do this more often. :-D I highly encourage interested/bored admins to try this out. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• I still prefer my older anti-rant proposal that "if your statement is longer than 200 words, every second word will be removed". That wouldn't make the rants any more (or less) meaningful but it sure would make them shorter :P Radiant_>|< 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, just take out the vowels. Herostratus 18:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Going live soon

Just so no one is surprised - barring unforseen circumstances, the clerk's office will be going live in a day or two. Raul654 19:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer

I would like to volunteer as a clerk. I think I did a good job presenting evidence in the Johnski case. I think I could handle one or two cases a month. Is there going to be a selection process? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

its Volunteer and appointment. Ithink we wait for the chair to announce how he/she will handle it.--Tznkai 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I'm here and volunteering barring any circumstances that wouldn't allow me to be a clerk. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: actually I'm still thinking about it, but leaning toward doing it. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. David | Talk 22:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks? can we wait for the chair to be announced before we all go "Oooh me! Pick me!" ?--Tznkai 22:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Raul has said it should be going live in a day or two. As far as I am concerned the identity of the Chief Clerk isn't particularly important - I don't have a problem with any of the ex-Arbs. David | Talk 22:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, as I understand it the chair is the one who handles appointments. Just sayin, a little waiting won't hurt much.--Tznkai 22:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The clerks will, I believe, be chosen by the committee itself. Head clerk is just an orgnanisational role in this aspect. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Really. So this is the time to go "pick me pick me?"--Tznkai 22:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Both the chairperson and the arbcom must approve of potential clerks. I envisioned it that the chairperson weeds out most of the applicants and that the committee would approve most of the rest. Raul654 23:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds cool to me. Sorry for any confusion, Tznkai. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns with clerk process

I am concerned about the process through which this policy was implemented - in particular, the lack of broad discussion on Wikipedia (I read about it on the mailing list archive) and the process by which the clerks will be selected. Frankly, I'm concerned at the possibility that this is a way to sneak in rejected candidates for Arbcom via the back door. Three of the names bandied about as potential clerks are individuals who were decisively rejected in the elections. To appoint them as deputies to Arbcom shows a lack of respect for the consensus of the Wikipedia community. In my opinion, if clerks must be appointed (and it's imperative that something be done to expedite the absurdly slow arbitration process), they should ideally be individuals who received at least over 50% of the vote in the Arbcom elections. Either that, or a separate set of elections for clerks should be held. This process lacks transparency and I have serious concerns about the individuals who may be chosen as a result. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The clerks have no direct power for one thing, and the office derives from the same "power" as the Commitee does itself, from Jimbo/the Foundation (as O understand it anyway). They are assistants to the comitee. The elections were advisory, not political suffrage. The consensus of the wikipedia community is that we have an ArbCom, we don't have a better solution, and they have the authority to get what help they need. Whats next, ellections for mentors and mediators?--Tznkai 21:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And I repeat, we really should be allowed to work privately if we so please. Phil Sandifer 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We? Congratulations on your appointment, Phil. It must have come as a surprise given the community's strong disendorsement of your candidacy. Grace Note 01:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of clerks is strictly an internal arbitration committee matter. In other words, the decisions we make are subject to public review; the deliberations we make to get there are not. We will not be having elections for the clerks. We will use whomever we trust, regardless of how they did in the elections. Raul654 21:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You owe me five bucks. I called it didn't I? But seriously, I think a nicer way of saying this is "Its arbcom choosing its help. Arbcom still gets the final word"--Tznkai 22:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerks (I am interested in possibly being one btw since it would be nice to have an official position to what I've been doing for awhile which is helping out on arbcom pages) have only a couple of extra powers, they'll have write access to the mailing list which just means that they can submit mail to the mailing list without having to have a listadmin approve it first, and they can edit the proposed decision page. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerks or arbiters?

It occurs to me to wonder exactly why it is necessary to appoint clerks to help arbiters, when it would be more straightforward to appoint more arbiters so that each has less work to do? Half the work of anyone preparing a brief is duplicating the work of someone making a decision on it. Sandpiper 23:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

(1) Adding/replacing members of the arbitration committee is a nontrivial thing (and has, to date, always required either an election or a decree from Jimbo) while adding/replacing clerks is a lot simpler. (2) For reasons that are difficult to explain, when the throughput of cases is not crushingly high (as it has been for a while now - a result of the broken dispute resolution process) the arbcom works quite well. Each arbitrator does his own thing, tends to the cases he feels inclined to write up, 'etc. We learn to anticipate each other. Increasing the arbcom by 6 to 12 (tentatively the number of clerks we will probably end up with... or more) could very well result in a slower arbcom. This is what has happened on RFA -- often times increasing the number of bureacrats makes RFA go slower. (3) The more arbitrators we add, the greater than chances that our conversations on the mailing list will start to leak (4) 95% of the work that is, at this point, done by arbitrators is bureacratic paper-pushing that doesn't require an arbitrator Raul654 02:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

often times increasing the number of bureacrats makes RFA go slower. Oh it's the return of The Mythical Man-Month! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As per above, clerks don't have the power to rule in cases. They do paperwork -- summing up cases, handling enquiries, formatting the pages properly, writing up *possible* findings of fact/proposed principles/remedies/whatever, etc. Making them fullfledged arbcom members would be giving them undue power to rule in cases, which we don't really need, IMO (if other proposals like giving RfC teeth and giving the arbcom clerks work out). Johnleemk | Talk 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerks are the ones who will weed through the complete crap on the evidence pages, going through the thousands and thousands of edits by disruptive users, to organize the case. I've been arguing for some time now that arbitrators need this kind of help. People show up to complain and don't say anything other than "this guy said something mean." Only they say it in more than 500 words. And they link to no evidence at all, or items that are not evidence, or put it together in an unreadable and unuseful way. That means the arbitrators have to either say, "Sorry, I can't see the dispute here because the evidence is useless," or else dig through the mountains and mountains of sheer crap themselves. Having a team of folks do that work for them should be enormously helpful. It is NOT by any means a position of power. It is real grunt work. I've done it for one case I was on, and previously thought about getting involved by just volunteering to do so on random cases. In fact, this is pretty much something anybody could start doing in an unofficial capacity.

For those commenting that this is a way to "sneak failed Arbcom candidates through the back door," I don't see it that way at all. There is no power being granted to this proposed position. Only more work. (And I imagine there will be some folks selected who quickly discover it is too much work or too unrewarding.) I can think of persons whom I could not support for Arbcom who would in fact make great clerks. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't see it. First, we just had an election, so if more people are needed take 3 more arbiters, or 6 more, from those who got a support vote. Easiest thing in the world for more to be appointed right now.

Second, i don't see the logic of why more arbitrators means more beaurocracy. I am not saying more handling each case, simply more available so that the same number can be allocated to each case, and hence cases can be handled faster. I see no reason to worry they may become underemployed if they deal with all cases to hand. Far better to have several available to cover dropouts and inconvenient real world happenings. From what you say, the system works best when arbitrators are not under pressure.

Third, all this talk about clerks deciding what evidence is important frankly makes my skin crawl. The clerk decides what evidence the judge sees??? Which post exactly is the important one???

Fourth, security. I don't know what you guys talk about which might be top secret, but I am really not convinced that a group of judges discussing the facts of a wiki case strictly should need to be secret. Maybe people might be concerned about reprisals, but in my book, no judge should be saying things in secret which he would not be prepared to say in public. I would consider an argument about a need for secrecy as a reason against a proposal, not for it. But ultimately, either your security is OK, or it is not, and having fewer people is just crossing your fingers rather than fixing it.

fifth, why is it bad if an arbiters job is mainly pen pushing? But OK to get someone else to do the donkey work? Whatever happened to the 'administrators are just janitors with a bigger bucket' approach?Sandpiper 21:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your last point only, I think arbitrators are slightly more than janitors. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Should they be? Sandpiper 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Arbitrators are Jimbo's power delegated. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem. If I was in Jimbo's shoes then I would undoubtedly keep firm control of my baby. But as someone interested in the possible future of the project, I have to decide whether that control is benign, or even desireable. I agree though, the impression given is exactly that arbiters are hand-picked to exercise control as jimbo would have it done. This measure appears designed to increase that control and reduce editor input into the process of choosing arbiters. Sandpiper 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) First, it sounds like they don't need more people to vote; they just need more people to do basic tasks. Second, more people voting means votes take longer. Third, I assume the participants in the case will review any "cleaning up" the clerks do, and scream bloody murder if they don't like it, so there's not likely to be any sneaky inormation-control. Fourth, the point of ArbCom is to deal with problems smoothly, not to uphold all the rights in a real judicial system; I imagine the arbitrators speak privately to reach some kind of consensus, in addition to the occasional need to deal with private evidence. Fifth, arbitratrators don't just have a bigger bucket; they make important decisions. It's ok for them to ask for help if people are willing to give it, which apparently they are. Any of that help? -- SCZenz 21:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to your third point, I don't believe clerks will be in the business of hiding anything. In my understanding, clerks will submit a clear, organized brief for each case they clerk organizing the evidence and putting it into a form that can be understood. This will not replace evidence submitted by the parties (or their advocates ... if someone wants to really help the process, get the advocates to start representing people by presenting such briefs). I hear talk about clerks refactoring, and I think that will happen, but what I'm seeing is: "Party to the case presented a link to a page's history rather than a diff. Clerk will dig out the relevant diffs." or "Party to the case put things in a strange order or format. Clerk will clean it up." The ultimate answer to point three is that if you're a party to a case where you feel a clerk hid something, you present it yourself as evidence. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No, this is beaurocracy creep. Not enough to have arbitrators, now they must have a staff because otherwise they can not do the task they volunteered to do. You say yourself that arbiters will be second-guessing their clerks. If an arbiter is to make a good decision he should be studying the evidence himself, not taking someone elses opinion. Anything else is to entirely turn the concept of a judge upside down. I appreciate that there is a whole load of mess in some of these cases, but the whole point of a good arbitrator is to be able to see through the mess himself. Is it the case that the clerks brief will be public information and part of the case? If so, this is more acceptable, but it still begs the question of who should choose people to do this. Sandpiper 21:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it the case that the clerks brief will be public information and part of the case? Of course it is. Nobody has ever said otherwise. Where would you get the idea that it was not? You really are making a lot of noise without seeking to first understand the proposal. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that clerks actually exist for real life judges to help with their caseload by doing research and so on, right?--Tznkai 21:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerks are facilitators. They will not change evidence, just make it comprehensible. If you really think that arbitrators have enough time to fully comprehend all the cases and come up with accurate and fair decisions without the cases being cleared up, you are wrong. Please desist your barbed and thoughtless comments; they are beginning to touch upon trolling. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was that a threat? You are worried that you can not produce counter arguments which would get consensus support? Is this proposal so weak that i can knock holes in it right left and centre just sitting here for an hour half watching a film at the same time? Sandpiper 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only a threat if you continue trolling. You are persistently refusing to listen to the reasons that clerks are being created. They will not be judges. They will facilitate what is a difficult job. If you don't mind, I'd like to get back to Hitler and NSDAP policies. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up trolling on wiki. It said 'The main motive for a user trolling is to disrupt the community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation.'. Interesting. I would suggest that it is not my behaviour which best fits the description of 'trolling'. I have come across the curious evolution of government on wiki. This is a page for posting comment, and I have done exactly that, commenting on-subject about the pretty obvious concern which still has not been answered, why invent appointed clerks when there already exist elected arbiters. If it is not possible to have a discussion on that subject, on this page, then the notion supposedly of running this entire organisation by consensus and agreement is pretty much a nonsense. Anyone reading this would see that the tactic here is to engage me in a side issue, while my position would be to get as many people as possible contributing to this debate. Or are you suggesting that encouraging debate and policy formation is equivalent to 'disrupting the community'? Sandpiper 00:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the formation of internal procedure, which is very different from policy. Have you missed that thus far? -- SCZenz 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, that is a distinction without a meaning. This is the distinction between prerrogative powers, and constitutional powers. Always a difficulty in a growing state. Anything which affects the operation of wiki is fair game for anyone to contribute to, that is one of the founding principles. To say that something is 'off limits', itself only shows where the limits of this founding principle actually lie. Sandpiper 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You are free to comment, as you have been doing on this talk page. On the other hand, we (the committe) do not need your approval to go ahead and form a group of people to help us. Raul654 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Raul has a point in his above statement, other than his mispelling of committee. Raul it's C-O-M-M-I-T-T-E-E. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that. First really good argument someone has made. But not commenting here would be exactly analogous to shrugging the shoulders and walking past on the other side of the road. This had the appearance of a secret decision now being implemented after the elections. Good to get that one sorted. Sandpiper 01:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn! Foiled! After all my hard work try to keep this page's existance secret ([1][2][3]), you've discovered my secret plan! Raul654 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Did I suggest it was yours? Though, of course, I don't know who you really are. Sandpiper 02:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Open/close at AC direction

To the open/close cases, I've added "at AC direction" — this shouldn't be onerous. In cases where an outcome is not clear (e.g. arbs voting "first pref", "second pref" on varying lengths of sanction — the 2005 AC had a few of these that confused even us), the clerks would be expected to be clueful enough to ask. And obviously, no clerk should touch a case they're involved in - David Gerard 16:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No consensus at all.

There is no consensus for this new "second arbitration committee" to be created and this PROPOSED policy should be much more widely advertised than how it has been: linked on a few supportive peoples' talk pages.

Raul seems to consider that he can unilaterally decide what is policy and what is not: How about actually trying to gain consensus before forcing in things as "policy"? He reverted my revert, where I put it back to the version before he unilaterally decided that this would be "Policy", when it's a PROPOSED POLICY, this is blatant vandalism - no one has the singular right to decide policy and this has been "speedy made policy" without the advertisement it should have as a major policy (definitely as important as the arbitration committee elections which had the message about it on the top of the watchlist) or consensus at all.. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While I too have concerns about whether this reflects community consensus, I see little use in throwing about terms like "vandalism". That term has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and this simply doesn't qualify. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is policy (it's not) or that it needs some sort of ratification (it doesn't). It is the arbitration committee organizing a group of people to help us with our delibrations. Raul654 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This is no more than internal operations procedure. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

MSK, please try to be more accurate when you toss the word "vandalism" around to mean anything you object to. That's not what the term means. --Improv 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Until you state that you understand that this is not in any way accurately described as a "second arbitration committee," it will be apparent that you do not understand what this is about. If you did understand what is being created, you would see that as Raul said no "policy" is being established here, nor are any positions of power being given out. Clerks will not be doing anything that you yourself could not just up and volunteer to do, for as many cases as you like. Feel free to begin building evidence documents for the arbcom to help out. We don't need a consensus to say, "Hey, could somebody please shovel this manure for the ArbCom?" Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some form of vote from the Arbitration Committee establishing this then? Of course the arbcom can regulate its own affairs, but it should be done publically as much as possible. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been extensively discussed on the arb-com mailing list. It seems rather pointless to have an on-wiki vote. Just take it as read that the committee fully (and, as far as I can tell, unanimously) agrees. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure - there's still one new arbitrator (Filiocht) who has not signed up to the mailing list who thus theoretically might object (but probably would not). Raul654 17:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was it being discussed on the arbcom mailing list anyway? Is there anything in it which is confidential or private information? Just interested. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, because that's our preferred method of communication? Pretty much everything the arbcom does gets discussed there. Raul654 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Without wishing to derail this into a debate about the nature of open/closed decision making (since I've had about enough of that these last few days), even though the Arbitration Committee can discuss it privately, they have to make "detailed rationale for all their decisions public". I am not requesting detailed rationale but I would like to see some kind of charter/policy for the clerk's office and a vote showing that the Arbitration Committee has established it as such. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Because... you don't believe the arbcom wants help sorting through its cases? You don't believe the arbcom supports Kelly? You really like having votes? You want to see arbcom justification so you can troll them? I'm lost here... Phil Sandifer 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner, don't accuse me of trolling or make such bad faith comments. I ask you to retract your comments above. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner's comment reads to me like hyperbole. But Tal is not trolling, just asking what's up - David Gerard 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - while I admit I did (and do) find the question a tad dense, I was out of line in calling it trolling. Phil Sandifer 00:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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. 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 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned as to whether the Arbcom supports Kelly or not. What is far more important is that the Wikipedia community does not (she received less than 43% support, and withdrew from the race). Many of the "oppose" voters made it clear that they do not trust her judgment or discretion. To appoint Kelly as a clerk (who I suspect would actually strongly influence the decisions in many cases) would completely defy this consensus. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't bite. I think the idea is "between opaque and transparent, default to transparent"--Tznkai 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but you're forgetting "between more regulations and fewer, default to fewer". :D I suspect that it will take a couple of months (at minimum) for the clerks and the ArbCom to figure out their roles and figure out exactly what the clerks can or should do. Right now, it's still a bit of an experiment; someone can write a descriptive page on the role of clerks later this year—after the wrinkles have been sorted out. The last thing we want to do is get tied up in the sort of procedural wrangling and paperwork nightmares that the clerks are meant to alleviate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So simple and transparent is good : ) Thus my change to the opening sentance. This satisfy you Talrias?--Tznkai 18:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The detailed rationale for all their decisions clause deals with arbitration remedies, not decisions about how to manage their paperwork. The only people directly affected by the clerks are the arbiters themselves; indirectly the rest of us should benefit from a more streamlined and efficient arbitration process and less arbitrator burnout. If–for the sake of argument–an Arbitrator wants to endorse the previous sentence as a detailed rationale, they're welcome to borrow it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, under this policy, how do we know that a decision written in the name of Arbcom members was not actually written by Kelly Martin, Snowspinner, or another highly controversial individual who was strongly rejected in the voting? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't know if the opinion was written by a mutated penguin either. It doesn't matter. Arbcom takes the evidence summaries, submitted opinions, and makes a decision. Doesn't matter where it comes from, the final approval is from the committee.--Tznkai 20:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You check the edit history of the page, and look at who voted to support the findings of fact and the remedies? Clerks can draft summaries and remedies, but the duly elected ArbCom is the only body which can approve them. Nobody elected the personal secretaries or speechwriters of any politician, but that's acceptable because the elected representative gets the final say. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a reasonable analogy. However, most politicians would refrain from selecting secretaries or speechwriters who were extremely unpopular with their constitutents. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

1. We're not politicians, and thank goodness for it. 2. Karl Rove.--Tznkai 20:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that Karl Rove is not popular with Bush's constituents. He is certainly quite disliked by Democrats, including me, but the Republicans seem to like him just fine. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets drop Karl Rove before we start a massive and off topic debate, the fact is, we're not politicians, and I find this a very good thing. We're not bound by popularity issues. Arbcom exists. They have every right and a duty to make sure they do their job. They're the best job of selecting who can help them.--Tznkai 20:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that if any members of the ArbCom feel that there is a need to create policy surrounding this aspect of their internal workings, those members are capable of doing so. In the absence of any expressed objection from any of them, I would assume that there is a tacit acceptance of the clerks on at least a trial basis. If the experiment stops working, we'll hear about it. With respect to the mailing list, it makes sense for them to discuss the internal workings of the Committee there—I suspect it dramatically improves the signal-to-noise ratio of their discussions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As this page rather demonstrates. ;-) -- SCZenz 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The community doesn't normally have any input on arbitration policy or procedure, for obvious reasons. They govern their own affairs. Hands off. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

distinction in roles

I'm curious whether the proposed "clerk's office" roles are intended to be closer to a court clerk (handling just the "paperwork"), a amicus curiae (a "friend of the court" who provides opinions), or a combination of the two. Should the roles be split? -- Netoholic @ 17:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Both - clerks will help us both to "push the paper" around (so to speak) and to digest the evidence we are given. Raul654 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I agree with you above - status in either position is at the discretion of the "court" itself, not the "community". I would encourage you, though, to keep their activity as open and visible as possible. I'd even encourage that of the ArbCom itself. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My (outsider's) perspective is that the second clerk hat is less of an amicus-type role and more of an advanced executive assistant. They're digesting, condensing, and summarizing the comments of others, with at most a modest degree of editorial commentary.

As the arbitration process stands now, anyone can file an amicus brief with the ArbCom; it happens quite regularly when cases are before the committee that parties only tangentially involved will offer comments, evidence, or suggested remedies. This takes place on WP:RFArb and on the Evidence and Workshop pages of cases; the ArbCom seems fairly open to community involvement at all stages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think that "amicus curiae" briefs are all that important - the fact fo the matter is that most arbcom cases do not require a monstrously subtle stroke to sort out - user is a crackpot conspiracy theorist who wants the Wiki to reflect their view. Therefore, user banned. User is an admin who blocks in content disputes. Therefore, user de-adminned. I see the proposed decisions aspect of the clerk role being more in the form of "Well, this is a lot like these cases, and this is what you did there that worked." And occasionally "This is a lot like this case, and this was a problem with the ruling in this case, so maybe you should try fixing it?" I don't see many cases at all where the arbitrators really, really have to get clever - Xed 2, Netoholic, Gzornenplatz, the Ed Poor cases, the ban on Wonderfool, the first Lyndon LaRouche case. Those are the only ones that spring to mind where the decisions were at all subtle and couldn't be guessed accurately by past precedent alone. And I think one role of the clerks is going to be to warn the arbitrators that they have one of those, and that they're going to need to sort it out very carefully. Phil Sandifer 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Failed ArbCom Nominees Apply Here

Apparently if an Arbitrator is unable to retain the support of the community, they are simply reassigned to the back office, to continue offending the sensibilities of the community from the safety and anonymity of the Clerk's desk? This seems like a poor way to deal with a failed (or withdrawn) nomination to ArbCom. This is simply a back door for Administrators to influence the committee, and is not an appropriate way to maintain neutral arbitration. I object in the strongest possible terms, particularly in light of the circumstances. This smells awful, and looks even worse. --Dschor 19:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a way for long-standing contributors who lost a popularity contest, possibly for reasons unrelated to their qualifications for ArbCom, to assist the wiki with their experience. That's all. -- SCZenz 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This statement shows a disturbing disregard for the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Take it up on the applicable user talk.--Tznkai 20:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The community really can't have a well-reasoned consensus that certain users are bad people and shouldn't have any positions of responsibility at all, if those users are major, generally sensible contributors. So what consensus is there to disregard? -- SCZenz 21:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that people who applied for ArbCom are ones that showed strong intrest in dispute resolution (hopefully anyway, can't speak for everyone). Its not like they get anything close to the final say. Arbitrators were reccomended by the community. Now they're doing something to make sure the system works.--19:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tznkai (talk • contribs)

Given that the actual decisions will still be made by the Arbitrators themselves, I don't really see what the problem would be here. Presumably the clerks will only be summarizing evidence already submitted by other users. —Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please list the things that clerks will do that you could not already do yourself, voluntarily, for any ArbCom case. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that if the Arbitrators–duly accepted and approved of by the community and Jimbo–are dissatisfied with the performance, attitude, or behaviour of any clerk, the Arbs can dismiss the clerk in question. Clerks serve at the pleasure of the ArbCom; they don't have a fixed term or any intrinsic right to their positions.

Give the ArbCom some credit, too—if a clerk is distorting evidence or misrepresenting cases, it will be noticed and commented on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And the ArbCom serves at the pleasure of Jimbo, who has been known to be receptive to the people here. I think it all works out rather nicely--Tznkai

They can be dismissed as official clerks if needed though nothing prevents them from unnoficially doing all the same things (except the right to edit the proposed decision page which is reserved to official clerks and those given permission from the arbcom) but if they are really being disruptive I assume the arbcom could ban them from editing arbcom related pages as well. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

concerns

I am concerned that if we have official clerks then people who do unnoficial clerking work like cleaning up the evidence page and such will be pushed off to the side and/or be told that they can't help anymore. I think something should be put in one of the guidelines that this is in no way a replacement for anyone else who wants to help and the only extra right given to official clerks is the right to edit the proposed decision page. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(I modified the above comment to say "proposed decision page" instead of "proposed policy page") Raul654 20:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very fair and pertinent clarification to make, in the style of WP:MC and WP:MENTCOM. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't clerk if you don't know what it's for

It seems to me that persons who object to the creation of this position should not be appointed to it, as they are unlikely to understand what the purpose is. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

well now, there's an interesting application of political bribery. An example of why having appointed clerks at the gift of arbiters is a bad idea, and of the general problem with corruption of public officials with power of appointment. The whole point of having elections for arbcom is that the people contributing to decisions must be supported by the editors of wiki. If they can not gain that support they should not be making decisions on behalf of those editors. The scenario here seems to be becoming 'I've been a clerk for a year, now appoint me to arb'. How do you become a clerk?.. be friendly to the existing committee. So the committee effectively chooses its own successors. Oh dear. Sandpiper 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, even if your analysis is true, the community reccomended the Arbitrators, so its their own fault for selecting ones prone to cronyism--Tznkai 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this type of criticism reflects how people are getting the wrong idea about this, these aren't reserve arbitrators or anything else special and it's not something that needs a widescale election to decide, this is purely an internal matter of the arbcom wanting help in making the process easier. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment at the top of the page would suggest that some people are certainly thinking of them as prime candidates to be directly appointed as arbiters. Whatever the merits of the current arbiters, it is important to consider all the consequences of a new scheme. Wiki has a king, the nobility and principle of patronage seems to be spreading. The issue here is partly whether the arbiters should be able to redefine their own authority. The reason most countries end up with complicated political systems is just exactly to stop that sort of thing happening.Sandpiper 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If they think they'll just magically be appointed arbitrators or even to the reserve pool just by clerking than they are deluding themselves. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Theres something to be said to the idea that clerking is more likley to get you slapped next year as you have more opportunity to piss people off.--Tznkai 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue here is partly whether the arbiters should be able to redefine their own authority. Nonsense again. This proposal adds nothing to the arbiter authority. Until you state that you understand that, it will be clear that you do not understand the policy. Since people who think such things are applying to be clerks, I think it's important that we not appoint clerks who do not understand what they are being asked to do. As I said to someone else, please list the things that clerks will do that you could not already do yourself, voluntarily, for any ArbCom case. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The scenario here seems to be becoming 'I've been a clerk for a year, now appoint me to arb'. Nonsense. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Silly nitpick

Since I felt the need to draw discussion away from accusations of omg cabalism, I think that if there is such a thing as a "head clerk" she should not have the title of a piece of furniture. I understand that we can't very well call Kelly a chairman but surely there's a better term than a PC synonym for "scribe stool"? Radiant_>|< 22:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Rofl. I think chair comes from the idea of seats in a parilment or some such. She's not really a head clerk per se, since she doesn't have to clerk, just manage them.--Tznkai 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And I won't be doing the same sort of things that the rest of the clerks will be doing. My job is to monitor the clerks for acceptability, hire new ones as needed, open and close cases, and nag the Arbitrators on cases that are dragging. I don't intend to be doing the summary of evidence thing or much refactoring of Arbitration pages; those areas will be left to the other clerks. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We actually went through this with Wikimedia UK - chair is likely to be VampWillow, who lectured us on the history of the name for the person leading the board meetings and said "chair" was a much older and more venerable term than "chairman". So "chair" will do fine ;-) - David Gerard 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Question, can we sit on Kelly? Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you can, although you might want to get her permission first. Raul654 23:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And here I thought she was just a figment of our collective imagination.--Tznkai 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we're a figment of her imagination. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we'd be a lot prettier if we were.--Tznkai 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering how good lucking I already am that would be pretty hard :) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I demand you cite sources! Raul654 01:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• This picture should illustrate the matter nicely. Radiant_>|< 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  

  Chair

Aaaaaand scene!--Tznkai 01:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You could always come to Wikimania and I'll be there. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)