Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 25 January 2006 (==Open/close at AC direction==). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former discussion points

Refactored discussions, simplified down to quasi-FAQ minute-style for clarity.

Should Clerks be able to read as well as write to the Arbitration mailing list?

Raul initially suggested this, but later withdrew from supporting it. It was pointed out that the lead or "Chief" Clerk, as a former Arbitrator, would be able to read the list anyway, and that expanding the list too much worked against its effectiveness.

Will temporary replacement Arbitrators be drawn from the pool of Clerks?

This was agreed as a posibility, but concern was expressed both about Clerks feeling required to be happy to later be Arbitrators, and overly restricting the choices in appointing the temporary Arbitrators.

Is there a need for a Chief Clerk?

Radiant! queried the need for a chair when very few other Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 ---- 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)

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)

Clerk Applications

Applicants to become clerks, please list yourselves here. A *brief* summary (no more than 2 or 3 sentences) of your arbcom-related experiences might be helpful too - cases you participated in, or cleaned up evidence pages for. Raul654 16:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)