Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of a discussion on the role of clerks and the head clerk held between January 29th and January 31st, 2006, on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Contents

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

What is this? An attempt to completely ignore the fact that some people weren't elected for a reason? Why are Kelly Martin and Snowspinner given any sort of authority in the Arbitration committe whatsoever, when the community clearly view them as inappropriate to even be admins. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 12:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They don't have any authority. They're just volunteering to help, and their offer was accepted. What's the big deal? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hate to tell you this Ril, but Kelly and Snowspinner were not stripped of powers. If the "community" decided that they shouldn't be admins, their powers would've been stripped. The clerk position is designed to help the arbcom out. They will have no say in cases. They wo't even have read access to the arbcom mailing list. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually Kelly does have read access but only because she's a former arbitrator. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The clerk page says that they will have access to the mailing list. Indeed, other than the title that seems to be the only 'benefit' of this position. The rest of it seems like things which the general community could do, but generally does not. Anyone can 'summarize evidence', make suggestions on proposed principles and decisions, et cetera. I've done those things in the past and I'm not even an admin. Opening and closing arbitration requests theoretically could be done by anyone, but to date hasn't because it is better handled by people who are very familiar with the procedures... which makes sense to continue that way. If they hadn't put a name to the position I doubt anyone would have even noticed. It certainly can't be viewed as a sinecure... rather the opposite. The only potential 'concern' is clerks privately 'influencing' the arbitors... but frankly the position provides little benefit in doing so which couldn't be pursued by non-clerks. --CBD ☎ ✉ 20:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is somethinga bit odd about it. OK, they volunteered to help — so let them help. Why introduce official titles, a "department" with a "head", and the rest? We're not a state with a government; we don't need civil servants to help our elected representatives. It's not entirely surprising that this looks to a number of editors as though it's an attempt to give chums a consolation prize after they were rejected as ArbCom members. In a way it doesn't matter what the truth is: it looks bad, and I think that it was at best a misjudgement. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I wholly disagree with the clerk position. This has nothing to do with Kelly (although I believe Snowspinner should be as far from ArbCom as possible), but simply with the fact that ArbCom has to read the evidence and form its own opinions, and the clerical position is another filter. I am afraid that ArbCom means getting dirty, getting bored, and going through mountains of evidence, and it is the formation of an opinion through going into all of that evidence that is the very meaning of it. I mistrust all summaries of disputes when I look into them, and, whether ArbCom is democratically appointed or appointed from a slate, the point is that all know who the parties are. It is important, very important, that no one's opinion of a situation take the place of reading the situation. This, though, has nothing to do with which person is acting as a clerk, but merely the position itself. Geogre 13:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Non issue. If any of them do the job properly they will burn out in a few weeks anyway.Geni 15:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I have faith in Phil offering opinions and digesting things in a particular way without getting burned out. Some people think they're Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot, when they're just another butcher with a knife. That's my problem: I don't want my arbitrators taking someone's word for it or being influenced by helpful volunteers, because, sooner or later, they're going to replace their native wit with the newsbyte. Geogre 15:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I for one have no intention of solely following the clerks' opinions. I only intend to use their summaries as a place to start research into a case. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
How about useing the evidence as a place to start reseach into the case?Geni 16:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Because the evidence is so often a pile of steaming crap. It might astonish you, but I do in fact have a life that extends beyond Wikipedia (though I will admit that it is basically studying...) and wading through said crap can be made far easier and faster if some basic work has been done beforehand. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case why did you run for arbcom membership?Geni 17:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not his fault that a lot of evidence is crap. The AC doesn't scale. Something has to be done to ease workload. This seems a sensible option. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Sam Korn knew or should have known what the job of arbcom entailed when he ran for it. I fail to see how he can legitimately complain about the workload.Geni 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
So do I. But this isn't about Sam's workload or lack of it and he isn't complaining. It's about running the AC well and getting the work done. The AC doesn't scale. We are still growing exponentially. The AC is and has always been overworked and too slow. Something needs to be done about that. Let's give the clerks idea a try. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You've got three extra memebers.Geni 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That's completely unnecessary, Geni. Yes, I did know the workload. Yes, I was prepared to do it. Yes, I am prepared to do it. That doesn't mean I can't be happy to farm a bit of it out to someone else if they're willing to take it. And Theresa, did you really mean that it's my fault that a lot of evidence is crap, or have I misunderstood who "he" is? Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Sam. I've rectified my mistake.The Sam Korn taster He tastes yummy
The position you were elected to involved that workload. Subleting it is an interesting aproach. No matter burnout will take care of it soon enough.Geni 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I occasionally feel like there must be some other Snowspinner out there that eats babies or something, based on people's apparent descriptions of me. Phil Sandifer 16:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
100 Google hits - it must be true. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, a common AfD mistake! Delete: only 27 of them are unique, and you forgot to enclose it in speech marks, upon which you get zero hits. The assertion is at best unverfiable. -Splashtalk 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Verified [1]. And from a most reliable source as well. However, since it never made the WP:Signpost let alone the media, it may well not be notable. So delete. --Doc ask? 17:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Aha, the old "Phil Sandifer is an expert" tactic, eh? Sorry we don't accept the word of experts on their say-so. Strong delete! Unverifiable! Inedible! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
And vanity at that. Phil Sandifer 21:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I should clear this up for everyone. The arbitrators eat full-grown adults, or "Soylent green on the hoof" as we like to call it. The clerks eat the younger morsels because they have not yet grown their full set of razor-sharp fangs. The only danger in this arrangement is if the arbs eat a past or future AC defendant, owing to the danger of catching mad luser disease - David Gerard 21:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing clerks can do very usfully is open cases that have enough votes, close cases that are finished, and remove requests that have not passed. This work that an arbitrator currently has to do and is not likely to be controversial. As for summarising evidence. Let's see how it goes.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Mel and Geogre on this. I strongly disagree with the clerk's task of writing summaries of the evidence for the arbcomm from which they'll work. Summaries written by clerks is an all-too-tempting opportunity for the injection of personal view in a case to influence a particular outcome. FeloniousMonk 17:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Same here, I also disagree strongly that the clerks should write summaries. At least let people in arbitration disallow certain wikipedians they do not trust to write their summary. --Conti|✉ 18:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Anyone is allowed to write a summary. If you don't want your evidence summarised/refactored, make it good in the first place. The less work the clerks do the better. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
That makes everyone's job easier if people would actually write good evidence summaries in the first place. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since people are discussing clerks, I want to mention my more narrowly drawn objection. I am not bothered by someone writing summaries of the evidence, since in principle anyone can do that. However, there is a special case when the person summarizing the evidence is also a former ArbCom member. Apparently, all former ArbComs indefinitely retain access to the arbcom mailing list and hence have access to the private discussions of ArbCom and could potentially even participate in those discussion, even though they no longer have a vote. If a former ArbCom is then acting to present and summarize the evidence. They could use their privileged knowledge to tailor their presentation in response to the reactions of ArbCom. Even if this person never actually abused their power, I find the mere appearance of someone who is organizing the case having unfettered access to the private thoughts of the people judging it to be a dreadful image of potential impropriety. I have argued this point at length, asking that former Arbs serving as clerks should relinquish access to the ArbCom mailing list while in that position, but apparently have failed to convince anyone. Dragons flight 18:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As you probably will now and even if you can convince anyone this is and always has been an internal arbcom matter o nothing short of the board and Jimbo can actually force them to get rid of or change the clerk's office. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
If you have followed what I have been saying, you would note that I have no desire to "get rid" of the clerks office, only to address one specific conflict before it becomes entrenched. I realize that no one here has the power to force you to do anything, but Jimbo and others do generally listen to the community, and so I wanted to raise the issue before the community in the (perhaps futile) hope that others might also feel strongly about this issue, as I do. Dragons flight 21:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Head Clerk position is more administrative than actually one of doing clerk work, so I doubt that'll be a problem. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it honestly funny that Ril tried to MFD the clerks page. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And you folks think it's laughable, that these are just the whinings of ne'erdowells? That's the kind of attitude that got certain people voted far from ArbCom. Unilateralism is wrong, and saying, "You can't make them" is the logic of George W. Bush. It is not right that ArbCom (the present one) allowed the position "without dissent" and therefore, presumably, with consent and that it is now there for good and all volunteers are welcome. In fact, if I find myself presenting evidence on an ArbCom case, I do not want certain people to present a "summary" of it. Until I'm assured that those persons can read and assess nuance, I do not want to be summarized for others, and I do not want it joked away as just one of those things. If the project is to have any regulation at all, we're not going to manage it with more opacity in our procedings and more good old boyism. Nor do we just shrug and say, as one person said, "You'll never stop us." Geogre 22:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

My response to that is tough luck, unless Jimbo or the board (or of course the arbcom) wish to stop it then there's gonna be a clerk's office though I'm sure they're open to suggestions on how things like that should be handled. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah. "Tough luck." Well, that's a healthy attitude. So nice that there is universal suffrage -- all the better to agree with things. Geogre 01:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The community is free to give input to the arbcom, but essentially, the arbcom is Jimbo's representative. If they want Kelly and Phil as clerks, or want an official office for clerking in the first place, the community can't stop them (except through civil disobedience by refusing to abide by the arbcom's rulings). As a clerk, I will personally never remove or even touch a person's comments unless they are seriously screwing up the evidence page. Instead, I'll summarise their evidence in a section of my own and add a note to the original evidence section to the effect that "this evidence has been summarised below by Johnleemk". Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Why should the community be excluded from this? Of course they don't need to be since if the "clerks" do their job properly they will burnout in short order.Geni 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any clerk would dare to summarise any evidence that you might give in arbitration, geogre, for your powers of expression are not in doubt. But there are some who before arbitration are as mutes, dumbstruck, or overawed, or simply fail to grasp the importance of verifiable evidence.

In the Maoririder case for instance, I presented evidence to refute the proposal of one arbitrator that maoririder had used sock puppets in an effore to evade blocks. In the Baku Ibne case I sorted through a mass of evidence that was presented in a jumbled form, pertaining to over a dozen sock puppets. The evidence clearly pointed to two sources of sock puppetry at a time when we did not have the organised checkuser facilities available now.

The Committee normally has many cases on its hands and is chronically short-staffed. It does not have the resources to undertake massive refactoring of ill-assorted evidence, and the quality of arbitration findings could suffer from this incapacity. Voluntary clerical work has long been a staple of arbitration cases. Until now purely mechanical tasks such as opening a case have been undertaken by arbitrators because there were no other official appointees available to do the job. Now the Committee has a dozen appointed clerks available to do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Because, Tony, no one but the present ArbCom gets to "approve" these clerks. There are people who have a demonstrated history of misrepresentation when their own favorite subjects come up, and there are people who have a history of announcing that the legal proceedings of ArbCom simply don't apply to them, and there are people who have announced that, because, in their judgment, some aspect of Wikipedia's practice isn't right, they intend to delete it, reword it, or just act contrary to it. Anyone with any allegation of that in their past should be automatically disqualified from a clerical position. Instead, though, the office got "approved" (because no one protested) without sufficient thought about how it should work, who should be on it, how wide a scope it should have. In any case of ArbCom, I'd say the appearance of impropriety should be enough to disqualify. This would not be some dark mark, some impugning of character, some agreement with the allegations, but, if we do not wish to validate every word every vandal has ever written about Wikipedia, we need to be sure, absolutely sure, that ArbCom is not only the most rule-bound and legalistic organ on Wikipedia, but that the people volunteering are the same. Folks should advocate changes, but not there. I've never taken a stance on Kelly Martin, for example, but the controversy surrounding her is sufficient to give people excuses for warring against ArbCom decisions and for people thinking (as the original writer did, above) that this is a back door. This is a Very Bad Idea, and the way that it was approved for all eternity by simple lack of disagreement is the worst part of the whole affair. Geogre 01:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"Anyone with any allegation of that in their past" - what, like when you tried to dismiss me on WP:DRV as a "radical inclusionist"? Your criteria don't sound workable in practice.
In summarising evidence, clerks don't do anything anyone couldn't do on /Workshop. If you presented evidence in a case and your personal least favourite editor gave their opinion on /Workshop, what do you do about that? - David Gerard 07:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
David, if the clerks will always summarize evidence in public, as anyone can do on /Workshop, there's no problem. Will that be the case, do you know? I think the fear people have is that evidence will be summarized in private, and that a spin may be put on it that the parties to the case will be unaware of, and therefore unable to correct. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for clerks to summarise evidence privately.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not on the AC any more, but I can say that the clerks will generally be working in /Workshop with everyone else. However, it has always been possible to give evidence to the AC privately, not on the wiki. What the AC does with it is up to them - David Gerard 11:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that if you had volunteered, geogre, you would have been accepted. But there aren't really too many other qualified people around who haven't had someone, somewhere, make some wild accusation about them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem here seems to be that because several people have given unreasonable concerns, those concerns that are reasonable get thrown out as the proverbial baby in the bathwater. Radiant_>|< 08:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Which, to me, is a sign that the whole thing was done too hastily. I suspect absolutely no ill motives or duplicity. However, I also think that folks weren't considering how high the profile is and how many evils are in that box Pandora brought them. There is still hope at the bottom, but we've got to grab it quickly. I would suggest that the project of Clerks be put in abeyance until the new ArbCom is in place, that they ask the people who dislike/mistrust the process to fire their best bullets, and then that they try to craft a project that will be as bulletproof as possible. My motives in objecting are, as they ever are, cranky, but they're also based on what happens when people who "lose" RFar's decide to go to war anyway. It's a flat out mess when that happens, and it's a time sink. This Clerk project, as presently structured, increases the chances of malcontents persuading others. Geogre 11:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. David says above that people have always been able to post in private to the arbcom, but they've not been asked to do it with official arbcom sanction, and that makes a big difference, whether real or perceived. It's true that the arbcom can choose to organize itself however it wants, but hopefully it won't choose to set up a structure that so many people are concerned about. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
My dear geogre, we currently have twenty-four arbitration cases in process, and three in the closing stages. Twelve months ago today, there were just six cases, now there are twenty-seven. But there are only now three more arbitrators than there were in the first batch two years ago.
The merest act of opening a single arbitration case, once accepted, involves a complex editing procedure, and the notification of parties and observers. Some of it is automated, some of it not. Closing an arbitration procedure involves even more work, including tallying the votes and writing the final decision, notifying the parties of the results and ensuring that the administrators know what to do about enforcement. There are fifteen arbitrators, nearly half of whom have never done any of this paperwork, and all of whom have a lot more important things to do with the twenty-seven cases that are open.
So you'll see clerk marks on Template:ArbComOpenTasks, you'll see clerks making announcements. There are six clerks, and if you look now you'll see that they're already getting involved in cases, ensuring that evidence is presented in a form that is most useful to the arbitrators. Why are we doing this? Because every second spent by a clerk doing this essential menial work is a second saved by an arbitrator examining cases. Wikipedia has grown fast, and it does need people to do simple administrative work, and do it reasonably efficiently.
If we put the clerks office to one side, the workload of the arbitrators would go up and so would the backlog. Simple as that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Like George, I have a problem with imposed summaries. Rest of the tasks are not an issue. Yes, yes, tough luck, and so on. El_C 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It's the summarizing of cases in secret, and the way people were chosen, that is the problem. The administrative stuff is not an issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In reply to El_C, could you give an example of the kind of thing you mean? In reply to SlimVirgin, Well I guess I was chosen because of my experience of this kind of thing, dunno about the others. I don't think I'd be doing any summarising of cases in secret, but there are times when you need to go a little quietly. The recent Zordrak case was a good example. I may never know what the crucial information available to the Committee was, and I don't need to know it. In the end someone found independent (public) corroboration and he confessed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For David Gerrard, I don't know what WP:DRV is, but you have recently made some calls that I regard as wholly illogical and personal. That's my opinion. However, if you have had an RFar against you, or let's say 3 in a year, and you were to come out on the losing side, let's say twice, or let's just say that you had some other kind of public examination and a ton of folks came in to complain, then that would show that there is a significant number of people who mistrust you. If you're mistrusted, then you're mistrusted. If you're mistrusted, and yet you are acting as a filter between evidence and the arbitrators, then you give grounds to anyone who disagrees with the outcome to suggest that you hijacked or sabotaged the matter, and, because you are mistrusted, a great many people will believe it. You have chosen to interpret my comments personally, which is your prerogative, but, if you can believe it, it's not personal. This is about whether the trolls and problem users have a soap box from which to recruit good users to their side.
For the others, this is absolutely about one area: summaries. If anyone thought about that issue, they certainly didn't think about it for very long. Allowing clerks to be a filter or to give executive summaries is wrong in every possible way. You can say that people always could have all you want, but the fact is that this is an official non-election of persons who are the preference of current folks for secret, Star Chamber activity. It takes away light from the process and helps this "open source" encyclopedia close its sources and procedures. That's a fantastic way to arm the trolls. Cut out the summary function in every way, and I doubt you'll see much objection any more.
And, since people keep wanting to debate this on the grounds of "what harm does it do," let's ask ourselves what benefit we get from the summary? What good does it do? There are lots of cases on the docket. Ok. So? That's why there are more than five arbitrators. The work load is too great? Put more people on the committee. Do not, though, officially sanction people about whom there is disquiet. Nor is this "oh, can anyone have any allegation," but there are significant issues around some people and wild charges about others.
If we must be personal, there is a reason I stay away from conflict as much as I can. I have no patience for it, and I have no patience for all the personal defensiveness and "I'm rubber and you're glue" taunting that takes place. Turn on the light, and stop being caballistic. Geogre 14:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I echo the concerns raised by Geogre, SlimVirgin, and El_C. The impression given -- at least to me -- by the impressive lack of process surrounding this is that the office of clerk is basically a reward for treating Wikipedia as an IRC social club rather than as an encyclopedia. If the Arbcom doesn't care that it is giving that impression, well, that's fine, I guess. But I don't think anyone should be surprised when good editors interpret the message "tough luck" as "We don't care what editors think." Nandesuka 14:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
More echo here :) And I'd like to quote Tony's explanation of the ArbCom vote "for dummies" [2]:
You will be pleased that the method was successful in weeding out candidates without wide community approval: Kelly Martin, Snowspinner and I are as controversial in the Wikipedia community as we are here and failed to make the necessary 50% approval.'
If they are so controversial and lack wide community approval then they may not be the best fits for what seems like an influential position. Making sense of incoherent evidence is the essential job of an arbitrator - delegating that job seems strange to me. Delegating it to people who lack wide community approval seems even stranger. Not to mention that Snowspinner eats babies :) - Haukur 15:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks (section break)

  • I think this is a tricky balancing act. On the one hand, the ArbCom must not be too susceptible to public opinion because that may interfere with fair treatment of their cases. On the other hand, if they stray too far from public opinion they lose the trust of the community. It is easy to say that Snowy/Tony/Kelly is distrusted by the community and only got the job because they had friends on the ArbCom - but saying so doesn't make it so. Similarly, it is easy to say that Snowy/Tony/Kelly is entirely trustworthy and their opponents are just being nasty for no good reason and should be ignored - but saying that doesn't make it so either. The truth lies in the nebulous middle somewhere. Only such issues are very hard to discuss without devolving into mutual flame wars. Radiant_>|< 15:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Question: I just want to make sure that I am clear on what people are objecting to. No one is objecting to opening and closing cases, and other menial tasks? Lots of people are objecting to clerks summarising evidence privately. If the AC were to decree that all evidence summaries by clerks were public would that put peoples minds at rest? Are there any other worries that people have? (I just want it straight in my own mind what the percieved problems are. The arbitrators are discussing the matter of private evidence summaries now I will report back here our decision as soon as we come to a decision the matter) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonably good summary. I don't care if Willy on Wheels himself opens and closes cases. I don't mind public summaries of evidence as long as anyone who wants to help can do them. - Haukur 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone, so far as I have seen, objects to clerks performing the routine "menial" tasks, as you put it. But to draw an analogy with the American legal system, the clerks aren't responsible for summarizing and presenting evidence, the lawyers are. I believe that the more the "lawyers" (i.e. clerks presenting evidence) are percieved as either having their own personal agenda or trying to advance the arbitrators' agenda then the more people will be uneasy. This can be mitigated by making that part of the process as open and public as possible, but as long as ArbCom is responsible for choosing and instructing clerks, I suspect there will always be some lingering doubt. Given the lack of alternatives, this is probably tolerable, but not ideal. Ideally, we would have a stronger WP:AMA and they could serve as independent quasi-professional "lawyers" to summarize and present evidence on users' behalf. So in summary, I think you'll find that it is having to accept the "lawyering" of people that were handpicked by the court that makes people uneasy and the more that process is obscured, the more people are going to worry that it ceases to be fair. Dragons flight 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
What Theresa says does seem to be the nut of the problem, yes. I don't see why the clerks need write access to the mailing list, for example if they are just ordinary editors doing what any ordinary editor could. If they aren't, if they are to have powers beyond the editorial, then there needs to be a jolly good reason for that. And if they are to have such influence (and let's not weasel it away from such if it's emails to a secret list) then the position should be elected, and not appointed. There was even a comment from one of the new clerks that "we should be able to work privately if we so please". What is it that they (the clerks, not the arbs) might need to work on privately, what might they need to reach secret agreements among themselves on if all they are doing is putting pieces of paper in order? If they are to be arbitrators-lite in either appearance or practise, then they should be elected not appointed via IRC popularity contests. -Splashtalk 17:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hate to be the odd man, but I do disagree with public summaries. I don't think the clerks should be offering summaries in public or private. As courtroom lawyers say, you can't unring a bell, and having someone say something prejudicial or misrepresentative sticks in the mind, regardless of whether it's in public or private. Furthermore, no matter how public or how many other opinions were offered, there would be something "more equal than others" about the clerk's summary. I have no objection to the maintenance, to the contacting of parties, but I have a very strong objection to the summary function. Get rid of that, and I'll keep quiet. Again: the issue for me is not how I feel, but how much the clerical position arms the trolls. (No, I wouldn't decide much on that basis, but this is particularly the troll-dispensing part of the project, and we need confidence in it. If we lose that confidence, we lose all.) Geogre 17:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If clerk summaries turn out to be problematic we can always get rid of them. I'd like to see if that is actually the case though. I think they may well turn out to be very useful. We simply don't know yet until we give it a try.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Theresa, that's like saying, "We'll see if this absolute monarchy thing causes any problems." The problems aren't going to be minor. They're going to be grave. If we can see that it's a bad idea to start off with, if we can see that the potential problems are very serious, then why on earth gamble? Why, when this is one function, and one of the most fishy? Assessing evidence is the soul of arbitration, and this function is being handed off? Being handed off specifically to three people about whom there is a vast amount of ill will? Why? What on earth is worth risking trolls with justification for? This makes no sense at all to me. Couldn't you folks at least wait until the new group is in before opening up a function that apparently is going to be darned difficult to reverse? Why gamble with stakes this high with these particular people (or anyone) with these particular functions at this particular time? It seems to me that there ought to be something monumental to be gained. Geogre 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (posted a lengthy analysis on Theresa's talk page). Radiant_>|< 17:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As a clerk, I probably do need write access to the mailing list, and it isn't as if I haven't as an ordinary editor already had occasion to join in confidential conversations on arbcom-l in the past--there's nothing special about that, anybody can write, and sometimes opinions of editors are sought by arbcom with regard to, say, the workability of certain kinds of remedy. Having write access is just a convenience for David Gerard who runs the list and doesn't want to have to check in inbox several times a day just in case there is some incoming urgent email from a clerk.

Suppose I'm investigating a case and I find that there is a claim related to the offsite doings of an editor. The relevance to the case seems a bit dubious to me so, before I toddle off looking for corroboration, I might want to ask the committee whether it intends to take such evidence into consideration. The point is that I'd probably suspect that they wouldn't, but I would want to make sure, and I wouldn't want to ask publicy because it might then be blown up out of proportion by the party making the claim and become something of a cause celebre.. I have to consider the right to privacy of the participants in the case and the interests of all in a fair hearing, and so I probably go to arbcom-l and say "look, party X is saying party Y was involved in Z offsite. Does the Committee intend to hear evidence on this allegation?" It could be a drug scandal, or a pornography website, or allegations of professional misconduct--things that if publicised might have serious consequences outside Wikipedia. Obviously commonsense tells me that arbcom wouldn't want to touch that in a million years, but I should still ask. But if I asked publicly I then give the issue a spin that would be inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You could use Special:Emailuser for that. -Splashtalk 18:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
He could but why not have write access? He does not have read access so he cannot see our private discussions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if someone set up an account that had arbcom-l set as its email address. But the mechanism of delivery is immaterial. Whether you send email from a smtp client or via Wikipedia's php interface to smtp, the message arrives in the same inbox. What happens then is a question of whether your sender address is on the mailing list's whitelist. And of course anybody can send such an email. And if it looks to be relevant to arbcom's function it will probably be let through. It's just that, being clerks, they're more likely to have relevant business to discuss. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I meant a clerk could just email an Arbitrator. Imo, there should not be summaries of evidence that are kept secret, and so the very occasional kind of question you have could esily be asked of one Arb, or that Arb could refer it to the Committee if they prefer. The choice of words is revealing as well: clerks should not be 'investigating' cases per se; they should be summarising the evidence. They are clerks, not detectives and not arbitrators-lite. It also isn't a clerks job, imo, to look for 'corroborating' evidence — it's for the clerk to simply arrange the evidence in a manner usefuller to the Arbitrators who should be conducting their own investigations. That directly avoids the need for the clerks to deal with sensitive issues of the kind you describe. This gets to the core of clerking: the kind of thing you describe is, basically, arbitrating if you are to follow evidence trails, decide what is and what is not corroborated and otherwise investigate cases. Let's be plain: are the clerks substitute arbitrators because the arbitrators don't want to do the legwork (then they should resign forthwith) or are they to carry out the menial tasks that any editor could do, but most choose not to? -Splashtalk 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

By its nature, I think an email sent to arbcom-l is probably better than one sent to a single arbitrator who may not happen to look at his email that day. And if he does he only has to forward it on arbcom-l. I don't see any point in introducing this risky extra step when it would be just as easy to email the list--as anyone can.

On what kind of evidence one would look at, I think the feeling of the clerks office is that if evidence was referred to and the arbitrators expressed an interest then, rather than leave the arbitrators to do the digging, the clerks would do it. So the clerks would seek direction from the arbitrators rather than going fishing on their own account. This was the purpose of my example.

No matter what we can say to reassure you, you will always have to face the fact that members of Wikipedia as a functioning entity do communicate significant information to one another in manners that are not publicly accessible, and that they always have done. As a Wikipedia editor I have on a very few occasions, contacted the arbitrators on confidential matters and in turn I have been consulted by them.

But because clerks do menial work for the arbitrators, this does not mean that they participate in decisions, except insofar as Kelly being a former arbitrator may participate freely in any and all arbcom-l discussions. Clerks are not substitute arbitrators, they're just the people who do the drudge work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I don't know when the 'drudge' work became that of making recommendations to the committee, examining evidence and doing so behind closed doors. That sounds to me like the principal work of the committee. People have not always been appointed by the arbcom expressly for the purpose of communicating with them in secret. If clerks were not talking about running the arbitration themselves, there'd be no problem. But they are: they want to talk to arbs in secret, they want the ability to present their own view of the evidence, in secret. I don't see the need. I do, on the other hand, see the need to have the simple, menial work such as opening, closing, notifying etc etc done by clerks, and the sanity-checking of e.g. workshops to make sure that the morass of proposed executions remedies stays in a shape that is vaguely accessible to a human. But I don't see why this needs cloaks, daggers, smoke and mirrors. -Splashtalk 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone say when and by whom the decision was made that the head clerk had to be a former arbitrator, and why that decision was made? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
By the committee. It's common sense, really, that the head clerk be able to communicate easily with the comittee as a whole. Former Arbitrators keep list access. It's sensible to use someone who already has list access to be head clerk. Really, "head clerk" is no more than an administrative position; I don't believe Kelly actually intends to do clerking work per se. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sam, thanks for the reply. It's not clear why the head clerk, as opposed to any other clerk, would need list access, and if they did, they could be given it, rather than having to be someone who already had it. Does the committee realize that there's widespread concern about this situation: about who was chosen, why they were chosen, and what exactly they'll be doing? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand the concerns. I expect the Committee will review the clerks' existance in a few months time. We are working on the principle of "nothing ventured, nothing gained" to a great degree here. In answer to your question about the head clerk: this is not a clerking position. It is a position for someone to administrate the other clerks. Kelly is also the one who has been opening and closing cases. She was chosen basically because she volunteered for the role. This way (having a former Arbitrator as Head Clerk) allows for consistency as to who has access to the mailing list, and who is allowed to comment on cases. It is also very important to have someone who understands the ArbCom process from the inside to administrate its management (eek, that phrase shows what a bureaucracy we can be...) I hope this answers your questions. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam. I'm still not clear about this part: "This way (having a former Arbitrator as Head Clerk) allows for consistency as to who has access to the mailing list, and who is allowed to comment on cases." Anyone who needed list access could have been given it. Anyone who wants to comment on a case is currently allowed to and doesn't need list access to do that. And if there's too much work for the arbcom, more arbitrators could have been chosen. I think one of the concerns people have is that, if clerks really were needed, there was no need to choose them from among people who had just lost an election. This says to the community that what ordinary editors think doesn't matter, and it means the arbcom will have less credibility now, which is a pity, because it's a new committee and it could have been a fresh start. You talked about reviewing the situation in a few months, but I think the damage will have been done by then. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
We do recognise this, and it's clearly a valid point. While a fresh start is good, it's also necessary at the same time to have some consistency. I don't think I explained the situation with the Head Clerk very well. The point about the mailing list is really incidental. The main point is that a member of the office knows how the ArbCom procedure works. As to the point of several of the clerks having recently not been elected in the ArbCom elections, that is not really fair. We chose them because they were the best on offer. I expect we will appoint more in due course. It is like saying that, because someone failed in an election to become a member of parliament, we aren't going to approve them to work in the civil service, even if they're a good candidate. If you take it as read that the ArbCom is still supervising its clerks (and it would be negligent not to) I think you will see why we appointed these people. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sam, do you think that the clerks will change frequently? That would alleviate any concerns I have, more or less.--Sean Black|Talk 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I doubt you'll see us removing clerks for removal's own sake! However, clerks that are not being useful will be removed, and I fully expect to see numerous other users become clerks in the future. I know Geni is predicting great calamaties of burnout. In answer to your question, yes, I do expect to see a fair amount of change in who the clerks office is made up of. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't meant to suggest just throwing them out back for the hell of it :). But that makes sense- I can only imagine that it would be a short term, which makes it feel less like appointing a sub-committee, and more like, you know, clerks.--Sean Black|Talk 22:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the major concern that people have is that particular editors, who were disapproved for a role that has influence in the arbcom, have nevertheless been appointed to have influence on the arbcom. What alarms me above all is the evidence summarising. Yes, the evidence can be a mangled heap of scrap, but it's the evidence as presented by the person who is on trial. Also, I don't believe that editors that we expressed our lack of support for should secretly have any input into punishments. If Snowspinner thinks editor X should be banned for the rest of his natural life, I think he should be saying it on the talkpage, just like anyone else. I understand the desire for the arbcom's deliberations to be secret. Judges in those places that try by judge don't deliberate in public. But submissions made to them are public. It's very worrying that users who we don't trust to be arbitrators are given a position of influence by the back door. Grace Note 22:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that, even if I don't particularly agree with it. Really, we should trust the ArbCom that was elected by the community to be responsible and not let them be influenced or however by the clerks. WP:AFG and all that.--Sean Black|Talk 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that all statements should be public. The Committee is currently discussing this very matter on its mailing list. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but it seems a little comical to use a private mailing list for the purposes of discussing how to keep things public. Really though, I do appreciate seeing the views of yourself, Theresa and the other Arbs who have commented publicly on these issues. Dragons flight 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You elected us. You didn't expect us to be SANE and LOGICAL, did you? Really? You did??? Whoa! Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we'll have to discuss this private mailing list in a public IRC channel.--Sean Black|Talk 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Attempting to address various people's concerns.... I have also agreed that the summaries should be public (and indeed, as simple, strictly factual, and neutral as possible—which is not something that parties often do in their own presentations). I have seen evidence summaries by others be useful and I should hope I wouldn't be unduly swayed by them if they're not backed up by evidence. I regard the summaries as helpful but non-essential, and of course anyone outside the clerk's office is also welcome to present them. As for Geogre's concern that no one should—well, people do, already, on the workshop pages, or they send their opinions in email. We give them the weight that they're worth, I hope.
As for Kelly's access to the mailing list, she would, as any other former arbitrator, have access anyhow, and would, as former arbs do, be offering advice and opinions. (It's also my opinion that whatever community relations skills she may have, she's good at analyzing cases.) No one else has read access, and any other editor can send a message to the list in private by emailing an arbitrator and asking that it be passed on. I expect the position of clerk if anything to have them under more scrutiny rather than less—as when some people have done similar things independently, and no one made a fuss about it. Write access also is good: it's not getting a special ear, it's getting reminders and questions regarding open cases out to everyone in a timely manner. ("Hey, you voted on all of these remedies but one, go look at this again so we can close" or "hey, editor X has a question/new piece of evidence no one has looked at and he thinks it will affect the decision.")
I don't see it as a serious problem that the clerks chosen were not approved as arbitrators, as they're not arbitrating. If the AC makes a bad decision by relying on something inappropriate a clerk has done, it's our fault. Call us on it, please. And if the clerkship bit in general turns out not to work so well, then, oh well, experiment failed, it was worth a shot. I think it's worth trying, if only because opening, closing, notifying, and keeping track of what needs to be voted on by whom is a pain, not a judgment-critical process, and if someone else wants to do that so much the better. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Some of this makes sense, but the point remains that choosing people who had just been so roundly rejected was obviously going to be controversial, and that it was done smacks of disrespect to the community. The community may repay that with disrespect in return, and there you have a bad situation that no clerk's position is worth, in my view. It would have made more sense to choose the clerks from among the people who just missed out on getting elected (assuming they wanted to do it). Regarding the summaries, the whole point of having them written is, presumably, so that arbitrators don't have to wade through all the evidence. Therefore, the summaries will be relied upon. The commmittee can't have it both ways: on the one hand, clerks are going to write summaries which will helpfully save the committee time, but on the other, don't worry, because the committee will independently read the evidence themselves anyway, so they can judge which summaries to take seriously. Something is making no sense here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhpas the issue is why the clerks are absolutley necessary, then? I can see that, I'm not sure they're terribly usefull myself. But I'm not an Arbitrater, so I really can't say.--Sean Black|Talk 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It's easier to find your way around a strange country when you have a sketch map in front of you. That is how I intend to treat the clerks' summaries. The post was advertised, so anyone who wanted to have the post could have applied. Indeed, anyone can still apply, and I fully encourage them to. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Twice people have made gambling analogies. Let me reiterate my own: why on earth place these stakes on the table? What on earth is worth the amount of harm a loss will make? What is the benefit adherent to Tony or Snowspinner or Kelly, or for that matter me or SlimVirgin or anyone else, summarizing evidence, compared to arming a disgruntled editor with evidence that Person X prejudiced the case and used personal associations to get her/his way? This is too dangerous, too high a stake, with no winnings for being right. Geogre 23:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sean, the head clerkship was not advertised, yet the head clerk gets to vet all other applicants, and the particular person chosen as head clerk is highly controversial. This is in large measure where the problem lies. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, once the Committee had decided that the Head Clerk was to be a former Arbitrator, it was advertised to all eligable. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sam, the head clerk is responsible for vetting applicants, so the application process is flawed from the get-go, because the head clerk position was not advertised and the person who was given it (for reasons no one has explained) is regarded, rightly or wrongly, with a great deal of ill will. The way this is being done is inherently problematic for these reasons. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is slightly problematic. I'm not sure what solution there is to that, though- what other method could be used to choose the head clerk?--Sean Black|Talk 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Convince someone else to do it, convince arbcom to replace Kelly/convince her to quit. Or just cope. There is a tiny tiny pool of avaiable former arbs and most ran away screaming as I recall--Tznkai 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for it to be a former arbitrator. That thinking is the big flaw in the system. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well thats a diffrent issue then, unless you're accusing the ArbCom of a conspiracy to select requirements so only Kelly would get the job. Who the Head clerk is, is a seperate issue from the requirements for clerkship. Honestly, I like havign a forber arbitrator around The experiance they provide is going to be very useful.--Tznkai 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That's mostly accurate. However, Kelly made a recommendation, and the appointment was left to the committee. I don't really see Kelly's role as "vetting". As I say, the head clerk position was offered to all who were eligible. Kelly accepted. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the perception is that "eligibility" was defined to allow a very small group of people (for all practical purposes, a group consisting of one) to be "eligible." All we can do as ordinary editors is to ask that the committee take people's concerns about it seriously. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I take this very seriously. It is quarter to one in the morning, and I'm still replying here! I do understand why you think it not necessary to have a former arbitrator as a clerk. However, I hope you can also see why the Committee chose to take this route. We are trying to be as open as possible about this. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sam, I can see that you personally take it seriously, and I appreciate your taking the time to respond, especially given how late it is for you. I wonder if the committee would consider making public the entire decision-making process, and in particular how it was decided that only former arbitrators could become head clerk, and why a head clerk was needed in the first place. The perception is that this was some kind of done deal from the start. If the process could be laid bare, I think that might help to clear up some concerns. If in addition, the plan for clerks to summarize evidence could be abandoned, I think there would be few, if any, concerns remaining. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how forcing the logic about the requirement for a (non-running-away-screaming) arbiter as Clerk Chair is, or anything about done deals, etc; I've expressed my opinion elsewhere that this whole business seems to me to be an essentially sound idea, that could have been handled with better timing, transparency and general presentation. But it does occur to me that Jimmy Wales could have done his bit here, by not unnecessarily contracting the available supply of ex-arbiters. Not much he could have done about the running-away-screaming part, admittedly. Alai 09:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I didn't say anything about Kelly, nor do I think she's a bad clerk. I'm just saying that some people are concerned with how the head clerk gets the job, is all.--Sean Black|Talk 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that, had we appointed a non-former-arbitrator as head clerk, we'd now be discussing whether he should have read/write access to arbcom-l. There must be coordination between the arbitrators and the clerks, although in general the clerks do not need, and should not have, access to the confidential deliberations of the arbitrators. A former arbitrator is well placed for the task. I don't blame other former arbitrators for running away screaming, for it involves all the hard work and drudgery of being an arbitrator without the right to have a vote in the final decision. And would anybody have been so much happier if one of the other former arbitrators, say David Gerard or Ambi, had taken the position? Few former arbitrators leave the post without having accrued some degree of notoriety. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Do all former arbitrators retain their rights to arbcom-l? It seems like it would be standard process for former members to be removed from the list. Certainly if there is to be a Clerks office, and there is going to be a head clerk, it does make some sense to have a former arbitrator in the position. It is certainly a valid concern to note the timing and lack of transparency - a head clerk appointed after an abortive bid for arbcom, and within days, is rather unseemly. If the clerks in general should not have access to the confidential deliberations, but the head clerk does, it might put the head clerk into a uniquely difficult position. This person would need to be especially skilled at the arbitrator and clerk duties to be truly effective, and should also be a member of the community held in the highest regard to help avoid even the appearance of bias. --Dschor 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerks III: Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the office

I think there's a lot of focus on the fact that three of the clerks got, in an arbitration committee election, less than 50% approval for the position of arbitrator. I'd like to point out that six clerks were chosen solely from about a score of people who volunteered. Four of them happened to have stood as candidates for arbitrator, and (as most candidates did) failed to get community approval. One of them is an experienced arbitrator, two of them are experienced in arbitration work from the other side, having completed work on important cases in the recent past in which a large proportion of the final decision issued by the Committee was actually drafted by them. Whatever personal opinion you may have of them, they're eminently qualified and respected Wikipedians. And they volunteered. There may of course be more qualified people who failed to volunteer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, can you say which decisions were drafted by the clerks you mentioned? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To my personal recollection, I drafted, on the workshop page, over half of what became the findings of fact and one of the two remedies in the final decision of the Webcomics case. IOthers drew up their own proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies, and some of those were also adopted (the second remedy was drafted by Snowspinner and accepted with an alteration proposed by Aaron Brenneman and supported by me). This is the purpose for which the workshop pages are intended. All proposals on the workshop page were public and subject to comment by arbitrators, participants and others. The amount of scrutiny on that case was exceptionally high and the arbitrators had the opportunity to take into account the opinions of all who commented on the case--and there was a lot of comment. And to answer the question you didn't ask, all my contributions on the case were public. I did not email any of the arbitrators individually or as a group. I cannot speak for the other participants. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't about personalities it is about summaries being drafted by anyone not an arbitrator. If the workshop system works well, leave it alone. One more time: what, exactly, is the grave need that is satisfied by having clerks make summaries? What hole is there at present that this will spackle over? Is this the only possible solution? Given that the harm done by this going wrong is going to be absolutely horrible, I'd say this would have to be the only possible answer to a crippling need to be worth considering, and that's before we start asking about Tony (currently in a conflict, below, with 4 other admins), Snowspinner (in numerous conflicts and just below making what looks like a personal attack), and Kelly (with whom I have no experience of conflict but who seems to have drawn a great deal of discontent). It isn't three unknowns, here. But, again, let's get away from personalities: what is the justification for this particular function to this particular job? Geogre 13:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wait, did I miss "Clerks 2: The Revenge"? Darn shame.--Sean Black (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection to public summaries by clerks, geogre. Anyone can make a summary of evidence. On Webcomics workshop a lot of the proposed findings of fact were in effect summaries of evidence, and not one of them was prepared by a clerk. If a clerk or anyone else produces a summary and someone has an objection to it, then he can post his contrary evidence on the evidence page and his alternative summary in the workshop page. Could you explain what the substantive objection is here? Should the findings of fact that I proposed in webcomics have been rejected automatically where they amounted to digests of evidence? Were I to have produced the same digests while wearing the hat (they promised us all hats) of a clerk, should the proposals then have been rejected, but not when I made them as a participant? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And, Tony, can you explain what advantage there is to a title for an official summarizer of conflicts? Can you explain what advantage there will be to your being able to say that you are an official finder of fact, instead of just another person with an opinion? Further, you may recall that I did, indeed, reject your findings of fact because you were a litigant, not an observer, and you even signed yourself as a party of the dispute when you claimed to be summarizing. You may see the eventual findings as being yours, but I wholeheartedly disagree. They were, in fact, not your wordings nor your ideas, and they sure didn't match the ArbCom case that Phil brought. But, again, what advantage is there to an official summarizer of disputes? What procedural check was there that the people be individuals that the community will trust? Geogre 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


I'd appreciate an eventual answer to my questions, but I'll address yours int he meantime.because I know the answers and they're probably of more general interest than your answers to mine.

There is no advantage to me in this that I can see. I put myself forward as arbitrator, knowing that it would involve more work than any sane person would accept, out of a sense of responsibility to the encyclopedia. I put myself forward as clerk out of the same sense of responsibility. There was no question in my mind that I should do a job of which I have been proven capable.

You personally may well have rejected my findings, but the arbitration committee did not. You say "They were, in fact, not your wordings nor your ideas." This is easily demonstrated to be false: Rather than give chapter and verse, I'll give two of the most obvious examples.

  • Finding of fact 1 in the arbitration final ruling, which I will refer to as "X's edits to deletion policy" is word for word my proposed finding of fact 1.2, "X edits deletion policy" with the addition of two sentences, one referring to the history of the section edited by X and the other describing a subsequent edit.
  • Remedy 1, "X admonished" is word-for-word my proposed remedy 3 "X admonished to seek consensus on policy". The whole thing was adopted. This remedy followed from the finding of fact above.

But I'm not claiming to be a ventriloquist able to operate the Committee as my own mouthpiece. What I'm saying (going way back to the start of this subsection) is that I'm a reasonable draftsman and I know what kind of material the arbitrators are looking for. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerks Announcement by the arbcom

I'm speaking on behalf of the whole AC when I say this:

The Arbitrators have agreed that under normal circumstances, clerk evidence summaries should be public. They will be placed at the top of the proposed decision page of the cases. Clerks will not post evidence summaries to the private arbitration mailing list unless specifically asked to do so by the AC. (This will only happen in exceptional circumstances) We would like to point out that anyone is free to email an arbitrator privately about any matter. This has always been the case and will continue to be the case.

I'm back talking as myself here:

I know that this announcement will not satisfy everyone's fears but I hope that this will make everyone feel at least a little better about the AC and the clerks office. We do listen to peoples worries and we do do our best to take them on board. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please direct discussion and commentary here Raul654 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

An Admin Announcment About AN/I

Can everyone please follow Raul's link about where to discuss this? This is not and never has been an issue that requires administrator action, the discussion should be there and not here.

We now return you to your normal programming...... --Wgfinley 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll place a copy of the above discussion (starting with Ril's complaint) in the archive of Wikipedia talk:Clerks. --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia_talk%7EArbitration_Committee_Clerks_archive3_a126.html"