Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Clerks

RfA clerks

Copied from User:Kudpung/RfA reform Swarm ^X 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Both Errant and Worm That Turned have recently raised the idea at WT:RFA of using clerks.

• Worm suggested "...someone who was authorised by the community to remove unconstructive comments, asking them to be refactored or at least provide specific examples."
• Errant suggested "...a group of volunteers of whom one or two recuse themselves from active participation in each RFA, instead take on a clerking role - sorting votes, nipping drama/civility in the bud and "mentoring" the candidate through the process."
  

I also think the concept has merit and it should be considered. Swarm ^X 15:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a brill idea - can't think why it hasn't been done before Pesky (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The role and remit would have to be well defined, when I mentioned the idea it was pointed out that the community is unlikely to be happy with a user who could effictively kill votes. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What you could do to try and resolve this during a trial period is allow each candidate to opt in for clerks in their respective RFA. I'd have a hard time thinking of a reason for someone to not want clerks in their RFA. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it has merit and have included a similar suggestion myself. Much of this I believe will form around an RfA project similar to the task force which is now taking shape. My76Strat (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. The role would certainly have to be well defined. The safest route would probably be to limit their 'power' to remove comments to only blatant, indisputable personal attacks (example), while requesting that other, less serious instances of perceived incivility or unintentionally hurtful comments (example) be rephrased or redacted by their author. The latter example spiraled off into a heated discussion that could possibly have been avoided if a clerk left a polite request to reword their comment on their talk page. Clerks could also do minor things like minimizing the text off topic discussions and excessive oppose pestering, recommend that a candidate withdraw, etc. Swarm ^X 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring the candidate through the process is the job of the nominator. While the clerk/crat must be neutral the mentor should be supportive so they can't be combined. But it is a great idea, and I think we should try and do more of this for self noms and noms by "less experienced" editors. I think informally it already often happens but there are probably gaps.

Sorting votes, dealing with odd anomalies etc is the sort of clerking that participants already do - I think that works fine and see no need for change.

Removing incivil and out of line !votes in my view should be a crat job.

ϢereSpielChequers 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WSC's comments make a lot of sense to me. Let the nominator mentor, and ask the bureaucrats to handle the abusive or otherwise inappropriate votes. The crats seem pretty hands-off during RfAs now (not a bad thing in and of itself), but if the community wants to cut down on the insults and attacks, I think the crats would be in the best position to help with that, if asked to. 28bytes (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My view regarding WSC's points are this:

• Clerks would be neutral in the RfA itself (recusing themselves when they're clerking), but I think they should absolutely be morally supportive to the candidate (as should we by default). Thus, I don't think mentoring candidates would conflict with a clerk's neutrality. Furthermore, there are many, many self-noms that don't necessarily get support from anyone.
• The sort of clerking that participants do voluntarily works fine and shouldn't be restricted to "clerks"; however if we had clerks I can't see why they wouldn't look out for technical tasks that need doing, deal with 'odd anomalies' etc.
• Crats don't remove or even monitor out of line !votes. Perhaps they should. Perhaps they used to. But sadly, they don't. They close successful RfAs and determine consensus when need be, but other then that crat involvement seems to be minimal. At the same time the question of "if not the crats, than who?" remains unanswered. We shouldn't need to generate a consensus that personal attacks should be removed. The crats should know to do it. If they're not going to, then someone has to. Swarm ^X 18:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the crats do. They would probably do it more if they thought the community unambiguously wanted them to and didn't consider it "interfering." 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just the problem. The community can't unambiguously agree on anything. If I thought the community would unambiguously agree simply that "personal attacks at RfA should be removed by bureaucrats", I would create an RfC right now.

On another note, why reserve this role, which normally falls to administrators and regular editors, to crats? By doing this, do we not go against the notion that extra tools are 'no big deal'? Crats have a few extra technical abilities, but nothing that makes them the exclusive RfA police. Swarm ^X 20:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for Superman! the Page Watchdog / Town Sheriff idea being thrashed out elsewhere Pesky (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, until we have a group of 'Sheriffs' whose job it is to specifically deal with this (and good luck with that one), I don't see anything that says it's a job for crats. Swarm ^X 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

However, you want to avoid creating another class of editors that seem "better" then everyone else. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Personal attacks are currently required to support oppose !votes. This is the essence of the current process and the reason that it is perceived as brutal - one must publically and explicitly explain why the candidate is not acceptable by addressing their character and competence. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely one must be prepared to criticise an editor's contributions. But there is a difference between saying "I don't trust you with the deletion button for these three reasons " and "I don't think you are ready for the deletion button yet for these three reasons". Personally I find that less brutally phrased criticism can be a more effective Oppose. However the sort of nastiness that I would like to see the crats remove is more along the lines of comparing the candidate's contributions to excreta , or just saying "terrible contributions" without explaining what you find terrible about said contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack in either of those phrasings TBH. There is nothing nasty in saying "I don't trust you", because that might be their opinion. We ask people to be civil, not to mince words. I think the sort of thing we need to avoid are insinuations ("like a child", "how old are you?") and nastiness ("pathetic", "you're an idiot") etc. And we need to factor in the clarity and intent of the argument, if someone can say "I think you do not have the maturity because XYZ" it should be given more latitude than a comment simply saying "too immature". The point isn't to be *nice*, it is to be *not nasty* :)

RFA clerks are a good idea; I think their role should be clearly defined. I'd swing it away from removing votes per se (except in obvious troll circumstances) and more into stopping pile on discussions, moving extended discussion to the talk pages, monitoring the questions and leeping an eye on the candidate (with a stress on the last point). --Errant ^(chat!) 08:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a personal attack, but I do think we sometimes use unnecessarily brutal ways of phrasing things. "Also I don't think you are ready for the deletion button yet" is usually more honest, it may come as a surprise to the candidates but almost every opposer would happily support them if they were a few months more experienced and had resolved any issues raised in the RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I think we are basically in agreement, I just hadn't had a coffee before my last reply :D --Errant ^(chat!) 10:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely a need for someone to police the RfA process and the quality of the comments. Referring to an editor as an 'obtuse jerk' on a talk page could justify a civility warning from any other editor. Using such language on RfA about the candidate should meet with immediate removal of the comment any any !vote attached to it and a 6-month topic ban from voting on further RfA. I rather like the idea of an RfA clerk who recuses from !voting, but the problem is, how would we decide who can be a clerk? It could be any editor in good standing with a record of clean voting on RfA, and say for sake of argument, participation in a minimum of 20 RfA, or it could be an admin, or it could be a crat. As it is part and parcel of the package of reforms we hope to achieve, it needs further discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be restricted to admins or 'crats. Many people would see that as an attempt to give admins and 'crats more power over the rest of the community.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 11:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Also I don't think formal restrictions on "membership" are necessarily needed. The way Arbcom clerking works is a good model I think. We initially seed a trial with a small number of reasonable volunteers (i.e. people volunteer and if no one disagrees with them they're good to go :)). If accepted as a policy/ongoing initiative new clerks can volunteer, assessed by the current clerks for their ability & then mentored if judged appropriate (this is how Arbcom clerking works). That way it is less a case of "20 RFA edits" and more a case of "so is this person someone who can resolve dispute and keep things friendly".

Given that this is a suggestion with pretty strong support do you think we are at the stage of being able to draft the job description & processes and come up with a trial to propose to the community? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the community say yes or no to somone becoming a clerk. --Guerillero | My Talk 12:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about a community discussion for someone to become a clerk...it just seems so...ironic. I think any community discussion regarding RfA is going to be as heated, divided and contentious as RfA itself. It might be better if the status were granted by admins or crats to long term, civil RfA contributors. Swarm ^X 17:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggest 'trialling' the clerking idea by having the discussion 'clerked' to get over the 'heated, divided and contentious' issues :o) Pesky (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible clerk tasks

Some possible tasks for a clerk. I think that the very effect of knowing that RfA is clerked, would drastically reduce the rate of poor voting and misbehaviour, probably leaving the clerk with little to do.

• Politely deny any practically certain NOTNOW before transclusion.
• Check that other candidates meet minimum criteria before transclusion - advise the candidate if they are not, and ask if they would still like to go ahead.
• Post the candidate's user stats to the talk page.
• Warn users that their questions may be potentially off topic and/or disruptive, and that they should consider rephrasing and/or removing them.
• Speedily remove any questions that may be off topic and/or disruptive.
• Warn users that their voting comments (or lack of them) may be potentially off topic and/or disruptive, and that they should consider rephrasing and/or removing them.
• Speedily remove any votes and their comments that are blatantly uncivil, have nonsense rationales, and are otherwise disruptive.
• Speedily remove or redact any comments in threads that are inflammatory, blatantly uncivil, are nonsense rationales, and are otherwise disruptive.
• Watching out for by socks and blocked users.
• Watching out for votes that appear to be the result of canvassing.
• Investigate any suspicious votes for possible RfA SPA.
• Verify links to diffs, and that diffs cited in opposed votes are valid and on topic, and not dragged out of the distant past. (Theoretically, if the threshold for candidacy were set at, say (just for example) 3 months, no problems in the past of any candidate older than three moths should be brought into play - but this is a highly controversial issue, because length of membership and edit count are neither compatible nor comparable criteria. Personally i don't generally support any candidate who does not have a clean block log.
• Intervene to close threads that get too long or off topic. (several recent RfA have turned into varying forms of discussion on other users, topics, policies, or guide lines.
• Advise candidates of potential NOTNOW that they may wish to consider withdrawing.
• Early close clear NOTNOW cases.
• Remind the crats if the RfA closure is overdue.
• Close the voting on expiry of the 168 hours, pending crat decision, or crat chat.
• Observing and maintaining any other standards of hygiene.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent list there. I think that instead of clerks closing threads that get too long or unwieldy, they should move them to the talkpage. Also, I think clerks should be able to place a RfA on hold after the seven days expire. In addition to that list, I would add the task of helping the candidate and consoling them should they fail. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 12:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with both the list and Pyfan's suggestions :) Also I'm not sure what is meant by "nonsense rationales", in principle I agree that they have no weight. But on the other hand "Oppose user has a green user page" is nonsense, but I wouldn't remove it. Instead leave it to the crat to discard the vote (the point being; that is a clearly nonsense example, but other things might be less clear cut). I think the clerk should focus on civility more than anything. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've implemented a placeholder here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clerks The wording is just filler for now, just to give an idea. We can fill it in as each part is agreed here etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much like the list there Kudpung, that's pretty much what I had hoped for an RfA clerk with a couple of extra sensible ideas thrown in. I also agree with Pyfan, firstly that long threads should be moved to the talk page, and secondly that clerks should be there to help the candidate through the entire process, including the aftermath. Otherwise, agree that moving out of Kudpung's space is a good idea, but where do we move it too? All the good names are taken ;) WP:RFA reform, WP:RfA Review Worm^TT · (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all really, really good stuff. After so much crap in other places, it's so refreshing to see some consistently sound good sense coming out :o) Agree with everything said above. Pesky (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Impressive. Instead of removing off topic votes why can't they strike them out and place a template {{offtopicvote}} indented below it --Guerillero | My Talk 17:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome ideas, both on the list and in the ideas regarding it above. Swarm ^X 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: some potential clerk jobs are very unlikely to get resistance and could make a big difference (helping candidates as soon as the RfA page is created, before it's transcluded); some would be experimental. Keep on brainstorming all possible clerk roles, but only implement the ones that you know are going to succeed to start with. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a solid approach. Preventing NOTNOW candidacies is likely to be a welcome thing from all quarters. Some of the other stuff is going to be considerably more thorny to sort out. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've put a list of possible suggestions for qualifications for being a clerk. This is really just an aide-mémoire. We need to continue the above discussion to reach a consensus on the method of choosing them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal and striking of votes

Uncivil !votes and personal attacks would be removed by clerks. This will, for obvious reasons, be a contentious task almost 100% of the time. It will certainly involve the comments of administrators and highly experienced users otherwise in good standing, who will certainly raise hell if their votes are removed. Therefore, we have to think the process through, and I think it should be as delicate as possible. Here's my thoughts:

• A clerk should first politely request that the author redact or rephrase their statement. If the user refuses to do so, the clerk may proceed as follows:
• At least three (could be a higher number) clerks must agree that a comment should be removed or partially removed.
• Rather than removing the entire !vote, we replace the text with <redacted by clerks>, or something similar.
• We then place template message on the !voter's talk page that reads something like: "A comment you have left at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/example has been removed by an RfA clerk as a personal attack. Your !vote is still listed, and you're free to add a polite rationale. Thank you." (The wording can probably be refined further) Thoughts? Swarm ^X 20:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC) (updated 02:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
  • Hmm, generally agree... although I am unconvinced that many !votes should be removed; rather than have a convoluted "you need three clerks to agree" scheme my personal thinking is that it would be best just to remove the very worst comments (i.e. trolling). Which will bring less hear. Even with three clerks (or whatever) there is still going to be heat & light if they remove something like "Oppose; I dislike you" etc. In fact I think we should strongly place the emphasis away from !vote removal, and on to pro-actively keeping things civil, moving stuff to talk pages etc. The more complex we make this task a) the less people will be involved and b) the less chance it has of meeting community approval --Errant ^(chat!) 21:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    • That is going to be the most controversial part of the proposal. Do arbcom clerks remove uncivil comments from arbcom pages? If not, that should be a separate proposal from the creation of the clerks. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
      • @Errant- I generally agree with that comment, but what would you propose we do with comments such as "oppose, I don't like you"?
      • @Guerillero One of the primary responsibilities of clerks would be monitoring !votes. No one's saying it won't be controversial, which is why I'm hoping a) the task force stands behind it; and b) the task force takes the route of seeking WMF approval. One thing we don't want to do is create two new RfA maintenance groups. We don't really need clerks if they're not going to touch the area of !votes at all, IMO at least. Then again, if the task force just decides to go with RfCs for our proposal, we'd be lucky to get this passed without the comment removal clause-- much less with.
      • By the way, I updated the process above. Swarm ^X 02:16, 3 April 2011
        • "I don't like you" is a valid reason to vote. It's not helpful, and the crats are likely to pay it little heed, but it is valid. Similarly with all but the worst rationale comments. I think it would be better to accept these, maybe moving replies to the talk page with a reply that says "this vote is being discussed at the talk page". However, I do think it would be good to come up with a talk page template which says, "your vote does not meet the recommendations, please consider refactoring or adding further rational". Maybe something similar for unhelpful or uncivil commentsWorm^TT · (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I would suggest that the comment only be removed, leaving the oppose !vote with no rationale behind it (it didn;t really have one anyway). That way, on closing, the !vote would / should be discounted Pesky (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
            • I agree with both Pesky and Swarm. Uncivil !votes should have their rationales removed but the !vote itself should remain. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 12:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
              • I like the discussion on the talk page idea. These days, RFA talk pages aren't used for much more than posting the candidate's edit statistics. If we could get the TP to be used for what it's there for, I think that should solve a problem on its own. I do also like the idea presented above, with the removal of unhelpful/uncivil rationale. Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
                • @Swarm; r.e. "I don't like you" comments - I'd leave it. If replies and subsequent discussion got nasty then I'd perhaps cull that. But alone it isn't grossly uncivil (there is nothing necessarily wrong with not liking someone). Such a !vote would be for the closing 'crat to judge, not a clerk. IMO the clerk is there to stop things descending into idiocy, they can't be judges of what constitutes a good argument; because we appoint 'crats for that purpose, and require them to be skilled at the task. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • I suppose that's actually true; maybe "I don't like you" is a bad example because coming from a clear SPA or troll it can be disruptive but coming from an RfA regular it really who's being honest it isn't that bad. This is why each comment would have to be discussed and agreed upon by multiple clerks. Swarm ^X 19:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Civility

I'm starting this topic so we can keep comments on the narrow topic of civility in one place; they're currently intermixed with other possible reasons to object to rationales. I think some voters believe that the candidate "started a fight" just by running, and therefore it's okay to "fight back". We see this all over WP ... for instance, just making an edit to, say, a policy page, is in a sense starting a fight, and if you use WP:Civility to bonk people who are a little coarser in their policy arguments, all you succeed in doing is opening up the playing field for the people whose language is a little smoother but whose goals may be no better. I think the same logic applies at RfA ... if an opposer is responding to something the candidate once said that's clearly uncivil, or responding to some sharp language from a supporter, we should give them some leeway. But just running for RfA by itself doesn't seem to me to be "starting a fight". - Dank (push to talk) 13:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's get some examples of typical RfA incivility. For example, one that comes to my mind (obviously) is calling the candidate an 'obtuse jerk'. What's our task force's opinion on that? It would perhaps be a good idea to sift through recent RfA (as I did for making my list of inappropriate questions), and make a list of some for discussion here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can dig up --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I see this as being the most difficult aspect of this idea to define properly. "Obtuse jerk" is certainly a rude thing to call somebody, but what if the candidate is in fact an obtuse jerk? It's been known to happen. If the clerk simply removes such a comment we're going to get people shouting "censorship" at them, even if the candidate is not an obtuse jerk. Asking persons who make such a posting to rephrase it is unlikely to be an effective strategy either. Where do we draw the line? Where can we draw the line? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, that's a real problem... I think the emphasis should be on the other tasks more than removing !votes, indeed I'd suggest setting things up in such a way that actually removing a !vote was something that occurred once in a blue moon, for obvious trolls and the like. I think the difficulty of judging the validity of any comment is too difficult for a clerk to do. On the other hand; if someone's rationale included the words "obtuse jerk" that is the sort of thing a clerk could drop a note onto the editors talk page about and say "hey, is there a way you could express that better?" --Errant ^(chat!) 17:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant is right. I can't find any !votes that I would consider removable over the last 5 RfAs. There were lots of discussions that should have been moved to the talk page though. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 17:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Errant as well. The emphasis shouldn't be on removal of comments; clerks should encourage that uncivil things be redacted but they should only remove the most serious of comments. Where do we draw the line there? I believe blocking policy draws the line at "gross incivility and personal attacks", so it might be reasonable wording for what's removable from an RfA. Swarm ^X 19:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> I think obvious snarkasm and baiting should go, but then that's just me Pesky (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

counseling candidates

I really like the idea of preventing NOTNOW RFAs from being transcluded in the first place and advising the user on how best to proceed. What about cases where the user meets the minimum requirements but there is some other obvious issue that will severely hamper their ability to pass an RFA? I'm thinking the clerks advise them of their chances, encourage them to wait if it is the sort of issue that can be overcome by not repeating it for a few months, and then allow them to make the decision whether to proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, that's a solid idea and something we should definitely work in (any ideas for specifics?) There are probably ways to tie in with adminship coaching and with the mentorship programs; so the clerks have someone to hand off the candidates to. That way it is a positive step "here's something to help prep for the next stage". --Errant ^(chat!) 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that admin coaching is fairly dead and it's actually looked at negatively by some users. Swarm ^X 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Coffee's standards is an example of that. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that the objections to coaching are based on the idea that they often end up "teaching to the test," resulting in a candidate who can recite every word of the criteria for speedy deletion or the blocking policy but lack the hands-on experience of correctly interpreting how the community expects the policies to be used. More informal mentoring not specifically aimed at passing an RFA seem to have mostly superseded the formal admin coaching program. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the clerks counseling candidates idea, it would certainly improve the overall experience of RFA (a single, in depth recommendation from a qualified clerk is likely to go farther than a pile-on oppose at a WP:NOTNOW RFA). What's more, the candidates would probably be more likely to stick around and continue to become productive and helpful editors. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The more I read over this and the more I think about it, I'm not so sure that councelling should be the role of the clerk. S/he will have enough to do already with 'policing' the process. On the premise that the other items in our package would reach consensus, most candidates would already be of truly sysop calibre, they would meet the basic minimum quals, would have voted already at an RfA or two, would have taken part in other RfC, AfD, or ANI type debates, and would know the restraint they would be expected to observe when answering questions and making rebuttals. They would have read all the advice pages and user essays on RfA, and would have had some advice from their nominator before they agreed to run. They should not need not need their steering wheel holding for them while they take their driving test - it's already an open book unproctored exam. This role would defy the essential job of clerk, which should be carried out in absolute neutrality and recusion. As there is nothing in WP policies that prevents wannabe admins from fishing for a nominator, I still firmly uphold my opinion that all RfA should have a nominator, and especially one who is either an admin or an experienced user in good standing him/herself, who can offer advice if ever it is needed, such as for example, if and when to withdraw, or whether or not to answer a totally irrelevant question. Many NOTNOWS have been the result of the blind leading the blind, and some have been immature 'Let's nominate each other'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the nominator requirement (but then, I self-nommed and was successful with minor opposition) on the basis that it doesn't necessarily say much about the candidate. But that might be another discussion :) I see your point regarding counselling through the process.. on the other hand I suspect the idea of a policing clerk won't make it to community consensus. In fact, I'm pretty sure it won't. Especially if we emphasise the removal of votes (if you caught me in a pessimistic moment I'd tell you that I suspect we will have to remove that part of things to get it to a trial).

I personally see the clerking process as less about policing the Support/Oppose/Question section of each RFA and more about streamlining RFA overall. Making NOTNOW and borderline candidacies within scope. There is probably a balance somewhere in there; clerks who are just there to be sympathetic to candidates are useless. On the other hand helping them through the nuances of RFA is definitely a useful activity. Whilst this might be the role of a good nominator, people often have bad nominators, or inexperienced ones. Someone experienced in the process and with a little clue will always be beneficial.

I guess the main problem is with the suggestion (which I've sort of developed :P) that clerks keep track of failed candidates and try to keep them engaged. I can see the arguments against this, specifically that other reforms could address this problem. On the other hand, those reforms are not in place yet; whereas I feel we could have this drafted and in trial within 6 weeks (maybe?). My thinking right now is that clerking is a good starting point - and if later reforms make part of their job redundant, that's not an issue. On the other hand if we notice something isn't working (or is working really well) it gives us ammunition to propose and gain consensus for future reform. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> What about a team of voluntary de-briefers, mentors, counsellors (ideall a combination of all three) that the clerk could hand the candidate over to? It would just be a case of checking who's willing and available, from people who put their names onto a volunteer list. Pesky (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding (for clarity), what I meant there was a team that people could be handed over to after completion of the actual RfA process. Possibly (probably) not only those who failed, either. A 'follow-up / pathway-plan' kind of team. Pesky (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@Kudpung - I've said this somewhere else as well. Ideally, everyone should be morally supportive of RfA candidates, even if they're opposing for a huge list of reasons. Clerks should be completely neutral in RfAs, but that shouldn't stop them from expressing moral support and guidance for the editor- the real person behind the user name. I think an "RfA moral support team" would be a little too patronizing, and I don't think being kind and helpful to the candidate somehow compromises a clerk's neutrality. Swarm ^X 17:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving discussions (Templates?)

If we are going to be moving discussions such as this, we will need a way to tell people that we did that. I made this template in a few seconds feel free to rip it apart.

cheers --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 17:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZooPro 4

An unusual case of a candidate posting a nomination statement that was so bizarre and hostile that it guaranteed failure. What might our hypothetical clerks have been able to do to prevent this? The candidate clearly meets the minimum standards, and has run three times before. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

A situation like this really does show a use for clerks, where they could prevent that from being trancluded, explaining to the candidate what is wrong with a statement like that. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmm, well, Zoo must have known that it was destined to fail. It looks less like a candidacy than it does a rant and wide ad-hominem attack on RFA participants. Honestly; this is such an extreme example that (speaking personally) I would have taken the same approach as Ancient Apparition and close it quickly and as painlessly as possibly. If we could have caught it before transclusion, well, possibly even a rewrite wouldn't have worked out. I would simply have counselled ZooPro to stick a {{db-user}} on it and to think carefully about how to try again (in a month or so at the very least). The problem is that this guy has been through 3 RFA's already, I have no idea if they were bad occurrences or not (haven't checked yet) but he clearly has found them profoundly negative. You could call it a product of the system.

In a slightly shorter form; I think the role of clerks here would be to stop RFA' 1, 2 and 3 being a "bloodbath" and to help the candidate recognise and adapt to criticism so that #4 wasn't such a disaster from the beginning. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a candidate who knows 100% what he is letting himself in for. He knows the RfA will will fail and I'm sure he's using it as an experiment to make a point about RfA. It's obviously not the best way to enlist support any action for reform, but ironically it might do just that. I see a silly (well 'I' think it's silly) question has been posed on another current RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw that too... it was brilliantly answered though IMO :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think in this circumstance the clerk's responsibilities would be to a) advise ZooPro to withdraw; b) use common sense and invoke WP:SNOW. AncApp's close might have been a little too early (though I don't think so), but we absolutely didn't need 20 opposes to determine a SNOW close was in order. I don't think they should prevent transclusion- the community still should make the decision, but the candidate should understand that there's little to no chance of the RfA succeeding. Swarm ^X 21:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think all opening statements should have to be 'approved' by clerks before they go forwards, with suggestions for sanitizing as and where necessary. Having said that, I cannot help but sympathize with the sentiments expressed .... it is a bloodbath, it is horrible and broke, and some !voters do seem to go out of their way to be OTT hostile, and all that other stuff which we already know about. But, to answer Beeblebrox's question - pre-approval of opening statements (i.e. it has to pass or it don't go forward) would solve the problem. But only in the opening ...... I'm sure that even if the opening had been duly sanitized, Zoo's frustration with the current process would have boiled over very soon in the responses. Pesky (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment removal again

In the interest of seeing this passed, I've changed the "comment removal" clause. I feel this part will be a deal breaker to many, so I think the process should be "notify crats of comments that need to be removed". This will probably be a good thing as some users have indicated that comment removal is crat responsibility in the first place, the only problem being they don't actively police !votes. First, I think this acts of sort of a compromise between the two opinions: while the clerks do the policing, the crats are still responsible for removing. Second, many users would simply feel more comfortable if crats reviewed comments before their removal, as they no doubt have a very high community trust level. Third, it removes the concerns about giving normal editors too much power. Clerks would, of course, be obliged to ignore all rules in extreme situations, such as racial slurs and vandalism only accounts. I see no downside.

Power of comment removal for clerks can also be proposed at a later date. Swarm ^X 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is close to going to the community for a vote --Guerillero | My Talk 21:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Swarm; happy with that. If the clerks are a success it can always be proposed as an addition later :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We've just had an example of a block-evading sockpuppet posting negative comments at multiple RFAs. I would suggest that this is the type of case where removing rather than indenting is something the community could get behind. As a blocked user who was blocked (disclosure: by me[1]) for doing nothing on WP but playing games, they manifestly did not have the right to post a comment anywhere, much less an inflammatory comment at RFA. Seems like an open and shut case for complete removal of those comments, WP:DNFTT applies. I agree however that removing other types of comments by users in good standing is unlikely to receive support from the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree, that's the kind of thing we could realistically propose down the line. However, when this is an entirely new proposal, any specific power whatsoever to remove comments might scare people. It just takes one vocal person preaching about "too much power" and we could have a pile-on on our hands. I think it would be best to incorporate this via a simple proposal statement down the road a bit. In the mean time, clerks would be obliged to request that such things are removed by crats (and it's not like WP:BN is overloaded at any time). Swarm ^X 23:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've put a list of possible suggestions for qualifications for being a clerk. This is really just an aide-mémoire. We may need to continue the above discussions to reach a consensus on the method of choosing them. Otherwise, I think that if we are going for the solution of presenting a series of separate reforms, this should be the first one as it seems close to consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs)

I like where this proposal is going and also like the idea that the power of clerks should be limited for the time-being to make the idea suitable for community approval. One of the issues with previous RFA reform efforts was the fact that the initial ideas proposed were far to radical for immediate change, where this proposal specifies a realistic method of beginning to reform RFA for the better. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason (perhaps the main one) why RfA needs reform is because some members of the community appear see RfA as being the one place where editors can be downright uncivil, disruptive, and vengeful, with impunity - because tradition has made it so. The only way to change this, unfortunately, is by introducing controls. If a stretch of road becomes notorious for high speed accidents, the town council slap a speed limit on it, and the police set up radar controls. I do think that perhaps at least striking the undesirable comments/!votes but leaving them in full view would send a clear message to the community. Therefore, I think it's appropriate that the clerks could do this. Nevertheless, this would require the intervention of suitably mature and well informed editors in the role of clerk. It's either this, or we have to suggest changing the role of bureaucrat so that one will recuse from !votiing and watch the process from start to finish. I think adding to the 'crat job description is not within the remit of this project, and would anyway meet with strong resistance. We've seen recently how long it takes (6 hours) to find a 'crat to close an RfA that has an overwhelmingly clear support (112/6/3) of the community.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Having this proposal bank on having timely access to bureaucrats is not a likely, or realistic proposition. As long as RFB is as stringent as it is currently, bureaucrats will simply not be available to handle the demands the proposals above suggest. I agree with the proposal of allowing mature, experienced clerks strike through comments, instead of removing them from sight completely. I think perhaps this would be even more effective than removing the comments from sight, as uncivil comments that have been stricken may be viewed as an example to RFA !voters of how uncivil comments will be received. Having them completely removed would just increase the workload on the clerks, but having them stricken will perhaps make !voters think about their !vote before posting. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Kudpung (as you can see from my comments above)...in principle. However, I also believe that leaving the job to crats is the only realistic thing we can initially do, and a clause for striking/removing comments will be this proposal's downfall. It doesn't matter how well reasoned or justified it is, the community will just see a new group of users who "actually wield power over other comments" and they'll fight it to the death. If the crats prove unreliable, there's our opening for a proposal giving the power to clerks, but I don't want to see the whole proposal go down because of people's fear of comment removal.

I don't know if restricting their power to striking will alleviate these community concerns...I suppose I'll have to think on that a bit. Swarm ^X 20:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this conversation makes me feel like we shouldn't include anything about removing or striking comments from anyone except banned users, which is already done. Many of us agree it is something the clerks should do but if we can't even sort out what to present on this topic we probably don't have much chance of getting this by in the first pass and it could jeopardize the entire proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well how about this for a suggestion: A template that a clerk can add that says something like: {{Clerk comment|This appears to be irrelevant/unconstructive/uncivil. Please consider redacting or rephrasing.}} Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion - any way that it could be combined with a way to kick the crats into responding (had a thought - can a crat be pinged on IRC the same way an admin can? .... and could that be automated, sorta?) Pesky (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer clerks

I would be happy to do this as wing-man to someone more experienced than I am for a while, to see if it's something I would be (a) any good at, and (b) comfortable doing. Pesky (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wot, no other volunteers? lol! I'm adding that there's no way I would be happy to clerk something solo, not until I've had enough practice / guidance. So, other volunteers will be required .... I absolutely refuse to be the only clerk! Pesky (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I've been away for the weekend. Sure, I'll take a shot at helping out, at least till be get off the ground. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we'd be looking at 3 clerks (or so) per RfA, so we can't leave you on your own Pesky! I'll help out :) Worm^TT · (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget that we need to get the proposition finalised before we decide who is going to do the actual clerking. The broader community might start thinking this task force is on a power trip (some people already do). What we need right now is more participation from the task force in general here on this project. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Clerks#Clerk qualifications - if any (suggestions). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Applicant" clerks will be discussed by current ones, but we will need to pick some initial clerks. I think everyone who has worked on this proposal is qualified to take up the job, but we don't want to come across as being on a power trip. I would hold off of making anything "official" until if and when it passes. Then, a few volunteers (we should limit the initial number) who worked on this proposal will become the first clerks and after that we'll proceed with the 'apply→discussion→trainee→clerk' process. Swarm ^X 15:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion Swarm. I've added this to the list of possible suggestions for clerk qualifications. Perhaps at this juncture we should be discussing the possibilities that are on the list rathe than in an ad hoc fashion. I think that we need to decide on a qualification and offer it along with the proposal, otherwise there will be another six months of discussion at VP or RfC level. One opposition I would have against allowing just any autoconfirmed user to put their name down for clerk on a 'per RfA' basis, is that although the clerk must recuse from !voting, there is a danger that it could be a pal of the candidate, and therefore still biased. According to the table, much of the 'support' !voting appears to be done by done by fans. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly do we need clerks?

I'm not a big fan of "clerking", I'll admit. But the tasks listed on Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Clerks#Clerk activities (suggestions) just don't make sense to me:

• All the general tasks are currently done by any random user who volunteers to do so. They are not urgent tasks and are usually quickly fulfilled anyway. We don't need to designate special users to do easy things everyone does anyway—kind of bureaucratic to me.
• The "During the RfA" tasks seem more clerk-ish, but still confuse me. Why do we need to people to report uncivil/"disruptive" (which is subjective) questions/comments? If it's rude enough to warrant removal, anyone should be able to remove it; otherwise, let it stay and don't give it attention. Rude commentators want to create drama. Also, off-topic discussion can be moved by anyone to the talk page; anyone should be able to ask the author to reword/rephrase something. Again, designating specific people to report comments (bureaucrats can read, anyway) or monitor the votes for incorrect diffs when everyone can do that ... just a bit pointless. If I see someone use a broken link, I can tell them; I don't need to wait for a clerk to notice it.
  • The only part that I understand is monitoring for socks/SPAs/canvassing. But these are usually quickly detected, so it's not a major task.
  • Mentoring and moral support—every user should be doing this. We are here to build an encyclopedia, but also a community, and we don't need clerks to be the ones responsible for moral support when it's to everyone's benefit to help.
• The closure part makes sense to me, somewhat—other than the "offering help" part; anyone can offer advice to candidates that did not pass and new admins.
• The NOTNOW part does make sense to me; I have always wondered why we bother letting obvious RfA failures stand for a few hours when we could just tell the user, "I don't think you understand the expectations of an admin ... [gentle explanation] etc.". But again, why limit this to clerks? If I want to explain that to a new user, must I really wait for a clerk to do so?
• Borderline candidacies is iffy to me. If it's borderline, no one should be predicting the future of the RfA. What if someone says the likely outcome is failure but it actually passes?

I hope someone will understand what I'm saying—it just looks like everything a clerk is assigned to do, any user should be able to do because it's not a big special bureaucratic process (RfA turning into Arbcom? Hah.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The one main single reason is simple psychology. We've had the discussion before somewhere on these pages and the analogy I made was: if there are a lot of accidents on a stretch of road because the people drive too fast, the council come along and slap a speed limit on it and a fake camera on a pole. Works wonders. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting, I've performed many of those clerk tasks on my own volition in recent RfAs, and I know others have also. The big exception is the removal of obnoxious/rude comments. I've been tempted to do that, but have restrained myself, because I don't believe there has (yet) been consensus established that it's OK to do so. I think a lot of people would support a proposal to allow the removal or redaction of obnoxious comments, either by a clerk, a 'crat, or any and all RfA participants. 28bytes (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

At present I think the most important thing the clerks will be doing is helping prevent NOTNOW nominations. Personally I would like to see their powers in this area expanded so that an RFA can't be posted until a clerk has reviewed it and consulted with the nominee. If they are an obvious NOTNOW case they could advise them on how to proceed, if they were borderline the clerk would try to convince them to wait but would allow transclusion if the candidate insists. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Since WP:RFA is only semi-protected, how could a clerk prevent transclusion? They could undo an ill-advised transclusion, of course, if they happened to be online at the time, but what's to stop Billy Ten-edits from transcluding his RfA while the clerks are elsewhere? Just wondering about the implementation details here. 28bytes (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, it makes sense, but why limit it to clerks if most of the tasks are so routine or expected from any willing user? I mean, you don't need 2,000 edits to copy-paste the edit count stats on a talk page. I suppose I'm just not seeing what the designation of a "clerk" will do; the tasks of one are important, of course, but it seems like they're already being fulfilled fine.

Regarding the removal of comments, I think it would be open to abuse/controversy if anyone other than a crat did that (although here, some assigned "clerk" role might make sense, but as the crat is the consensus-determiner, they're going to review all of this, anyway), but it is something that is necessary.

I'm not sure about the preventing NOTNOW bit; we are dearly in need of some clarification on how to deal with those (delete the RfA page immediately? let the new user run anyway? when should it be deleted if the new user doesn't edit after creating it? etc.), but can't any admin deal with that? I know at least one admin who monitors for these cases right now. I mean, I don't know—I'm still trying to figure out why we should limit or specifically assign these tasks to clerks when any user, designated or not, is easily able to do these things. What I see now is just the need for policy clarifications/additions/changes (i.e., removing comments, dealing with NOTNOW RfA pages, etc.). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, any one can do these tasks, just as anyone can do New Page Patrol, and we can see what a mess that it's got Wikipedia into. The point is that nobody is doing it, or only very rarely. An easy exercise would be to go through all the RfA over the last 12 months and list the ones that didn't include something distasteful. Remember, we're not just talking about comments that insult the candidate, there are also the offensive dialogs between the !voters. Put a life-size plastic policeman on duty at the accident blackspot, and the drivers will behave. Fix RfA according to just some of the suggestions in this project and there will be more mature established editors coming forward to both run and !vote, and there will be an immediate stop to the time consuming NOTNOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge (↑↓) w/Wikipedia:Town Sheriff && Cracker Jack Prize

[[Wikipedo:RfA Sheriff]]s. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that these are all things that any sensible (and perhaps uninvolved) editor might do on an RFA page. At the moment, though, that can be haphazard, disputed and tends to be a case of everyone looks at each other pointedly till one of them gets up the "courage" to do it :) Having clerks formalizes that process, giving the editor making that effort a level of protection ("hey, it's my job, the community supports it") and ensuring that such things happen in a timely manner. I my mind the role can evolve naturally over time; if it works the community will throw more "things to do" into the remit. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for things like removal of inappropriate comments, a designated role has its advantages. I'm now just against the addition of trivial tasks (edit stats, etc.) or encouragement/consolation (because then it might feel artificial if a clerk has to do it). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of a 'follow-on-counselling' team, not the clerks, (unless an individual clerk chooses to be part of it), who can provide encouragement, suggestions of ways forward, and so on - with the only 'job' the clerks have in this respect being to refer the candidate to the follow-on team. Clerking and counselling require different skills; there must be users out there who'd be good at the clerking side but not the follow-up side, and vice versa. Pesky (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's get our priorities right: the NOTNOWs with 101 edits and one week on Wiki are the least of our worries. We have a whacking big edit notice that lights up if they try to transclude an RfA, and if they ignore it, then they shouldn't be surprised if an an admin or a responsible editor deletes it with a polite (yeah, perhaps a neat template for standardisation) message on the user's tp. What we are mainly concerned with is cleaning up the RfA process by introducing civility, reducing the drive-past pile-on !votes, and completely discouraging the posting of clearly inappropriate questions. 28Bytes is right of course, all the responsible regulars at RfA are all waiting for each other to pluck up the courage and wield the stick - and that's why it only occasionally happens. The plastic policeman is the best analogy - if the !voters know such stuff is not tolerated and they risk being booted off RfA for a while if they can't behave, they might think again. As I said before, if we have clerks, the effect will probably be that they won't have much to do. If we get the NOTNOW prevention sorted out, there will be no need for after-care. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why we need RfA clerks

The general task force consensus is that an uninvolved user (or users) is needed to oversee the RfA process. This current reform project has gone past the stage of the task force asking itself whether we need them or not - what ought to be done now is for the task force to draw up a proposal, and then let the broader community decide whether clerks are wanted or not.

It's not about limiting people's freedom to vote or pose questions at RfA, it's about limiting people's freedom do be downright nasty and obnoxious , tell blatant lies about the candidate's behaviour, game the system, pile-on, and wear smelly socks, all with impunity. Each time they do, it won't help by closing the stable door after the horse has bolted by placing a typical excruciatingly polite message on their talk page. It may cause the individual !voter to reflect on his future participation in RfA and discussions, but it won't be sending a clear message to the overall RfA community. Putting our thumbs in the dyke has been tried. What is needed now is community prevention, rather than individual cure. This suggestion has been missed by the users who have recently joined this project:

• A template that a clerk can add that says something like:

<Clerk notice: This appears to be irrelevant/unconstructive/uncivil. Please consider redacting or rephrasing.>

- that would be a public trout slap that future participants at RfA cannot ignore, and would want to avoid. Furthermore, research of the !voters on the sortable table has revealed that several regulars are going to be regularly faced with the fish. Three slaps, and you're out for the next three RfA. Of curse, we could also allow any user to apply the template, just like we allow any users to apply the four-tier user warnings and patrol new pages... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, no templates, please—regular, custom, personal messages work better in my experience. But yes, if clerks are going to regularly patrol for rude comments, it makes a bit more sense to me. I just don't think that all of the proposed tasks (edit stats, etc.) need clerking. I'm concerned about one thing, though—calling out the more borderline rude comments are going to make some people think this is part of the "civility police" concept and that clerks are cliquey or snotty. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A 'standard comment' that gets applied shouldn't be a problem (rather than a 'box-type'template' thingie). If !voters realise that this is part of a three-strike- warning system, they will tone down pretty fast if they want to continue !voting. The idea will also prevent some of the massive pile-ons that happen - I'm talking about the real lynch-mob stuff, and we all know what that looks like! And also how totally unnecessary it is. If someone has a valid point, then it's perfect;ly possible to phrase it in an acceptable manner. It's not really a question of 'civility police' - it's more a zero-tolerance rule for genuine personal attacks and sheer nastiness. Pesky (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just prefer a clerk (or anyone, for that matter) revert an obnoxious comment or vote with a frank edit summary: "way too rude. Refactor and try again." Dropping a template on the page seems a touch officious and patronizing to me. I think we need to set the expectation that obnoxious comments will simply get reverted. 28bytes (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha. That I would love to see just once. However, the current attitude at RfA (and all across Wikipedia) is that people have the right to post their comments, however uncivil or unproductive. Swarm ^X 17:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Pesky, templates are indeed (as 28bytes notes) officious and patronizing. The tone of any boilerplate evokes such a feeling, really. From my experience, a template in response to a rude comment will only inflame the situation. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever this project decides what needs to be done, it needs to be done. Fear of a public slap on the wrist is the only way to educate these !voters. I keep saying that if the possibility exists, there will be an immediate reduction in the uncivil remarks, and lack of sincerity in commenting, and especially if they realise that checks will be done on the diffs they provide, especially the ones taken out of context, and ones that refer to incidents that are long gone and forgotten. Candidates who have read the instructions and advice essays for RfA can improve over time, and do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of why: I tried to get our latest NOTNOW case to answer some questions about what went wrong in the hopes that we could use the answers to help us here. His response [2], currently his last edit, would tend to indicate that we just lost a user. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's an average case of the failed RfA candidate (unless we're looking at the classic NOTNOW request; the user really looked like he didn't understand what the purpose of Wikipedia was, as he messed around in userspace the whole time with some nonsense), so I'm not sure how we could have done anything there. Looked kind of like a bored kid, really ... although, he's restarted editing. If you don't mind, I'll give my take on the the first two questions you posed to him, as I nearly RfA'd myself as a new user:

• I discovered RfA by perusing random WP pages. New users, I find (me included) notice userpages, including the oh-so-desirable admin topicon/userbox, and then look to see how to achieve that status.
• I read all the directions, didn't understand most of it, and decided the process was too complicated to bother with. Remember, new users usually treat WP as a fun game or some such. I saw one user with a "I've made 1,300 edits" userbox and was like, "Why is he not an admin already?"

I don't think there's any way we can stop new users from RfA-ing themselves, short of a big notice saying, YOU MUST HAVE [X #] EDITS AND BEEN AN ACTIVE EDITOR FOR [Y #] TIME BEFORE NOMINATING YOURSELF; of course, people never read big important notices, so whatever. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course they don't, Fetch. We have that huge in-your-face edit notice on the RfA transclusion page, and still we get one-week-101-edits trying for the bit. The WMF needs to make it more clear to the big world out there that Wikipedia is not MySpace, a blog, or a middle school forum. Get that done and we'll have fewer problems with crap new pages too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Big misunderstanding

I think there's been a misunderstanding about my suggestion for a template. Obviously 'template' conjures up notions of formatted message boxes of some kind of another - often referred to as 'boilerplstes'. This was absolutely not what I meant. What meant was exactly this:

< Clerk notice: This appears to be irrelevant/unconstructive/uncivil. Please consider redacting or rephrasing. >

• unobtrusive
• easy to apply
• polite, standardised neutral text

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we've been talking at cross-purposes. A 'standard message' like the above, which is used in every case, shouldn't leave anyone feeling picked on more than anyone else, and is probably a good idea. Pesky (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. The problem is, the word 'template' always gets a knee-jerk response because every one thinks of tempates as formatted boilerplate warnings. n actual fact, a template is just a php call, and its contents can be anything, such as a simple line of unformatted text that is indistinguishable from a hand typed message. The advantage of of the template is that it is neutral, the same in every case, and doesn't need to be typed each time.

Removing Irrelevant RfA questions.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA (Expressing opinions) clearly states:

Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored.

Clearly a rule that should be implemented. it appears never to have been taken into consideration by those who up to now have voluntarily indenting !votes and moving irrelevant discussions to the talk page. A task for the RfA clerk.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as "removed" goes, I'd say this proposal can only provoke unnecessary drama. Unless anyone can point to real harm caused by so-called irrelevant questions, there's no reason to empower a new bureaucratic class to police RFA applying their own views of "relevance". --Mkativerata (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevance of irrelevant questions has been known to cause plenty of drama on many an RfA. Why bother having the above clause in the official RfA instructions if it can't be carried out?--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The questions would cause no drama whatsoever if editors just left them well alone. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, that's why it would be great if candidates would not be afraid to ignore the ones they don't feel would advance their quest for adminship. There is no rule that allows a candidate to be penalised for not answering, although it has been frequently known to happen. In my opinion, perhaps not shared by everyone, it would be better to to hope that by limiting the questions, and keeping them to the topic of the candidate's RfA, the experience could be more pleasant for all concerned. Some voluntary clerking is done already by participants, but until now, it does not appear to have had any effect towards addressing the issues that the community has mentioned many times as being in need of improvement. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is selling that to the community (myself included). The clerk proposal itself will be controversial: it offends the principles of "not a bureaucracy" and open editing. Why make it more controversial by including in the clerks' job descriptions activities that will (a) irritate people (ie the people who ask the questions); and (b) have little discernible benefit? The drama I see at RfAs (like this is caused (unwittingly and perfectly innocently) by editors unnecessarily attacking the "irrelevant" questions, and not at all by the candidate's response to them. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree here, that irrelevant questions should be removed. The tough thing is determining whether (and getting others to agree) that the question is irrelevant. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends which questions you are referring to on Snottywong's RfA. At the risk of being accused again of bad faith, I would say that one of the questioners, who has a history of POV pushing and disruptive editing, deliberately constructs their questions to lead the candidate into a trap of inadvertently expressing some counter-Wiki POV. I am also vehemently opposed to irrelevant questions posed by users whose only presence at Wikipedia appears to be to deliberately incite controversy at RfA. No one can argue that one of them is not aware that every question they pose is going to cause a riot. On the other hand, we may have all misunderstood - they may in fact be an agent provocateur on behalf of the movement to improve RfA and get silly questions banned - now there's a thought... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Until the 'crats chime in here (and they most likely will not), we'll never know just to what extent they discount irrelevant questions and and profanity on !voters' comments, so it's back to square one and badgering them at the risk of more theatricals. Even on Harry's reconfirmation, they can't behave. At least what such !voters should realise, is that they are shooting themselves in the foot for ever getting the tools (hopefully they don't want to be admins anyway), while those that already have them can get away with personal attacks, sarcasm, and any other literary device with impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There was talk of RfA voting being a separate user right which can be revoked. This idea reduces impudence and the clerk could perhaps be tasked to issue strikes against participation. (as in three strikes and you are out) My76Strat (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what we should be looking at - a 'right to vote' (which can be set at really minimal standards) - but with a 'three-strike-rule', or something very similar, meaning that people who abuse that right can lose it. Pesky (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It was indeed discussed, but the talks petered out for lack of participation from the task force. At the very minimum, I would suggest at least 200 manual edits and 14 days. This might reduce the number of fan club and the average of 3% illicit revenge votes, but the problem is, we can't have a set of minima for !voters if we haven't got one for the candidate - or can we? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see why not. It's certainly not impossible. Pesky (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, If a user didn't have the right to vote they also couldn't run, for they would be unable to edit the page. My76Strat (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is, of course, true .... but there could be a workaround (if needed) which allowed them the right to edit their own RfA page. I was thinking of the right to !vote being set at something pretty minor (not much above autoconfirmed, but just enough above to make the 'fan club' and 'attack club' voting harder to achieve); the most important thing, though is that once there's a 'right', it can also be removed. Pesky (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with the sentiments in your comment. They align well with my own thoughts to this regard. Certainly there could be a way to work around the right, for a candidate to run; It would simply require an admin to initiate the right. It would effectively give the ability to suggest NOTNOW, if in fact that was an appropriate consideration. The separation as a right, with a reasonably low threshold, will have a net positive effect, because it would be revocable. I don't think it (as a right) should be bundled with any other right. My76Strat (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Spot on there; it has to be a stand-alone right, which can only be lost through real misbehaviour in RfA's. Pesky (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with removing irrelevant questions as such -- even if random, they can help get a handle on how an admin handles herself. For example, I asked Ponyo what their favorite Studio Ghibli film was -- it probably took them about a minute to type out the answer for that. On the other hand, there are questions like the one Tony1 asked in my reconfirmation RFA, which was fighting an ongoing battle that is currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Hyphens and dashes. I declined to answer it, since I had previously commented that topic bans for all involved would probably be a good thing. I'd say this was borderline -- a clerk wouldn't necessarily be expected to recognize that he was referring to a particular case, and the background of his involvement, but knowing that, it would probably have been a good candidate for removal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We're getting slightly off track here because both voting rights and RfA questions have their separate domains withing this reform project. Nevertheless, some overlap is inevitable, so I'll say this: Sarek is right in that clerks would not necessarily notice any subtle irrelevancy in some questions. However, we do have the catalogue (that I subjectively put together before I started this project) of a couple of hundred questions that are plausibly inadmissible. There have of course been general criticisms of that list, but in spite of my many requests for people to go through it and tear it apart, nobody has yet taken the initiative to discuss it. The 'irrelevant' questions are supported by those who believe they are posed by psychologists qualified in interview theory. Having majored in communication science, I don't believe that for a second, but at the end of the day, the questions are not the greatest evil in the RfA process. In the RfA guidelines it used to be clearly stated that answering all questions was optional, but that seems to have been edited out (with or without consensus - a lot of these minor edits go unnoticed). The required change is that all questions should be formally optional, and that a candidate cannot be penalised for not answering. Treating a question as if it never existed, is as legitimate as if it were never posed. However, if by not answering a question, the candidates allows themselves to be exposed as not being sufficiently knowledgeable in an area of Wikipedia technology or policy, that's up to the candidate, but to !vote 'Oppose, because they didn't answer my question' is a non-!vote. In the same optic, the kind of question to which any answer will be construed as the wrong one by the questioner, is inadmissible. Trees, anyone? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

'Statute of Limitations'

What do we think of having a Statute of Limitations? Along the lines of 'nothng more than x-months old' can be brought up in RfA. Maybe with different timescales for different perceived sins. With the qualifier that anything brought up which falls outside of the time limit can be instantly removed by the clerks? Pesky (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I like that idea, plus I don't see it being needed. Few people bring up issues over a year old - if it's not an ongoing issue, most will forgive and forget. I expect the crats take this into account too. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It won't work, as we've seen in a couple of recent RfA. Worm is right, but IMO for the wrong reasons. Longevity alone does not equate to experience as demonstrated by a ripe, well balanced pie chart . Candidates with 6 months service and 4,000 edits haven't had time or activity enough to demonstrate they can keep their noses clean for longer. Candidates with 5 years and 50,000 edits are likely to have made a few minor errors and upset a few people. Stuff (mostly taken completely out of context) was brought up at my RfA that was 20,000 edits and 15 months ago, and caused a lot of drive-past pile-ons. However, most users don't leave it as long as Boing and I did before running for office. The period of time is not the criterion, the important metric is the ratio of errors to recent edits - as WereSpielChequers always points out, NPP performance is a good dip-stick, but so is the number of complaints on a candidate's talk page. Diplomacy and the readiness to help others are also good flags, but very few !voters appear to look into these things deeply enough, if indeed at all. We have no idea how the crats think. It sometimes takes up to 12 hours to find one to close an RfA that has an overwhelming majority of support, although I must admit, my RfA was closed bang on time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda the sort of thing I was getting towards - if a user has a good recent history and errors-to-edits ratio, it seems grossly wrong for people to be dragging up stuff thay did ages ago and have (quite probably) matured beyond. But people still do it. Pesky (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you were pointing at, but what could one base the error-to-edit ratio on? If for example the editor has done 20,000 practically error free, CSD 99% correct, and polite civil edits in the last 12 months, that would be practically a ticket to pass with flying colours, but who is going to sit down and work it all out? - you saw what they did to me on my RfA. Human nature is to seek ways of giving people a bad name, and on Wikipedia it works par excellence. Statistics, averages, and ratios are evil things, they can always be used - without even bending them - to support whatever argument the stats user wants. I mean. mean averages are mean: we have an average of 3% fake votes per RfA, but for those that don't have any, that means others can have lots more. Of about 160 RfA last year, with an average turn out of 100 votes per candidate, that's around 16,000 votes, meaning 480 fake votes; now suppose hypothetically that all but 10 RfA had 100% correct votes, that means that ten RfA had an average of 48 fake votes each - for a mean average of 'only' 3%! That worries me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the averages thing is worrying. It's not so much the 'fake votes' that niggles at me, though, it's the people who drag up something that is pretty much guaranteed to be all-but irrelevant, being ancient, and then blow it up out of all proportion, de-railing the entire legitimate process with undue weight being given to something petty and / or grossly misrepresented, being leapt on as a perceived 'excuse' for a pile-on of dreadful bad faith, unchecked personal attacks, and playground-bullying-type incivility. Pesky (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding: deliberate misrepresentation is a sure-fire process-derailer as well - people who call alternate accounts 'socks', for example, with all the stigma that goes with that - without taking into account (or perhaps deliberately ignoring, for the sake of drama?) the fact that an alternate account is only a 'sock' if it's used to disrupt Wikipedia. An account not used for disruption is not a sock account - it's just an alter. Pesky (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In my RfA there were instances of every single one of the examples you mention above, and worse. Pretty scary when taking into account that every 'oppose' negates 'three' supports. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RFA clerk

(Copied from WT:RFA2011. Please continue the discussion here)

I had my own ideas about the clerking process. I was thinking that in order for further cooperation among clerks, there should be an official committee just like the ArbCom, MedCom, etc. This would ensure the communications of the members. I was also thinking about the basis that you could be come a clerk: i): You had to have some formal experience or should have should a little interest in becoming a clerk. (of course) ii) A clerk should have at least 3 months experience and 500-800 edits. iii) No blocks or editing restrictions or if there have been restrictions of any sort on you're account, it should have been at least +6 moths ago. I would have brought it to the main page's talk page but I want to see what you think first. Regards.mauchoeagle _(c) 20:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from WT:RFA2011. Please continue the discussion here) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think 500-800 edits is way too low for a minimum edit count and 3 months experience is way too short for a minimum account length. This may seem biased, but I think the users who are best suited for a clerk role are the ones that have passed an RfA before. Not to slight non-admins, but in order to have enough knowledge of how RfA works you must know how to pass an RfA. There can be several exceptions, such as former admins, but IMO I don't think any regular non-admin should be appointed an RfA clerk. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're right there - I expect there are a lot of good sound-sense editors who have absolutely no wish to become admins for one reason or another, who could, nonetheless, be highly effective clerks. There's no real reason why a working team of clerks on an RfA can't include people with differing talents and interests - and being able to spot and deal with incivility, personal attacks, and blatant nastiness doesn't need the 'spotter' to be an admin. I'm not an admin myself, and have absolutely no desire to become an admin - but I'd be quite happy 'watchdogging' an RfA in order to stop the vicious pile-ons that occur. Just adding - actually, the more I think about it, the more a non-admin clerk might be a good idea, as it could help avoid the admin-club 'in-crowd' look that some RfA's acquire. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe I was being a little too defining. I believe that potential clerks should consist of users who have the ability to pass an RfA (because they understand how RfA works and what the community looks for in candidates) but not necessarily have expertise when it comes to policy. For example, once in a while I have seen candidates do something against the RfA-norm and I would rather not see them on the clerking committee due to their ignorance of what the community likes to see. They could be the most sensible editors but they fail to grasp the nuances of RfA. Of course, having a team of admins clerking RfA would make RfA seem like an exclusive club, which is what you said and I agree. The minimum requirements of 500-800 edits and 3 months experience, IMO, is ridiculously low, which is mainly what I was trying to get at. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

An analogy for thought - that some might think is off topic here - is that we allow new articles by experienced content builders to be policed and tagged by a team of NPPers, a great many of whom are completely new to Wikipedia, and have themselves very little knowledge of content policy; it has given NPP a lot of thought for improvement. At present, we appear to be broadly divided amongst admins doing the clerking, clerking as a 'right', and clerking by any responsible experienced editors. We have a list at here of possible criteria for clerks, perhaps it would be an idea to take them one-by-one, discuss their merits and whittle the list down to what some consensus here could think worthy of consideration. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea. I personally think that the 'Established editor in good standing, with demonstrated civility, and working knowledge of core functions and policies' (or the ability and cluefulness to go and look it up if unsure!)is a good bet. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good, that's a start, so what would be your criteria for a worthy established editor? There have been several suggestion above too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Going back a bit, I have to agree with Eagles on the min. requirements. I'd think at least twice that would be needed for a proper amount of clue. — Ched :  ?  15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor in good standing .... in many ways, it would have to be an editor with a reasonable number of (undeleted) contributions to article and non-article space; a reasonable number of constructive conributions to talk pages, project space, so-on; who has a good track record of being constructive, with a minimal amount of snark (we all have the occasinal snark-day, so a complete absence of even-mild-snark-of-any-kind in the past six months is a bit unrealistic if they're getting involved in various different and possibly confrontational areas, but you know what I mean - maybe 99% snark-free?). Autoconfirmed would have to be an absolute must; the ability (and willingness) to re-read, revise or otherwise bring themselves up to clue on policy in any area they're unsure of is, in my view, possibly better than someone who's learned everything off by heart (because stuff evolves, and the 'got everything by heart' people may have a tendency to think they can't be wrong about anything ... maybe?). I don't think it can just go on an X-number of edits, Y-amount of time thing, because editors are all so different. Some people can have a gadzillion edits and been around since the year dot and still not be the right personality for clerking; others can be relatively new, with only a couple of thousand edits, and be better suited to the role. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hate it, hate it, hate it

1. We don't need more junior admin roles. this is almost like Cartman and the hall monitor job. I don't understand the drive of people to want this process.

2. Almost all of the tasks get done anyway.

3. There seems to be discussion of shushing or silencing opposes (and oppose hassler Swarm is like a poster boy already for that behavior...the thought of him as a clerk or pushing clerking bugs me.) And then this whole intiative seems like people being unhappy that they can't pass candidates enough and want to shush the opposes. I generally find opposses as having more rationales and just being the brighter people o wiki than the support-happy types (honest).

TCO (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied on TCO's talk page. Swarm ^X 18:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'll post this here also. This is purely a maintenance/housekeeping venture, similar to the numerous other systems of clerking that aren't considered "junior admins". It would have no effect on comments or discussions. Various 'uncivil comment removal' aspects of the clerking role were originally discussed, but the concept was entirely pulled from the proposal. Thanks! And feel free to further consider the request I made on your talk page. Swarm ^X 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What's happening

I was wondering what was happening to this proposal, which in May looked like it would be the first proposal that was ready to be shown to the community. Looking over the proposal, I think we need to agree a couple of things. I'm going to try and re-stimulate discussion here and get this somewhere, though I worry about the role becoming bureaucratric and impotent. However, to put forward a proposal to the community, we need to have a definite direction - in it's current form there's too much to quibble over. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Incivility

How should a clerk handle incivility at RfA? I think the current thinking is that they would put a "clerk note" as a public trout and maybe a note at the editor's talk page. This is likely to be the most contentious element, as there's already complaint's about "civility policy" around. We need to get this right.Worm^TT · (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the clerk note would be good, plus maybe a gentle reminder on their talk page. I have noticed that the people who tend to bitch about the "civility police" also tend to be those who might have more to worry about on that front .... Having said that, WP:CIVIL is supposed to apply everywhere. If we have a policy, we also need to have people who are prepared to point out violations of that policy and do something about it, and they shouldn't be subjected to name-calling or belittling, either. So, apart from the name, what's wrong with "civility police" anyway? Are they any different from "vandal police", in terms of attempting to get people to abide by policy? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Who

Who decides who should be a clerk, and what should the criteria be? Worm^TT · (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Who decides? Hmm. Don't know, is the quick answer to that one! Criteria (I'm an idle get, so am just going to copypasta my above comment here): Editor in good standing .... in many ways, it would have to be an editor with a reasonable number of (undeleted) contributions to article and non-article space; a reasonable number of constructive contributions to talk pages, project space, so-on; who has a good track record of being constructive, with a minimal amount of snark (we all have the occasinal snark-day, so a complete absence of even-mild-snark-of-any-kind in the past six months is a bit unrealistic if they're getting involved in various different and possibly confrontational areas, but you know what I mean - maybe 99% snark-free?). Autoconfirmed would have to be an absolute must; the ability (and willingness) to re-read, revise or otherwise bring themselves up to clue on policy in any area they're unsure of is, in my view, possibly better than someone who's learned everything off by heart (because stuff evolves, and the 'got everything by heart' people may have a tendency to think they can't be wrong about anything ... maybe?). I don't think it can just go on an X-number of edits, Y-amount of time thing, because editors are all so different. Some people can have a gadzillion edits and been around since the year dot and still not be the right personality for clerking; others can be relatively new, with only a couple of thousand edits, and be better suited to the role. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside RfA tasks

Should clerks be expected to console or advise candidates before or after an RfA? Worm^TT · (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the clerking role should be separate from any advising of candidates before an RfA. No reason why clerks shouldn't have a dual role, if they choose, to, with helping failed candidates get over it, and directing them to any other help / education that might be available. But it would have to be voluntary, and not part of the job spec. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Ooff! That's a basin full of questions ;) The thing to do is to fast rewind and read all the essential threads again, but I think you are as well informed as I am. It's been quiet for a couple of months but so has RfA. Those who have passed did so with overwhelming majorities (ahem...) and not a great deal of nastiness - the candidates were as clean as a whistle, which left the vultures rather chomping at the bit. Even the editors who try to turn every RfA into a Pythonesque sitcom have been staying away. Even the NOTNOW have been closed or withdrawn before the snakes could dig their fangs in. There was one small hiccup when an enthusiastic youngster stomped off in disgust at a merciless attack from SandyGeorgia who has never been known for délicatesse, but who is a darned good editor and has eyes like a hawk. This is why it's so important that candidates either prepare themselves well in advance, or have such a bag of experience behind them to not need to do the homework. As long as the right candidates are passing, and they are, all we need to worry about is keeping up the current appearance that nothing is wrong, and we'll have plenty of candidates of the right calibre clambouring for the keys to the janitor's closet. Enjoy the lull before the storm. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the theory is to get the proposal up to spec - I'd rather this didn't get relegated to "yet another failed attempt at admin reform". I've read through the threads and didn't see consensus in the areas I mentioned, which is why I was trying to generate a bit more discussion. I would really like to see at least 1, if not 2 or 3 proposals put out there for the community, so I was going to go through them and see what I can do. Now that I'm a little less worried about pissing people off (*grin*) I thought a renewed kick might be a good thing. Also, I was watching Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/E2eamon‎‎ which isn't an overwhelming majority and has already had some horrible incivility. There's some mitigating circumstances to it, but I do think that clerks may have helped. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, then I'm not quite up to date - I'd better pop over there and poke my nose round the door. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I poked my nose in, too. Yes, some bad snark (but I've also sussed that the worst snark was coming from someone with, apparently, some really major real-life issues at the moment. Not an excuse for poor judgment, but certainly a reason for it, perhaps?) Some clerk input would have been a very good idea on that one, I think. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It's another case of 'I hate admins so I'll oppose them all'. the RL situation s disturbing and I think if it were me I would have a lot of other things on my mind than Wikipedia. Yes, it was a situation where a clerk or any established editor could have stepped in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't around, and even if I had been, I didn't know the RL background at that point - or I might have been able to pluck up the courage to intervene. No guarantees, though; I'm attempting to bebold in other areas at the moment. And I only have just enough courage at any one time. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

1^st stage (trial) of RfA clerks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose here to get RfA clerks out for a trial. There was lots of discussion about the hole idea on top of this page. The proposal was here for 6 months and got some support. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 19:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Problem There is no uniform standard for WP:NOTNOW, yet this trial would authorize clerks to unilaterally close RFAs on that basis, until there is a WP:SNOW NOTNOW showing at the particular RFA, it would be inappropriate to give clerks discretion to close RFA's on that basis, and as suggested, even prevent transclusion. If Clerks will have additional authority beyond what is currently practiced by SNOW closers, the standards need to be very clear as to when the authority is to be used, if they have no additional authority, that also must be made clear. Monty₈₄₅ 16:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose (from RFC-bot) No more junior-boy-scout badges needed - especially not when the apparent desire is to make opposing candidates even harder than it already is. Hipocrite (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Close ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 19:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drafts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_Clerks_noticeboard_%28draft%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_reform_2011/Clerks/Unsuccessful

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note about structure

• This is interesting, but I had different ideas in mind, such as "clerks" being any editor that three crats have signed off as "ok", then listed as a clerk. Just as any clerk can be removed by the word of three crats. And the clerks could move comments themselves. Assumably, a standard such as "once a third comment in a thread has been created, moving the thread to the talk page with appropriate pointers is the proper method to deal with them" kind of rules. This keeps it fair to both the candidate and the voter, so their vote isn't drowned out in a sea of objections or peanut gallery comments. Of course, they will still be there on the talk page, which will be more free form. The goal being having the voting and rationale on the main page (the main actions), and the detailed discussion on the "talk" page, which seems to make sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but a discussion among crats last year reached a consensus that they were not interested in being incumbent with any additional tasks related to RfA. As new crats get elected (also not often) this consensus could of course change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they would be willing if it was limited solely to saying "yes" or "no" for the clerks, and not setting any policy or rules on it or having any other responsibility. It is their court, they should be able to choose who polices it, even if they don't decide the rules of policing. I would assume any admin would qualify and any editor that had a snowball's chance at RfA would as well. The actual rules can be hashed out with an RfC, with common sense being the order of the day until then. That seems the simplest way. We would want at least a half dozen active clerks, as some may want to vote some of the time. Likely, only one or two would work each RfA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Taking the selection process for SPI clerks as an example, I'm not sure that any formal RfC on clerking would be needed. How was the clerking feature of SPI originally initiated and implemented? I'll be putting out a feeler to the 'crats on what they think of their possible involvement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, a talk with User:FT2 would probably shed all the light you needed on the matter. He has a way of getting things done that stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#RfA clerks - suggestion revisited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

See also: User talk:FT2#RfA clerks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I am interested in hearing his perspective on it. The key being to not try to bite off too much at one time, but I think some basic outline for clerking wouldn't be controversial in the least, and my experience with FT2 is such that I bet he will have some good ideas on implementation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• This really is a bad idea. We already have too many user-rights and status designations. This is just one more badge for people to collect in the MMORPG that is wikipedia. Before you go any further with this its worth considering whether there is likely to be support for it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I wholly agree that what we don't want is another new hat for the hat collectors to collect. if you were to read the discussion you would discover that that is what it's all about. That's why it would be confined to admins or those who would probably get the bit if they were to run at RfA. IMO any mature sysops are above hat collecting for the sake of hats - or I would at least sincerely hope they are, otherwise thy shouldn't be admins in the first place, and if they are, it's the community's fault. That said, this is a discussion to find out if there is any support for it - we won't know until we know, will we? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Admins aren't exempt from hat collecting. This will turn into a mandatory step before RfB and every old score or squabble at RFA will be used against the candidate. Worse, clerks will be playing a political game to avoid stepping on toes and the whole thing will be a hat without value. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is no reason why this needs to be considered an Admin. activity. There are editors in good standing, with no aspiration to be an Admin., who would be willing to volunteer their time to the management of RFAs if such is the community's wish. I've supported the idea in the past but would oppose 'Crats or Admins performing it. Leaky Caldron 11:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is considering this being an admin-only activity or even suggesting that the crats do it as anyone who has taken the trouble to read the thread so far will understand. The main concern would be to keep the newbs and wannabe admins off of it - and of course those who are clearly at odds with adminship as a necessary evil. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

And including Admins like you who continue to make oblique comments about editors like me with whom you have been in conflict and who you would willingly block for making RFA comments with which you disagree. I was really looking forward to your run for Arbcom but unfortunately (but wisely IMO) you decided not to bother. I'm sure that I am one of people here who, if you ever came across them them at a meet up or a conference, you would feel like throwing your food or beer in their faces. I laughed when I saw that remark a couple of months ago. Leaky Caldron 13:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Come on Leaky. All you have to do is read my comments and get a pretty good idea that this isn't about admin only, nor a good place to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. This is as much a way to protect the rights of those voting as those running, the majority of which are not admin. Let's not turn this into something it isn't, a personal issue between you and someone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis. " - and of course those who are clearly at odds with adminship as a necessary evil." is a clear jibe. I advocated an element of RFA clerking months ago so I'm not in disagreement about the notion. There is a clear reference to asking the 'crats. about possible involvement and I was noting my opposition. I don't expect to be niggled about past disagreements whenever I turn up on the same page as an Admin who won't drop his stick. Feel free to hat this as off topic. Leaky Caldron 14:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There was no clear reference to the crats clerking RfA. The reference to crats was one about their possible involvement in appointing clerks. Some control would be required as to who may clerk RfA in order to avoid any systemic bias. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. In my eyes, the crats would be limited to ONLY selecting and deselecting the clerks, not setting the policies, which would be left to the greater community. The selection is just to limit it so any tom, dick and harry doesn't jump in and fancy himself a clerk, and limiting it allows a better chance of consistency (ie: equal treatment). There is no desired number or clerks per se, although at some point, they may deselect someone from inactivity, or decline to add more if they feel the number of current clerks is sufficient. That is probably just best left to the crats to figure out, it isn't rocket science and no firm rules are needed. The bar would be fairly low since the duties are just cleaning up bad formatting, moving extended threads, removing comments from confirmed socks, etc. None of the clerking would be really controversial stuff. The main rules being that no clerk can comment in the discussion regarding the merits, nor vote. I don't think we need layers of rules or bureaucracy with this. I could probably draft an essay on it rather easily, and may. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My wording is rushed and there is likely a gap or two, but this is how I see the best way to move forward on clerking User:Dennis Brown/RfA/RfA Clerks. If you think this is more or less in the right direction and want to edit, please feel free. This is really just a simplification of the work of Kudpung, SW and others, as I interpret it, implemented in a way that I think will have universal appeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I for one think the page you've created is a definite step in the right direction. Thanks! If you'd like any more ideas for what to add, there's a whole section devoted to Clerk tasks near the top of this page (though you seem to have covered most of them). — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 23:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My page wasn't meant to supplant, it was just easier to express them in this fashion. Like I said, most of the real work was done here by Kudpung and others. I think to get acceptance, we need to keep it simple, and then we can tweak as time goes on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. It's basically a summary of my proposal. I tend to to be rather long-winded with attention to detail because in my experience, many editors will criticise any loop-holes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am usually longer winded as well, but getting shorter winded as it seems everyone is willing to poke holes even where they don't exist and sometimes shorter is easier to digest. And yes as I've said, it is a summary of the work of others here, but you and I haven't even been very far apart on this issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal

I wasn't aware of this, but it's very much worth looking at. In many respects (but not all by any means) it's similar to what has already been suggested, but with some interesting tweaks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is interesting and has some novel ideas. Some may be more contentious than others, however. While I won't argue that this method would be effective than mine, I'm more inclined to ask for less simply so it is more likely to get implemented as less controversial. Something is better than nothing. Once in place, the community can see how it works and they would likely be more open minded to further change. The path of least resistance, so to speak. I still think crats have to at least pick/unpick the clerks simply because RfA is their domain, and technically, the clerks are acting as an extension of the crat when clerking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)