→Unneeded bureaucracy: forget it |
Fish and karate (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Forget it then. '''[[User:Al tally|<span style="color:#002bb8">Al Tally</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Al tally|talk]]'') 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Forget it then. '''[[User:Al tally|<span style="color:#002bb8">Al Tally</span>]]''' (''[[User talk:Al tally|talk]]'') 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Where can one get the experience necessary to become a clerk helper? Is there a training position? [[User:Neil|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#600">Neıl</u>]] [[User_talk:Neil|<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#226"><B>龱</B></u>]] 08:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:57, 19 May 2008
This page is for discussing clerking itself. If you need the assistance of a clerk regarding a case still on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, ask on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. If the case is already in progress, ask the clerk who opened it on their talk page.
Initials
It occurred to me that as more people become clerks or helpers and take cases, they all need initials for Template:ArbComOpenTasks - and so as to make identification easy, it's probably best to avoid duplication. Here are the two or three letter combinations that have been used by clerks and helpers over the last two years (we're on the two year anniversary of the creation of the position in a couple weeks):
. So, future additions, please choose something different and add it below here. Picaroon (t) 03:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- You missed
. Also, I believe
had already become
by the last time he helped out, so add that to the list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Clarify text and Question
Greetings. Under "Becoming a clerk," it says: "or who have listed themselves on the noticeboard." Which noticeboard's list? Perhaps you could put in the link?
Also, is this an appropriate place to ask the following question? (If not, where?)
- Q: At recent Israel-Palestine case, Arbcom decided to set up a working group and stated: "The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case." Has the group been appointed? Where would the appointment be announced? Thanks. HG | Talk 04:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The group has indeed been appointed; Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars has full details on the working group. If you are interested in applying, you may wish to see this thread on Wikipedia talk:Working group. Incidentally, I contribute to the group as an observer; if you have any queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. Regards, Anthøny 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Unneeded bureaucracy
I think official clerks should be abolished. Anyone should be able to help out on these pages. Having "clerks" and "clerk helpers" is needlessly bureaucratic imo, and the official clerks system should be abolished, and changed to system like clerking for RFCU and CHU. Al Tally (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- This has been hashed over and over. I can see how a non arb/clerk person might feel this way, but from my perspective, there is ample reason for this, including but not limited to, the crucial nature of the cases (last resort etc). — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can see the need for a clerk as a position of some authority - to be able to block people for disrupting the case pages, etc... but what does a "clerk helper" do that couldn't be done by just anyone? --Random832 (contribs) 20:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's just a clerk in training - users need experience first before they can be let loose on their own, and the time as a clerk helper is where you gain the experience to become a clerk. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Majorly makes some interesting points here. I'm going to try and offer some thoughts from the position of a third-party editor, rather than as an arbitration clerk; I am, however, a supporter of the clerking system (fundamentally–in other words, I think cases should have a clerk to handle it, whether that clerk by appointed by the arbcom or not), and any readers of this comment should bear that in mind.
- The core question to be considered is "are clerks necessary?". I think the obvious answer is yes; clerks of the committee fill an essential role in the arbitration process, freeing up arbitrators of a very cumbersome task (opening and closing cases; maintaining requests for arbitration; maintaining open cases; et cetera) and allowing them to focus on tasks that are more central to their appointed role. In other words, it frees the committee from the administration and paperwork of the system.
- What I think Majorly's concern (and the concern of a number of other Wikipedians, I am sure) revolves around, is the fact that clerks are appointed by the committee. Majorly makes parallels between the clerking process on changing username, and on the arbitration process. That's not a fair comparison to make here: arbitration clerking is a much more complicated, time-consuming process, where much more can go wrong, much more effort and thought is required, and much more experience is necessary before one can be "let loose" on a case (on a related note, that is the idea behind the 'helper clerks'). I have heavy experience in both arbitration and CHU clerking, and there is a huge difference between the two. The system that perfectly fits the latter is just not suitable for the former; and, I am sure, vice versa.
- To address your points as to the system being bureaucratic, I don't find that fair either. Again, perhaps I may be biased (in that I'm trying to bargain my way off of the chopping block, so to speak), but I view the system of vetting editors interested in clerking arbitration cases, not as bureaucracy, but as a necessary check on competence and trustworthiness. The arbitration process is heated as it is; allowing an editor to clerk but one case, and mucking it up, could interfere rather drastically with the smooth operation of the committee's arbitration of that dispute. To be frank, some editors would bring more harm than good to a case if they were permitted to clerk it; the appointment process ensures that that is not allowed to happen. The "trainee" process simply allows new clerks to 'settle in', so to speak: I know for myself, that my time as a trainee allowed me to refine my existing knowledge of how arbitration works (from a clerking point of view, as well as an observing Wikipedian), and that it also allowed me to brush up on some weak areas of how it worked.
- Replacing the current clerk system, with one modelled on changing username is a recipe for disaster. I would certainly oppose any moves to do so–as would, I imagine, the arbitration committee, and anybody fairly analysing the facts of the matter.
- Anthøny 21:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with this summary, but I reserve the right to run around screaming should there ever be a position of "assistant clerk helper". Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)