This RfC is placed on hold indefinitely.
|
|---|
|
Recently, clerking has been suggested as a solution to the hostile environment at requests for adminship (RfA). But before covering clerking, some background: It is generally accepted [1] that RfA candidates and participants are being subjected to a less-than-friendly environment by a minority of editors. RfA candidacies have come to an all-time low in 2015; as of December 2015, 10 fewer candidates run for RfA than last year, which was already described as a year of major drought for RfA – we would need a candidacy every three days in the month of December in order to meet 2014's numbers. Editors, even ones who would likely be good admins, do not wish to run for RfA because of the demeaning and even insulting statements made against candidates and other participants. Even the most prolific and trusted editors are having difficulty nominating candidates. Clerking is commonly offered as one possible solution, although only one proposal RfC has been opened; it failed to gain community support. However, consensus has changed regarding clerking; currently, there is actually a light to moderate consensus towards clerking. [2] The idea of clerking is to designate a group of uninvolved editors to maintain decorum and order in RfAs. Clerks are responsible for ensuring that comments, votes, and questions on RfA are civil and germane, and they have the ability to remove and hide votes, comments, and questions in some circumstances. Clerk actions can be challenged and clerks are subject to admin accountability, and even a small consensus can overturn a clerk action. On the main page is a very rough clerking policy/guideline. It documents the role and responsibilities of editors acting as clerks, who may clerk RfAs and the level of uninvolvement required, and the process for challenging clerk actions. Of course, the extent and process of clerking can change if there is consensus, and participants in this RfC will be able to vote for several possible options regarding the details of clerking. Clerking would likely bring the following benefits:
Continuing on from the most recent RfC discussing clerking, I propose for a group of editors (decided by discussion below) to perform some or all the clerking tasks as described on the main page of this RfC on individual RfAs. There will be choices regarding the details of clerking; if you do not support the clerking proposal in whole on the main page; you may oppose various parts of the clerking proposal. Esquivalience t 01:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
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. A group (to be decided below) of editors will be authorized to clerk RfAs in some form, provided that clerks are uninvolved with the candidate and their actions do not effect editors whom they have a personal conflict with. In this proposal, depending on the consesnsus, clerks will be responsible for either one or any combination of the clerking tasks described on the main page. Clarification: If you have voted in the last RfC, you do not have to vote in this one if your opinion has not changed. Closers should take the last RfC into account.
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.
This vote will decide the groups that will be authorized to clerk RfAs, subject to the uninvolvement requirements and community scrutiny. You may vote for and against multiple options. Note: If you support authorizing any other group to clerk RfAs, also specify if you support or oppose having bureaucrats oversee RfA clerking. Appoint a group of editors that are authorized to clerk RfAs. Any editor may clerk RfAs, provided that they meet a certain set of requirements and/or they leave more controversial actions to the three groups above. If you support this option, specify your suggested requirement; if this is successful, closers should take a rough average of the suggested requirements. Any editor may clerk RfA, subject to community scrutiny. You may vote for or against multiple options. Clerks will be responsible for cleaning up the RfA main page, moving lengthy threads to the talk page and ensuring that the talk page guidelines are followed. Clerks will be able to enforce any community-approved limits on questioning, and remind or admonish editors who ask dilatory, inappropriate, or an excessive amount of questions. 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. Clerks are authorized to remove and hide incivil comments/votes and personal attacks. 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.
In addition to their existing authorizations (which are not up for discussion in this RfC), clerks are authorized to remove votes that they deem inappropriate, including (but not limited to) joke votes and votes that were cast citing only a personal conflict. This excludes votes that a clerk merely deems unreasonable. In addition to the above, clerks are authorized to remove a vote based on blatantly unreasonable rationales; simply put, a rationale that is essentially dilatory. For example, while requiring 1 or 2 FAs would not be blatantly reasonable, 10 is blatantly unreasonable, and can be removed by a clerk. Clerks are authorized to halt any further votes on RfAs that are past their scheduled ending time and are pending closure by a bureaucrat. Clerks will be allowed to clerk RfBs, in addition to RfAs. All clerk actions will be noted - and logged at a section called "Clerk actions and requests". The {{ Rfan}} template (RfA note) will be expanded to include all clerk actions approved by this RfC and its documentation will be completed; and a new template, {{ Rfa-ca}} (RfA clerk action) will make logging uniform. Template:Rfa will look like this if clerking is implemented. The Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page will briefly discuss clerking, linking to a more detailed guideline/policy on clerking located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clerking. Additionally, the following pages would be created:
Unless further clarification is needed; clerking will be implemented immediately according to the results of this RfC. |
In Wikipedia Clerks may refer to:
- Active
- Arbitration Committee Clerks
- Sockpuppet Investigation Clerks
- Changing Username Clerks
- Contributor Copyright Investigation Clerks
- Deprecated
- Wikipedia:Clerking, formerly consisted of general discussion, now redirects here.
- Requests for Checkuser Clerks II
- Requests for Checkuser Clerks I
- Administrators' Noticeboard Clerks
- Community Sanction Noticeboard Clerks
- Information for editors who never heard of Wikipedia clerks, or who want to know more about clerks.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 13:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
While we wait, surely this page is in the wrong place? It isn't a talk page and it needs its own talk page. It should be in Wikipedia space, not Wikipedia talk. Views are invited on whether it should be another subpage of Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform (along with the current big RfC), a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or a freestanding page : Noyster (talk), 12:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The
main page of this proposal is the main proposal page (not the voting page, the page detailing the clerking if all of the proposed functions of clerks are approved).
Esquivalience
t
15:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- The proposed system is in a perfectly appropriate location at Requests for adminship/Clerking proposal 2015. THere is definitely no reason whatsoever why it should be part of
Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform, or even authored by the proposers of that RfC project. --
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try to rephrase my main point: this page is currently located on a talk page. The corresponding " project page" just contains some introductory material, in a different order and with different phrasing to what is on this talk page, plus a section "Challenging clerk actions" with no equivalent on this talk page. Before the RfC goes live I urge that the whole thing be moved over to the project page: a combined introduction, followed by the voting template. Then this talk page can take up its rightful role to host any meta-discussion about the RfC, just as it is with the big current RfC and its talk page : Noyster (talk), 13:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- The proposed system is in a perfectly appropriate location at Requests for adminship/Clerking proposal 2015. THere is definitely no reason whatsoever why it should be part of
Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform, or even authored by the proposers of that RfC project. --
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
This RFC says:
- "Per this proposal, clerks are already authorized to perform the following basic actions, which will not be reconsidered in this RfC."
- ...list of things with supposed consensus
However, the close of the RFC in question, says:
- "Mixed Results
- ...
- M: Active clerking at RFA
- This was a nuanced discussion. I think the community would like to discuss the idea of clerking at the next stage of the RFC. The valid concerns are that it would lead to stifling of discussion and force !votes to be less candid. So these are things to look out for in the next phase."
This confuses me. Surely, this RFC can only start from the closer's position on the previous one: "I think the community would like to discuss the idea of clerking at the next stage of the RFC."
Am I missing some other discussion and close that supports all these "
fait-accompli" statements?
Begoon
talk
00:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The proposal had 62% support, which is over a
three-fifths supermajority. Outside the very strange and sometimes unrealistic world of Wikipedia, that would almost always be more than enough to pass anything (except perhaps the overriding of a veto). It is rather inefficient to keep putting proposals with supermajority support up for discussion just because "the result was not overwhelmingly clear, and we should do it again just to make sure."
Biblio
worm
01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Then you disagree with the closer? My understanding is that we have neutral closers to assess consensus - we don't count votes. In this case the closer seems to think responses were mixed, and further discussion should be the result. I don't see the close as validating the assumptions this RFC makes. I may be a minority view, who knows, but personally I think the assumptions could endanger the validity of the RFC, and I would be much more careful.
Begoon
talk
01:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Let's just settle this issue right now,
ping the closer, and see what he thinks about this RfC.
Biblio
worm
01:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent idea - I should have done so myself. Begoon talk 01:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Let's just settle this issue right now,
ping the closer, and see what he thinks about this RfC.
Biblio
worm
01:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Then you disagree with the closer? My understanding is that we have neutral closers to assess consensus - we don't count votes. In this case the closer seems to think responses were mixed, and further discussion should be the result. I don't see the close as validating the assumptions this RFC makes. I may be a minority view, who knows, but personally I think the assumptions could endanger the validity of the RFC, and I would be much more careful.
Begoon
talk
01:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The proposal had 62% support, which is over a
three-fifths supermajority. Outside the very strange and sometimes unrealistic world of Wikipedia, that would almost always be more than enough to pass anything (except perhaps the overriding of a veto). It is rather inefficient to keep putting proposals with supermajority support up for discussion just because "the result was not overwhelmingly clear, and we should do it again just to make sure."
Biblio
worm
01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
ErrantX is having short-term internet trouble. Btw, I may be able to help with closing the 3rd RfC in the series. (I haven't been neutral enough up till now to help, but the decline in admin numbers has slowed dramatically this year, and we now have two RfCs that will probably have an impact ... my own position isn't left of center anymore, I'm now back in the middle.) That's a good thing, because I'm expecting it to be radioactive, and I'm not sure who else will want to touch it. : - Dank ( push to talk) 16:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
-
Dank - do you have a view on the discussion above? It would be valuable, since you're usually perceptive and detached with these matters. What I'm keen to see is this RFC structured soundly, so that it is not open to claims it did not follow procedure later. I think the assumptions I refer to, based on the close of RFC1, are a potential weakness in this regard. RFA has been unchanged for a long time - I'd hate to see stuff like this fail again through haste when a full discussion seems likely to stand a good chance of a positive result.
Begoon
talk
22:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. ErrantX will be back soon, and I'm sure he can straighten it out. My plan is to say nothing at all before or during the upcoming RfC until the 30 days is up, apart from something like this, at the start: "This has been a heated topic for many years, and that may make it harder for the closer(s) to figure out where the consensus lies at the end. After 30 days, they can choose to extend this RfC for one week if necessary, giving notice at
WP:CENT, to allow them to ask questions about those points that are too close to call."- Dank (
push to talk)
22:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Cool. I fully understand, and that sounds like a good plan. Begoon talk 23:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. ErrantX will be back soon, and I'm sure he can straighten it out. My plan is to say nothing at all before or during the upcoming RfC until the 30 days is up, apart from something like this, at the start: "This has been a heated topic for many years, and that may make it harder for the closer(s) to figure out where the consensus lies at the end. After 30 days, they can choose to extend this RfC for one week if necessary, giving notice at
WP:CENT, to allow them to ask questions about those points that are too close to call."- Dank (
push to talk)
22:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! So far as I read consensus; the community largely wants clerking in some form. And it's good that this RFC would decide on the mechanism for that. One thing I will say, though, is that the opener to the Phase I RFC (and thus the guidance that all !voters would have gone by) noted; "As was mentioned just now, we are focusing on broad issues here. Assuming that any of these issues obtain consensus (as described in the "Instructions for closers" section), there will likely be a second RfC that will follow this one, so that we can narrow our range of focus and expand on the issues discussed here.". This was also the language I used when considering each close; that this was a broad "what are the problems we want to address and the wide stroke solutions". Hence the comment that the community wants to discuss Clerking at this step. On top of that, the clerk responsibility was informally worded (e.g. it did not formally propose wording for the policy page). For this page that wording has been formalised and in some places may not precisely reflect the informal wording of Phase I; the community would naturally need to !vote on that wording and be offered a chance to discuss it (perhaps not at this step..). I see now that this has now been taken out of the Admin reform phases, which complicates matters further. In shorter form; the community broadly supported clerking at RFA and the wording of a clerking proposal as a whole will need to be discussed at later RFC's . My recommendation is to mature this WP-space page into a full proposal (don't offer options, just build something) and then propose it as policy. -- Errant ( chat!) 23:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Building this into a concrete proposal, and then proposing it does indeed seem a good way forward. I still feel that listing specific "things" about clerking that are "already authorised" is a mistake - since no actual policy proposals have been approved I think this will unnecessarily muddy the waters. The other question is whether further exploration as to exactly what form of clerking the community will support is warranted before making the concrete proposal. I feel it is, and that such discussion can only strengthen the proposal and make it vastly more likely to gain approval. That's what I always imagined Phase 2 would be, and a statement in "phase 2" that clerking in some form already has broad approval and that this phase aims to move from that broad approval to a tight definition and proposal would be entirely appropriate. The fact that this matter, due to its complexity, has been separated from the "omnibus phase 2" in no way precludes its own "phase 2". Begoon talk 01:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- But let's face it: specific policy proposals are almost always doomed to fail, since many people will disagree with at least one part of the proposal and therefore oppose it. That is why, in my opinion, it is better to have an RfC that presents different options and allows the community to formulate their own custom policy. I also don't see any point in voting on the basic provision again, either, because people who oppose the concept will just oppose all the specific options, too. (That is what happened in the Phase II RfC; people who opposed the concept of proposal D.1 also opposed all the specific options for the proposal.) If the specific proposals here gain consensus, then that would naturally mean that there is community consensus for clerking. If none of the specific proposals gain consensus (not even the most basic ones), then the rather strong implication should be that there is not consensus for clerking. Biblio worm 17:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
When it goes live, please advertise it at BN, as well as the other venues you've used for the previous RfC. Thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) 12:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)