Wikipedia talk:Clerking

Clerking
Most of the discussion has been at WT:UAA so far, and there's been recent discussion about the existing clerking at WP:CCI and a clerking proposal for WP:RFPP. There will probably be some common threads and issues, and discussion is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, my position: looks like clerking may be useful at UAA and maybe a couple more boards, but let's not let it turn into a "thing", it's mostly up to those boards to decide what they need. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Other relevant information

 * Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Clerks (same thing really)
 * Community_noticeboard/Clerks (again, same thing)
 * Requests_for_checkuser/Clerks/Table
 * Requests_for_checkuser/Clerks
 * WP:CLERK

I think it's important for us to review this too before we discuss the same thing again. Netalarm talk 04:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent links, great discussions, thanks so much for posting that. What I take from that: except for places where clerks are already established and work well (such as ArbCom), we shouldn't add clerks to any noticeboard that attracts drama, and one thing we want in clerks is the ability to detect possible drama and steer clear of it, no matter where they work.  Clerking at a board may or may not have the side-effect of increasing interest in and activity at that board; if so, then clerking should only be considered at boards that are high-volume, low-drama, and critical for preserving and improving "content", such as WP:UAA, WP:RfPP, and some of the copyright boards (taken together).  Clerking at RfA would be a complete disaster. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would depend on what the clerks did. At RFA before the tally bot you used to have a number of editors updating the counter, and you still have editors removing IP votes, fixing numbering and other formatting issues as well as adding stats to the talkpage. That sort of thing can go on even whilst dwamah rages over things that are deemed controversial.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Netalarm has asked me to respond to his last post at WT:RFA; this is a permalink to WT:RFA at the time he made the comment. No one has responded since then, so unless I see another post soon, I'm going to assume that people are finished discussing the subject at RFA; I gave them the links to WT:UAA and here, so presumably anyone interested is watching one place or the other. Thoughts, anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk at RfPP?
I see value in a clerk function at RfPP. The function of the clerk would be to review the request, including the activity at the page, and prepare a recommendation. This would involve no special powers for the clerk. The rational for establishing a position is that it only saves time for sysops if the sysops can reach a level of trust in those making the recommendation, thus it would be good to have a finite, identifiable list of editors making such recommendations.

There's a page to discuss and refine the proposal here Based upon the principle of WP:Bold, I could just go ahead an make some major changes. However, I intend to propose changes here first (except for routine cleanup). I note the article is not getting a lot of page views, nor does it have many people watching it, so I do not anticipate that proposals will get vigorous discussion - I hope I'm wrong. -- SPhilbrick  T  18:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm torn; I'd love to see clerking at RfPP, but I kind of like the fact that people have stopped talking about clerking, and are just doing it, and admins are helping. Nothing that I or anyone else says is worth a tenth as much as just watching what people are doing and noticing whether it's helping or not (it is).  OTOH, I'm going to give a lightning talk (5-minute talk) at the NYC Wikiconference, and I need to have something to say :)  So yes, I hope people will discuss this here and at WT:RFPP. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No response here, I don't think it would be a bad idea to post at RfPP and we'll see how it goes. - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad idea...
(Copied and modified from my WT:RfA post, because it makes more sense here now.) We want more non-admin involvement in UAA, RFPP, CSD, and what not, so let's encourage it. There's no need to create a formal process for people to help out. If someone wants to comment or help out at UAA, by all means, go ahead! The clerking system, as I've pointed out will cause more problems than it's worth. If someone is only helping out at UAA or CSD because they get to be a clerk, then we have to question that person ability to be a good administrator or even a good clerk. I agree with that we could encourage non-admins to help out more, so let's do just that. Here's an example: If someone volunteers at their local food pantry just because they need the credit for school or something, it's a completely different story than if someone volunteers at the food pantry because they truly want to help. If the requirement to volunteer is removed, we're going to see a drop of volunteers at the food pantry if everyone is just there for the credit. The remaining ones are the ones that truly want to help out. The same logic also applies to clerking IMO.


 * As WSC has pointed on at the RfA talk page, we could encourage non-admins to participate at UAA, no problem. Heck, let's encourage it right now! Instead of creating all this unnecessary clerking stuff, can't we just put a note in the edit notice or someplace that encourages non-admins to help out? Now people will help because they want to, not because they want the clerk position. Just a thought, but I think this is the solution that solves most of the problems. Netalarm talk 05:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The advantage of having clerks is that, in theory, admins should be able to trust them and rely on their actions. Admins are still the ones calling the shots, but if they trust their clerks, their checks can be less thorough. For instance, if a RFPP clerking position is created, an admin will certainly take a look at the article, to make sure the clerk correctly assessed the request; however, their check could be carried out more quickly.
 * Regarding UAA, everyone can comment and, even if a clerking position were created, everyone will always be allowed to comment there; however, clerks will also remove usernames reported by the bot, if it's a blatant false positive, move stale reports to the holding pen, remove stale reports from the holding pen and so on. If an admin constantly has to look over the shoulders of everyone who's trying to help out over there, to make sure nobody (re)moves non-stale reports, then the advantages of having clerks or people commenting would be lost, in my opinion. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 15:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the goal behind this clerking is not to restrict comments at UAA to clerks only, but that clerkship is to be some sort of reward for those who do a good job responding to reports, as well as being a stepping stone to adminship. Maybe, instead of creating "clerk" positions for stuff that everyone should be able to do, we could create some sort of seal of approval. It could be called something like "Certified Username Patroller". Users who have done a certain number of actions on UAA during a certain amount of time, and whose work has been found satisfactory by admins familiar with username patrol, would then be able to call themselves Certified Username Patrollers. Commenting on UAA would still be open to everyone, but admins could trust comments from certified patrollers more. Also, if someone goes for an RfA, the fact that they have acheived certified status would show that they have experience. If needed, such seals of approval could be created for other processes as well, such as page protection, etc. Theis101 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not strictly necessary to follow tradition, but by tradition, we minimize and understate all roles on en.wikipedia (except "Founder" :). "Bureaucrat" sounds really unimpressive, and the symbol for admins is a mop, not a banhammer.  I intended "Clerk" to follow that tradition, and my guess is that's what everyone else was thinking too; several other boards use the same word.  But I really don't care what the name is ... except if there are too many names, people will get confused and misunderstand us, so I don't like the idea of a different name at every noticeboard. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... if it's to establish trust, I would assume if someone has been at UAA long enough, admins and the community would generally trust them with their actions, correct? *shrug* It doesn't really matter if the official position of "clerk" is created or not, since we can have a clerk like system of trusted users, but without the complications of actually creating a "clerk group." Sure, I like the idea of having trusted people help out, I really just don't think there's any need to make if official. Netalarm talk 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, this came out of nowhere ... see WT:RFA, everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, and it would basically eliminate the need for clerking. But again, this is a very complicated issue and we'll need to take a closer look. Netalarm talk 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think it would be overly complicated to have clerkship and this going on at the same time. I'm glad you like that one, I do too. - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut
Not to overly disrupt the deep discussion going on here, but... Shortcut [ WP:CL] was appropriated for WP:Clerking. It's a longstanding shortcut for WikiProject Constructed languages, with about forty some-odd pages using it, and its name coordinates with shortcut P:CL for Portal:Constructed languages. (I suppose it doesn't really matter that that's a featured portal, but I'll mention it anyway. :-)

If this really needs a shortcut (about which I'm unsure), can we devise something that doesn't conflict with existing links? --Pi zero (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gratz on the featured portal. Before we discuss it, let's see if this page will be necessary at all; if this kind of clerking only happens at UAA, then it would make sense to discuss issues that arise at WT:UAA instead of here.  WP:CLE, WP:CLERK, and WP:CLERKS are all taken, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:CLK ? – xeno talk 16:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me, and buy me that car. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CLerKs only bub! – xeno talk 16:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerkship at AIV
The discussion at WT:UAA about clerks being able to view deleted contributions would be put to better use if clerking were enabled for AIV since clerks if allowed to view deleted contributions they will be able to use their best judgment to make suggestions for administrators about what method should be taken. Admins can still analyse these contributions on their own but can have a lighter workload knowing there are trusted users taking care of the minor details of AIV. — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  12:08pm  • 02:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)