User:Sphilbrick/RFPP Clerkship Discussion

Some areas of Wikipedia employ clerks to help with certain defined talks. The purpose of this page is to start a discussion whether a clerkship function at WP:RFPP would be a positive development for WP. If the idea has enough merit to invite broader input, a specific proposal and rational would be moved to an appropriate page, for example, Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

Background

There have been quite a number of proposals at WT:RFA related to the sysop function, some of which are motivated by a belief that there is a substantial amount of work for sysops to do, and more sysops would reduce the workload for each individual sysop. There is debate regarding whether the current backlog is too large. Note that observations about the backlog are related to, but not identical to observations about the workload. Backlogs may be acceptable simply because sysops are working very hard.

One way that sysop workloads are kept manageable is to identify functions often handled by sysops, but which can be handled by non-sysops editors. For example, AfD's can be closed by a non-sysop under certain conditions. Editors undertaking these functions (if done properly) achieve two important goals - reduction of the sysop workload, while gaining experience in areas that will help convince the community that an editor should be given the mop.

One potential area where this approach could be employed in the RfPP area. While the decision to change page protection should remain a sysop function, a significant portion of the actual function is the analysis of the situation. An editor with a fair amount of experience could prepare the analysis, while letting the sysop actually make the change, and offload a significant proportion of the workload onto non-sysops.

In theory, anyone could make such an analysis. However, to avoid duplication of effort, the non-sysop function is only helpful if the sysop can reach a level of trust in the analysis of the editor. The function could be done on a purely volunteer basis, or there could be a more formal appointment of designated clerks. The purpose of this page is to discuss whether off-loading some of the analysis to non-sysop editors is a useful way to improve the speed of Page protection actions, while reducing the workload of sysops, and whether the function should be purely voluntary or done by clerks identified via some process.

Discussion of key attributes

This is the area to discuss various aspects of the proposal. After consensus, the draft sections below should be updated.

Functions

Based upon my understanding of the RfPP page, it appears that the current process is as follows:

1. An editor bring a request to the RfPP page asking for some form of protection.
2. An admin reviews the request, and reviews the page in question.
3. The admin makes a decision on the type of protection and the duration
4. The admin then pushes the buttons to make it happen

I presume step three takes a bit of time, to ascertain that there have been xxx recent problematic edits in yyy hours. The admin has to confirm that the requesting party isn't the main problem, as that would lead to a different action. The admin has to confirm that the problems are coming from multiple people, otherwise a block of a specific individual would be in order. The admin has to be aware of past requests, and determine whether this time period should be shorter, longer, or about the same as the last request. I think these tasks are ones that an editor with experience, but not yet an admin could perform.

I'm imaging that a template could be put together for a clerk. The clerk would review the situation, and place a template on the RPP page, which might read something like:

More than xxx instances of problematic edits in the last yyy hours. This page was last semi/full protected/pending changes on xx/yy/zzzz for a period of xxxx Recommendation: semi/full protection/pending changes for xxxx hours/days/months. The admin would review the analysis, and then, depending on how long the clerk has been active and how well the admin knows the clerk, the admin will do a spot check or more in depth check. Over time, the admins will learn which clerks have a clue (and presumably, the clerks will also learn from feedback) and be able to trust the clerk report more and more. I imagine that the template could even have a button on it (which only works if an admin clicks it), automatically providing the protection level proposed. Selection process At one extreme, the process could be completely voluntary. In fact, while thinking through this concept , Acather96 boldly implemented a version of this idea at Endorse protection. While I think that template will prove useful, a sysop can only place value in the endorsement if the sysop knows the endorser well enough to perform less due diligence than they would otherwise perform. Ironically, this template will be very useful if it is used sparingly, and sysops come to recognize the name of endorsers. At the other extreme, the community could vet candidates and create a formal position. This extreme is too extreme, and would only be warranted if the clerk were to be given tools not available to other editors That can be discussed, but I envision that the analysis can be done without any special tools. Another option is to follow the rollbacker model, and allow sysops to appoint anyone to the position of clerk who expresses and interest and seems to have some level of clue. My personal view is that the requirements ought to be more stringent than rollbacker, but that can be debated. I would expect that there would be a limitation on the number, if only to ensure that sysops can become familiar with each clerk, so that they can, over time, reduce the personal due diligence needed. Removal process Term of service A likely possibility is that the clerk serves until they decide to become inactive, (or pass RfA) but this is a place to discuss whether there should be any formal, or even informal terms of service. Investigating template? Response time - A quick perusal of the recent requests reveals that some are addressed in minutes, while some take hours. Is this solely a function of when sysops are patrolling, or are there other reasons? Investigating template - It would be counter-productive if, on a regular basis, a clerk started investigating a request, and a sysop reviewed the same request and made a decision while the clerk was reviewing. No big deal in a simple case, where it might literally take seconds to make a determination, but annoying if more substantial time is needed. One possibility is to have an "investigating" template, that a clerk (or even a sysop) places on a request, so that someone else isn't duplicating the effort. If a sysop is familiar with the site, and sees the template, they could go ahead and make the decision, but they would make a courtesy notification to the clerk to abandon analysis. Draft Proposal The community should establish the position of clerk at RFPP Functions The duties of an RfPP clerk are:... Selection process Removal process Term of service A brief history of clerking at Wikipedia A brief history of clerking at Wikipedia Clerks are currently active in four areas: Arbitration Committee, Sockpuppet Investigations, Contributor copyright investigations and Changing Usernames. Clerks were used at Checkuser from 2006–2008, but the function was discontinued. The duties still exist, but they are taken care of by volunteers, rather than appointed clerks. A proposal to implement a clerk function for the Administrators noticeboard was floated by user:Jehochman in 2007, but the proposal failed. There appears to have been a proposal to add a clerk function to a Community Sanction Noticeboard (AN or ANI). I do not find the formal proposal, but there is a strongly worded opposition, which is not simply opposition to the notion of a clerk function at that board, but opposition to the concept of clerk everywhere. Arbitration Committee Clerks The current active and temporarily inactive clerks, with the exception of Seddon are all sysops. Many, but not all of the former clerks are sysops currently (I have not ascertained their status at the time they were clerks) Arbitration Committee Clerks are appointed by the Arbitration Committee. Sockpuppet investigations Clerks Ten of the 13 active SPI clerks are sysops. New clerks are chosen, using consensus, by existing clerks. Contributor copyright investigations Any uninvolved sysop can act as a clerk; in addition there are two active and one non-active clerks who are not sysops. Non-sysops interested in clerking post their interest at the project talk page, and if there is consensus, they will be appointed. Changing username There is a clerk function associated with Changing username; it appears to be completely voluntary. See Also Clerking a page created to monitor current developments Clerks a dab page linking to existing and deprecated clerk functions Notes