Please see the request for comments on this proposal that is currently taking place on the talk page.

This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

This is a proposal to formally define a clerking system for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. The role of clerks, like Arbcom clerks, is to assist with the administration and running of requests for adminship. Clerks will be empowered to take any steps necessary to ensure that RfA is as drama-free and stress-free as possible for the candidate. The intention of this proposal is to eliminate the toxic environment at RfA, and subsequently encourage qualified users to request adminship.

Note that if this proposal is accepted, then (like any policy or guideline) it is not set in stone and its terms can evolve if there is consensus for change. Not all problems with a proposal can be foreseen, therefore this proposal is a framework for RfA clerking that can and will be modified when the need arises.

To be eligible to clerk an RfA, an editor must satisfy the following requirements:

• A clerk must be either an administrator or a non-admin editor who has made a successful request for clerking privileges at the RfA clerks' noticeboard. Non-admins requesting clerking privileges must be editors in good standing, and must demonstrate sufficient experience and familiarity with the RfA process, civility policies, and clerking duties. The process for non-admins requesting clerking privileges will be a traditional consensus discussion on the RfA clerks' noticeboard.
• A clerk may not be involved with the adminship candidate, and they should not have had any significant recent interaction with the candidate (on- or off-wiki) that might affect their ability to be completely neutral.
• A clerk may not vote on any RfA that they are clerking, nor should they express any positive or negative opinions about the candidate (on any page) throughout the course of the RfA.
• A nominator or co-nominator of an RfA may not be a clerk for that RfA. If a user has nominated the candidate in a previous RfA, they may not be a clerk for any of that candidate's subsequent RfA's.
• A user may not clerk an RfA if the candidate or nominator(s) objects to that user being a clerk (for any reason).
• Clerks should be reasonably sure that they will be available to monitor the RfA throughout its 7-day duration.

At the start of a request for adminship (RfA), up to 3 editors may assign themselves as clerks for that particular RfA. They will designate themselves as clerks by adding their signature to a new "Clerks" section of the RfA. If 3 clerks have already signed up for one RfA, then no other editors may designate themselves as clerks for that RfA. Clerks are encouraged to only clerk one RfA at a time.

If desired, a candidate may request to have no clerks at their RfA. This request can be posted in the "Clerks" section of the RfA, and the request should be made by the candidate (or a nominator) before the RfA is transcluded.

The purpose of a clerk is to ensure that the RfA runs smoothly, with minimal drama and minimal stress for the candidate. Clerks are regarded as neutral, unbiased observers who have the authority to take actions in the best interest of the RfA and the candidate. Clerks can perform the following tasks at an RfA:

Non-contentious tasks

• Post the candidate's edit stats to the RfA talk page (and advise the candidate to opt in for X!'s edit stats, if necessary).
• Fix any transclusion errors with the RfA page.
• Close any RfA's that qualify for a WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW closure.
• Put any RfA on hold if it has run for at least 7 full days (to prevent late votes), and notify bureaucrats that the RfA closure is overdue, if necessary.

Clerk-only tasks

• Investigate any potential voting irregularities (like canvassing and sockpuppetry) and take any actions deemed necessary to correct the irregularities.
• Move any off-topic discussion threads to the RfA talk page. The clerk should provide a link to the talk page section in place of the original off-topic discussion.
• Take any action deemed necessary to neutralize comments, votes, or questions for the candidate that are blatantly disruptive, or that violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, at the clerk's discretion. The clerk should always notify the user of whatever action they take. Possible actions to neutralize comments include, but are not limited to:
  • Asking the user to refactor their comment
  • Collapsing the comment (usually for excessively long comments)
  • Moving the comment to the RfA talk page (usually for off-topic comments)
  • Removing the comment altogether
• In cases of extreme and/or repetitive disruption by a user on a single RfA, a clerk may ban that user from participating further in the RfA. Violations of such a ban may result in a block, with a duration no longer than the remaining duration of the RfA (unless other concurrent violations warrant a longer block). Clerks do not have the authority to ban a user from future RfA's, ban a user from RfA in general, or to otherwise ban a user from any RfA except for the one they are currently clerking.

Any user (clerk or otherwise) can perform any of the non-contentious tasks listed above. However, except in extraordinary cases, non-clerks must not perform any of the clerk-only tasks. Instead, they should report any potential incidents to a clerk, or post a notice on the RfA clerks' noticeboard, and allow a clerk to deal with the situation. Users who are eligible to be clerks but have not been designated as a clerk on a particular RfA should also not perform any clerk-only tasks on that RfA.

If a user believes that a clerk has acted inappropriately, they must not revert the clerk's action. Instead, they may post a complaint to the RfA clerks' noticeboard. If there is a consensus that the action was inappropriate, it will be reverted. If a clerk receives a large number of complaints over time, they may be asked to refrain from clerking.

If a user reverts a clerk's action on an RfA, it is recommended (but not required) that:

1. They will be warned after the first offense
2. They will be banned from that particular RfA after the second offense
3. They will be blocked for the remaining duration of the RfA after the third offense