Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:28, 23 February 2006

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's change to the confict of interest clause

I've performed the following change (shown in bold):

In any case, no clerk should have anything to do with a case in which he or she is a participant, except to the extent that he or she participates as a participant. Clerks who wish to make a statement in a case, or provide evidence, must refrain from acting as a clerk with respect to that case. This does not prejudice his right to perform cosmetic refactoring of evidence and workshop pages, as is the right of any editor. In unclear situations, the head clerk or the Arbitration Committee should be consulted.

Editors, whether participants or not, can reorganize evidence and workshop pages. An editor should not be forbidden to carry out such cosmetic tasks simply because he is both a participant in the case and a clerk. So if X is involved in a case and as a clerk cannot act as a clerk, this doesn't stop him, say, renumbering proposed findings of fact in the workshop, or changing links in an evidence page to correct diff links. Such editing should always be done with care, whoever does it. . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

new template

placed on talk page since I am not a "official clerk" and it is unclear whether other people are allowed to post even comments on the main clerks page

The new template looks nice but since it seems to linebreak after each usage (can't be used directly next to a previous one) so it's screwing up the currentasks template, I'm sure there's an easy way to fix it so it allows one to be placed next to another so that it works correctly but I don't know how. Jtkiefer ---- 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, Jdforrester's change to the arbcomopentasks template to put it into it's own column seems to work well to make it work. Jtkiefer ---- 23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Are we expected to recuse from cases we're provoding evidence in? I've been trying to restrict myself to summarizing other's, or was there a Sekrit Cabal order to search for more?--Tznkai 07:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly hope that any clerk would automatically recuse themselves in such a situation. Unfortunately it appears that Johnleemk is clerking a case in which he has presented evidence. I'd encourage The Mighty Clerks Office to find Another Clerk for that case. -Splash 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm. That is bad-looking. I passed up that case due to past conflicts with Ruy Lopez on the 2004 Election Controversy cesspools, so I assumed he would as well if he's presenting evidence. Have you tried leaving a note on his talk page asking him about this? Phil Sandifer 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling he's presenting evidence as part of his clerking, and not declaring it as such.--Tznkai 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He presented evidence before being named as a clerk. But again, why are we debating this point instead of taking the straightforward, good faith approach of asking him? Phil Sandifer 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thats just my confusion. I'll ask when he's back off vacation--Tznkai 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just asked him, but his userpage indicates a lack of internet at present. I'm inclined to think also that the presentation of fresh evidence is not part of a clerks job; they're not detectives after all. (They can present fresh evidence of course, but should then recuse as a clerk.) -Splash 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the clarification of unclear evidence and spotty evidence seems an important part of the job. After all, the arbcom is not a game to be won by whoever is most adept at presenting evidence. If there's something massive that the evidence page is obscuring, part of the task of the clerks is to make it clear to the arbcom. Phil Sandifer 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say if you're presenting evidence you're involved in (as I am in KDRgibby) you should recuse, but thats me.--Tznkai 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. To my mind, our recusal standards are the same as the arbcom's, and certainly nobody would fault the arbcom for looking at something that wasn't on the evidence page. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to tread a little carefully. It seems different for an Arbitrator to go sleuthing after the Truth than for a clerk to do so: the clerk could finish up prosecuting the case when they weren't actually involved in the first place, as well as trying to clerk it. That doesn't apply to an Arbitrator in the same way. That said, if a clerk is patching up the evidence a little "oh, and look, there's this editor apologising over here", that'd be different. -Splash 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reasons for clerks to be concerned about presenting new evidence in a case they are clerking as long as they have no conflict of interest. It's part of our job. Of course, some users will always complain that it appears to be a conflict, but there's nothing we can do about that, and we shouldn't let the users with the biggest tinfoil hats dictate policy to us. --Ryan Delaney 09:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm inclined to agree. We shouldn't unnecessarily restrict our powers of evidence-gathering and presentation, and thus risk a bad arbitration decision, where there is no conflict of interest. If we are in doubt we should consult the head clerk and the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think a clerk who gathers evidence is by definition wrong, but if his gathering evidence casts doubt on his neutrality in the mind of an involved party, he should recuse and be replaced by another clerk. Remember that involved parties have nothing to gain and everything to lose from being a vexlit, so if someone vexlits away all possible clerks he's only shooting himself in the foot. Or hand, depending on what he types with. Radiant_>|< 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The arbitrators or the head clerk can direct a clerk to recuse, so if there is a complaint and a request to recuse it shouldn't normally be a matter for the clerk at all. --Tony Sidaway 09:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaargghhh, I'm really sorry I couldn't attend to this earlier. I noticed Tznkai recused himself from cases where he had presented evidence just before I lost internet access for good, but I was very rushed and only managed to tackle a limited number of tasks. Anyway, long story short, I think Radiant has got it right. The guidelines indicate that an ex-arbitrator does not have a conflict of interest in cases where (s)he has voted in, so I naturally assumed presenting evidence or proposing stuff on the workshop would be no different. If there's an obvious conflict of interest (for instance, if Everyking was hauled in front of the arbcom again), I would naturally recuse myself, and present evidence in a non-clerking capacity. Johnleemk | Talk 12:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

As a party to this case, I urgently request clerical help, The case has not been properly opened: the request is still on the main RFAR page, and discussion is still going on there. The participants have not been officially notified. Material that belongs on the evidence page is being misfiled under FIndings of Fact on the workshop page. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And lots and lots of cases struggled along just fine without clerks. The presence of clerks will only add fuel to the fire. Please show some restraint and let this stagger along on it's own. There is nothing "urgent" about any action here.
brenneman 11:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry, am I supposed to seriously believe you don't want to douse this one with gasoline? Phil Sandifer 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look as soon as I can. --Ryan Delaney 11:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure even Aaron would admit that it would be silly to have an arbitration case without officially informing the participants. --Tony Sidaway 11:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the opening (I think). Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos angle

Regarding , although there are 7 acceptance votes listed, that includes Mackensen, who has resigned from the arbcomm. So for the moment I only see 6/12 acceptance votes. Am I missing something? Guettarda 00:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any four votes is all that's needed to open a case. And I do believe that Mackensen's votes will stand, in any case, and aren't subtracted. If it isn't opened by tomorrow, I'll do it myself when I have the time. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

As a participant in this case, I request that a clerk restore the following proposed remedies which were removed from the workshop by a non-participant.

• 3) Tony Sidaway to be desysopped
  • Proposed by me
• 6) Userboxes limited
  • Proposed by David Gerard
• 8) Tony Sidaway banned
  • Proposed by me

Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Got diffs of the removed stuff that you want restored?--Ryan Delaney 18:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

They're all here. --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'm requesting that they not be restored. There is no ownership of a proposed remedy, and when you edit it says If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. The fact that these have been restored neither by any of the other contributors to the page nor by the arbitrars is telling. There is clearly no chance that these remedies will pass. We should not be facilitating melodramatic gestures that impede serious discussion.
brenneman 22:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)