Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/archive3

message: I think there's a lot of focus on the fact that three of the clerks got, in an arbitration committee election, less than 50% approval for the position of arbitrator.  I'd like to point out that six clerks were chosen solely from about a score of people who volunteered.  Four of them happened to have stood as candidates for arbitrator, and (as most candidates did) failed to get community approval.  One of them is an experienced arbitrator, two of them are experienced in arbitration work from the other side, having completed work on important cases in the recent past in which a large proportion of the final decision issued by the Committee was actually drafted by them.  Whatever personal opinion you may have of them, they're eminently qualified and respected Wikipedians.  And they volunteered.  There may of course be more qualified people who failed to volunteer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, can you say which decisions were drafted by the clerks you mentioned? SlimVirgin (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't about personalities it is about summaries being drafted by anyone not an arbitrator.  If the workshop system works well, leave it alone.  One more time: what, exactly, is the grave need that is satisfied by having clerks make summaries?  What hole is there at present that this will spackle over?  Is this the only possible solution?  Given that the harm done by this going wrong is going to be absolutely horrible, I'd say this would have to be the only possible answer to a crippling need to be worth considering, and that's before we start asking about Tony (currently in a conflict, below, with 4 other admins), Snowspinner (in numerous conflicts and just below making what looks like a personal attack), and Kelly (with whom I have no experience of conflict but who seems to have drawn a great deal of discontent).  It isn't three unknowns, here.  But, again, let's get away from personalities: what is the justification for this particular function to this particular job?  Geogre 13:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait, did I miss "Clerks 2: The Revenge"? Darn shame.--Sean Black (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And, Tony, can you explain what advantage there is to a title for an official summarizer of conflicts?  Can you explain what advantage there will be to your being able to say that you are an official finder of fact, instead of just another person with an opinion?  Further, you may recall that I did, indeed, reject your findings of fact because you were a litigant, not an observer, and you even signed yourself as a party of the dispute when you claimed to be summarizing.  You may see the eventual findings as being yours, but I wholeheartedly disagree.  They were, in fact, not your wordings nor your ideas, and they sure didn't match the ArbCom case that Phil brought.  But, again, what advantage is there to an official summarizer of disputes?  What procedural check was there that the people be individuals that the community will trust?  Geogre 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please direct discussion and commentary here Raul654 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clerks III: Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the office

message: I'm speaking on behalf of the whole AC when I say this:
The Arbitrators have agreed that under normal circumstances, clerk
evidence summaries should be public. They will be placed at the top of the proposed decision page of the cases. Clerks will not post evidence
summaries to the private arbitration mailing list unless specifically
asked to do so by the AC. (This will only happen in exceptional
circumstances) We would like to point out that anyone is free to email
an arbitrator privately about any matter. This has always been the
case and will continue to be the case.
I'm back talking as myself here:
I know that this announcement will not satisfy everyone's fears but I hope that this will make everyone feel at least a little better about the AC and the clerks office. We do listen to peoples worries and we do do our best to take them on board.  Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please direct discussion and commentary here Raul654 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clerks Announcement by the arbcom

message: Can everyone please follow Raul's link about where to discuss this?  This is not and never has been an issue that requires administrator action, the discussion should be there and not here.
We now return you to your normal programming......  --Wgfinley 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An Admin Announcment About AN/I