Conflict of intrest |
→Conflict of intrest: yes, there's a conflict |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
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?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 07:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
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?--[[User:Tznkai|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. -[[User:Splash|Splash]]<small><sup>[[User talk:Splash|talk]]</sup></small> 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:50, 30 January 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. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 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. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Conflict of intrest
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. -Splashtalk 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)