Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

You know, I think the word advocacy is not really fitting, it's more like a clerkship what we are talking about. It's not like the person would be searching and trying to find evidence or make up arguments himself, he/she would just be given the evidence and be tasked to sort through it, organize it, find the important diffs an explain what is happening in them. It's not like they should argue the case.

Something like this (helping organise a mountain of evidence into something that makes sense) has happened before on an ad hoc basis. In the Baku Ibne case earlier this year, Tony Sidaway did a fantastic job of showing clearly WTF was going on (editor being harassed by a couple of obsessive trolls) and got a vote of thanks for it. I couldn't make head nor tail of it before that. As a general process, there's the question of (1) who does it (2) the clerk inadvertently (or advertently) putting their own POV on things in the process. But it's an idea worth thinking about. Even if it smells like instruction creep.

- d.