Emphasis on "should". The reason for rules is people often fail to do
what they should, or even end up doing what they should not ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/11/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/9/05, Peter Mackay
<peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
An obvious test should be whether the dispute
predates the Arbcom hearing.
Peter (Skyring)
I don't think abitrators (or arbiters) should be prevented from
recusing themselves from a case if it became apparent midway through
the arbitration that they were unable to hear the case fairly, e.g. if
someone they were close friends with (or a strong enemy of) suddenly
became joined to the case midway through. Arbiters should have
complete ability to recuse whenever they see fit. Recusal means "I
can't possibly hear this dispute without being biased", rather than "I
am involved with one of the parties in this dispute". People should
remember this before demanding recusals left right and centre.
Arbiters do have a modicum of honesty in them and should know when
they are obliged to recuse.
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l