David Gerard wrote:

There's *supposed* to be a rule that if half the arbcom recuses, then all are unrecused and back on the case. It doesn't appear to have made it into the rules. It or something like it really really needs to be in there.

The rule wasn't included in that form because I raised objections, and still would. The image of properly recused arbitrators suddenly un-recusing themselves can look really really bad to people skeptical about our commitment to fairness (about as bad as, say, a properly blocked admin deciding to unblock himself).

"Something like it", as in an alternative solution to deal with this scenario, would be much better. My suggestion was for the matter to bypass the Arbitration Committee and go straight to the Board, or else for Jimbo or the Board to appoint emergency arbitrators to substitute for those who are recused.

I think the idea of "pro tempore" arbitrators for these rare cases is adequate to handle the problem. Wikipedia is big enough that nobody can get their oar in on every dispute, a principle that applies to the arbitrators as well and means that almost certainly at least a couple sitting arbitrators will not need to recuse themselves. Also, it wouldn't be necessary to reconstitute a full committee of twelve; I'd be satisfied if emergency appointments brought the number of arbitrators hearing the case back up to seven or so.

So at most Jimbo would need to come up with four or five people who have good sense at how to handle these things. I don't think this would be terribly difficult for him. We have several experienced former arbitrators whom I at least would happily trust to deal with a case in an emergency. And I could name a number of other people who might be qualified, depending on the particular case that presents itself. This would also be a helpful way to get in some practical observation of people who may be candidates for election to the Arbitration Committee in the future.

--Michael Snow