There have been recent concerns regarding Kelly Martin, but none so serious as her decision not to recuse herself in the case of an editor whom she has clear animosity toward. Please review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Silverb...
Jack (Sam Spade)
I see no cause for recusal. There is no requirement for arbitrators to recuse themselves in every case in which they have had prior dealings with one of the parties.
-Matt (User:Morven)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jack Lynch stated for the record:
There have been recent concerns regarding Kelly Martin, but none so serious as her decision not to recuse herself in the case of an editor whom she has clear animosity toward. Please review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Silverb...
And after that, review [[barratry]].
- -- Sean Barrett | Videmus nunc per speculum in sean@epoptic.org | aenigmate. Nunc cognosco ex parte.
And after that, review [[barratry]].
- -- Sean Barrett
On what possible basis would I be inclined to harass this user? Your comment is offensive and unhelpful.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/9/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
There have been recent concerns regarding Kelly Martin, but none so serious as her decision not to recuse herself in the case of an editor whom she has clear animosity toward.
Sam, arbitrators shouldn't have to recuse themselves because an editor has tried to draw them into a dispute. If we allowed that, anyone could use that tactic against any member of the arbcom they wanted to see removed from a case.
Sarah
I certainly agree, it is statements made by the arbiter, not by the defendant, which concern me.
"That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no reason to participate in such a clearly broken process." (regarding an RfC initiated by Silverback) \ Let's check the outrage at the door and discuss this reasonably, ok? Hyperbolic screaming does not benefit your cause. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
etc...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/9/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/9/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
There have been recent concerns regarding Kelly Martin, but none so serious as her decision not to recuse herself in the case of an editor whom she has clear animosity toward.
Sam, arbitrators shouldn't have to recuse themselves because an editor has tried to draw them into a dispute. If we allowed that, anyone could use that tactic against any member of the arbcom they wanted to see removed from a case.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If arbitrators had to recuse themselves every time someone came before them who they considered a 'known troublemaker', let's say no disruptive user would ever get banned.
-Matt
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 10:41 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbiter recusal
If arbitrators had to recuse themselves every time someone came before them who they considered a 'known troublemaker', let's say no disruptive user would ever get banned.
But that's not the case. Recusal should only occur when there is a history of personal conflict directly related to the matter at hand.
Peter (Skyring)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Matt Brown wrote:
If arbitrators had to recuse themselves every time someone came before them who they considered a 'known troublemaker', let's say no disruptive user would ever get banned.
-Matt
No kidding.To suggest that arbitrators should be neutral in how they think of users is to suggest they shouldn't do their job at all.
Ryan
Matt Brown wrote:
If arbitrators had to recuse themselves every time someone came before them who they considered a 'known troublemaker', let's say no disruptive user would ever get banned.
There's an informal (formal?) rule that if a majority of arbitrators ever recuse on a case, they all are automatically unrecused. The justification is that, in all probability, a situation that resulted in a user having personal conflicts with nearly every single arbitrator is more likely to be the fault of the user than the fault individually of every arbitrator. A more practical justification is that it serves as a deterrent to trying to "win" a case by forcing everyone to recuse.
-Mark
On 11/12/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
There's an informal (formal?) rule that if a majority of arbitrators ever recuse on a case, they all are automatically unrecused. The justification is that, in all probability, a situation that resulted in a user having personal conflicts with nearly every single arbitrator is more likely to be the fault of the user than the fault individually of every arbitrator. A more practical justification is that it serves as a deterrent to trying to "win" a case by forcing everyone to recuse.
-Mark
No. Last time we disscussed this the general conclusion was that we would call up past arbcom members and people from other languages if posible. The solution you list runs into the problem that if you have multiple sibjects to abitration it is posible for none of them to have gone overboard in dissputes.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 11/12/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
There's an informal (formal?) rule that if a majority of arbitrators ever recuse on a case, they all are automatically unrecused. The justification is that, in all probability, a situation that resulted in a user having personal conflicts with nearly every single arbitrator is more likely to be the fault of the user than the fault individually of every arbitrator. A more practical justification is that it serves as a deterrent to trying to "win" a case by forcing everyone to recuse.
No. Last time we disscussed this the general conclusion was that we would call up past arbcom members and people from other languages if posible. The solution you list runs into the problem that if you have multiple sibjects to abitration it is posible for none of them to have gone overboard in disputes.
Erm. What on Earth do you mean, "no"? Mark was entirely correct - that is exactly the policy we came up with back in January 2004, when we wrote the policies in the first place.
Saying "no", and that "we would call up" is... odd. You are not Jimbo. In fact, the number of people who are not Jimbo is quite astonishingly large. "You" will do no such thing as "call up" people. It is, has been, and seems likely to continue to be, Jimbo's Committee - after all, it is merely a delegation of his powers given committee form.
Yours sincerely, if rather perplexedly,
On 11/12/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
Erm. What on Earth do you mean, "no"? Mark was entirely correct - that is exactly the policy we came up with back in January 2004, when we wrote the policies in the first place.
Saying "no", and that "we would call up" is... odd. You are not Jimbo. In fact, the number of people who are not Jimbo is quite astonishingly large. "You" will do no such thing as "call up" people. It is, has been, and seems likely to continue to be, Jimbo's Committee - after all, it is merely a delegation of his powers given committee form.
Yours sincerely, if rather perplexedly,
James D. Forrester
Read through the mailing list archives around the time of the 172 issue (a bit before since it was the tony sideways, snowspiner, me and ed poor case that triggered the disscussion).
-- geni
geni wrote:
Read through the mailing list archives around the time of the 172 issue (a bit before since it was the tony sideways, snowspiner, me and ed poor case that triggered the disscussion).
I am not for a minute saying that it was discussed here. I am just pointing out that discussions here (or, indeed, anywhere, on- or off-wiki), have nothing to do with how the Committee runs itself. It is not a community organisation. The community has, for the time being, agreed that the Committee, Jimbo's experiment, should be treated as sovereign (the "Arbitration policy ratification" documents). That is all.
Yours,
James D. Forrester wrote:
I am not for a minute saying that it was discussed here. I am just pointing out that discussions here (or, indeed, anywhere, on- or off-wiki), have nothing to do with how the Committee runs itself. It is not a community organisation. The community has, for the time being, agreed that the Committee, Jimbo's experiment, should be treated as sovereign (the "Arbitration policy ratification" documents). That is all.
Well, in practice that makes it a community organization of sorts. More to the point, it's only useful insofar as the community sees the arbitration committee as performing a useful function in a useful way. If it were ever the case that there were strong community consensus against some portion of how the AC works, then it would be problematic for it to continue working that way, fiat or no. Legally, of course, it can do whatever, since the community doesn't own the servers, but it would be undesirable to say the least.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Well, in practice that makes it a community organization of sorts. More to the point, it's only useful insofar as the community sees the arbitration committee as performing a useful function in a useful way. If it were ever the case that there were strong community consensus against some portion of how the AC works, then it would be problematic for it to continue working that way, fiat or no. Legally, of course, it can do whatever, since the community doesn't own the servers, but it would be undesirable to say the least.
Absolutely right. As our system has evolved, I think we are in a fairly reasonable position vis-a-vis the relationship between the community and the arbcom.
The arbcom is a judicial sort of body, not a legislative sort of body, and as such, having them worry too much about popularity is not a good thing. Judges sometimes have to make hard decisions and editing Wikipedia is not a popularity contest.
On the other hand, of course, it's extremely important that judging reflect community consensus about the detailed application of our customs and rules _in the service of our mission_.
I regard my role in the process as primarily being about a defense of the community in the service of our mission. This means that we won't be overrun as the community grows by people who don't share our core values. "The community" is defined ultimately by "people who share our values in terms of writing a high quality NPOV encyclopedia", not defined ultimately by "people who come on the website and make a lot of noise".
--Jimbo
James D. Forrester wrote:
Saying "no", and that "we would call up" is... odd. You are not Jimbo. In fact, the number of people who are not Jimbo is quite astonishingly large. "You" will do no such thing as "call up" people. It is, has been, and seems likely to continue to be, Jimbo's Committee - after all, it is merely a delegation of his powers given committee form.
And indeed if we ever did have such a case (where a majority of the ArbCom felt it necessary to recuse) then we still have, as far as I know, the very reasonable ability for me to simply talk quietly with a number of people of good sense and then to do something ad hoc as per their recommmenation and generally satisfactory to all, whether it be make a decision in the case myself, call up past arbiters, form a special committee, call a community vote, etc.
--Jimbo
Jack Lynch wrote:
I certainly agree, it is statements made by the arbiter, not by the defendant, which concern me.
"That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no reason to participate in such a clearly broken process." (regarding an RfC initiated by Silverback) \ Let's check the outrage at the door and discuss this reasonably, ok? Hyperbolic screaming does not benefit your cause. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Geez, you really *are* a lawyer, aren't you? A magistrate acknowledging that someone has prior convictions is not the same as predjuding their guilt or innocence. Granted, records of past offences should not influence the outcome, but they *do* play a strong role in sentancing.
Besides which, I have to agree with Kelly here; attacking the entire judiciary won't get you anywhere.
Jack Lynch wrote:
I certainly agree, it is statements made by the arbiter, not by the defendant, which concern me.
"That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no reason to participate in such a clearly broken process." (regarding an RfC initiated by Silverback) \ Let's check the outrage at the door and discuss this reasonably, ok? Hyperbolic screaming does not benefit your cause. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
etc...
Jack (Sam Spade)
I haven't seen the 'etc' but I would not consider the above remark to be even remotely close to the sort of thing that would cause me to urge an arbiter to recuse from a case. It was _not_ an RfC, it _was_ a rant by a known troublemaker. Checking outrage at the door and avoiding hyberbolic screaming _are_ good ideas.
--Jimbo
Ok, so lets be clear, you see no reason to suspect this arbiter will be anything other than perfectly neutral in this case?
I did, hence all this discussion, but I'm not the one who appoints arbiters or makes rules (or shells out nearly a million bucks in donations ;), and if you see no problem w the situation, I will stop complaining about it.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/13/05, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Jack Lynch wrote:
I certainly agree, it is statements made by the arbiter, not by the defendant, which concern me.
"That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no reason to participate in such a clearly broken process." (regarding an RfC initiated by Silverback) \ Let's check the outrage at the door and discuss this reasonably, ok? Hyperbolic screaming does not benefit your cause. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
etc...
Jack (Sam Spade)
I haven't seen the 'etc' but I would not consider the above remark to be even remotely close to the sort of thing that would cause me to urge an arbiter to recuse from a case. It was _not_ an RfC, it _was_ a rant by a known troublemaker. Checking outrage at the door and avoiding hyberbolic screaming _are_ good ideas.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of slimvirgin@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 08:51 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbiter recusal
On 11/9/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
There have been recent concerns regarding Kelly Martin, but none so serious as her decision not to recuse herself in the case
of an editor
whom she has clear animosity toward.
Sam, arbitrators shouldn't have to recuse themselves because an editor has tried to draw them into a dispute. If we allowed that, anyone could use that tactic against any member of the arbcom they wanted to see removed from a case.
An obvious test should be whether the dispute predates the Arbcom hearing.
Peter (Skyring)
On 11/9/05, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@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
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@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/9/05, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/11/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
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)
I believe one reason for selecting someone as an arbitrator is that they *would* do what they ought in this regard.
Sam
I agree, but I didn't select these people, nor did you, Jimbo did.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/12/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/11/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
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)
I believe one reason for selecting someone as an arbitrator is that they *would* do what they ought in this regard.
Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l