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)

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(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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)

Matt Brown 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

geni 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 Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com

geni 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. Yours, -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com

Delirium wrote: 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

Jack Lynch wrote: 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. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

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(a)wikia.com> wrote:

On 11/9/05, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com> wrote: 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

On 11/11/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch(a)gmail.com> wrote: I believe one reason for selecting someone as an arbitrator is that they *would* do what they ought in this regard. Sam