Given the conduct of at least one arbitrator, my own view is that anyone should be able to
unconditionally challenge and reject at least two arbitrators, without cause, much as jury
I'm thinking, for example, of an arbitrator who appeared happy that an arbcom interim
action would prevent someone from standing in the arbcom elections, because they were (at
least in the view of that arbitrator) prohibited from editing the page to indicate their
Given that, it seems wise to provide an easy way to eliminate those who do not do the
right thing and recuse themselves when appropriate.
I wonder... has James F actually used his admin capabilities recently? Wondering if it
might be an idea to keep arbitrators at arms length from all but essential enforcement,
and have the arbitrators who opposed a particular penaly be the ones acting to enforce it,
at least if the decision was close.
From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:03:58 -0800
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Questions about recusal
Has everyone voted? If you've still not voted, please consider doing
so today. :-)
James Rosenzweig wrote:
what do we feel are legitimate grounds for recusal as
an arbitrator, and what may a user legitimately demand
to know about an arbitrator when the user is
considering asking them to recuse?
I would say that if you've been involved personally in a dispute with
someone, you should recuse from the case. Add to that I guess any
case where you personally feel that either your own neutrality would
be too difficult to sustain, or where there could be a significant
appearance of impropriety.
I would suggest pretty strongly of course that ArbCom members try to
be exemplars of kindness and thoughtfulness in day to day actions, so
as to reduce any perception that you've got a vendetta or whatever.
You in particular are *very very* good about this in my opinion. :-)
I think a very good example we can look to is that of James F, who has
in his own words become "increasingly Wikignomic" in his editing over
the past year. What this means is explained here:
What this means, in my opinion, because he's never said such a thing,
is that he's better able to function as an arbitrator because he's
basically been steering clear of the sort of edits that can land you
in combat with the trolls and POV pushers. A wise way for an arbitrator.
Has everyone voted?
WikiEN-l mailing list