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