[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitrator recusal

[Michael Snow]

James D. Forrester wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> James D. Forrester wrote:
>>
>> > geni wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 11/12/05, Delirium <delirium at 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.
>>
>> That was the policy as it existed in its original draft form, but not 
>> the policy that was actually adopted. The provision for "unrecusing" 
>> already recused arbitrators was dropped from the policy based on my 
>> objections, see [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy comments]].
>
> I remember discussion about it, yes. It wasn't "dropped", though.

It was quite definitely dropped; I don't know where you get the idea 
that it wasn't. We had a ratification vote on the arbitration policy in 
April 2004, and Jimbo then approved the policy in conjunction with that 
vote. The version of the policy being voted on 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy&oldid=3025406 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy&oldid=3025406> 
) did not include the "unrecusal" provision. That provision had been 
removed earlier in March because of my objection to it.

> > I refuse
>
>> to accept that this could be policy, formal or informal, since it's 
>> never been done in practice and was specifically objected to at the 
>> time.
>
> Hmm. You mean, in the same way that the clause in the 25th Ammendment 
> to the Constitution of the United States allowing (the majority of?) 
> the Cabinet to sign a letter stating that, in their opinion, the 
> President is unfit for and can be removed from office, never having 
> been used, is not actually part of the Constitution? Emergency 
> special-powers rules exist for a particular reason.

No, I mean that this rule was never adopted as part of the policy, nor 
as an amendment thereto. The objection was raised, acknowledged, and 
changes made to accommodate it. I was trying to make it clear that I 
still strongly object to an "unrecusal" policy. If you've got that 
problem, give the case to Jimbo or the Board of Trustees, or empanel a 
different group of arbitrators, but don't "unrecuse" people who are 
legitimately recused. I've never heard of such a thing in life, and it's 
inimical to notions of fairness and justice. I know Wikipedia 
arbitration shouldn't require every aspect of legal due process, but 
that doesn't mean we should invent new forms of process that actively 
contravene the principles for which due process exists.

--Michael Snow