Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:32, 1 March 2014

This seems odd

Without commenting on the merits of the arbitration request "Kevin Gorman attacking Eric Corbett", I note that at current there are six responses, three by clerks and the by arbs, and they are all recusals. What's up with that? What's up with clerks recusing? I thought clerks were mostly technicians. Why would you need to recuse if you're just basically looking stuff up and verifying data and technical stuff like that?

I'd understand if it's something like "This person is my landlord" or "I'm married to his sister" but how many sisters do the involved parties have???

Floquenbeam was like "Recuse, as I've promised to do in all things related to Eric Corbett". Could we get more info here? Is he your cousin or what? AXE is "Recuse I feel strongly about this matter"? What... is this a bad thing? Should we be warned to only bring up matters that nobody cares much about? NativeForeigner is like "I've interacted with this editor on another matter, so I'm done here..." Beeblebrox is at least succinct: "recuse".

This is not showing a lot of bold leadership... can we not get a straight decline or accept? IIRC in the real world recusal is usually used for instances of potential for significant conflict of interest. I'm not saying that any of these of these are in play, but "I really like/don't like one of the parties" or "I had dinner with one of the parties last August" and so forth are not grounds for recusal, and neither is "Would rather not deal with this" or "Would prefer not to be recorded as voting to either accept or decline". Arbitrators are expected to brush stuff like that aside. It just strikes me odd. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I generally recuse when I think that I cannot be neutral or may not appear to be neutral wrt the issue at hand. For instance, if I feel strongly about an editor, I need to recuse because, otherwise, I might let my bias influence the way I vote on the final decision (for a concrete example: a couple of years ago, before being elected, I participated in an RFC concerning the conduct of an editor, who would then be sanctioned by ArbCom; now, whenever this editor appeals his restrictions, I recuse, so as not to give the impression I am letting my bias influence ArbCom's decision).

Clerks broadly follow the same recusal standards, because they don't do only "technical stuff": clerks have the power to remove or modify any submission which violates Misplaced Pages's behavioural standards and may also ban editors from case pages. For that reason, they need to be neutral and appear to be neutral as well. Salvio 11:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but with all due respect I don't really buy it. It depends on why you feel strongly about the editor, I guess. If it's something like (say) "I cannot be neutral because I really like this editor, because I think this editor is a really good Wikipedian, and I believe that it's wrong for me to take that into account, but I can't help myself" (or the converse, "Hate her, she's a tendentious editor...." etc.) then... are you really not able to work past that?

(I'm not even sure why you wouldn't want to take stuff like "She's an excellent editor" or "she's a destructive troll" into account; I would/. But that's how the ArbCom rolls I guess, and there're reasons for that, so OK.)

But if wanted to... it's not that hard. If I can do it you can. I'm perfectly capable of thinking like "Well, the plaintiff is a destructive troll and blackguard and I loathe her and the defendant is a huge asset to the Misplaced Pages and I just really admire him, but the plaintiff is correct on the technical merits of this particular incident, so I'll vote to banish the defendant." I believe that any person who wants to think like this can think like this if they try.

Not to be able to do this is... not excellent, in my opinion. We all should strive to be excellent I think.

As to the second part ("may not appear to be neutral"), that's a totally nother thing and Its a valid point but complicated so I'll let it lie. Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect most of the clerks (and many of the arbs) could work past individual bias and still do their jobs. Many of us are capable of doing the same in our editing. But it is better for all if the perception is avoided. Especially given anything related to an arb case is almost always a pre-existing drama pit. You just open yourself up for attacks by the side that didn't 'win' the case. Resolute 19:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Just like notability on wikipedia is rather different from dictionary definitions of notability, arbitrators and the arbitration process on Misplaced Pages are not much like what goes on at Acas, and arbcom clerks' roles can be very different from the dictionary definition of a clerk or even the role of a Justices' clerk. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(belatedly) - just noting now (as I have had too many RL headaches to devote to non-fun things on wikipedia lately), if someone had accused me of gravedancing or violating BLP policy I'd be incensed...and much much more so than if someone had called me a cunt or any other Anglo-Saxon cuss word. I sorta think an official admonishment was warranted, though I note there has been some contrition. Anyway, just saying. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Admonishment?

Has the commitee ever studied or discussed the effects or effectiveness of its admonishments, including do they work and whether such is made manifest by the admonsihment's degree (strongly, not strongly, grudingly after a few tries, etc.)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How could you even compose a testable hypothesis about it? EllenCT (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)