Wikinews talk:Requests for arbitration/Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine/Evidence

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Recuse responsibility; CSpurrier[edit]

I feel that in keeping with a high standard of appearance of unbiased jurisprudence that CSpurrier should recuse himself from this particular arbitration because;

CSpurrier previously felt Amgine was not even subject to an Rfda Neutralizer 13:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC) Moved from Evidence page as this is not actually evidence by --Chiacomo (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted oppose because the vote was for a nonsensical reason to be deadmined, not because I think Amgine should be exempt to rfdas. All of the people who voted except for you voted oppose. The only members of the arbcom who did not vote were Deprifry and Edbrown05. It is silly for a third party such as your self to ask for arbcom members to recuse, especially for this reason. If a party to the dispute would ask me to recuse myself and had a better reason, I would certainly consider it. --Cspurrier 15:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is the record of your edit wrong? What it says is;"We have no policy for deadmining, user who have "left" the project". --Cspurrier 23:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)..Your edit said nothing about nonsensical reason; please clarify whether the history of your edit is accurate or not, if you would please. Neutralizer 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
its non-sensical because its not a valid reason, we have no policy for de-admining people who left (unlike meta: or commons:). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse responsibility; Chiacomo[edit]

I feel that in keeping with a high standard of appearance of unbiased jurisprudence that Chiacomo should recuse himself from this particular arbitration because;

Chiacomo acknowledged that he is a friend of Amgine's before accepting the role of mediator on one of Amgine's mediations. If it was important enough to state then, perhaps it doesn't hurt to also state now; at least it would seem to me.This process should be seen to be unbiased as well as actually being unbiased,at least in my opinion. Neutralizer 13:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Moved from Evidence page as this is not actually evidence by --Chiacomo (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of evidence from the evidence page[edit]

I was advised to put the recuse evidence on the evidence page and my submission above should not have been moved to the talk page, especially by one of the 2 admins. my comments addressed. If the majority of the arbitrators don't think the recuse evidence should be on the evidence page then that's fine, but I think it is recuse evidence relative to this particular case. Neutralizer 18:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence does not directly relate to the case before the arbitration committee. If you wish to become an involved party, you are more than welcome, of course. Please submit evidence that is germane to the issue, namely the out-of-process/policy deletion of material from Wikinews by an administrator. The recusal of arbitrators is not relevant to whether or not an administrator deleted something improperly. --Chiacomo (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is so ridiculously inappropriate for Chiacomo to be pushing this evidence off of the evidence page with Amgine pushing/reassuring via my talk page since this information relates to them directly. If other arbitrators want to move this recuse evidence that would be so much less inappropriate.
  • In addition; the evidence page is exactly where this evidence should be because it is directly related to the case and is invited by the words of the first sentence of the evidence page itself. As with any hearing, all evidence relating to the complaint or any possible appearance of bias in any member of the court is presented in open court (not off to the side where it may be missed). I have no idea why the parties which are addressed by this recuse info feel it must be they themselves who determine that it should be taken off the evidence page; just let someone else do it if it is determined to be there inappropriately,please. Neutralizer 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern. I do not intend to recuse myself. I will have no trouble fairly making a decision in this matter. Please explain to me how this "evidence" is related to Amgine's deletion of Wikinews content out of process. How is it directly related to the case? I can understand how it might relate to bias, but arbitrator bias had nothing to do with Amgine's actions. Because an arbitrator might be biased toward (or against) Amgine or BNZ is not relevant to the action of the involved parties as presented on the /Evidence page. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chiacomo, under what authority do you claim to have sole and personal authority over whether or not you are recused? Certainly that is a quite abnormal claim; [1] [2] Neutralizer 23:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to ", whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page"[edit]

I was under the impression that, anyone now could submit a statement, now the request had been Okayed, has this changed? (quote "Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name") Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry did not read the above talk Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to add another voice to this - what was added was not evidence relevant to the case. The people who should be raising objections about possible conflicts of interest or bias are the involved parties. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I did not read that sentence as well as I should have, so my edit summary ended up being a bit off. While I disagree with that part of the rules, if it was actual evidence relating to the content of the case under the current rules he does have the right to post it. However it has nothing to do with the case. An arbitrators decision to recuse themselves is a personal decision and is no concern of other arbitrators. --Cspurrier 21:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cspurrier's opinion is wrong,imo, and a disclosure of possible recusement evidence definitely relates to the case. Neutralizer 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cspurrier, please read this short paragraph of the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy[3]which shows;

A;"Users who believe Arbitrators have a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process." and

B; The use of the word "required" "required to recuse themselves". It was not right for you to remove the very polite statement I put on the evidence page which concerned you directly and it was wrong of you to say "An arbitrators decision to recuse themselves is a personal decision and is no concern of other arbitrators" in both fact and wiki-spirit, at least I think so. Neutralizer 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSpurriers removal of evidence related to himself was inappropriate[edit]

Cspurrier, under what authority do you claim to have sole and personal authority over whether or not you are recused? That is a very abnormal power for an arbitrator to possess; please provide a policy reference substantiating your claim that it "is a personal decision". [4] [5]

  • In addition, It is so ridiculously inappropriate for Cspurrier to be pushing this evidence off of the evidence page since this information relates to them directly. If other arbitrators want to move this recuse evidence that would be so much less inappropriate. Neutralizer 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likelyhood of babel boxes getting zapped via DR[edit]

I have randomly looked at some of the deletions BNZ has highlighted as disruptive behaviour on the part of Amgine, all were for babel boxes that do not use the wiki's accepted language. My, albeit blunt, opinion is that these could possibly be qualified under speedy as they are not in English. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, thats an intreasting point of view, I never thought about it that way. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitrator is not the sole recuse decision maker[6][edit]

Recuse reference specific to Arbitrators Source; [7]

"What disclosures should an arbitrator make to the parties before commencing the arbitration? Avoiding not only bias, but also the appearance of bias, is of vital importance to the success of an arbitration. In general, the Committee recommends that full disclosure of all knowledge and relationships to parties and their counsel be made by arbitrators in writing in advance of the hearing. Arbitrators must disclose to the parties in advance of the arbitration hearing any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias. Britz, Inc. v. Alfa-Lavel Food & Dairy Co. (1995) 34 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1102.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1282(e) requires that an arbitrator disqualify himself or herself, upon the demand of any party," ....see source. Neutralizer 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Wikipedia policy on recusals. The accompanying talk page indicates that the individual arbitrator is the sole decision maker on his own recusal. I should note that our procedures are not defined by any policy -- except that which we make ourselves. The ArbCom will develop it's own policies and procedures as we move along. I feel somewhat slandered, actually, that you should presume that Wikinews arbitrators would be anything less than fair. I would hope that all arbitrators would make the same promise. The moment I feel that I cannot fairly arbitrate this (or any) matter, please, rest assured that I will recuse myself. Please assume good faith until proven otherwise. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,Chiacomo, as you may have noticed the wikipedia policy allows for anyone to post a concern;"Users who believe Arbitrators have a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process." and also leaves open the door to "required" recusement; so the assumption here by yourself and CSpurrier that it is a "personal" decision is incorrect,it seems obvious to me. It is quite difficult when one is trying to act in accordance with well established decorum and we are met with such an immediate and determined push to just be quiet and we are fed false assumptions as if they are policy such as "its up to the participants" and its a "personal decision". In your particular case, the question remains, why was it reasonable for you to make a disclosure of your relationship with Amgine for consideration at the mediation between Amgine and Cartman02au and not here? Why would exactly the same disclosure here be interpreted as "slander"? It makes no sense to me at all, I'm sorry, it just doesn't. The most distrubing thing is that the 2 people I mentioned as having a possible conflict are the two people who removed my very polite and "appropriate statement" from evidence and are now becoming combative by using words like "slander"....this is simply deflective of a possibly valid recuse issue, I fear. Neutralizer 00:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To comment as a Wikipedia arbitrator (and occasional WN typo-fixer), and apologies if I'm bringing in anything inapplicable here, the evidence page isn't really the place for a request for a recusal; it's not evidence. It'd be better placed on the main request page as an outside party statement or the talk page of the request page, and so it's perfectly appropriate to remove it from the evidence page. That said, on WP, simply being friendly with a party is not enough to necessitate recusal, particularly if neither side requests it. If the arbitrator, the rest of the committee, and the parties all believe that he can remain fair and impartial, I don't see a problem with him hearing the case (though any reasonable request should at least be considered, and it appears this has been). In a community this size I'd be shocked if most of the more active participants—those most likely to get into disputes requiring arbitration—were not generally friends to some extent. I'd hope the arbitrators here were chosen because they could be expected to make judgment calls (such as to their own impartiality) fairly. Blathering on uninvited, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the "Blathering"; it is extremely helpful. It is good that; "If the arbitrator, the rest of the committee, and the parties all believe that he can remain fair and impartial, I don't see a problem with him hearing the case" is the correct procedure as opposed to the other procedure put forth on this talk page; "An arbitrators decision to recuse themselves is a personal decision and is no concern of other arbitrators". Hopefully our format designers will also create a way to put an "outside party statement" on the main request page for this or future Arbcoms at Wikinews. Neutralizer 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have helped some. To clarify further, it's not written in policy anywhere that another arbitrator can demand you recuse, but if one suggests it, it's probably for a pretty good reason and it would be unwise not to consider it. It hasn't been a problem for en.wp yet; at least, not that I've seen on my term. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Participant[edit]

As a participant in this case, and as far as I’m concerned, I believe that the Arbcom members can be impartial, and will not be asking for any members of the Arbcom to recluse him/her self Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a party to this case, I have trust in the ability of the ArbCom to manage itself as to impartiality, and will not ask members to recuse. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finished[edit]

Amgine and I have both finished the Evidence stage. (NB IRC Quote 

<BrianNewZealand> So, do we need to say we are finished?
<Amgine> Yes, please say we are both finished. I'll sign later.

) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We're finished. Onward to the workshop! - Amgine | talk en.WN 08:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Brian_New_Zealand_vs._Amgine/Evidence&oldid=222844"