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

Recuse responsibility

I will be taking a wiki-break so it will be up to others to pursue this if they feel it is reasonable. I feel that in keeping with a reasonable level of unbiased jurisprudence that CSpurrier and Chiacomo should recuse themselves from this particular arbitration because;

CSpurrier previously felt Amgine was not even subject to an Rfda and

Chiacomo has admitted that he is a close friend of Amgine and even acknowledged that fact before accepting the role of mediator on one of Amgine's mediations (I believe with Cartmanau). This acknowledgement by Chiacomo at that time shows he himself thought there may be at least seen to be an inappropriate level of bias. Neutralizer 04:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I will be taking an interest in this matter. You are correct that Chiacomo and Amgine are friends, yes, Chiacomo was the mediator in the dispute resolution between Amgine and I and clearly stated this beforehand. I feel that if there is a problem with relationships between those on the committee and those involved that this is something for those participating in the process to state - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For accuracy's sake here is Chiacomo'sacknowledgement If it was important enough to state then, perhaps it doesn't hurt to also state now; at least it would seem to me. Likewise, any member of the community has the right and obligation to bring forward this type of concern, I think, at least on the talk page. One or more of the directly involved parties may not know about the advisement Cartman02au and I refered to and why should they not? This is an open and transparent process which must be seen to be unbiased as well as actually being unbiased,at least in my opinion. Neutralizer 05:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't explain myself correctly, it is fair to comment on such relationships but if there is a problem with them and the arbitor will not recuse themselves then perhaps it should be for one of the parties to the arbitration to request that that arbitor be recused. If BNZ and Amgine have no problem with it, then neither should we. We are essentially outside observers - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to recuse myself. I consider BNZ (along with most of the active editors on Wikinews) to be friends. I have not been directly involved in this userbox debacle -- were I involved, I would of course recuse myself. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 14:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is ArbCom. As Chiacomo has no undeclared issues,

• the first decision of whether to recuse is his
• in principle, the other members can vote to ask him to recuse (effectively raising a new arbcom matter on the recusal)
• a general vote could be taken as to whether he should recuse (a non-binding resolution of some evidentiary weight for...)
• someone can appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (who may-or-may-not agree to hear the matter)

Personally, I think it is a non-issue. StrangerInParadise 09:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

An Arbitrator is not the sole recuse decision maker

Recuse reference specific to Arbitrators Source; [3]

"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)

Thank you,Chiacomo, for the Wikipedia link

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 like "its up to the participants" and its a "personal decision"[4][5]. 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 now becoming combative by using words like "slander"....this is simply deflective of a possibly valid recuse issue, I fear. Neutralizer 00:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be stated that there are perceived relationships (and thhus conflicts-of-interest) between arbitors and the parties involved, but if the parties involved see no problem with it then neither do I - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzy semantics and resolution process by committee to resolve issue

I am tripping over the matter of semantics, and the first impletation ArbCom has taken to address the Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine issue.

For instance, this project page itself is not properly descriptive. It should read Request for arbitration/Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine. At this late point in time, I am unsure that renaming this page would be beneficual or detremental, because it would break links by persons who included it on their 'Watchlist'. But I have decided to make the change for the sake of clarity. -Edbrown05 21:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not rename the page... When creating the case, I followed the convention on WP, which is to name the "defending" party in the page name. It will break lots of stuff.. :D --Chiacomo ^(talk) 22:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Overturning

I disagree with Blood Red Sandmans's removal of the correction notice I recently posted. ArbCom only makes decisions when there is the dispute that the community itself can't resolve. This particular dispute hasn't risen to the levels of formal arbitration. Furthermore, ArbCom derives its powers from the community, since the community created it in the first place and elects its members every year. Therefore, shouldn't the community be able to overturn an ArbCom decision it no longer feels is necessary? Benny the mascot (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address the fact that two people are not a consensus. The point of ArbCom is to be the top decision-making process. The whole idea is it cannot be challenged, otherwise it disbands. Also, I object in the strongest possible terms to your classification of this as a correction. That implies the original is somehow incorrect; replacement or repealment does not mean that per se. I have renamed the title accordingly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't the fact that the DR was passed with overwhelming support indicate that the community no longer recognizes the ArbCom's decision as relevant? The community ultimately holds authority over how it conducts its business and in practice has already ignored the ArbCom's authority to enforce its decisions. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. This decision does not at any point require the existance of a specific userbox policy. It is implied by the decision that community consensus would be against much of this deletion, but such has not been established. Whilst an overhwelming consensus could be submitted to ArbCom as evidence the decision should be repealed, if the community could form such consensuses then ArbCom would be useless. If a strong, polarising dispute were resolved by ArbCom the losing side would just carry on regardless, trying to form consensus against the decision or even claiming one already existed. The very point of ArbCom is, in the end, someone should be trusted to make the final decision. That same entity should be the one to accept removal of such. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom asked the community to write a whitelist. The community didn't bother, and eventually deleted its attempt to do so. It didn't matter, since the parties to the dispute calmed down. There are a few userboxes about, and no-one argues about them. I suspect BRS is right about the constitutional issues, but I just don't think it is important to revisit an archived case. --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)