David Gerard wrote:
There's *supposed* to be a rule that if half the
arbcom recuses, then all
are unrecused and back on the case. It doesn't appear to have made it
into
the rules. It or something like it really really needs to be in there.
The rule wasn't included in that form because I raised objections, and
still would. The image of properly recused arbitrators suddenly
un-recusing themselves can look really really bad to people skeptical
about our commitment to fairness (about as bad as, say, a properly
blocked admin deciding to unblock himself).
"Something like it", as in an alternative solution to deal with this
scenario, would be much better. My suggestion was for the matter to
bypass the Arbitration Committee and go straight to the Board, or else
for Jimbo or the Board to appoint emergency arbitrators to substitute
for those who are recused.
I think the idea of "pro tempore" arbitrators for these rare cases is
adequate to handle the problem. Wikipedia is big enough that nobody can
get their oar in on every dispute, a principle that applies to the
arbitrators as well and means that almost certainly at least a couple
sitting arbitrators will not need to recuse themselves. Also, it
wouldn't be necessary to reconstitute a full committee of twelve; I'd be
satisfied if emergency appointments brought the number of arbitrators
hearing the case back up to seven or so.
So at most Jimbo would need to come up with four or five people who have
good sense at how to handle these things. I don't think this would be
terribly difficult for him. We have several experienced former
arbitrators whom I at least would happily trust to deal with a case in
an emergency. And I could name a number of other people who might be
qualified, depending on the particular case that presents itself. This
would also be a helpful way to get in some practical observation of
people who may be candidates for election to the Arbitration Committee
in the future.
--Michael Snow