User:Vassyana/Recusal

About bias and recusal, replying to the concerns.

General statement

I fully intend to recuse in any case where I feel that my preconceptions or bias would prevent me from fairly reviewing a case. I will exercise thoughtful consideration of this issue and err on the side of caution.

Recusal

Undisclosed bias

I intend to recuse even in cases where my bias would not be immediately apparent and lacking easily acquired evidence. Please see the answer below about the Matthew Hoffman case for an example.

Baseless requests

I do not intend to recuse in cases where it is a frivolous request or an obvious attempt to game the sytstem. That is, baseless or otherwise disruptive requests will not be heeded.

Community will

If it is clear a significant portion of the community is concerned about my potential bias in regards to a particular case or topic area dispute, I will recuse to heed the community's concerns.

General requests

In any case where a clear and reasoned request has been made for me to recuse by an editor in good standing, I will consider it seriously and err on the side of recusal. Editors who have a solid history of good judgment, positive contributions to dispute resolution, generally constructive contibutions to discussions, or a similar pattern of relevant activity will generally be given the automatic benefit of the doubt. Editors with a disruptive history of forum shopping, admin hopping, gaming the system, or similar negative patterns will generally be treated with a great deal of skepticism.

Transparency

If I recuse, I will clearly state the reasons for my recusal. If I am undecided about recusing, I will openly solicit the thoughts of the commenting parties and my fellow arbitrators. If I intend to reject a request for recusal, I will note this and clearly explain my refusal. I will note any feedback and recuse if appropriate after those responses.

Relevant answers

The following are answers to election questions relevant to the question of bias and recusal.

From FT2

1. How will being on Arbcom affect your actions, or choices about how to act, in other capacities - as an editor, user, admin, or the like?
   • I intend to recruit one or two MedCab volunteers to take my place as a coordinator. I intend to be cautious about any perceived conflicts that may arise due to cases in which I may have previously acted in my capacity as an administrator or a (formal or informal) mediator, recusing myself as necessary and appropriate. Otherwise, I intend to be generally mindful of my actions and statements, realizing (for better and worse) that my activities will be held to a higher standard as an abitrator and (in the eyes of some) will reflect on ArbCom as a whole.

From PhilKnight

1. In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
   • Any case involving the International Church of Christ, due to a bias against the group. I would also recuse from issues with Laozi, Far Eastern religion, Sun Tzu, Taoism, the history of early Christianity, and closely related topic areas. I have been heavily involved in editing those topics. I would usually recuse from any case where I had served as a formal mediator, due to the priveleged nature of formal mediation.

From rootology

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

• No one is capable of perfect action, including always discerning personal bias. Every arbitrator should strive to be aware of their personal limitations and preconceptions, recusing whenever there is a distinct bias. Candidates that provide a strong reason for voters to doubt their capacity in this kind of self-awareness are unsuitable for the position. The potential for misjudgment and disruptive drama is far too great to permit arbitrators unable to recuse as appropriate. Also, see my responses to #1 of PhilKnight's questions and Ncmvocalist's questions for details of when and why I would recuse as an arbitrator.

From UninvitedCompany

1. Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
   • I have a strong antipathy for the International Church of Christ. I would recuse. I am Episcopalian. I have strong libertian sympathies in politics, strongly favoring social liberal/fiscally conservative candidates of all parties. If a case came up that involved a conflict between such a candidate and opponents, or involved a political issue where personal liberty was a primary consideration, I am likely to recuse, depending on the particulars. See my responses to #1 of PhilKnight's questions and Ncmvocalist's questions for related thoughts.

From Ncmvocalist

1. This question pertains to the current request to amend the Matthew Hoffman case decided in 2007. Assume you are part of the Committee, and just returned from a wikibreak. You are presented with that request and other statements/comments/replies that are currently viewable. (a) Do you consider this case to be distinct from other cases - if so, how? (b) Would you support a motion to vacate the case? (c) How would you have voted on each of the current motions and why? (d) Would you have made an alternate motion proposal - if so, what would it be? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(a) There are clearly a number of distinct features to the case. In order to keep my response at a reasonable size, I will only address the points that jumped out at me the most. One thing that that I immediately notice upon reviewing the case is the presence of a proposed decision and voting (including a desysop measure) less than twenty-four hours after the case was opened. The suspension for the run of an RfC is a distinctive feature. The desysoping of an administrator under circumstances where the admin appeared to accept the community's feedback in an RfC without being given a chance to demonstrate his earnestness is exceedingly unusual. This point is made all the more unusual by comparison to other cases. Taking just the time period surrounding the case, I note four desysops by the committee. Two were for disruptive sockpuppetry and both remain indefinitely blocked. Another was an emergency desysop for the deletion of the main page. The remaining case provides the best contrast to the Hoffman case. In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alkivar, there was a conduct RfC two months prior, numerous attempts to address the issue with the administrator and a distinct lack of responsiveness to community concerns.

(b) Yes, but see below.

(c) I would not vote on any of the motions, because I would recuse. I feel that my friendship with the sanctioned administrator could result in an undue bias. I mainly communicate with him off-wiki, so there is no easily acquired evidence of my "conflict of interest". However, it would be dishonorable (and an insult to the community's trust) to not recuse of my own accord. I would limit myself to commenting the same as any other editor. In terms of an actual opinion, I think 1.3 is the probably the best possible outcome given the circumstances, though I would prefer the case simply be vacated.

(d) No.