Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Proposed decision

message: Sorry all, for popping small questions on the various talk pages of this case - I do hope I'm not overlooking a central point of discussion where some questions in general terms can be discussed, and have tried to ask questions at the appropriate forums.
I notice that Fred is listed as recused, whereas Jpgordon, and Morven are listed as active.
Jpgordon () seems to have reviewed only the editing of this account, but judged it to be in violation of policy and supported an indefinite block.
Morven () has also considered this matter, reviewing my contributions (and personality) in general terms, and judged them to be in violation of policy, and supported an indefinite block.
I am unsure as to the cultural norms surrounding recusal in Arb cases, but generally speaking, the issuing of a judgment prior to a case being heard is literally 'prejudicial' and is grounds for recusal.
Should I phrase this into a motion, or should it be discussed here (or elsewhere?) first? - many thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest it be discussed here first.  The issuing of judgment by arbitrators is not generally considered grounds for recusal.  Otherwise, arbitrators would have to refrain from community activity, lest they dabble in some area that later becomes an arbitration case.  But perhaps someone more familiar with the Arbitration process could post something more informative.  --Iamunknown 05:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general precedent has been that each arbitrator decides for himself or herself whether he or she should recuse in a given case. (One arbitrator once made a motion for the recusal of another, but it did not gain support.) Assuming the committee adheres to this precedent, you can hope that the arbitrators concerned see the discussion here or elsewhere on the case pages, or I suppose you could post on their user talk pages with a quick link here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply Brad - I actually turned this into a motion at the Workshop page - really just with the intention of clearly stating my perspective, and reasoning. I understand that largely, the onus is on the individual arbitrators to determine their position. Privatemusings (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it's possible that two of the arbitrators working on this case had the opportunity to see Durova's evidence some time before it was acted upon, as members of this mailing list. Did they, in fact, read it? If so, I believe they should recuse. Moreschi  If you've written a quality article... 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry to spread them round a bit - but another quick question 

message: What's RWI? 193.95.165.190 (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Real world identity. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enforcement 2 

message: Hello, I hope I'm putting this in the right spot. I have just looked at this case, and am experiencing a failure to understand. To sum up my obviously flawed analysis:
:PM bad because: SOCK
::*Nothing shown here says it's bad to have a sock, not even that dubious "nutshell" cited by JzG. PM appears to have been using socks precisely within the intent of the stated exceptions, violating no policy.
::*Also, this sock had already outed itself.
:PM bad because: BADHAND
::*Only if you are certain that the weak examples of "disruption" are somehow sufficient to ignore WP:AGF. I didn't follow every link - can someone point me to one significant example that doesn't torture the definition?
::*If you read the referred policy re. "bad hands", it pretty much requires you to assume bad faith and accuse the sockholder of being a troll. PM conceded that he was using socks to avoid the inevitable stink of heated issues following him home, which is also his defense. 
:SOCK good because: contentious articles taint user interactions.
::*Everyone seems to agree on this one, yet you continue to have this discussion. 
And even if all the above is mistaken, others have already given evidence that the community had considered these issues and reached an agreement with PM, after which this was the only active account. So whatever you're sanctioning now, I don't see how any version of sock policy can legitimately apply. At the end of his evidence, which is all about socks, Guy says the final ban wasn't about socks at all but about "poorly sourced and problematic edits".  So why throw up a sockscreen? Aren't you really accusing him of something resembling vandalism, or malicious trolling? I haven't seen evidence of that. Certainly none so outrageous that it justified overriding both consensus and good faith, and then twisting together two separate policies as a remedy to a problem that didn't exist anymore, if it ever had. How come I see AGF used as a club and a shield, but almost never a mirror?
I haven't read previous case material, and shouldn't need to - if you can't explain it here, you can't do it anywhere. The first person (other than PM) that can provide ONE rationale which reconciles ALL the points above gets a cookie. You cannot use the terms "drama" or "disruptive" unless you also point to an example and the applicable policy. Anyone unable to do so should go to bed without dinner. Alone.
Additionally: no one here denies PM's claim that JzG/Guy violated the trust of an EXPRESSLY PRIVATE (unlike GIANO v DUROVA) email from PM, involving some now judging this case (just like GIANO v DUROVA). So far, there seems to be no question of any rebuke to JzG for doing this, even though I see the same cast of arbitrators (as in GIANO v DUROVA. Does stare decisis have a wikified policy analogue, or not? If the same principles apply, shouldn't Guy's actions also be subject to this arbitration, as with Giano? If Guy disclosed explicitly private personal correspondence to share evidence which he himself has now concluded is NOT relevant to a poorly justified final block, how is this more ethical than Giano disclosing arguably implicitly private correspondence, sent to a mailing list, which was entirely relevant to the mistaken blocking of an innocent person?
Perhaps arbitrators have not had sufficient time to consider these questions. Please consider this as a respectful request that they do so, and provide some explanation of their decision. Thank you.    sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 08:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question from (uninvolved) Snickersnee