User:L235/ArbClerk/Recusal obligations when all arbitrators are named as parties

In November 2018, an arbitration case request was filed in which all members of the 2017 Arbitration Committee were named as parties. The case request focused on a decision of the 2017 Arbitration Committee in unbanning a user. The case request did not allege impropriety by any given arbitrator, or seek sanctions or dispute resolution against any individual arbitrator, only the Arbitration Committee as an institution.

During the case request, it was suggested that the listed parties must recuse from deciding the case. At least two arbitrators have, seemingly out of an abundance of caution, recused from the case.

The arbitration policy states: An arbitrator may recuse from any case, or from any aspect of a case, with or without explanation and is expected to do so where he or she has a significant conflict of interest. Typically, a conflict of interest includes significant personal involvement in the substance of the dispute or significant personal involvement with one of the parties. Previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal.

There is no reasonable dispute that arbitrators who are named as parties solely because a filer has chosen to list all members of the Committee at a time were named solely on the grounds of "[p]revious routine [...] arbitrator interactions".

It appears abundantly clear that arbitrators named as party to this case request do not have a conflict of interest and are thus not expected to recuse. Accordingly, if future cases arise with same or similar circumstances, I will initiate a discussion among the arbitration clerks to remove improperly-listed parties and advise the Arbitration Committee that arbitrators have no obligation to recuse in such cases.