Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Raul654/Questions for the candidate

Shankbone/ATren discussion

 * I'm not sure where "prior friendly relationship with David Shankbone" comes in here, but my relationship with Raul has never veered outside of friendly Wikipedia editing, and that is not a standard for recusal. In fact, I have at times left messages for Raul that have gone unanswered, which I think is impolite.  If you have some evidence or diffs that show we engaged in anything but question-and-answer about Wikipedia policy and content, I'd be interested to see them.  The fact is, any of us who edit and give content as much as Raul and I do are always going to have some level of interaction, and hopefully it is friendly. -- David  Shankbone  18:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * - see photo where you are standing next to Raul at the meetup. You also took his photo. Do you still deny knowing Raul outside of "friendly Wikipedia editing" before this case? -- ATren (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I did not know Raul before this case aside from coming across him on Wikipedia in questions pertaining to policy and content. In fact, if you look at the last time I edited the NYC meet-up page I couldn't even fill in the name of the User petting my dog in the photo (I was the one who created the sequential list of names found under the photo - still have no idea who that guy is).  There were quite a few people at the meet up, and I showed up half an hour before it ended.  Your other diffs all relate to questions of policy and content, and since I am well-known on here for my ability to take celebrity photographs, make nothing but sense.  Like I said before, all of our interactions were friendly exchanges over Wikipedia policy and content, and anyone reading this is going to know those are signs of good editors, and not signs of collusion that would require recusal.  -- David  Shankbone  19:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you really claiming that you didn't know Raul, even though you are standing next to him in the group photo and sought help from him in the THF case? Are you really denying any friendly relationship? -- ATren (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you went to him about the THF case, and you referred to him as "Mark". If you didn't know him, then why do you feel comfortable addressing him by his real name? Also I might add, you had clearly involved Raul in the THF case before this arbitration began, which only confirms my concerns about recusal. -- ATren (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that Raul has his real name on his User:Raul654 page, and aside from the fact that he runs Featured Articles, in which I participated with trying to give one of mine, Raul/Mark and I again had friendly interactions as Wikipedia editors and, like I say in the link you provide, "and I asked him because he is an authority". Are these really your "gotcha" statements to show we are buddies or something?  Or do they in fact show that we are both high-profile Wikipedia editors who cross paths because we do a lot of work on here that gets noticed?  If these are links showing that we are friends then I think you are falling hopelessly flat.  Hopelessly.  -- David  Shankbone  19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * David, the evidence shows otherwise. You clearly had met Raul654, sought his input on THF, and he sought your input on photography - all before or during the case in which you were a party. I'm not saying you were friends, but you had met personally, had interacted on-Wiki in a friendly way, and you felt enough kinship with him to refer to him as Mark, and ultimately to bring him into the THF conflict. There is a very clear appearance of partiality here - and when there is a mere question of partiality, it is the responsibility of the arbitrator to recuse himself in order to protect the integrity of the committee. Raul654 did not do that. I think it's problematic, and others agree. -- ATren (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the standard at all. Appearance?! That would get Arbitrators kicked off cases left and right just because another user such as yourself has demonstrated that a part had interaction with the Arbitrator.  That would be an unqualified disaster, where the Arbitrators who most engage in editing Wikipedia--which they should so they can have practical knowledge--would be disqualified from ruling on cases.  Given Raul's place in Wikimedia, as coordinator of Featured Articles, et. al, I dare say he has interaction with just about everybody.  What you propose I doubt would carry support with anybody.  -- David  Shankbone  20:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * David, you are a law student. If a judge in a trial not only knew one of the litigants personally, but also spoke out publicly against the other on the eve of the trial, would you not have concerns about his impartiality? -- ATren (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not analogous to the situation at hand. If a judge went to the same gym as a party, and asked them where the fresh towels were, or if they knew if the raquetball court was being used; and if that same judge saw the one litigant take the other litigants parking space at that gym and said they should not do that, then I would not think that would corrupt the judge's impartiality in case over whether the one litigant had stolen the other litigant's wallet and punched him (and other gym members) in the face.  So the answer is, no.  The second answer is, this is not a court of law and legal standards are not Wikipedia standards, nor should they be.  -- David  Shankbone  20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "It is all but in the bag, my friend" Do you still deny you had a friendly relationship with Raul at this time? -- ATren (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "I'd be happy to vouch for you" - Do you both still deny you had a friendly relationship before this case started? -- ATren (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Raul654's explanation for failure to recuse ignores the fact that he edit-warred against THF on Sicko and violated WP:NPOVD by removing a legitimate NPOV tag that THF placed. The question remains: why did you participate in an arbitration over a content dispute in which you participated?  THF 19:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)