UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration Timelimit

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Version 1

This is very much open to discussion, especially the amount of time the rulings may be effective. Is it too long? Too short? Should it be an exact amount of days? Do specific restrictions need longer or shorter periods? Is the retroactive application OK? Does it wake any elder gods banished by an arbitration ruling? And yes, it really is that short. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:56, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I like the idea of a limit but I think it should be an exact number of weeks because 3 months in itself can be ambiguous depending on the reader. 3 months could mean from 15th of January to the 15th of April (3 calender months) or it could mean from the 15th January to the 9th of April (12 weeks or 3 lunar months). I was sure I'd put this in my policy but I must have taken it out after that last revision. -- Cheese 23:06, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I think the example makes it pretty clear. It requires some serious intentional misinterpretation to get to 9th of April. Looks like the timelimit in your policy originally applied only to restraining orders, and was removed along with the others in the "What an arbitrator can do" section. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 23:27, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Three months is three months, don't be ridiculous.--Karek^maps?! 04:07, 16 October 2008 (BST)

I think 3 months is too long for most arbitration cases. 4-6 weeks sounds reasonable enough for me. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:56, 15 October 2008 (BST)

^This.--Karek^maps?!

Yeah. As that. Although to get rid of the whole "when is 4/6 weeks up exactly" question can the arbiter state as part of the ruling when the period ends? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:31, 16 October 2008 (BST)

I have no problem with a shorter duration, but this would be the absolute maximum limit. I could edit it so that three months would be the absolute maximum, but a maximum of 6 weeks would be recommended for ordinary cases. Or I could put 6 weeks as absolute maximum and 4 weeks as a recommended maximum. What do you think? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:44, 17 October 2008 (BST)

Shouldn't this be a guideline, rather than a regulation? I mean, can't anyone think of a ruling circumstance whereby it would make sense for something to be permanent, or longer than 3 months, or attached to an unknown time limit? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:28, 17 October 2008 (BST)

I can't think of any restriction placed on a person that would need to be either permanent or longer than three months (or even the 4-6 weeks as requested above). If you (or anyone else for that matter) can think of one, I'd be happy to discuss it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:44, 17 October 2008 (BST)

When as part of an arbitration two parties are prohibited from writing on each others talk pages because they simply can't play well with each other. IT would be in an extreme case but I could see where if two valuable members of the community just simply could not get along. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:09, 17 October 2008 (BST)

The problem is that I just don't think an arbitrator should have that kind of power. He shouldn't be able to put restrictions that severe on other people just because he thinks it's for the best. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 00:25, 18 October 2008 (BST)

If the two parties in Conndraka's example still can't get along after a three month ruling is up, would this policy have a problem with one of the parties starting arbitration again to try and get the same ruling for another three months? Given at least one of the parties still perceives a there to be a problem, I don't think there's a problem with a new arbitration case (apart from the bother of it all), but one could interpret this policy as it stands now as being against it. --Toejam 13:27, 18 October 2008 (BST)

How about you apply for an extension? "A month has passed and USER:X has immediately returned to trolling me on this page (Link provided) Again I have asked him to stop (Link provided) but he continues. Can the judgement be extended for another 4-6 weeks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:38, 18 October 2008 (BST)

I think applying for an extension is perfectly reasonable, especially if there's an opportunity to pick a different arbitrator to make the extension decision, but this policy could (currently) be interpreted as preventing people from doing that. --Toejam 19:14, 25 October 2008 (BST)

If there's a need for an extension after the first period ends, just make a new case. A new case has a new ruling, and thus a new time limit (and since it's the second case, making it 6 weeks is completely justified). The new case shouldn't really take much longer than choosing an arbitrator + what Ross describes above. I'd rather not complicate this with rules on how applying for an extension works, especially when you can achieve pretty much the same results without them. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:31, 25 October 2008 (BST)

It's a false reason Toejam, it's never happened and probably never will because the people that will hold the same grudge that long are the same jjamesfaxi type people that will take it to extremes and get banned for it. It certainly isn't needed in any of the type of cases Conn is suggesting, I know what type they are because Conn is the only person to memory to ever make such a ruling, twice. --Karek^maps?! 13:47, 18 October 2008 (BST)

I should probably amend that for fairness' sake; there are probably many people that have made such rulings some time ago but the only two that I can think of off the top of my head are Conn's, probably because of what resulted from them.--Karek^maps?! 17:56, 18 October 2008 (BST)

But yeah. Kareks right. IF they are that intent on causing damage, they will end up on VB. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:49, 18 October 2008 (BST)

I think that rulings like this one, by Gage, should be permanent rulings. Basically AoM was trying to add TheUncleBob to their member list by impersonating him in-game, and Gage ruled that they must remove him from their list permanently. It would be a total pain in the arse to have to constantly check the wiki and make a new arbies case if they decided to keep re-adding -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:21 18 October 2008 (BST)

I should add that I support this policy change overall, but can't think of an easy fix for this atm. I would like to hear ideas though -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:23 18 October 2008 (BST)

How about an escalation system. Happens once, limit to 4-6 weeks. Repeated than permanent or something. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:50, 18 October 2008 (BST)

As it's a content based thing it really wouldn't be subject to the time limit rule. Essentially, it's not a ruling placing a restriction on a user(punishment and blanket edit banning), it's a ruling on a how a page was changed(purely content). --Karek^maps?! 17:51, 18 October 2008 (BST)

Cool. So user based = time limit. Content of public page= Permanent.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:07, 18 October 2008 (BST)

Version 2

Changes:

• Explicit mention that this policy does not affect the parts of rulings which concern the content of pages.
• Absolute maximum timelimit: 6 weeks (42 days), recommended maximum: 4 weeks (28 days). If you disagree with this, now is the time to voice your opinion. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 00:28, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Can you make it 8 weeks as the absolute maximum? (Not at all because I've just used that in a ruling =P) Apart from that its good. -- Cheese 01:33, 19 October 2008 (BST)

The Policy said:

This policy does not affect the parts of rulings which concern the content of pages.

^Needlessly repetitive, the original policy already said this, although apparently no one paid attention. The day counts are also overly stupid proofing, we all know how long 6 weeks are, thanks. Oh, and the recommendation is needless text, if it's not part of the policy don't include it in the policy. I'll probably still vote for it but those things kinda annoy me.--Karek^maps?! 07:19, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, it's repetition, but seeing how easy it is to miss that it only limits restrictions on persons, I don't think it's needless. As for the day count, I thought there actually was a week of other than seven days in use somewhere, but apparently not. Removed. Things have a way of escalating, and the recommendation will most likely limit it. I think I'm going to keep it there unless more people think it should go. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:52, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Support/opposition to making the absolute limit 8 weeks? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:52, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Why not simplify it even more. All rulings are binding for a fixed time? Say 1 month. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:13, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Four weeks are a fixed time rather than a variable time depending on the month, with an extra two weeks if the arbitration case is particularly hot. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 18:44, 25 October 2008 (BST)