UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/UDWiki:Mediation

I like the colours, makes it a lot easier to read. Maybe even highlight important passages in future. Yeah, that's it... --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, there should be two levels of "Arbitration", both to be renamed. I actauly like a lot of what you've put forward here. 1) Mediation. To be used for personal conflicts. 1 arbitrator chosen 2) Arbitration (Needs to be called something else) Other issues. Commitie chosen as suggested. Not sure about the uniinvolvement of sysops myself though. Other than that, good work--Seventythree^Talk 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The problems With Arbitration

The actual problem with arbitration is that it's being used to solve personal vendetas, when it should be used only to solve edit conflicts, such as danger levels, news reports, group NPOV sections and stuff like that. This policy should instruct users to solve such edit conflicts in UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration, and to solve their personal vendettas in UDWiki:Mediation. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It does that, just it moves UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration to UDWiki:Mediation/Arbitration with UDWiki:Mediation/Concilation set up for personal disputes.--Karek^maps?! 08:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Problems With This Policy

Completely against for a couple of reasons.

1. The fact that arbitration cannot go outside the limits of the case as set forth by the instigating party has not been stated directly.
2. "Sysops Can Not rule on cases in which they were involved(even as arbitrators), to do so will be considered Misconduct." - What the fuck? A Sysop cannot rule on a case he arbitrated? Common sense, i find ye not here. In fact, that whole bullet point just doesnt make any sense at all. Sysops are janitors, i dont see how such restrictions can be applied to them under conflict of interest when we dont moderate. Its senseless and needless bureaucracy for the sake of senseless and needless bureaucracy.

This is by far the most needlessly overcomplicated policy proposal i have seen. Just have them specify the type of conflict, set the limits, and get cracking with a committee. Lose that stupid and completely counterproductive misconduct thingy as well. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

1 can be added, 2 is because it is a conflict of interests. Sysops are meant to look at the cases merits, not make up their mind based on a decision they have already made in an arbitration case, if you ruled on Akule committing a violation of the Conn case you'd get shit for it, this just cements that punishment in policy. You'll notice I didn't set what the punishments would be, that's for the other sysops to determine. If you have a reasonable alternative that will make sysops recuse themselves from a case where they may have an pretty blatant bias I'll remove it.--Karek^maps?! 08:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording of what you wrote specifies that even if the sysop helps arbitrate the case, instead of being one of the two+ people that come requesting arbitration, he cannot rule on any violations of it. Thats just plain retarded. If anything, being the one who made the ruling, the sysop knows exactly what was meant by the ruling and is as a result the best person to rule on the case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That only makes sense if the purpose of the case is to punish one of the parties or to set up a system where following the rules set out by the arbitrator is more important than the content of the article. Arbitration isn't about punishment anymore and ruling of A/VB cases based on the result of an arbitration should be all but nonexistant. The only way the case would get to vandal banning and matter to it is if one of the users reverted the agreed upon solution, that would be a personal issue for the ruling arbitrator as they are the ones being slighted, not the other person in the arbitration case.--Karek^maps?! 11:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, once again I find myself agreeing with the unnecessarily cantankerous and randomly personally abusive Grim - the real problem has been the loose definition of what arbitration's limits are. This needs to be tightened more to specifically say, "No ruling beyond the scope of...(content on the wiki that was brought to arbitration in the first place)" You say above that that can be added, so good. The issue here is that someone tried to protect us all from having to watch people argue, and that's really not possible.

I do appreciate the attempt with conciliation. Yet I wonder if anyone would avail themselves of the service? How do you get people to participate? There's no talk of compelling anyone - which is good- but otherwise who would ever do it except the lilliest livered milksop? Here's a VERY hypothetical situation: Let's say Grim and I got into it because I found him excessively unpleasant in one of our infrequent interactions. Further let's say his ruling on whatever I was certainly mistakenly doing was correct (As I find him usually correct, and I would never knowingly violate wiki policy). So we get into a verbal tousle, and all pleasant discourse breaks down. Heaven forbid, we actually decide we don't like each other (this is a hypothetical, remember - I merely find Grim crotchety so far). Why would I bother to try to involve a conciliator? I'd just write Grim of as a prick and move on with my wiki existence, hoping to interact with him as little as possible. Perhaps I'd mock him from time to time, and he me - but how are you going to stop that?

Honestly, the main challenge here is that folks are too busy trying to remove all conflict from the world and attempting to legislate behavior. That is impossible without a dictatorship of some kind. The shortest route on all of this nonsense is to have rules about the content and to say, "Sysops and Bureaucrats are not your parents. We don't rule on personal conflicts. If you violate wiki editing policy, you will be reprimanded. The end." Who cares if the monkeys fling poop at each other and screech? Was what they did vandalism? Did it harm the structure of the wiki? No? Then whine away. Who cares. Yes - off to A/VB you go. The end. --Squid Boy 14:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with Arbitration isn't that arbitrators exceed their limits, that's just a side effect of the problem, the problem is arbitration is a step in the Vandal Banning/Administration process, it's an attempt to policy people's personalities in the absence of a policy to do just that(Not to say that it hasn't been tried, just that it has never had the communities support.)
• As for Arbitration, technically you aren't required to be present in that either, at lest not under the current system, you just don't get any real representation and the case is made one sided. Regarding people tearing into each other, I really couldn't care less about it, the reason for conciliation is that it allows one user to approach another without having to be immediately distrusted, neither user controls the situation and in the case of commenting on user pages that is an issue when trying to resolve a dispute. If one side decides they don't want to work at it that's their choice but at least Conciliation gives them the chance at the attempt. There are also other uses to such a system, such as debates that happen without ill-will between either side that get heated, in such cases Conciliation would make a great mediation and negotiation tool because there is a middle man and replies aren't instant or in the heat of the moment.
• Arbitration has a purpose for existing, it's original purpose for creation as a system as a whole on the Wikipedia Projects was to settle edit disputes and edit wars as an attempt to make sure the article is as complete and neutral as possible, this change attempts to restore that purpose. Arbitration is not a system built to police talk pages or arguments, it's a tool for guaranteeing accuracy in articles, if two people think the other one is wrong both of them usually have a point and Arbitration is a way to make sure the article doesn't ignore either of those.

I should probably also mention that I'm still waiting on Grim's response to why my point to why sysops shouldn't rule on cases they arbitrate is in any way wrong.--Karek^maps?! 15:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You can keep waiting till the weekend, ive been both sick and im working some pretty long shifts and dont have the mental energy left at the end of the day for prolonged arguments. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My tuppenceworth:

• I think you'll stand a better chance if this policy is split into two parts. Make this one all about altering Arbitration, and leave the entire matter of Conciliation for another time. (Apart from anything, your Conciliation section is far weaker - and I don't necessarily mean shorter when I say weaker.)
• Also, I think the Arbitration regulations you've written need to be both streamlined (in terms of amount of text) and optimised (in terms of defining more closely how long an arbitration would take). If you look at Vandal Banning, it all happens quite rapidly. From report to decision is often only a matter of minutes, and usually less than an hour. The definition of what happens is quite clear, and chit-chat kept to a minimum. Sometimes, with the current arbi system, it's so long-winded it's painful. The arbitrator makes a right meal of it, leisurely informing the aggrieved parties that they'll be back after a four course dinner, twelve glasses of brandy and a mediterranean cruise, at which point they might think about carrying out their task. That needs to be speeded up, if arbitration is a means of settling edit conflicts.
• I'm torn about the committee rules. On the one hand, a committee seems fair, but on the other, it would seem to lengthen and complicate the process even more. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when this policy was under discussion in my talk page it was in two seperate parts, most of the people who commented wanted some sort of personal conflict system set up. It'll be pulled out before it goes to voting. I'll work on adding a timeline for what a "speedy case" would be so that is less vague in the text, along with, possibly, some information on what to do/what will be done if things are being drawn out.--Karek^maps?! 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Imagine a case where one person is bullying another, and the bully can't be persuaded to stop. Under the current system, arbitration is the solution. However under the new system arbitration could not deal with these sorts of cases, so how would a case such as harassment or bullying where the bully won't stop be dealt with under this new system? --Toejam 12:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

When stopping the bully is code for getting them banned from the wiki when people don't agree with them I really don't think we need it, anything that would stop that bully would also be used to censor and ban people just because someone doesn't like them.--Karek^maps?! 17:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to do away with arbitration's ability to deal with users antagonising each other without having something in place to replace it. If users become bitter and hostile to each other, at least now we can break them up and say keep away from each other, but if arbitration could only deal with edit issues, we couldn't do that. And that would mean even more fighting. It's a mistake to say we'll just create something sometime in the future, because in the meantime it leaves the arguments and strife unchecked, and it may be a long time before an acceptable replacement is found. --Toejam 23:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't do that unless they bring it there, and even then we can only do it with the threat of banning them when they haven't broken any rules. It's not really dealing with it just making vandals out of people who are, much of the time, being antagonized.--Karek^maps?! 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Some Changes

Ok, from what discussion has been had here I've made some changes;

• UDWiki:Mediation/Conciliation has been removed from this policy, with a note that UDWiki:Mediation will allow for future creation of something of it's type.
• Two new footnotes added to mark what I mean by Speedy_{(gives a timeline)} and Public
• Added a note to clarify what goes where if the policy is accepted.

I'm gonna let there be some discussion on these before putting it to voting tomorrow, which I do believe is the 2 week deadline.--Karek^maps?! 21:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't see anything to change here. Is this everything your changing? Any hidden pages? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends what feedback I get between today and tomorrow.--Karek^maps?! 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Question on the arbitration committee. Can sysops arbitrate and rule cases at all? Or just not when they are involved in the case. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sysops can be arbitrators, they just can't rule vandal escalations or such on/involving that case later. 'Crats can't be arbitrators at all because they can end up serveing as a tie breaker in choosing an arbitrator, although I doubt that will ever be too common.--Karek^maps?! 01:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)