User talk:Karek/ProjDev/Arbitration Policy

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion on Version 2

Version 2 is now up, it's with the blue background, a few changes made were the removal of Rebuttals, Sysops can now be members of Arbitration Committees(I don't want to scrap the committees just yet), A note stating that it is the arbitrator's job to make sure that the resolution is both speedy and public(I'll go into more on that later when I start developing Arbitrator Duties in V3), and the inclusion of an area called UDWiki:Mediation/Concilation which will serve as an arena for personal conflicts. I haven't developed Concilation or its rules because I want peoples input on that.--Karekmaps?! 01:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, separate area for personal conflicts? I don't know, wouldn't UDWiki:Mediation/Concilation turn into a huge drama cesspool, as is the case with arbitration, usually? --  AHLGTG 01:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That's part of why I haven't gone into what it's rules would be. If I understand right people want that section so they can air their grievances or have a place to mediate personal problems to stop it from spreading out over the wiki.--Karekmaps?! 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Gnome, we need something to settle personal issues. Like Karek said (and I agree with wholeheartedly) - if it has its own special place it need not affect anyone else. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Can't we just kill them? Er, I guess it is worth a chance. Any idea on who would want to deal with these personal disputes?--  AHLGTG 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Any idea on who would want to deal with these personal disputes? Or is it just a place to vent. I do agree with a separate page though, cleaner, less drama filled arbitration. Spread the drama around, I guess.--  AHLGTG 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure we can have a normal arby committee handle the personal shit too...-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a technicality, but isn't an Edit Conflict what happens when Person A starts editing a page, then Person B starts editing the same page, Person B saves it and then Person A tries to save it? I believe the more correct (though quite strong) term would be Edit War. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Edit Dispute is closer to the correct term, but I think it's pretty obvious what I mean, Edit war is constant revisions.--Karekmaps?! 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not just remove the Edit Conflict and leave it at Content Disputes (because that's what they are)? Edit Conflict shouldn't be used there because it doesn't actually mean what you mean with it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


I've put content for Concilation here--Karekmaps?! 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. What if the conciliator is unsuccessful? --  AHLGTG 19:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Work at it until they are, it's mediation, the goal is for people to get along and settle disputes in a calm rational manner. If they are forced to do so it just becomes punishment, at least in the case of personal disputes. --Karekmaps?! 19:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Policy

I threw up a quick summary of what I want to do with this for before I actually do anything, you know to keep it's purpose clear. It might be changed or removed when this goes to policy discussion, although I won't bring it there for a few days after I've gotten what I feel is a completed version of the policy written. Please, add input.--Karekmaps?! 06:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would look foward to a arby reform, but i have already seen several policies trying and failing. Good luck on this one. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for, invite? I think? To this discussion. You're going to have to explain to me exactly what that meant! Funny though.. Anyway, I digress. Later on I will galdly look through this and offer any input available. Kudos for bringing this up!--SeventythreeTalk 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

UDWiki:Mediation is an interesting idea - a place a bit like arbitration where two parties could talk with each other about a problem, and a neutral third party would encourage productive discussion, but the final solution would be made by the people involved, and not the outsider. Inviting someone to Mediation would be seen as less of an "attack" than taking them to arbitration. --Toejam 18:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How would personal disputes which can't be resolved by the parties talking to each other be resolved under the new system? Currently arbitration deals with them, but if it becomes limited to editing conflicts, what will happen? --Toejam 18:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By developing a new system, it has no place in Arbitration. Maybe another thing under UDWiki:Mediation but I would like to keep personal conflicts as a matter for another section and another policy. Until one gets made there is always Talk pages.--Karekmaps?! 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Leather faced ninny fence!? Har. I will be reading this soon.--  AHLGTG 18:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why Arbitration couldn't handle both edit conflict/content problems and personality disagreements. We could simply separate Arbitration into multiple categories with the cases falling into specific areas (where both have different rules of how to proceed). --Akule School's in session. 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait a bit, I'm about to put up a revision that will start to address that.--Karekmaps?! 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Another version

Something I noted: If you want to change the Not doing will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings rule, you'll have to change the Guidelines as well. Specifically, this rule is mentioned in the section A/G#When_a_User_May_be_Warned_or_Banned.

About the text itself, I don't think a comitee would be the greatest idea if you don't want that "kangaroo court" effect (that I do not personally understand otherwise than as another way for Grim to discredit his current arbitration case validity, but I wish to maintain that out of discussion). You are basically cutting the drama off by only allowing edit conflicts to be resolved through arbitration but, at the same time, extending the lenght an Arbitration case would have and it's influence to many arbitrators that will have conflicts of oppinion themselves. Calling for community consensus is yet another heavily Grim-influenced step towards drama as well.

I would support the idea if it were about shortening the arbitration process in case of edit conflicts alone and legitimazing through a set of hard rules and limits over rulings when arbitration (or mediation if you want) takes care of personality conflicts, effectively splitting the current arbitration page in two. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 23:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The goal of an Arbitration Committee is to keep there from being 1 arbitrator arbitrarially making up the communities mind. Articles are meant to reflect the communities consensus on the topic more than that arbitrator's viewpoint and a committee helps keep 1 person from having more say in the articles content than anyone else. The point is for them to have personality conflicts, it means they cover more in the process of ruling and forces them to consider things they normally wouldn't. At least that was my intent in setting it up that way, it's kinda throwback to how wikipedia does it but slightly different. What do you think would work to meet that goal(of articles pulling from the communities views not individuals)?--Karekmaps?! 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm working towards the goal of fixing Arbitration and making it Mediation instead of Administration, anything that works towards that is fine, nothing that is written in the user page is cemented in stone.--Karekmaps?! 02:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
When arbitration does adress edit conflicts, most of the time the arbitrator is in charge of finding a NPOV way to deal with things, or, in the latest Darkmagic case, a conflict over a group's name. These kind of conflicts are actually weaker than the other kind of cases A/A takes care of, and generally take a lot less debating and consecuentially, carry less drama than personality conflicts. Now, because arbitration is dealing with these simplier edit conflict while also dealing with the more complex personality conflicts type of cases, we have a contradiction: The process is too long and scares away users from an useful tool (because of the potential drama) when dealing with edit conflicts, and the process is too vague and weak and, because of that, it doesn't adress well personality conflicts. Edit conflict AND personality conflicts.
Now, you're proposing a new system for Artbitration that would adress edit conflicts only, but with a more dramatic set of rules. IMHO, a better way to deal with the current A/A problems would be, first of all, divide it. Don't exclude personality conflicts out of arbitration because by doing so you'll be taking a forum (THE only forum) from an existant problem and negating it altogether. As a problem, personality conflicts won't just dissappear if you look the other way: they'll only get more serious. We better legislate them.
Now, what I propose to do after dividing these? The first of all, the edit conflict arbitration (I'll call it simply "Arbitration" from now on) could be shortened. Let's say, for example, that they don't need rebuttals. These conflicts hardly made use of rebuttals in the latest cases! Other thing that could be somewhat cut of drama (so users don't get scared to use the tool) is the arbitrator election... how could users posting themselves for arbitration be cut of drama? I don't know, but maybe someone would.
And the other half? The personality conflict arbitration (Mediation from now on) should have a more strong set of rules. What can the mediator rule after the process? what he can't rule? What are the maximum time limits for any conflict resolutions? Are the mediators restricted to what it's requesters say it's the case or something more? There lies a good idea. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 21:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Part of the reason for the creation of the UDWiki:Mediation Section is so that there is a place for a place to deal with personal conflicts in the future, while keeping it out of the vandal banning process. I'll put up a second version later today with some of the changes you mention but I really would prefer multiple arbitrators, articles are meant to be permanent and stay up for a long time so accuracy should be important. For things that need speed like Danger Reports, News Updates, etc. I'm thinking maybe a third system that can address that so that Arbitration can be for lasting articles as it is on Wikipedia(Don't think they have anything that needs solutions quite as quickly or frequently as those).--Karekmaps?! 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Arbitration? With Danger Reports and such both parties' cases are already on the wiki (the reports themselves) so the only real matter would be choosing the arbitrator. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

S.A.'s heading, cuz he's cool like that, and will probably have moar stuff to put here

Arbies committee

How about instead of barring a SysOp from participating altogether, they're just barred from using their Sysops powers in any future items related to the case? That way a psyop can still have fun being an arby's drive through worker, and be a sysop.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Very doable.--Karekmaps?! 21:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with SA. SysOps are, as a group, the kind of users that have a familiarity with the rules *and* a general sense of unbiased behavior. Also, having some fence-crossing would promote some SysOp-NonSysOp bonding instead of having a "us vs them" sense for both sides. --Karlsbad 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think If I do allow SysOps I'll have to make an exception banning 'Crats, unless anyone can come up with a better version of the committee election system if neither party can agree on at least 1 member.--Karekmaps?! 01:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, seeing as how boxy is currently the only 'crat offering arbitration services, I think that would be an okay change. I don't think boxy would do much arby'ing anyway.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See guys? I'm not completely retarded. I just have to get here before everyone else makes my points known for me!-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I still support this

Yeps. It was a good idea back then, still is.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Now,Hold up here!

I can see why this could be needed, but Arbitration does work. See the recent case between Darkmagic and the Viva La (Your spelling of revolution) if you doubt it. It does work, and User who are willing to violate the agreements of the arbitration are justly receiving the punishment they deserve. Perhaps this could be reworked to address the other shortcomings, like interpretations of the Arbitration ruling? --User:Axe27/Sig 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, now I have to prove a point.--Karekmaps?! 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Didn't think I'd let you sneak it by,did you? : P. --User:Axe27/Sig 22:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The above arb case worked because it was a simple case. It hardly took the wisdom of Solomon to work out what had happened, who was in the wrong and that I needed to tread carefuly to get a ruling that both sides would accept and adhere to. Not all cases are that simple.--SeventythreeTalk 22:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
True. True, and in cases like this one, things work out. However, if you've ever browsed through the archive, you'll notice that some people persist in using Arbitration as a weapon against their opponents (Jjames, for example, or even better, Amazing). Users such as these, who persistently use arbitration to attack their opponent or disagreeing party should not be allowed to user arbitration, and should be the focus of a policy, not the User who comes there simply to workout an edit conflict, such as the MOB and Malton Mob redirect conflicts.--User:Axe27/Sig 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here we go.--Karekmaps?! 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cases of Arbitration Working(9)

Stuartbman V. The General(Edit Conflict), Nalikill V. Grim S(Personal Conflict), Blood Panther V. Donathin(Edit Conflict), The General V. Hagnat(Edit Conflict), Matthew Farenheit V. Cyberbob240 July '06(Edit Conflict), The General V. The Apocalypse Horde(Content/Edit Conflict), DHPD V. Maxwell Hammer(Personal Conflict, also nicely archived), Grim V Zombie Squad(Content/Edit Conflict), Sonny Corleone V. Labine50(Personal Conflict).

Cases of Arbitration Not Working(22):

Labine50 V. SooP(Personal Conflict), Stuartbman V. Darkmagic(Personal Conflict), Gage V. Darkstar2374383(Personal Conflict That Sets Policy like Precedent), Gage V. DarkStar2374383 again(Personal Conflict)(both those also led too this), Matthew Farenheit V. Cyrberbob240(Personal Conflict), Labine50 V. LCpl Mendoza(Personal Conflict), Banana Bear V. Legend X July '06(Personal Conflict), Jjames V. Karlsbad(Personal Conflict), Banana Bear V. Legend X August '06(Personal Conflict), Jjames V. Karlsbad 2(Personal Conflict), Jjames V. Zod Rhombus(Personal Conflict), Amazing V. MaulMachine(Personal Conflict), Amazing V. Bentley Foss(Personal Conflict), Ruining V. Xeeron(Edit Conflict Turned Personal), RCDC V. Newgrounds(Personal Conflict Turned Vandalism), Amazing V. 'STER(Personal Conflict), Amazing V. Rasher, Scinfaxi, and GANKBUS(Personal Conflict), MrAushvitz V. Suggestions(Personal Conflict), Wikigate(Personal Conflict), Hagnat V. Amazing(Content Dispute), Sonny Corleone V. Bonefiver(Edit Conflict), The Fifth Horseman V. Akule(Personal Conflict).

That's not including all the personal conflicts that ended up going nowhere and take up about a third of the archive, probably more. It's also not including recent cases Grim S and Max Grivas V. Akule, and Viva La Revolucion V. Darkmagic both of which are personal conflicts, one of which, we already know, has failed miserably. Arbitration is working almost 25% of the time, Arbitration does not work, it can but it does not.--Karekmaps?! 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and not to mention that Wikigate, the Scinfaxi cases, and many others have been used as stepping stones for banning users permanently, not conflict resolution.--Karekmaps?! 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
How have you catagorised said cases in their respective sections? Or is this all personal opinion? --Karlsbad 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Drama after the fact that relates to the case or no solution reached that either party agreed with. Generally anything that caused more disputes or didn't solve the dispute that caused the case.--Karekmaps?! 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You missed the recent one of WanYao vs Sockem, Karek. Also the one with you and Sockem. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think most of what you've used could be attributed to the personalities in the case rather than the process of arbitration. --Karlsbad 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The one with me and Karek never offically started. Omega 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't include ones with no ending, those are the sheer majority of cases that go to A/A and would fall under it failing to work, usually do to Arbitrator negligence. As for personalities, that's something that will be an issue in any arb case, it's no excuse.--Karekmaps?! 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about Mediation

So, say one side wants to have a mediation done and the other wants nothing to do with it (like Darkmagic). Are you going to force people into it? --Akule School's in session. 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends, if they can reach an accord without it then give them a chance to, if they have tried and failed or ones of them refuses even that then yes, it's an edit conflict and is an important matter to the wiki.--Karekmaps?! 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be just like the current system in that respect.--Karekmaps?! 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Could I also ask that if there is a "conflict of personalities" so to speak, the time limit is to be more fluid? In my (admittedly very limited) experiance, the mere fact that an amount of time passes during the arbitration case is very useful as it allows the parties time to cool off a bit.--SeventythreeTalk 22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Whatever happened to this idea?-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:44, 18 May 2008 (BST)

It didn't make it. :( --  AHLGTG 18:33, 18 May 2008 (BST)
Ah. Thankee for the link. So much easier than looking for it.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:59, 18 May 2008 (BST)
It will be revised and worked on later, but right now it's not high on the priorities list.--Karekmaps?! 10:53, 19 May 2008 (BST)
Personal tools