UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration changes

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Policy Discussion
Revision as of 03:09, 7 January 2008 by A Helpful Little Gnome (talk | contribs) (Protected "UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration changes": scheduled protection [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

This policy has been withdrawn in order to pass a revision due to voters concerns. Please have a stop at UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration changes 2 in order to see the new version and vote.

This policy basically changes the Arbitration page rules to the ones below proposed. The main changes are:

  • In the case that the parties don't agree on an Arbitrator, an uninvolved Sysop may nominate one.
  • The capabilities of an Arbitrator are more clearly explained, including what they can do on a final ruling.
  • There's a Sysop's review at the end of the ruling, just in case, and to apply any warns/bans the Arbitrator may have dealt.

In order to ease reading, changes were highlighted in red: keep in mind that the text itself won't be trasladated highlighted as such if the policy gets approved.

These changes basically aim to cover some holes on A/A rules that allow an user to mock or ignore a case as a valid defense, and limits the damage a faulty or biased Arbitrator may make. Also, this gives some predictability to rulings that up to now could include anything from forced apologies to permabans...

Note: Obviously, if approved, this policy take effect on A/A cases started AFTER it is enacted.

UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration page

While the wiki community attempts to work on the basis of encouragement and cooperation, there are occasions where wiki users find themselves unable to reach accord. In the event of this happening, the Arbitration Team may be called upon to intervene, and attempt to find a reasonable compromise that, while perhaps not satisfying both parties, may at least assist in defusing the situation, thanks to the unbiased third party.

Guidelines for Arbitration Requests

In assisting in Arbitration, we generally suggest that both parties agree to the Arbitration and a common Arbitrator. If there's no agreement after one week since the original request for Arbitration took place, an uninvolved Sysop will then nominate a willing, active an unbiased Arbitrator for it; this is the same if the accused party chooses to ignore or mock the case. If this happens, the parties have 24 hours to reach an agreement, and if they do not reach accord after this, the Sysop's nominated Arbitrator automatically takes the case. It's considered very poor form to ignore or mock a case, and this may be grounds for a harsher conclusion by the ruling Arbitrator.

If an Arbitration request is filed but before the Arbitration process is started both parties consider the conflict to be over, then the Arbitration request may be withdrawn. This is why we strongly recommend users to try to talk things through before recurring to Arbitration, as they could settle things out without the need of a third party.

Any Arbitration request should provide at least the following:

  • The aggrieved parties. Either person vs person, or [list of people] vs [list of people].
  • The reason for the arbitration. This should very specifically be without reference to people, as that information has already been provided. It should be a short paragraph indicating the causes of the aggrievement, and why both parties feel it requires arbitration
  • Any pages affected by the aggrievement. This should be a simple list of links.

Once the Arbitration commences, the Arbitrator will request statements from all parties involved. Any evidence to back up one's statement should be provided in link form. Each party will then have an opportunity to rebut their opponent's statement. During this process it's forbidden for users not directly related to the case to make any comments. After these two steps, the Arbitrator will then consider the case, reach a conclusion, and determine the outcome that is required.

There are two types of sanctions an Arbitrator can give to any of the parties involved if he/she believes it's necessary:

  • Vandal escalations: They consist of escalations of the vandal warnings/bannings status the participant users currently have.
  • Page and contact limitations: They consist on barring users from all the pages the Arbitrator believes they shouldn't participate for whatever amount of time he/she believe is needed, and bar users from personally refer or contact each other for any amount of time as well.

Additionally, the Arbitrator may as well rule on what state will remain any of the pages on which the conflict took place.

The ruling would then be reviewed by an uninvolved Sysop that will specifically double check the punishments and limitations not to be exaggerated and apply any warning and/or bannings the Arbitrator ruled necessary always according to the limitations above imposed. After this review is completed, any breaches on the A/A case ruling would be dealt with an escalation on the banning status of the breaching user as if the user in question already had two warnings.

Archives

Shortly after the Arbitration is over, it will then be moved to an archive page. Any case must remain on the page at least 48 hs before being archived. As publicly accessible pages, the archives may be used to establish precedent in further, applicable cases.

The current archive page is

The previous Arbitration archives:

Current Arbitrators

The following users have placed their hand up as users who are willing to be contacted to act as an Arbitrator. The role of Arbitrator is not restricted to the Administration team; any user can be contacted as an Arbitrator. Users who wish to place their hand up as an Arbitrator should place their name below on the list, using *{{usr|YourUserPage}}

Also note that not all listed Arbitrators are active on the Wiki.

Available Arbitrators in Alphabetical Order

Arbitration Cases Currently Under Consideration

We woud like to remind that users not directly related to the case are forbidden to comment on the cases once Arbitration has started. If you wish to make a comment, use the talk page.

There are currently no cases under consideration

Voting section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

For votes here

  1. Addresses most of the problems the current A/A page has. About the "no comments while Arbitration is on", it is exactly what people is trying to enforce right now on Akule's case, so I can't see how that's a problem. May not be a perfect policy, but it is certainly a huge improvement. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:10, 20 September 2007 (BST)
  2. Okay.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  22:11, 20 September 2007 (BST)
  3. Works for me. --Akule School's in session. 22:21, 20 September 2007 (BST)
  4. Done. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:20, 20 September 2007 (BST)
  5. It's got some issues, and problems, but I'm fairly confident that this will work out better than the current system.--Seventythree 17:06, 21 September 2007 (BST)

Against

Against votes here

  1. Well, we hate to be disagreeable, but, this policy can be abused - although it might be handy in a current case, it could be used in the future to enforce unjust warnings on what may be affable casual contributors--Crabappleslegalteam 00:58, 21 September 2007 (BST)
  2. I like everything except the vandal escalations. That is purely for A/VB, and for Sysops to administer only. It should not be put in the hands of people not elected to the position of Sysop. --The Grimch U! E! 11:24, 21 September 2007 (BST)
  3. Completely distorts the purpose of Arbitration and is open to abuse, as has already been said. Arbitration is not meant to be about punishment.--Karekmaps?! 12:22, 21 September 2007 (BST)
  4. Against arbitration in all forms, ways, and methods, and especially against these changes. If two people(or groups) of people cannot reasonable get along on a wiki, they have two options. 1) Shut up and leave each other alone willingly or 2) Be forced to shut up and leave each other alone(banning). There is no need for arbitration beyond being warned to "behave" by a sysop. This policy has been found to work well on several popular wikis I am a member of, and I do not see why it cannot work here.      Ekashp wuz here (aht harman bra!nz!)        16:49, 21 September 2007 (BST)
  5. Against lets not use the usermessage div style in places that it is not needed, whats wrong with the italics or bold italics - Vantar 17:29, 21 September 2007 (BST)
  6. This policy restricts things that Arbitrators can do to two actions: vandal banning increases and "stay off my page" stuff. I don't like it.--Vow 19:22, 21 September 2007 (BST)
  7. It demands both parties attend. So, the potential abuse for this is huge. --User:Axe27/Sig 00:33, 23 September 2007 (BST)
  8. I think SysOps should be the only ones allowed to raise vandal levels on someone. And only through the V/B page, not arby's.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:57, 23 September 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Arbitration_changes&oldid=969516"