UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration

Stick your thoughts under the appropriate header. :) Thanks.

Possible changes

Some things:

1. If an arbitrator may call for the deletion of a page, why not also a page move?
2. I think restraining orders should have a maximum time limit (3 months?). Also, they should never be able to restrict either user's participation in the community (suggestions, deletions, promotions, policy discussion etc.) as happened in Grim vs. Akule.
3. Forced apologies and such should be explicitly forbidden.

--Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 20:18, 30 September 2008 (BST)

1. I was thinking about that. Couldn't think of how to word it. Added
2. Also a good point. Added.
3. That'd help too. Added.

Thoughts on this update? -- Cheese 21:03, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Hate is such a strong word. In the past a number of people have been brought to arbies on formatting issues (The classic Sign your fucking posts gambit.) What if any position would arbies have on these issues, referring people to use the "correct" procedure, the idea that for instance a player must submit suggestions to talk suggestions before posting etc? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:47, 30 September 2008 (BST)

And if we are redesigning arbies it should exclude petty things that can fall under "newbie mistakes" - improper formatting, not signing a post, or "trolling". Those are things that should be addressed on VB which says that they should be addressed by talking to the user/note on their talk page. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:39, 1 October 2008 (BST)

A further appeal will only be allowed if the appealing user can prove that the second arbitrator was biased against them. Hard, hard, hard to prove.

Two things I've wondered about the current system of arbitration that are a bit vague at the minute:

1. If a ruling says don't do action A, but you do A then get charged with vandalism, and then you do action A again, do you get charged with vandalism again? One person might think if a ruling is broken, it's broken - you pay the penalty for breaking it but after that you're free of it and you can do want you want again without penalty. Another might say the ruling is like a rule - if you break it twice you get vandalism charges twice. Which should we follow?
2. This is from the current arbitration page: "As a note, by requesting an Arbitration, all parties are thus obliged to accept the outcome of the Arbitration. Not doing will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings." Does this mean you'll be banned for 24 hours? What if you have more than two warnings already? Will it be treated as three steps up the vandal data ladder, or one?

Also, it might be worth deciding/clarifying what happens if no arbitrator can be decided upon, although it might be outside the scope of what you're trying to achieve here.

Could you clarify that although the ability to participate in community discussions mustn't be taken away, the ability to use those discussions in detrimental ways can be. For instance, if someone decided that from now on they were only going to write in huge flashing pink letters, that sort of thing could still be restricted, even though it's in a community discussion. Restrictions allowed on anything detrimental to the community.

If an arbitrator thinks of some other measure that's not on the can-do list, but would be appropriate for the case, they're still allowed to use it, right? --Toejam 01:26, 1 October 2008 (BST)

I have been trying to post this for a while but I keep getting kicked offline - stupid laptop. Anyway -

If you are going to leave in Criterion 14: Arbitration Ruling. This will be judged on a case-by-case basis and the request may be denied by the attending sysop if they believe it should be kept. we need to make a change. I would hate for the 3 parties to work out a decision that involves a sysop action and have it all undone by one person that wasn't really involved. Why not have a section on all cases that involve sysop actions (deletion/moving etc.) where any dissenting sysop can weigh in? Almost all sysops are listed as arbitrators and they should be monitoring that page anyway. They can weigh in on the decision, however, not "change it". (maybe have the arbitrator address the concerns raised)

Again, I don't want to make it more complicated, and I don't think this will come up that often if at all, but I also want to avoid one sysop saying no, another one doing it anyway and a misconduct case to come up one way or the other. If one sysop says no and the arbitrator can't address his concerns in a manner that makes him agree with the decision then 3 sysops voting FOR the decision can override the dissent.

My example is A and B have a case that C decides. Sysop D says he doesn't agree with the action. C addresses why he thinks this is the fair decision. D still says no. Sysops E, F, and G say they support C and the action is done anyway. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:36, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Updated - I've addressed most of the things noted above except those which I didn't know who best to word. Thoughts on this version? -- Cheese 10:12, 1 October 2008 (BST)

'No Shows'

After viewing this case it has brought something up which, so far, hasn't been addressed -- as far as I can tell, that is.

If a representative from the other party doesn't decide to show up for the case, what is the correct procedure to follow, and can the user that brought the case to arbitration actually do anything to resolve the issue? ----Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 10:29, 2 October 2008 (BST)

Hate it and any future reincarnations

Oh, come on... bleatings about arbitrators that supposedly reach beyond their mandate (always done by the losing party you'll note) is some of the tastiest drama going. Don't take that away from me ;_; --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 01:58, 1 October 2008 (BST)

I'm not going to vote for an arbitration policy that sets out what ways arbitrators can rule, it will just lead to people whinging when a decision is made that doesn't fall neatly into something listed in policy... and arbitration needs to be flexible. Perhaps there is a need to set out what rulings would be invalid -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:57 1 October 2008 (BST)

Goes too far into red tape. First it says an arbitrator is not a sysop, then later it lists the vandal escalations that will result if the ruling is not adhered to. Surely, not adhering to an arbies ruling is something that can result in a vandal report, rather than it being automatic. As boxy: just make a list of invalid rulings / things beyond the power of an arbitrator (like sysop powers, for example). Make it short and easy to digest, and you'll probably have something worth discussing here. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:29, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Fuck This--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:16, 2 October 2008 (BST)