UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Arbitration and Misconduct

Arbitration and how to fix it

Rather then clogging up the main page I thought I'ld bring discussion here. I think as a policy this kind of thing is doomed to fail, I can see people abusing the rules for just about any wording that we can think of. If this was to become a policy all that is needed is an amendment to the current text to let people know what they can do. The amendment that I would suggest is as follows

The arbitration page should include

It is expected from the community that if an illegitimate case is presented in arbitration that the community acts to remove the case. The act of removal should only occur after reasonable discussion has occurred and a reasonable chance has been given for opponents of removal to voice their concerns (typically 48 hours). If there is sufficent doubt among the community then the case shall be allowed to run it's full course. If both parties agree to the commencement of arbitration then regardless of the communities decision the case can not be removed.

Thats how I'ld word it myself, but I think that this too would be abused by meat puppets. So I'ld perfer this to be more of an unwriten rule so that meat puppets or rule layers won't be able to abuse it. Of course however, I realize that this would bring us back to my first point of arbitrators not knowing that they can throw out cases that have no merit. Any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated. - Jedaz - 02:10/19/01/2009

While i appreciate you don't want to make it strict due to rules lawyering etc i think this vague 'will of the community' idea can be abused. If you mean 100% agreeance from everyone (excluding immediately involved parties, ie the people in the case) then that's something firm and fine imho. But if 70% of people and all sysops saying chuck it counts as 'community opinion' to void the case then i think that's a bad idea. Arbies is there because it is the one process on the wiki that sysops don't control. Yeah i know i steered this towards a zomgsysops rant, but with vague 'community' "votes" they tend to dominate as people assume they're mods or have some power outside of a/m, a/vb, a/d, a/sd and a few other less used a/ pages.--xoxo 12:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbies should be used for page content. Period. The sysops basically have nothing to do with that. It is when people try to use it to get other users in "trouble" that the sysops should step in. And I don't mean in a moderation sense, I mean in a "this isn't what this page is used for" sense.

And if we "dominated" people enough to affect their votes you wouldn't have had as much support for your sysop bid as you had because almost every sysop was against you and voted rather early on in the process. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was more like 2 vs 6 sysops in my case anyway. And i meant newer users are effected by sysop opinion. Many of them think what sysops say goes etc. People like Anime, Rev, Me, Iscariot, SA, Link, etc, etc, etc all know that in stuff that isn't a/ (minus a/a) you have no additional authority. Newbies thinking this is entirely understandable when one looks at what happened with Karek over at a/d, overturning a democratic vote coz he felt like it.--xoxo 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbies is not a valid alternative to administrative processes. You know this, that's why cases that try and use it in such a manner are almost always archived. --Karek^maps?! 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)