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)

Arbies should be about bringing in a nuetral perspective to help reach a consensus on page content when 2 or more users disagree. I would say that it is also a valid way for parties to agree a set of rules for editing pages like the recruitment and for seeking to stop certain unwelcom individuals posting on user/group pages. Currently the results of Arbies are considered "rulings" and threatened as potential evidence in vandal cases, I have said before and will say again that this is the wrong approach as it goes counter to the very meaning of the word "arbitration". Arbitration should never be about punishment, it should be the way 2 deadlocked parties reach an amicable compromise... sometimes an injunction against certain activities might be the best way to enforce a cooling off period but it should never be a permenant ban to editing (except possibly to user pages?) No arbitration result should be binding if one party refuses to accept it because it is that fear of being stuck with the result that causes people to cause drama and avoid participation in the very mechanism intended to work out problems amicably and thus reduce drama. All that said though a (new) mechanism is needed for those cases that arbies cannot solve, it should not be the first point of call and it should have the power to make actual, enforcable rulings (such as banning from editing the contested page) again this should not really be about punishment but for dealing with recalcitrant editors who will not accept that anyone else might be right without some form of compulsion. Breaking such sanctions that we may decide are reasonable powers for those chosen to rule such cases could well be deemed as vandalism and should be reported as such for judgement by the sysops. I personally would suggest that such cases that go this far be judged by 3 people to ensure impartiality and that those eligible have to accepted by the community before putting their names on the list of potential judges. Sure is Bueracratic, but it might just ensure people use arbies properly nstead of the piss take it so often becomes! --Honestmistake 14:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, if the case outcome isn't binding just because one party doesn't accept it what's the point of having arby at all? The situation will stay the same until one party seriously breaks the rules and it all winds up in A/VB or A/PT.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration is (or should be) a voluntary procedure for users to work out a compromise that both accept. It is also a usful way to call in a nuetral party to make a judgement over any other dispute. If it is the first of those then both parties are agreeing to the resolution and the arbitor is there to act as a referee, making suggestions and comments based on his opinion of the case. In such a case it is not the arbitrators role to lay down a binding solution, it is to help the two sides settle their differences in an amicable manner. If the two sides are asking for a judgement from a nuetral party they should be pretty damn certain that they are willing to accept the result if it goes against them, not doing so could well be seen as bad faith and thus could result in vandalism charges but (and its a big but) you should never be able to compel anyone to accept an arbitration as it goes against the principle of the word and the spirit in which the system was designed. In cases where one party refuses arbitration and continues the behaviour that the other finds so objectionable I can see no current option to deal with unless the behaviour becomes vandalism or harassment, what I suggest is that a seperate system be designed specifically to deal with such animosity and that it must by its nature have some sort of compulsion and power to issue some sort of real sanctions. Until we get such a sytem I can see Arbies continuing to be the lynching court of choice for many instead of the friendly and inclusive mediation procedure it should be.--Honestmistake 10:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You could simply have said, "It can still be considered vandalism because it's editing in a manner in bad faith and probably intentionally against the community consensus and known information" Less words help. The point of arbitration is to get a differing opinion representative of the consensus and the community, generally someone that knows the arguments because they helped resolve them in the past. --Karek^maps?! 09:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)