UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Create Tribunal

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Summary

Set up a tribunal to decide how to follow rules that are unclear or have multiple interpretations.

Current Problem

Rules aren't perfect - there can always be a scenario the drafters didn't expect where their language is not precise enough. Changing the rules or adding new ones can fill these gaps but often the issue is either A) Too trivial to force the whole community to vote on it - OR - B) Requires a resolution, something that the lengthy voting process and the possibility that a rule addition might not pass cannot resolve.

Example problem:

A page called Weapon Poetry allows people to write odes to their guns. A rule on this page requires that everyone sign their poetry with a timestamp. USER-1 decides that rather than have normal text they'd like to put a small jpeg of a clock set to the right time. To check if this is all right they ask Sysop A if that counts as a timestamp. The Sysop says, "Sure if it says the time that's all you need." After using the clock a few times User-1 is contacted by Sysop B, who warns them to start using normal text as the rules require a timestamp, and the clock jpeg doesn't count.

Nobody would want to vote on "Let Jpegs Be Used For Timestamps", but the rule shouldn't be up to multiple interpretations across the wiki. A tribunal could come up with a quick decision that would then be followed by all.

Make Up Of The Panel

The Tribunal would be comprised of three Judges, voted into position by the community for their reputation of fair mindedness, temperance, and intelligence. To become a judge a person would have to be nominated (or nominate themselves) and then pass a two-week vote with a minimum 2/3rds YEA to NAY majority. Each wiki voter can vote YEA in a judicial vote on up to four candidates, and NAY on an unlimited number, though only one vote per candidate.

The three candidates with the most YEAs become judges, the fourth becomes an alternate should a judge quit their post, or a judge can ask them to temporarily substitute for them if they won't be on the wiki for a while or decide to recuse themselves. A judge and the alternate can also agree to permanently switch places if it's convenient for them.

To ensure that the judges maintain their just reputation an appointment would not be permanent, expiring after one year. A judge could be re-elected, but they have to pass a new round of voting and compete against any new candidates.

Cases

Unlike Arbitration, which resolves a dispute between two parties, a case at the Tribunal would resolve a gray area in a rule. There would be a new Tribunal page that anyone could bring a rule question to. There doesn't have to be an opposing party or an argument going on to start a case, someone can bring a rule that hasn't even had an effect yet to clear things up to prevent future problems.

In the example above USER-1 could go directly to the Tribunal with their question, and then the judges would decide whether a clock jpeg meets the spirit of the rules. Or if if the user started using the clock without checking, a sysop (or any user) could ask the tribunal the question and then tell USER-1 they need to stop based on the tribunals ruling. Or if USER-1 started without asking, and then a sysop warned them without asking and USER-1 disagreed with them, USER-1 could ask the tribunal. Basically a question can be brought to the Tribunal's attention at any point before, after, or during a disagreement about the rules.

A person can suggest an interpretation as the judges deliberate, and other users can argue against that suggestion or propose their own but the judges could pick a completely different interpretation than anyone has suggested.

Decisions

Judges should confer on the Tribunal page to come to a concise and well-reasoned decision in a short period of time. Ideally their decision would be unanimous, but a 2-1 decision is also possible. Until they make a decision a rule's interpretation remains up to individual discretion, as current. There are five possible outcomes:

• Ruling- The judges decide on how a rule should be enforced. From that point on all users must follow that guideline. Deliberately disobeying a ruling counts as vandalism, though penalties aren't imposed retroactively.
• Take It To Arbitration- Judges can decide an issue isn't an unclear rule but a dispute between two parties better suited for arbitration (for example an argument over what appropriate content in a guide is, or a case of harassment). The case then gets moved to the arbitration page.
• No Decision-The judges either decide this rule isn't something that needs their involvement or can't meet a 2-1 majority (for instance if each has their own interpretation and doesn't agree with either of the other two). This is appropriate if they think a rule doesn't need interpretation but is simply inherently flawed or incomplete. They can suggest that someone propose a policy change, or propose one themselves to fix the rule.
• Frivolous: If a case is over such a minor issue, or an issue that keeps getting brought to their attention, that it's essentially just wasting the judges' time they might vote that a case is frivolous. They can also decide, if they so choose, that the person who brought the trivial case be barred from posting cases on the Tribunal page for a period as long as a month. If judges can agree that a case is trivial, but not on how long to bar them then the person is barred for a week or the lowest time requested by a judge, whichever is higher. Bringing a case while barred is vandalism, but being barred on the Tribunal page doesn't prevent you from doing anything elsewhere on the wiki. Barring someone should be a last resort though, they can vote a case trivial without barring anyone. Being barred does not prevent you from voting in judicial elections.
• New Ruling-Judges can choose to redecide a case the Tribunal has heard before and give a different opinion.

It is possible for some decisions to be a combination of more than one outcome, for example making a ruling but also requesting that an argument get taken to arbitration.

Judges Are Not Sysops Or Arbitrators

A sysop/bureaucrat or arbitrator can be elected a judge, or a judge become a sysop/bureaucrat or arbitrator but the positions are entirely independent. If someone stops being a judge it does not affect their other positions, and vice versa. Judges are not granted any sysop abilities like being able to ban users or delete pages.

Removing Judges

A judge/alternate that has earned widespread disapproval (perhaps by giving nonsensical or poorly thought out opinions, or by taking too long to reach decisions) can be removed before their term ends. Anyone (including the other judges) can bring a vote of no confidence against the judge. If after two weeks of voting a majority of the voters support removal, the judge loses their position and the alternate assumes their place. Judges may vote in their own recall process.

If the alternate is promoted to judge, is removed, or quits a new nomination period and vote immediately begins to elect a new alternate to complete the remainder of the term.

What Judges Cannot Do

1. Write their own rules. Most decisions are just clarifying the definition of terms in rules. They cannot invent their own policy (unless they propose it here for a vote like anyone else). If a rule change contradicts what a judge decided in the past the rule always trumps.
2. Force someone to do something the rules don't require them to do. For example they could determine that a rule does allow a user to be banned for a certain action, but they can't order that a user doing that action be banned. Sysops would now be permitted to ban that user for the action, but the Tribunal could not command any sysop to do it.
3. Make decisions that affect a one-time situation. The judges are there to determine how a rule will be followed in the future, not to resolve an argument. They can't make a ruling that doesn't give people a guideline on how to follow a rule.
4. Overrule Kevan. The Tribunal, its members, and all its decisions are subject to Owner Priviledge.