UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Intro
Rules Changes
Since Suicidal thinks there should be a lil' bit of discussion on the changes i made to the Arbitration Guidelines that are displayed in the main page, here it is --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 00:21, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Forced Arbitration
No one should be forced into accepting arbitration. The Arbitration Guidelines state that since January 19th, 2009 (which SA removed). Why shouldnt a user be forced into accepting arbitration ? Well, mostly because thats not the intent of arbitration. Arbitration tries to find a neutral stance between two or more conflicting parties which they all agree to fine with. If a user do not want to seek this neutral stance, why should he be forced to ? If a user is causing trouble and refuses to arbitrate, then the user troubled user can ask for the Administration Staff intervention, but it shouldnt force the user into accepting something he doesnt want to. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 00:21, 9 June 2009 (BST)
- Hagnat if you can't see how Arbitration is literally 100% crippled by the inclusion of this rule then I honestly don't know what to say to you. --Cyberbob 01:28, 9 June 2009 (BST)
- Are you trying to say that arbies is crippled by forcing people? It kind of sounds like it, because if it's crippled by hagnat's things, it be crippled by the removal of a rule.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:35, 9 June 2009 (BST)
- Er, I mean that not forcing people into Arbitration would cripple it. I was more replying to his comment than the linked edit. --Cyberbob 01:42, 9 June 2009 (BST)
- Are you trying to say that arbies is crippled by forcing people? It kind of sounds like it, because if it's crippled by hagnat's things, it be crippled by the removal of a rule.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:35, 9 June 2009 (BST)
The Draconian Rule
like in the above case, all parties involved in the arbitration are supposed to agree with the arbitration ruling, no matter how unfair to one of the sides it is. Since the user is looking for arbitration, he should only accept a ruling if he find it fair. Animesucks ruling on Saromu vs TerminalFailure, and LibrarianBrent ruling on Amazing vs Zaruthustra are two examples of rulings where on of the involved parties didnt agree with it, the last one causing Zar to be banned for 24h from the wiki for not complying with it. If the user thinks that the arbitrator steped out of the line, or that his ruling is to punitive for only one of the sides, why should such ruling be followed ? Blindly trusting that the arbitrator will not abuse his authority is wrong, and lead to lots of drama in this community.
The edit in question not only fixed this unfair rule, but also explained how an arbration ruling could be overuled and explained that not complying with an arbie ruling COULD (big difference from the WOULD) be seen as vandalism, which gives room for users under restraining periods to interact without worrying that their actions would be seen vandalism no matter how positive they were. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 00:21, 9 June 2009 (BST)
- Is it unfair when one user is harassing another, the other user brings it to arbitration and is then shot down because the other doesn't agree to it which then leads to further harassment? No. The rules are there to prevent gaming of the system. Removing that opens the entire thing to a bunch of people being ass holes and just saying fuck you when it comes to start a case. But yes, forcing someone to go through an arbitration case to settle a dispute with another user is sooooo bad huh? This system is a joke as it is, why are you trying to make it worse by literally making it completely worthless?
- Explain to me how letting one user fuck with another with that user literally having no way to stop the harassment is fair to the harassed? We don't have a Civility policy. Removing the forced arbitration clause and binding agreement literally gives a harassed user no way to stop it. If there is an edit conflict in place, we tell them to go to arbies. Whats the point of bringing it there if the other party won't participate? That clause is the only someone can get something done about another users behavior, other wise said harasser can throw the case out the window, or the other editor can just say fuck it and keep editing the controversial user page. The systems have a problem, but this isn't a fix. It's like slapping a thermite band-aid on a bleeding man.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:24, 9 June 2009 (BST)
- actually, what you dont understand is that *you* are the one trying to band-aid the bleeding man, i am the one who is trying to take the band-aid away from you and use it where its most effective. The guy remains bleeding, but its not my fault since the band-aid isnt gonna fix it. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:38, 9 June 2009 (BST)
- What a pity you don't get to make those decisions by yourself. Nobody does. --Cyberbob 01:44, 9 June 2009 (BST)
- The inclusion of the force rule is the only thing keeping the system from being unusable. Please, tell me how letting users ignore the system altogether is going to fix users being harassed and edit wars. Otherwise, just shut up.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:44, 9 June 2009 (BST)
