UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration changes
Hm. I guess it's alright. But you might wanna remove the whole 'voting' section. Might give people the wrong idea. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 22:32, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Sounds good so far. I've been fortunate in the fact that I have never been involved in arbitration or have ever had to take anyone to arbitration (the few complaints I have had againgst me or with someone else have been sorted out otherwise). However I was under the impression that the vaugeness of the final judgement in particular often leads to a lack of understanding, If this could cut down on misunderstanding, so much the better. The only flaw I can see in this so far is how would you define an uninvolved sysop? Say someone took me to arbitrations, and a sysop invloved who may have had a history before with me is the one who promotes an arbitrator? --Seventythree 22:35, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Well, I can't define it in a clear manner, but it's surely better to have "Sysop" alone without the uninvolved part and then getting the most biased ones to nominate Arbitrators for you. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:38, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Oh, I agree with you on that matter. Don't get me wrong, I like this, I'm merely playing devil's advocate here. Trying to eliminate any potential areas of conflict, and the associated drama. How about a second sysop has to agree with the first Sysop's reccomendation?--Seventythree 22:41, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- I don't want to make this overlycomplicated. That's why I eliminated a part on the end that made an "uninvolved Sysop" able to overrule the Arbitrator in case of biasedness trough a two-paragraphs-worded system. The simpler the better. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:44, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Oh, I agree with you on that matter. Don't get me wrong, I like this, I'm merely playing devil's advocate here. Trying to eliminate any potential areas of conflict, and the associated drama. How about a second sysop has to agree with the first Sysop's reccomendation?--Seventythree 22:41, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Im sorry, posting a copy of a page you want isnt good enough. Write up all your changes in a single document, instead of taking a shortcut that is impossible to study unless you pull up the genuine and "fake" pages and compare them line by line, and instead of trying to confuse voters as you are now. --The Grimch U! E! 22:46, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Granted, but can't you just see it now? Imagine if these rules are in place and Grim_s was not involved in the current arb. case (he wasn't at the start) Imagine if grim_s, as an uninvolved sysop had nominated an arbitrator? Could you imagine the fuss that Akule (rightly or otherwise) could kick up? (note, the only reason I'm using this case as an example is becuase it's running at the moment. I'm not making any judgement about any of the parties involved). Hell, maybe any arbitratios should be voted in in a similar way to sysops....--Seventythree 22:49, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Maybe "unbiased" would do better? the simpliest the change, the better: your change could be abused the same way in your hipotetic case if Grim rules an Arb and Hagnat agrees. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:56, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Then how do you define unbiased?--Seventythree 22:58, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- I define "uninvolved" as a guy that isn't involved in the case and I define "unbiased" as a guy that isn't leaning towards any side of the issue, involved or not. I required an "uninvolved" Sysop to nominate a "willing, active and unbiased" arbitrator. In theory, the Sysop is totally unable to fuck up the case, and if he does he ceases to be "uninvolved" anymore and his nomination is null and void. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:05, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Ok then. Makes sense.--Seventythree 23:07, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- I define "uninvolved" as a guy that isn't involved in the case and I define "unbiased" as a guy that isn't leaning towards any side of the issue, involved or not. I required an "uninvolved" Sysop to nominate a "willing, active and unbiased" arbitrator. In theory, the Sysop is totally unable to fuck up the case, and if he does he ceases to be "uninvolved" anymore and his nomination is null and void. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:05, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Then how do you define unbiased?--Seventythree 22:58, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Maybe "unbiased" would do better? the simpliest the change, the better: your change could be abused the same way in your hipotetic case if Grim rules an Arb and Hagnat agrees. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:56, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- Granted, but can't you just see it now? Imagine if these rules are in place and Grim_s was not involved in the current arb. case (he wasn't at the start) Imagine if grim_s, as an uninvolved sysop had nominated an arbitrator? Could you imagine the fuss that Akule (rightly or otherwise) could kick up? (note, the only reason I'm using this case as an example is becuase it's running at the moment. I'm not making any judgement about any of the parties involved). Hell, maybe any arbitratios should be voted in in a similar way to sysops....--Seventythree 22:49, 17 September 2007 (BST)
It looks good to me, except I'd add a process for the party with the grievance to remove an arbitration in the event of the two sides deciding that the grounds for bringing forth the original arbitration no longer apply (Example: The two sides made up and are now on speaking terms again). This way we have a documented process of removing arbitrations that should no longer apply, which will not only avoid unwanted vandal banning cases, but also preserve the weight of the Arbitration process. We could make a separate archive for arbitrations that have ended, so as to retain them for our files and in case the two sides want the arbitration to apply again. --Akule School's in session. 23:25, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- As this policy is worded now, this is allowed as long as the parties didn't agree on an Arbitrator and thus, the Arbitration process hasn't started. I'll make it clearer on the wording. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:18, 18 September 2007 (BST)
Trouble is, I can see that overcomplicating things. What if the two sides neglect to bother with that and then go on to do something that breaks the arb. Report? I think we should have it so that the (possible) victim in the incidence of the other person breaking the Arb ruling has to at least confirm that they wish a Vandal banning case againgst the other to exist for a VB case to be put up. That simple clarification with the alleged victim could have saved a lot of drama recently.--Seventythree 23:33, 17 September 2007 (BST)
- I'll look into it. Can't say that I have a wording solution for this in mind right now, but if I come up with one I'll include it. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:18, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Well, I can't figure out a solution that doesn't harm the wording of the rest of the policy... These kind of things are historically handled through good faith rulings, and any Sysop that thinks himself different from a robot would rule "not vandalism" if both parties or even the arbitrator himself tells him it was a justified breaching, or that the limitations aren't needed no more. Keep in mind that the current Arbitration page doesn't take care of this either. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:59, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Overall I think this is excellent... I have some rather picky, but perhaps important, issues with it though.
- It's considered very poor form to ignore or mock a case, and this may be grounds for a harsher conclusion by the ruling Arbitrator. The current wording is far too subjective and wishy-washy, particularly the first sentence clause. And what if the case **is** in my opinion laughable? If I state so in my defense, will that make judgement against me harsher? It shouldn't. Ideally it should explain how one ought to comport oneself -- not point out the forms of behavior that are bad. Like, "One is expected to respond to a case, and to treat the process and its participants respectfully. Failure to do so may be taken into account in the Arbiter's decision." "Repectfully" is intentionally a little vague... But it should be pretty clear... If I say that I consider the case to be ridiculous, I'm not actually dispectful... If I say "this case is fucking aridiculous", I'm pushing it, but I'm not teechnically out of line because it's a valid opinion (respectfulness IMO doesn't necessarily mean that I can't swear... though excessive swearing IMO would demonstrate a lack of respect). Or, if I say that my oppoent has a penchant and a history for causing drama, well that that's not nice, but it's still repsectful of the process. But If I call my opponent a "pathetic flaming drama queen" that's obviously being disrespectful, because it crosses into just name calling...
- In order to avoid drama, during this process it's forbidden for users not directly related to the case to make any comments. Again, the words "in order to avoid drama" are wishy-washy. Just strike them. Also, in some discussions I have read, people have commented that often a third party is able to bring in very relevant and often important information to the case. They may not be directly involved, but they doesn't make their input irrelevant. This should be reworded very simply, "During this process, only users with information relevant to the case under consideration may post comments". Simple, straightforward... actually tighter than your policy, but still allowing third parties to make relevant comments.
- My 2 bits.... --WanYao 09:21, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Well, I fail to see how your wording in the first part is better, as they're both subjective and leave a little but intentional room for interpretation. All the examples you cite are up to your interpretation and can be seen as "disrespectful" or "respectful" by other party if so he wishes, and then denounce it. That's why it's up to the Arbitrator.
- About the other concern, I'll take out the "in order to avoid drama" part, but won't change the other part of the wording per se... the fact is that I can see your more lenient wording abused in cases such as the one now started by Max against Akule, where a lot of people have something "relevant" to the case because most users that vote on the Deletion's page or otherwise post "copyrighted" images feel personally attacked by him and have examples (as his replies for them) of personal relevancy. The best I can say is for them to use outside channels, like the different parties or the Arbitrator talk pages. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:18, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- I agree with WanYao - people not involved in the case often post extremely relevant material. I have never seen a user uninvolved in an arbitration start a dramafest with an insulting/offtopic comment. I'm certaintly not voting for this unless you kill that or change it to 'only relevant stuff'--Wooty 22:10, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- I pointed users not involved in the case to leave comments at the Arbitration talk page, as you can see. I won't like to add somerthing like that because "relevancy" is always up to interpretation. This interpretation ends up meaning that in some case where a guy post a hardly relevant and maybe even trollish comment he won't be punished and in others where other guy had the best of intentions posting something relevant he will be ruled as a vandal! --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:22, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- I never claimed my wording, or ideas, were perfect... and no one has to agree with me... I was just adding my own thoughts, and my own VERY rough-draft attempts at improving the wording in a direction that feels better to me. That simple, really... --WanYao 23:24, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Maybe we can have it so that the arbitrator can simply remove comments he deems trollish, and warn said troll not to comment on that arbitration again or he will be banned/warned/whatever. I just don't like the idea of no third party input whatsoever.--Wooty 00:20, 19 September 2007 (BST)
- It's a contenious issue. An Arbitrator's reputation could be harmed only based on which comments he allows to stay and wich ones he doesn't, and so will his ruling. Keep in mind that it's a more hardcoded version of what happens now on Arbitration: nowadays as soon as the case officially starts, guys commenting outside of their "case" and "rebuttal" sections are discouraged to do so, even more if they're just outsiders to the case. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:42, 19 September 2007 (BST)
- Maybe we can have it so that the arbitrator can simply remove comments he deems trollish, and warn said troll not to comment on that arbitration again or he will be banned/warned/whatever. I just don't like the idea of no third party input whatsoever.--Wooty 00:20, 19 September 2007 (BST)
- I never claimed my wording, or ideas, were perfect... and no one has to agree with me... I was just adding my own thoughts, and my own VERY rough-draft attempts at improving the wording in a direction that feels better to me. That simple, really... --WanYao 23:24, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- I pointed users not involved in the case to leave comments at the Arbitration talk page, as you can see. I won't like to add somerthing like that because "relevancy" is always up to interpretation. This interpretation ends up meaning that in some case where a guy post a hardly relevant and maybe even trollish comment he won't be punished and in others where other guy had the best of intentions posting something relevant he will be ruled as a vandal! --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:22, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- I agree with WanYao - people not involved in the case often post extremely relevant material. I have never seen a user uninvolved in an arbitration start a dramafest with an insulting/offtopic comment. I'm certaintly not voting for this unless you kill that or change it to 'only relevant stuff'--Wooty 22:10, 18 September 2007 (BST)
Shortly
I havent read it all, but one thing that called my attention was that line shortly after the arbitration is over it is archived but. I like to read the outcome of arbitrations, and i hate how they used to be archived instantly after they were ruled in the past to the point one could stay away from the wiki for a few hours and several arbitrations were created and dismissed in a matter of seconds (not to quote amazing in this bit, but that was annying). I'd say that any arbitration should NOT be archived before 48h passes. That would give time for the entire community to read what was being discussed and comment on the outcome of the arbitration with those involved. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:03, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Sounds reasonable to me. We should also have a notice for people not to comment on the individual case, but on the talk page, even after the case is completed. --Akule School's in session. 00:30, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Actually, I would love if there was a creation of a separate "rulings" page, much like the Vandal Data, in which a user could easily skim through them. It would probably only be edited by the Sysop post-confirmation, much like VB. --Karlsbad 03:52, 18 September 2007 (BST)
- Hagnat, I think the same. If you check the original Arbitration page, you can infer from thwe wording that cases should be archived right away, and because I didn't agree with that I included the word "shortly". However, I didn't want to hardcode when. I think that saying something between the lines of "no archiving before 48 hs pass" won't harm anybody.
- Akule, that's basically the idea. I already included a rule were uninvolved people should stay away from the Arbitration process once it has been started.
- Karl, I dunno. Sounds unnecessary as we don't have that many A/A cases started as in A/VB in first place. If it's for the precedent... I rather have it ignored that religiously followed, as I can't remember any A/A or A/M case were following precedent was uncontested: there's always somebody that won't be happy about it, and will generate drama. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:03, 18 September 2007 (BST)
Changes
Here's a link to show more clearly the changes this policy would make: What would be changed --Toejam 13:59, 19 September 2007 (BST)
