UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration changes 2

Why did this go straight to voting? The grammar is not good enough to make the intentions clear.

In assisting in Arbitration, we generally suggest that both parties agree to the Arbitration and a common Arbitrator. If there's no agreement within one week of the original request for Arbitration, an uninvolved Sysop will then nominate a willing, active and unbiased Arbitrator for it; this is the same if the accused party chooses to ignore or mock the case. If this happens, the parties have 24 hours to reach an agreement, and if they do not reach accord after this, the Sysop's nominated Arbitrator automatically takes the case. 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.

If an Arbitration request is filed but before the Arbitration process is started both parties consider the conflict to be over, then the Arbitration request may be withdrawn. This is why we strongly recommend users to try to talk things through before resorting to Arbitration, as they could settle things without the need of a third party.

Any Arbitration request should provide at least the following:

• The aggrieved parties. Either person vs person, or [list of people] vs [list of people].
• The reason for the arbitration. This should very specifically be without reference to people, as that information has already been provided. It should be a short paragraph indicating the causes of the aggrievement, and why both parties feel it requires arbitration
• Any pages affected by the aggrievement. This should be a simple list of links.

Once the Arbitration commences, the Arbitrator will request statements from all parties involved. Any evidence to back up one's statement should be provided in link form. Each party will then have an opportunity to rebut their opponent's statement. During this process it's forbidden for users not directly related to the case to make any comments. After these two steps, the Arbitrator will then consider the case, reach a conclusion, and determine the outcome that is required.

There are two types of sanctions an Arbitrator can give to any of the parties and/or pages involved if he/she believes it's necessary:

• Page and contact limitations: They consist of barring users from all the pages the Arbitrator believes they shouldn't participate on for whatever amount of time he/she believe is needed, and bar users from personally refer or contact each other for any amount of time as well.
• Page conflict rulings: Additionally, the Arbitrator may also rule on what state any pages, on which the conflicts took place, will remain in.

They're the, purely gramatical changes that I would make... but the last paragraph is just terrible... I can't even work out what it means...

The ruling would then be reviewed by an uninvolved Sysop that will specifically double check the punishments and limitations not to be exaggerated always according to the limitations above imposed. After this review is completed, any breaches on the A/A case ruling would be dealt with an escalation on the banning status of the breaching user as if the user in question already had two warnings.

It seems to be saying that sysops get to overrule arbitors (which goes against the "sysops are not moderators" mantra)... and that repeated breaches mean repeated warnings -- boxy • talk • 12:42 24 September 2007 (BST)

mmm, I see what you mean... If you consider this necessary, then delete the votes and we'll discuss the policy for a few days, I have no real concerns about it. Just don't make me create another policy page because that would get annoying. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 13:20, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Voting section removed... pasted in below -- boxy • talk • 13:51 24 September 2007 (BST)

Thanks! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 14:08, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Voting section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. Vandal escalations are now beyond an Arbitrator's attributions. Yeep-a-Yay! --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 20:22, 23 September 2007 (BST)
2. seems fine to me.--'BP^Tmz 20:40, 23 September 2007 (BST)
3. Looks like a reasonable plan. --The-Not-So-Late Stuartbman The Third ^{MBE OBE} 20:44, 23 September 2007 (BST)
4. Yup. Again.--Seventythree 21:26, 23 September 2007 (BST)
5. I still don't like the absolutely no comments from anyone not directly related...whatever.--Wooty 04:06, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Against

Against votes here

1. Ties the hand of Arbitrators, which should be able to meet out judgments depending upon the situation. IF both parties have agreed to an Arbitrator, they should get whatever said arbitrator lays down as law after that effect, with each and every violation resulting in an escalation of Ban. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 22:11, 23 September 2007 (BST)
2. Grammar is terrible, making it unfathomable in places -- boxy • talk • 12:45 24 September 2007 (BST)
3. As boxy, but also because i dont like the resolutions you give. You limit the responses by the arbitrators. It would be a lot simpler to simply say what they cannot use. Also, as the rules say: "Any policy should remain at least 3 days under discussion before it goes for voting." You bypassed this, and as such this policy should be pulled down from voting and instead discussed for at least three days, especially given the massive changes from the last one. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:55, 24 September 2007 (BST)

   Either restore SD criterion 12 completely or don't mention that again, because your comments reek of bias. The policy has been on discussion for over 4 days, this just happens to be a second draft. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 13:14, 24 September 2007 (BST)

4. Wow, with this Sysops==Moderators, we need to change all of the other policies. Quick! To the Bat Mobile! - If Jedaz = 12:57, 24 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
5. I'm not sure that I like this/these particular change(s) to the arbitration rules. However, before these changes are ever adopted, if they are, this Policy Document would need a very serious grammatical overhaul - which I would be willing to help with. --Ryiis 15:11, 24 September 2007 (BST)
6. The whole I DEMAND YOU COME TO ABRITRATION is unreasonable. The potential for abuse is there. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:58, 25 September 2007 (BST)
7. Nah. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 07:15, 25 September 2007 (BST)

---

Voting moved to talk page -- boxy • talk • 13:51 24 September 2007 (BST)

Further discussion

Sysops shouldn't be able to overrule arbiters -- boxy • talk • 13:51 24 September 2007 (BST)

Sysops shouldn't be able to overrule arbiters -- hagnat • yalk • 14:05, 24 September 2007 (BST)

My only concern is an arby ruling something exaggeratedly harsh. The same is with the preset punishments. If we take a look back or just at the present Akule's case, you can see the danger on "free ruling" that makes Arbitrators equal to Moderators (And I say Moderators, not Sysops). Many cases had Arbitrators that, while choosen by both parties, had shown extreme bias, or started the cases with their mind set and just letting the parties comment for pure amusement. Without some kind of safety measure, then I need assurance that an Arbitrator may not be allowed to do whatever he wants.

It's the same as today A/VB cases, where some user's reports seem to be debunked or accepted straight off the bat by a group of Sysops that back them each other up and, while right or not, makes normal users express their concerns about bias too frequently for my liking: you can only expect to ignore so many complaints about bias before you really start believing some. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 14:07, 24 September 2007 (BST)

some user's reports seem to be debunked or accepted straight off the bat by a group of Sysops that back them each other up

why didnt you said grim and hagnat back jorm, saromu, and anyone from the rrf straight in the face ? it would be a lot more honest and direct. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:12, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Well, for starters cause it would be wrong. I dont like saromu. And im not particularly well disposed towards the RRF. While i may like people, i am ultimately loyal to the rules, rather than people on this wiki. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 15:19, 24 September 2007 (BST)

not accusing you or myself of nothing grim, but it's not a matter of what we believe and what we do, it's a matter of what they think we believe and what they think we do, which is right according to my correction on matthew's line. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:52, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Heh, you almost got it Hagnat. Ayways, I don't want to start drama: my worry is not about you being biased, but about so many users claiming you are. It's getting tiring and points to a problem; a problem that may as well not be you, but it's a problem anyways and needs to be addressed already. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 21:56, 24 September 2007 (BST)

I can see your point about arbiters being able to rule... well, just about anything... but there is a counter measure in that sysops still have to rule that a post is a "bad faith edit" in contradiction of an arby ruling... still, an obviously flawed arby ruling should be able to be overturned I guess... perhaps with an appeal to the community, rather than some uninvolved sysop (who can still be appealed to through appeal to via A/VB, via ignoring such a flawed ruling, with the risk of getting a warning, of course) -- boxy • talk • 15:29 24 September 2007 (BST)

Well, then I'm making these changes, including what you posted as grammar corrections. One thing is not clear: you want arbitrators to keep these preset sanctions or just want to rule them "just about anything" without being reviewed by sysops? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 21:56, 24 September 2007 (BST)

I've changed what grammar stuff I could find. I'd also change the way arbitration violations are handled. I've never understood why it's an automatic ban. I think it would be simpler, and fairer to just treat violations as ordinary vandalism. Also I'd put something in there warning arbiters not to make open ended rulings, as there is no point in keeping people off someone's talk page long after they have got over their differences. Perhaps have a maximum term for bans on editing specific pages (eg. talk pages), but make extensions to the bans easy to apply for -- boxy • talk • 12:30 1 October 2007 (BST)

Thanks for the corrections! About the changes you request, the first one is something I didn't want to change, as it's a rule included not only on A/A but the A/G themselves. I'd rather have them changed later on it's own policy and see if the community likes the changes or not.

Maximum term for bans... I'm mostly worried about how complicated could be implementing a way to "make extensions to the bans easy to apply for". Maybe the ruling themselves could be revised after a period of time chosen by the Arbitrator, but I would be against constant revisions... I rather have a generous ammount of time as the maximum a ruling can stand (say, 6 months) and then we can have another A/A case if it's really necessary (conflict arises again). The A/A page shouldn't be used just to ban people that can't get along to contact each other: they should rather rather offer users an escapeway from drama and time so they can cool off and understand things better. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:15, 1 October 2007 (BST)