UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration reform

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

Headache-inducing policy

First, you'll reduce (with the pretext that it was it's original and only intended purpose) the Arbitration role to only edit conflicts. This will make personal conflicts rage around the wiki with no means to solve them in any deffinitive way. That there were bad experiences with arbitration doesn't mean it hasn't resolved any personal conflict, it's just that it was misused sometimes. The now common "go to arbies" ruling on A/VB will have to be changed to something along the lines of "go cry elsewhere"? Encouraging trolling is a no-no in my book.

Second, the bureaucracy on the process is oustandingly complicated. Taking in account how many edit conflicts arise every now and then on the wiki, well have the complete administrational team on arb committees until kingdom come. Let me rephrase myself: the ammount of bureaucracy that it's appointed in order to take care of the conflict, plus the ammount of people that it's needed to resolve the case, plus the time it needs, won't ever permit any case to be resolved in a natural manner, is uneeded to the extreme.

Third, and last, some wording issues:

policy said:

It is expected that the sysem operators selected have demonstrated some history in the creation and maintenance of articles on this wiki, beyond simple maintenance tasks that they do as sysops.

policy said:

To become a part, a sysop must first be nominated on the arbitration talk page, where there should be a brief discussion of pros and cons, as well as proof of that individuals work in building up this wiki

My bold. What does this mean? My best guess is that this will be wikilawyered to no end... Also, "pros and cons" on the talk page, with no limit of participation of the community, will make every appointment as a member of the committee a true, ever repeating popularity contest.

policy said:

This discussion lasts until either concensus is reached (Defined as 6 in favour of one conclusion to 1 against) or until a week has passed, at which time each participant states his preferred option and the decision is made on simple majority.

Consensus is an illusion. This time limit is far too short for a overcomplicated process as this one, not even taking in account that 3 of 7 days are spent choosing Sysops. The only result is that the Sysops will be deciding the outcome with both sides and their representatives voting their sides, except on the most clear cut cases where the representative of one of the parties will vote against his appointer, making him feel "betrayed"... the Sysops themselves will be criticized for the decission they made on a contenious issue (arbies nature is dealing with contenious issues) and the Bureaucrats that appointed them will be criticized the same or more, eroding the whole administrational team's reputation.

All that said, I don't think a policy like this should even be considered. Too many misconceptions and bureaucracy to be actually useful in any way, shape or form. --Starplatinum 06:37, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Actually, genuine edit conflicts that dont resolve themselves quickly are rare, and dont often reach arbitration which was part of the reason why it was hijacked to solve personal disputes, but in that service the system is irredeemably flawed, giving arbitrators unlimited power to do whatever the hell they like to the participants regardless of the scope of the case under discussion (An arbitrator could rule that a user cant edit any talk pages anymore and nothing can be done about it, or he could tell both participants to spenmd the day standing on one leg). Excuse me if i dont think this is an appropriate method of solving disputes. I am in favour of a mediation page, but it isnt part of this policy proposal. Besides, arbitration has never settled any personal disputes because it focuses on judgement rather than working the miscreants through their issue. I challenge you to find one arbitration case regarding a personal conflict where the outcome has actually resolved that conflict.

You also misunderstand the policy (Probably my fault there though). The three sysops selected are selected ahead of time, and remain for a while. As i was hammering this out as quickly as i could before work (Where i would have subsequently forgotten it) i didnt have time to include everything at the time. I was thinking of having them retain such a position for three months then a new set of three (Different to the last possibly, im very open to rotation) be put on in that role. A weeks discussion is more than enough for most conflict issues, such as page layout or content. More serious changes worth more discussion would be part of the more drawn out system of simple discussion on the relevant talk page to work something out.

Also, this isnt an attempt to add more bureaucracy. Its an attempt to bring two opposing sides to the table alongside three individuals who have the wikis best interests at heart to work out a solution to an edit conflict. At its heart its just a discussion with a seven person vote at the end. The only real bureacracy involved is selecting which sysops to be part of that, and thats made intentionally brief, and not a vote. Just a few bits of proof of work, and any valid objections to that status, at the end of which the decision is made. Personally, i expect most to pass with flying colours, allowing for a wider range of opinions on the issue which allows a more complete discussion of the issue with a hope of working out the issue instead of enforcing a single persons opinion of how it should be (Arbitration currently).

This doesnt encourage trolling, in fact, if you look at the hostory of arbies, you will see that the trolls have used it quite proficiently for their own nefarious ends. Sonny&Cyberbob have a history of it, and all those who have been around for a few years remember wikigate. As ive said, im in favour of a mediation system where people work through their problem, but thats beyond the scope of this, which is fixing arbies back to what it was originally, before it was hijacked and making it actually useful again. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:11, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Don't you start dragging me into this. I recall certain conversations on #udwiki where you helped co-ordinate strategically timed arbitration cases against people we both didn't like. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:04, 24 May 2008 (BST)

It's all ok, but don't expect me to waste my keyboard on a reply if you admited that you wrote the policy on a hurry and stated that you're going to change it. Please do so and then I'll come up with a reply. Also, I support the point that boxy made below, in that a mediation process should be included on the policy or already in place before dismantling what we have. --Starplatinum 06:40, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Its a policy under discussion, there are bound to be changes all the way up until the final day of discussion. Dont just sit there and say you wont say anything, tell me problems so i can deal with them. As for mediation, i have no idea what would make a universally acceptable mediation platform. Arbitration isnt it though. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:48, 25 May 2008 (BST)

An edit-dispute-only arbitration could exist in parallel to the existing process, and the arbiters there could have more limited ruling powers. That would get around this proposal's problem of leaving us with nowhere to deal with personal disputes the users can't/won't resolve themselves. --Toejam 15:08, 26 May 2008 (BST) Edit - When I used the term 'personal disputes' I don't just mean 'personality clashes' where each user is equally to blame (although that can happen.) I used the term personal disputes to cover even the times when one user is being mistreated by the other. So, sometimes there are valid reasons why a user hasn't been able to resolve conflicts with another user - sometimes that other user isn't being reasonable. It's in those cases that I think arby's is a useful tool for stopping negative behaviours. --Toejam 15:30, 26 May 2008 (BST)

Sysops, in my Arby's?

No. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:36, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Iv'e got to say, I agree with Cyberbob. I don't think that sysops as a whole are going to be any better or worse than any other user at helping settle arbitration - Also I don't think a consensus council is the way to go. I'm pretty sure that the amount of arbitration "cases" would drop, but only because the process of putting together a council and having them actualy rule and come to a conclusion would be such a lengthly process most people would just not bother with it. Arbitration also has its place in sorting out conlflicts between users, and actualy considering the volitility of many of the users who get into conflict on the wiki it has a pretty good sucess rate. --Seventythree^Talk 13:01, 24 May 2008 (BST)

I agree with Bob (and now I feel unclean :( SWINE) Why the hell would we need a committe of 3 sysops to rule on what can be ruled sensibly by any agreed on arbitrator?--Honestmistake 13:15, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Well, im open to changing it, but then you just get any tom dick and harry grouping which may or may not have a vested interest in maintaining this wiki let alone experience in building it. Besides, then we run into the same problem that naive users will not know if people are impartial or not and if you open the pool to everyone you get huge cliquing and an immense pool of candidates that it becomes an absolute bureaucratic nightmare to sort people out fairly. I didnt really expect people to like it that much though. I guess you just have to examine the pros and cons. I was aiming for something of minimal bureaucracy, and opening those posts to everyone demands a whole chunk of bureacracy to regulate it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:52, 24 May 2008 (BST)

We already do open up the role of arbitrator to any and all and while it can lead to people choosing idiots to arbitrate because they do not know what they are getting it also gives a very wide scope for both sides to find an arbitrator they can and will both trust. Given the number of people who dislike or distrust at least one sysop this policy would make going to arbies even more of an act of last resort for many and a way to pursue vendetta for others! Personally i think Arbies needs a clearer remit and stronger guides as to what can and can't be ruled. I think we can both agree that your last 2 cases here were ridiculous and go a long way to explaining why this page has never really been fit for its intended purpose. Arbies can and does work when everyone takes it seriously and it is certain rulings rather than the procedure itself that cause much of the problems here.--Honestmistake 15:49, 24 May 2008 (BST)

I know I would trust someone I myself had chosen more than someone who was chosen for me. And because of that trust, I would tend to be happier with the ruling. Getting to pick an arbitrator is an important balance in arbitration. The situation is different for people who don't know enough about the arbitrators. --Toejam 17:27, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Whatever happened to that whole don't make stupid policies policy ? Arbitration is working now, even if it had deviated from its original purpose. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:43, 24 May 2008 (BST)

What, you mean the one you described as vandalism? Is that what you're referring to? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:01, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Your trolling is showing. Don't know how to spot a joke anymore ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:16, 24 May 2008 (BST)

I'm looking at one right now. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:43, 24 May 2008 (BST)

That's a reflection in the monitor. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 16:55, 24 May 2008 (BST)

I use LCD. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:45, 25 May 2008 (BST)

To say that the system is working because certain abusers haven't been let to abuse it in a while doesn't change the fact that it is still open to abuse, yes we've forced a system of appeals through peer review into it but there's still much that need doing.--Karek^maps?! 19:36, 24 May 2008 (BST)

I agree with cyberbob on this one. The sysops shouldn't have this additional responsibility. None of them were given the sysop position with arbitration powers in mind, so the only way I could even think about accepting that part of this is if all sysops undergo a review of their status as sysop, starting with the sysop who's suggesting giving himself these additional powers. Only seems fair. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:08, 24 May 2008 (BST)

There arent any powers being given here. Its just three people having to sit down and discuss an issue, and can be outvoted if things come to it. They have no more power than any other user in it. If you want to consider it power though, dont let me stop you. I stopped trying a long time ago to dissueade you from mixing up your fantasies with reality. However, since its a policy page, and its traditional to not be totally obnoxious, as i said earlier and you would know if you had read anything here i chose sysops simply because they have a vested interest in maintaining the wiki. Im not saying others dont, but at least we know for sure with sysops, so we dont need an additional layer of senseless bureacracy to sort them out. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:09, 25 May 2008 (BST)

As you say, sysops aren't the only users with "a vested interest in maintaining the wiki", and (as I said) don't need to have this additional power. It is a power (despite your passionate denial), because alongside A/VB, it means that the active sysops (who number, what: about seven?) will make every decision regarding every dispute on this wiki. That's power, right there. It's also too much work for them, in my opinion. Without wanting to cause an argument or any ill-feeling, as you've chosen to open this conversation with an insulting ad hominem attempt to undermine my point ("mixing up your fantasies with reality"), and I know from past experience that attempting to get you to stop being insulting whilst debating a topic is apparently a waste of time, this is all I'll say on your proposal, and will submit all my reasons for voting only when I vote. If you're willing to be polite, and indicate so, then I'd be happy to discuss it further. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:45, 25 May 2008 (BST)

You just killed my brain.

Man thats complicated. Some thoughts.

• why 7? I can see that having a team would resolve the idea that arbies is less than consitent, but 7? What if one of these people isn't online for a couple of days? Does the whole arbitration become null and void?

• why remove personal disputes? its not as if we're swamped with cases is it? and I dont like the wording. Surely an edit conflict is a personal dispute?

• To become a part, a sysop must first be nominated on the arbitration talk page. Is that everytime? Or as a one off? Also when parties pick their "buddie" to join them, are they subject to similar rules?

• once a ruling has been made, is it up to all members of the ruling body to enforce the ruling?

--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:17, 24 May 2008 (BST)

That's nice, but I have other thoughts. Like one of these days, somebody is bound to ask for a jury in an Arbitration case...I don't see anything about a jury in the policy. Maybe it should be added in? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:12, 24 May 2008 (BST)

A jury to decide what goes on a page? Personally i think thats silly though with the size of the group to tackle the problem, it seems large enough already. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:04, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Well, 3 is already wrong, that means it eventually coems down to one persons decision and that was one of the things i didnt like about the system. We can forget even numbers as you rarely get a majority with them, 5 was nice, but then it ended up being the three arbitrators forcing their opinion on the others, capable of outvoting them, so i decided on 7 which enabled the people involved to outvote the arbitrators if they really needed to (Not often, but you get jerks like conndraka), gave them a little extra representation and a wider discussion. At this point i felt going any higher would be wasteful.

The removal of personal disputes from arbys is pretty simple: The arbies system is not built to handle them. What you get is an arbitrator with godlike powers in there who has historically been shown and upheld when inflicting rulings on the participants that are outright insane, and have nothing to do with the case at all. Not all edit conflicts are personal disputes. For example, i can disagree about what goes on a page without wanting to disembowel you and wear your ribcage as a hat.

One off. A couple of months or so, then a shuffle. When the involved party picks a buddy, it can be anyone they like and thats immediate. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:04, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Your concerns about bad arbitrators would be solved if they were able to be punished in some way (not with warnings) for "poor" rulings. All a newbie has to do is to look through the lists and avoid those who have a number of black marks against their names. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 02:16, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Need an alternative before dismantling what we have

Currently, arbitration is the only place we have to point personal disputes to if they have failed to resolve thing amongst themselves. I can't support removing personal disputes from arbitration unless the setting up of a mediation process is part of the deal (or already in place). Wouldn't your proposed group of arbitrators remove most of the problems with taking personal disputes to arbies? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:12 25 May 2008 (BST)

I don't have a lot of opinions on arbitration except that the arbitrators have way too much power and as a system to resolve personal conflict it sucks. I do have a suggestion for resolving personal conflicts though. It should probably get its' own page, but it isn't quite developed yet. I don't think it would be fair to throw out the skeleton to be picked over by the masses yet, but I will say it has many ideas that are similar to this Arby reform in that it takes the power out of the hands of just one person.

The main core of personal conflicts is that one person either has their feelings hurt or thinks the other person is doing something bad and wrong. I don't believe in hippie love in shit, but I do know a few ways to get people to talk about what they are really thinking. It comes down to figuring out how to fix the communication gap. And I hate buzzwords more than hippies, but that is truly what it is. I also don't think that people should have to apologize for their actions because someone else doesn't understand or like them. (it's not illegal to be an asshole is my motto) That means that my system won't be along the lines of saying "stop being mean" it will be more like "so this is the problem and here's how you deal with it".

When I get more of it hammered out I will post it. If anyone has some suggestions for a mediation system stop by my talk page.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:37, 3 June 2008 (BST)