UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitrationpolicy

thoughts?--'BP^Tmz 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now we have to wait 3 days. Boo. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

'Tis what happens on the weekends... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

this is my first policy, did i screw anything up?--'BP^Tmz 01:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No no, policies have to be in discussion for three days before voting, I believe. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a lot of people are gonna discuss on the weekends. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gottcha. so then you guys are for this?--'BP^Tmz 01:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. This decline all arbiters tactic is getting quite annoying, and is a big waste of time for everyone. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A) Guideline not policy, B) There's nothing to enforce. It's advise of when to go to arbitration.--Karek^maps?! 02:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess all I'm really trying to do here is close that loophole. then one were if you dont pick an arbitor you can stop the entire process.--'BP^Tmz 02:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that loophole should remain until such time as the other problems with arbitration are fixed, the Grim case is a great example why and when that loophole should be used, it exists solely for the guarantee of a fair Arbitration case when a user doesn't believe any arbitrator would be acceptable for whatever reason.--Karek^maps?! 02:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So leave a loophole in place so everyone can exploit it, just so that it can be used properly in very rare cases?--'BP^Tmz 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well shouldn't they have to present evidence as to why all the arbitrators are unacceptable? Or should it just be a "get out of jail free card?". I have never heard of him and he rejected me, how could I be biased? I don't really care one way or the other, I just feel that if you choose to reject everyone you have to start presenting reasons. So, I support working on making guidelines into actual policy. --Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is not about the loophole it's about forcing people into arbitration, that's something that we should not, ever, do and as is if someone doesn't abuse that loophole they get forced into arbitration with little chance of a neutral or competent representative. And Airborne, it's not just about bias, there's also the question of competence, I could expect AnimeSucks to be unbaised but I'd never choose him for fear he'd use the case as a sort of joke, there are many users I can think of various reason why I wouldn't want them to arbitrate a case, so many in fact that there's maybe five people on the whole wiki I'd actually trust to arbitrate a case involving me without prior knowledge of their stance on it. Also read ShadowScope's thing, I agree with it even though it edit conflicted me(Damn Thee! Damn Thee To Heeeeeeeeeell!).--Karek^maps?! 02:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Karek, that actually made a lot of sense to me. I am going to have to scratch my head for a while and look through past cases before I can formulate a new opinion.--Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 03:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aribration is supposed to be CONFLICT RESOLUTION. Forcing someone to accept an arbitrator will just cause drama, thereby not resolving the conflict, and will in any case, turn an arbitrator into a powerful person/sysop who can make restrictve rulings that can lead to vandal banning. I don't like that. If a person wants to deny aribration, then he should, otherwise aribration loses its impartility.--ShadowScope 02:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone can just deny aribration, why bother having it?--'BP^Tmz 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

They can't deny it - if they reject everyone the other party is able to choose for them. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not how it has worked in the past. People refuse arbitration because they can get their own way by not agreeing to any arbitrators, which is silly, seeing as they've already haven't come to a conclusion between themselves. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It has every time I've seen it tried - which is rare, because when it is pointed out to them how counterproductive it would be they generally get their act together. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the act of agreeing on an arbitrator is central to the resolution process, the point is they are agreeing on something and have to work towards a compromise on that before a mediator attempts to settle any other disputes, it also exists as a way to guarantee they can protect their interests as an involved party, and to show that they are, in fact, ready to attempt to resolve the conflict, regardless of the reason. Choosing the arbitrator is possibly the single most important step in the whole process that is arbitration.--Karek^maps?! 04:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And in a perfect world that would work. however most cases are one person having a problem with another person, so he starts an arbies case, the second person wants nothing to do with the whole thing so he just doesnt pick an arbitor just to spite person one. problems are caused with our current system.--'BP^Tmz 04:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's arbies as personal dispute resolution, it's also what I'd call misuse of Arbitration and misinterpretation of it's intent. Arbitration doesn't exist to keep people apart, it also does not exist to deny people the ability to edit portions of the wiki.--Karek^maps?! 04:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

[Here] Is what you need to read very carefully Karek (and others). #3 line 3. This bit has been in place for years and has been necessary in the past. Sometimes individuals get to far out of bounds and to restore some level of order Arbitration must be mandated. Ive seen this Wiki go through some pretty dramatic crap, and sometimes enough is enough. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 04:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Conn and a lot of the crap that has happened on the wiki has been because people use arbitration to get absurd punishment against people who annoy them. Basically forcing arbitration just encourages exactly what you want to fix by forcing arbitration because it gives them another tool with which to pester users, one that can result in that user being removed permanently from the wiki.--Karek^maps?! 05:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Karek on this issue. Arbitration, as it stands, is a horrible joke of a process. The latest case with TerminalFailure is a prime example. The person who generated all the drama by troll-baiting (Sarumo/Sonny) has walked away from it with no punishment, and the other party has been bullied and harassed by the arbitrator (Anime) in a clearly biased manner (24 hours to comply for TF, no time limit set on SC), ending up with several vandal escalations for his trouble. If he'd had the sense to choose a more level-headed arbitrator, things could have turned out a lot differently. His main crime was not realising what a jack-in-the-box he'd chosen when he agreed to having AnimeSucks arbitrate the case. This policy should be changing things so that anyone (under the current arbi-system) can refuse an arbitrator (as Grim once did) effectively forever. The process is flawed - nobody should be forced to take part in it, or to have rulings from it imposed upon them. Not under the current system. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it's not clear, I'd be absolutely and loudly against this policy as it stands now. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The TF/Sonny case was a farce all round. Which demonstrates how broken the current system is, that this farce was able to manifest. I'm just not sure how to fix it... Perhaps in any case where vandalism penalties could come into play, x number of arby's, or even sysops, need to "sign off" on the decision before its "ratified"? You have to be able to declare a mistrial... or something... if the case was handled incompetantly. WanYao 10:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And, if it's obvious that one or more parties involved aren't taking it seriously... particularly the person who took itto arby... then the case should just be dismissed... Also, maybe abuses of arby should be punishable... WanYao 10:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, rulings that are unreasonable, unworkable or otherwise a bit of a cock-up can be overturned. I know, cos I overturned the ruling that Nalikill made, due to the arbitration he worked on being a massive shambles. however, maybe making it a little more official would be a good idea. Trouble is, Arbitration works very well, but only at what it's supposed to do. If there is an edit conflict with both users reasonably laying out their points and the arbitrator working with both to reach a compramise acceptable to all, it works. If, however, you have two users shouting at each other, refusing to co-operate and just generaly rowing then it doesn't work at all. It becomes a farce, effectively entrenching the positions of the two users and their various circles of supporters and ensuring that no matter what the ruling, grudges are going to be held for months, and the case in question is going to get pulled out at any oppurtunity to drive the knife home.--Seventythree^Talk 10:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there are no set limits to arbitration. (The same problem exists in Misconduct.) The one system that does work well is that of A/VB - because everyone knows what the punishment is. I know the same system can't be used for arbitration, because by its very nature it's got to be judged on a case-by-case basis. That said, perhaps we need to vote in arbitrators (community-approved), or have a consensus-based judgement system that requires three arbitrators to agree on a ruling. Something should be done to stop it being used so often as a weapon. Instead of saying "people are using a loophole - we need to stop them", we should first ask "why are people using a loophole"? And it's not purely bad faith. In the only arbitration case I've been in (over the dupe fandango) I was very keen to sort things out with the other party - because I wouldn't trust anyone on this wiki to fairly arbitrate - not when there are no limits on what they might rule. That's because I've seen most people on this wiki make judgements based on their personal bias, and not on the actual facts. The only other choice open to me was to stall the process indefinitely by using the "choose an arbitrator" loophole to drag out the process to the point where it became irrelevant through dint of enough time having passed. If I was taken to arbitration again (under the current system), I'd do exactly the same thing. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with any issues on how animesucks ruled on TFvSC can create an arby against animesucks and get his rulling null and void. This has happened before, precedent was set in the case nalikill arbitrated. Now that you know this, you either do something or stop whinning. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Would one be able to have that ruling overruled? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to remove the precedence of having arbitration rulings overuled by another arbitration case, you are just failing at it. You'd just be making this case null and void, and creating a new precedence for overuling arbitration cases. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No no no, I want to be able to overrule arbitration rulings which themselves overruled other rulings. It wouldn't be removing any precedent; quite the opposite, in fact. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:16, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Arbitration only works for edit conflicts everything else ends up like the T-F/Sonny case (an unfair shambles) or the case that led to Grim refusing to accept any arbitration other than his own. Oddly enough Grim is probably the only person I would accept as an arbitrator if I ever ended up there, so I guess we do have something in common ;) --Honestmistake 10:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of unreasonable, detrimental user behaviours that sysops won't touch, and arbitration serves as a catch-all counter for those behaviours, with its aim being to get people to act reasonably. I think the wiki needs to have some sort of catch-all countermeasure for negative behaviour somewhere (rules can't cover every eventuality) although it doesn't necessarily need to be in arbitration. --Toejam 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A sledgehammer has its place, but it's not always the right tool for the job. It may be worthwhile to create "weaker" forms of arby's. --Toejam 19:06, 9 April 2008 (BST)