User:Mia Kristos/Arbitration

Please leave any comments you have on my arbitrtition style on this talk page.

Currently, there is a lot of Drama involving arbitration on the wiki. As such, I will lay down what my Arbitration style is. I have Officially Arbitrated on the wiki once, and have also settled disputes in other forums, as well as settled an editing dispute between the Ridleybank Resistance Front and the Creedy Defense Force.

Sequence of Events: (Will likely be different in the actual cases, but this is how I would like things to go.)

• Upon being chosen as an arbitrator, I will quickly determine how volatile the situation is. If the parties simply don't agree, no problem. If they are, however, virtually kicking and screaming at each other, I'll divide them up and ask them not to comment on each other's, comments unless otherwise directed.
• I will move the Arbitration case discussion into it's own page to keep the Arbitration page clean.
• At this point the proceedings will differ depending on the situation. (Note: As I gain more experience with Arbitration, this list will grow).
  • Conflicting POV's resulting in a disagreement about what should be written on a wiki page:
    1. Both parties will be asked to present their view of the situation. If I feel the need, I may attempt to find a neutral party to present their view as well.
    2. I will look over the situation and points of view, as well as attempting to gather further information.
    3. I will draw up a draft of what I feel happened based on the evidence, and present it. I will ask for opinions on how the information may be improved, and ask that both parties try and view the situation from the other party's POV. This is how I will attempt to come up with the most Neutral POV I can.
    4. Steps 2 and 3 will be repeated as necessary.
    5. Once a NPOV edit is created and agreed upon, I will rule that this shall be the edit to be made to the disputed page. As such, it is not to be changed by any party without prior agreement between the parties involved.
  • Harassment issues:
    1. The harassed party will be asked to present their point of view of the harassment, and to be as detailed as possible. The party accused of harassment will not be allowed to comment yet.
    2. I will ask questions until I have an understanding of the situation.
    3. If I agree that the harassed party was, indeed, harassed, I will ask the accused party to present their reasons for harassment. If, however, I disagree that the party was harassed (hopefully the most likely scenario), I will ask the Harassing party to explain the point they were trying to make as courteously as possible.
    4. I will attempt to get the parties to come to some form of agreement. My ruling, for minor situations, will most likely state that they should avoid contact with one another (in the form of not addressing the other directly or indirectly) until tempers have cooled down. If that is not possible, then to be as courteous as possible when the must address each other. For major situations, I will most likely rule that they should completely avoid contact with each other, directly or indirectly, to include votes on suggestions by the other party, comments about each other on group pages or user pages, et cetera. I will attempt to avoid this extreme.

• Potential Problems, and how I will deal with them:
  • The parties refuse to come to an agreement. If faced with such a situation, I would most like rule that, in the event the page belongs to one of the parties, that only that party may edit the page. In the event that the page belongs to neither party, then neither party be allowed to touch the page.
  • One party refuses to present evidence. I will most likely rule in favor of the party that did present evidence. I will, however, do my own investigations into the events leading to Arbitration.

• My rulings will generally follow this style:
  • I will attempt to make as few "Do not edit this page" rulings as possible.
  • I will attempt to find a middle ground that both parties can agree on.
  • I will not make any mandatory apology rulings. I may, however, suggest such.
  • I will not attempt to punish any part with my rulings.
  • I will keep in mind as many points of view, including those outside the conflict, as possible when making a ruling.

---

Current Arbitration Cases

Arbitration cases I am currently working on will be linked here, along with their status.

---

Past Arbitration Cases

• DHPD vs Maxwell Hammer

  Summary - Conndraka, on behalf of the DHPD took Maxwell Hammer to arbitration because of continued bickering between the parties.

  Ruling - (In summary) They're to leave each other alone.