View source for UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration Timelimit

This policy was originally meant to complement [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Arbitration|Cheese's Arbitration policy]], but this is a much needed limitation and works on its own even with Cheese's policy withdrawn.

==The Policy==
No restriction placed on a person by an arbitration ruling may extend beyond six weeks. For ordinary cases it is recommended that they are shorter than four weeks.

This policy does not affect the parts of rulings which concern the content of pages.

===Retrospective Application===
This applies retrospectively to all previous rulings, with the six weeks counted from the moment the ruling was originally announced.

==Voting Section==
{{PolicyVotingRules}}

===For===
#'''For''' - Because an arbitrator should not be able to limit a user's behaviour for excessively long periods of time. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
#:If there are excessively long rulings being doled out, you can be sure that other aspects of the decisions are similarly unfair.  Setting a time limit is a hack job when an arbitration appeal process should be instituted instead.  --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''For''' - Arbitration rulings concerning a user's behaviour shouldn't be hanging over their heads for ever <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:08 29 October 2008 (BST)</small>
#'''For''' Because Arbys is broken. --[[User:House of Usher|House of Usher]] 22:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''For'''  As boxy --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''For''' Not broken, but no reason not to put this up.... anything longer than 6 weeks is stupidity.--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 04:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#--{{User:Thari/sig}} 07:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''For''' - As what Midianian said above.--{{User:Omega360/Sig}} 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''For''' - As Boxy... --{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 02:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''For''' Because frankly, if someone hasn't gotten over it in 6 weeks, they never will. (or attempt a coup). --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''For''' - Because one of the Against voters happens to be the worst abuser of this little "hole" and then abuses another privilege by ruling on the resulting cases from minor innocent edits.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
#'''For''' - [[User:Whitehouse]] 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
#'''For''' - As the others above me, especially Rakuen. [[User:Linkthewindow|<span style="color: DodgerBlue">Linkthewindow</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Linkthewindow|<span style="color: DarkRed">Talk</span>]] </sup> 05:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
#'''For''' - I forsee nothing bad to occur if this is passed -[[User:Dawgas|Dawgas]] 14:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

===Against===
#Attempting to fix a problem that does not exist. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 09:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
# - This is pure stupidity, filtered through unnecessity and topped off with a hint of irrelevance. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
#There is so many things wrong with this wiki, but this ain't one of them.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
# Arbitration cannot be limited if it is to be of any use in actually solving problems. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
#As above.--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]]<sup>[[User:Kevan|'the true enemy']]</sup> 20:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
#What's the point of making a decision if it's just going to vanish six weeks later? --[[User:JaredV|JaredV]] 01:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#If it ain't broke, don't fix it.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 04:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#I think limits are good ideas in certain instances, but should ultimately be determined on a case-by-case basis.  --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 06:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
# Time limit should be the responsibility of the Arbitrator. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 07:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
# The process to choose an Arbitrator is one which weeds out Arbitrators whose ruling would be unnecessarily long, and it is not the business of a mass vote to cap the upper boundary of time lower than what might be necessary.  {{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#:Six weeks is more than necessary in pretty much all of the cases I've seen. Actually, most of the cases ''do not make'' limits longer than one month. Also, an arbitrator has to make an unnecessarily long ruling on ''someone'' before others know to avoid choosing them. Do you want to be that someone? I don't. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
#Fail, because you haven't realised that ''there are no absolutes''.  (Except for that one, natch.) --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 00:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Also, I should point out, to ''all'' voters, that this policy actually nullifies itself, where it says: "This policy does not affect the parts of rulings which concern the content of pages."  This is a wiki, and literally everything concerns the "content of pages". If it means to say the content of non-discussion pages, it should say so. Even then, an arbitration ruling could be that User A cannot post on page B, permanently, and this policy would do nothing to stop that.  As this policy is designed specifically to stop that, the fact that it doesn't do so is something of a worry - even (especially?) for those voting to pass it. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 05:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
#:"User A cannot post on page B" is obviously a '''restriction placed on a user''', not a ruling about the content of a page. Are you sure you want to vote on this again just to make this wikilawyer-proof? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
#::I might just as easily say "A ruling about the content of a page is a restriction placed on a user". It's not my fault that the policy provides it's own logic loophole, due to the poorly chosen wording. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 
#No. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]]  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
#Rules for the sake of rules only serve to complicate and give more tools to rules lawyers. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 01:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)