UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Arbitration

There is currently no set policy that arbitrators must abide by in an arbitration case. As a result, this had led to some confusion over just how much power an arbitrator has. I hope to remedy this through this policy.

Background

At the moment, the arbitrators ruling can be anything as there is no policy to govern it. This policy aims to provide a clear set of guidelines to which arbitrators should stick to when ruling on a case, thereby giving them a clear set of measures they can use to solve the case fairly and without (too much) controversy.

What an arbitrator can do

The following are the measures that an arbitrator can apply in their ruling. They may use their own judgement to decide which is/are the most appropriate to take. More than one may be applied depending on the ruling.

• Removal or change of the disputed content - This is the meat and veg of the arbitrators arsenal. They may use this to settle an edit dispute by either calling for the complete removal of the disputed content, or requesting that it be changed (or left as it is) to reflect the arbitrators decision. (example being the words of A being deemed more suitable than those of B) Anything applied with this power is deemed to be binding, unless otherwise stated by the arbitrator and if broken, this may lead to vandalism charges.
• "Restraining Orders" - This type of ruling is common in arbitration and may be used in order to "separate" users who have had a disagreement that has led to an edit war, etc. It generally involves forbidding users A and B from contacting one another for a set period of time (usually one month). This type of ruling must be applied to both parties involved (i.e User A may not contact User B and User B may not contact User A) not just to one. Again, this type of ruling is binding (unless the arbitrator has stated otherwise) and may lead to vandalism charges if broken.
• Page deletion - In certain cases, the arbitrator may call for the deletion of a disputed page (i.e one which causes controversy just by existing). This decision may not be taken lightly and can only be applied if the page is causing protracted edit wars and cannot exist in it's present form without being subject to disputes (i.e an event page, parody page etc). If a ruling of this nature has been applied, a speedy deletion request may be logged under a new criterion: Criterion 14: Arbitration Ruling. This will be judged on a case-by-case basis and the request may be denied by the attending sysop if they believe it should be kept. This ruling is binding (except if the request is denied) and if, after deletion, the page is recreated (except through Undeletions) the offending user may face vandalism charges.

What an arbitrator cannot do

The following are expressly forbidden to be used as components of an arbitration ruling and are invalid and non-binding if used. The arbitrator may face vandalism charges if these are used.

• Banning a user - An arbitrator may never rule that a user be banned from the wiki. This power only belongs to sysops and as a result cannot be used in an arbitration ruling.
• Promotion of a user - An arbitrator may never rule that a user be promoted to either sysop or bureaucrat status. This is a community decision and as a result it would be unethical for the arbitrator to make such a demand.
• Breach of Owner Privilege - An arbitrator may never make a ruling that overrules any decision that has been made by Kevan as per this section of the administration guidelines. In other words, if Kevan says no, he means no.

Appeals

The arbitrator must make their ruling fairly and without bias. If a user is unhappy with the outcome of the case, they may appeal against it. If this occurs, a new (and completely different) arbitrator will be chosen and the case will be re-presented to the new arbitrator. The second arbitrator may choose to do one of three things:

1. Uphold the original ruling.
2. Support the decision of the original arbitrator but make changes to the ruling.
3. Overturn the ruling in favour of the opposite party.

A further appeal will only be allowed if the appealing user can prove that the second arbitrator was biased against them. If this right to appeal is abused, the user may face vandalism charges for wasting time of the arbitration team.

Final Thoughts

As it stands currently, arbitration is broken. The arbitrator is not answerable to anyone and there is no clear limit to their powers. As a result, we need something to remedy that. I admit this may not be perfect but I feel it would be a step in the right direction. Any thoughts to improve this would be most welcome on the talk page.

Thank you for reading. -- Cheese 19:25, 30 September 2008 (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

not in voting

Against

not in voting