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.

The Definition of Arbitration

Arbitration shall be used if two or more parties are involved in a dispute over the content of a page. An arbitrator shall be agreed upon by both parties and the arbitrator shall request statements from those involved. The exact method used to do this is up to the arbitrator but will usually take the form of: statement, counter statement, rebuttal, counter rebuttal then ruling. No matter how it is done, both parties must be allowed the opportunity to give their side of the argument.

Arbitration will deal primarily with content disputes and is not the place for:

1. Issues occuring in-game (for example, User X is griefing User Y, User Y wants him to stop) unless they are leading to edit wars
2. Things seen as "newbie mistakes" such as failure to sign posts and improper formatting. These should be addressed by leaving the user a note on their talk page giving them information on these things or to vandal banning as a last resort.

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.
• Demotion of a user - An arbitrator may never rule that a sysop or bureaucrat be demoted in any way. There is currently no established process of calling for the demotion a user from these statuses and as a result, arbitration may not be used as a method to circumvent this. Similar to promotion, it would be unethical for the arbitrator to make a decision of this nature.
• Forced Apologies - An arbitrator may never force one or more parties to apologise to the other.
• Restriction of community participation - An arbitrator may never restrict a user's right to participate in community aspects of this wiki (suggestions, deletions, promotions, policy discussion, etc.). This may not be done either directly (by explicitly banning the user from posting on one or more of those pages) or indirectly (by banning the user from posting on the same page as the other party). Community participation is the backbone of this wiki and to undermine it would be detrimental to its purpose.
• 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.

Further notes on deletion and movement rulings

Rulings involving deletions and moving of pages should have a separate section created below the ruling for any sysops who disagree with the decision to air their views. If this occurs, the admin action will not be carried out until the dissenting sysop(s) agree with the ruling or if a greater number of sysops agree that it should go ahead.

• For example: A and B have a case that C decides. Sysop D says he doesn't agree with the action. C addresses why he thinks this is the fair decision. D still says no. Sysops E, F, and G say they support C and the action is done anyway.

Ruling breaches

If a binding article of a ruling is breached the offending user will receive one vandal escalation. This will follow established escalations policies:

• 1st warning
• 2nd warning
• 24 hour ban
• 48 hour ban
• 1 week ban
• 1 month ban
• 1 month ban and permaban vote (this will only be applied in extreme cases)

Each breach will constitute a separate escalation. For example, in their ruling C states that the content proposed by B should be on Page X, A reverts it breaking the ruling. A (with one warning on their Vandal Data) receives their second warning. Page X is restored to B's version. A again reverts it, this time receiving a 24 hour ban. And so on.

Appeals

Appeals to arbitration rulings will be allowed but only under the following circumstances:

• The arbitrator has made an error in their interpretation of wiki policies (including this one) thereby invalidating their decisions
• The arbitrator's decision is not supported by substantial evidence
• New evidence that could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the original arbitration has come to light that would have led to a different conclusion.

When an appeal is logged, a second arbitrator will be agreed on by the parties and they will review the case as it was originally presented. In the first two instances, the case will not be re-presented. In the third instance, the case will be re-heard to allow the opposing party to respond to the new evidence.

If none of these circumstances apply, the original decision will stand.

(Thank you to Atticus Rex for his input for this section)

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