User:Linkthewindow/Arbitration and Mediation

On the Urban Dead Wiki, the Arbitration system was designed for resolving simple edit conflicts between users. In reality, however, most Arbitration cases are to do with disputes between users. This policy attempts to create a Mediation system specifically aimed at solving edit conflicts, and change the Arbitration system so it more specifically pertains to interuser disputes. Finally, it also attempts to better outline steps that should be taken before arbitration or mediation, in an attempt to "cool down" the situation before it becomes serious. Arbitration or Mediation should only be a last resort.

The Dispute Resolution Process

Heavily influenced by the process at Wikipedia

Before taking any cases to Arbitration or Mediation, it is essential that users attempt to "talk out" their differences. Usually, most situations can be diffused before having to go to a more formal level of dispute resolution. In short talk it out with any users that you are having issues with, and try to refrain from petty arguments. Usually user talk or article talk pages can come in handy for contacting any users you have having issues with.

If the above steps fail, you may want to contact a neutral third party to recommend a course of action. Their decision is merely helping you and cannot be enforced.

Then and only then should you attempt to find a formal method for dispute resolution. Please note that any cases where it is clear that the users have not attempted dispute resolution before requesting formal dispute resolution may be removed.

There are two options for formal mediation, namely:

• Arbitration - for interpersonal disputes between users. Arbitrators are elected by the Wiki community every six months (five arbitrators, elections held in June and January,) serving a one year term.
• Mediation - functioning more like current Arbitration, Mediation is over the content of pages. Mediators cannot rule on interpersonal matters, only matters concerning the content of pages in the mainspace.

Arbitration decisions can be enforced by bans, while a Mediator's cannot.

Mediation

Mediation is a formal way for a dispute regarding the content of a page to be solved. Disputes that regard the content of a page, but are interpersonal in their nature should be taken to Arbitration.

Mediation requests shall take place at a new page, UDWiki:Administration/Mediation. Every mediation request is expected to contain:

• The page(s) involved.
• The users involved in the dispute
• The reason for the conflict

A user filing a mediation request should also inform any other users that are named in the case, as well as a list of potential mediators he will be willing to choose (the Mediator must be agreed upon by both parties, like today's Arbitrators.)

Once the mediation case is opened, the Mediator shall take statements from any sides involved in the case, offer an opportunity for rebuttal, ask questions if required, and then rule. The Mediator's power only extends to the content of pages in the main namespace. They cannot rule over the content of user or user talk pages, or group pages. Mediators cannot restrict users from participating in the Wiki, by not allowing them to post on pages (such as administration pages or user talk pages,) but if a user consistently breaks a mediator's request (such as reverting to the version of their choice,) vandal warnings may be required.

Mediation is a completely voluntary process, and mediation cannot be "forced" on a user or group of users.

Arbitration

Arbitration is a formal way to solve a dispute regarding an interpersonal dispute between users. Arbitration is done by committee, and a committee of five arbitrators is elected on a year-term. Elections are held every six months.

Arbitration requests shall take place at the current Arbitration page. An Arbitration request shall contain:

• A list of users involved in the dispute
• Any users indirectly involved
• Any reasons for the conflict
• The length of the conflict
• Any pages that may be affected by a ruling

Users requesting arbitration must also contact all users involved in the case.

The Arbitration committee shall then consider the request, and if it should proceed into a formal case. Frivolous cases will be removed at this stage.

Once an arbitration case has been opened, statements from both parties will be taken, a chance for rebuttal shall be offered, and questions asked/further statements if needed. The Arbitrators shall then present their ruling. There are two ways they can do this:

• Vote on a proposal
• Discussion

The former is a more Wikipedia-style way of doing things. It is where the ArbCom votes on a proposal related to the case, thus solving the case. Punishments are usually included in the proposal, so they don't have to be discussed later.

An example one could be:

User A has continually acted in bad faith in his dispute with User B. To prevent differences flaring up again, the Arbitration Committee suggests a one day ban for both parties, and the users being banned off each others talk pages for a period of one month. -- passed 3-2, 13:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is suggested that the vote be done in private, preferably via email.

Voting on a proposal should only be used when the Arbitration Committee cannot contact each other (due to time zone differences, etc,) and discussion is preferred.

Arbitrators generally have more power then a mediator when it comes to enforcing a ruling, and can call for the deletion of pages or images, ban users from any page on the Wiki (although it is expected that, unless due cause is given, administration pages are not included in this request,) and ban users for a short "cooling off" time. Any bans conducted as the result of an arbitration are not recorded in that user's Vandal Data. Arbitrators may not formally warn users or otherwise place anything in a user's Vandal Data. Arbitration may not call for the promotion/demotion of system operators or bureaucrats.

Breaking of a decision may warrant a vandal escalation. Like the current system, such an escalation is automatically a level two one, so the user gets a 24 hour ban.

The decision of an arbitrator is not a punishment, and should not be treated as such. It is merely attempting to resolve a difference.

Any decision of an arbitration committee is final, and arbitration is completely voluntary and cannot be forced upon a user or group of users.

The Role of the Arbitrator and Arbitrator Elections

Unlike Mediators, Arbitrators are elected, both to serve the interest of the community, and as they have powers that a mediator does not have. There shall be five arbitrators, all serving one year terms. Elections shall be held every six months, with one vote per arbitrator up for election.

Any user can nominate him/herself to be an arbitrator, or be nominated. System Operators and Bureaucrats have no restriction on the ability to nominate.

Arbitrators will be elected on two "lines:"

• Line A- elections in January. Two Arbitrators elected
• Line B- elections in June. Three Arbitrators elected

Arbitration elections shall be held in a similar style to Bureaucrat elections, with the two/three people with the most votes being appointed.

The Arbitration Committee may also nominate a clerk to help out with the general maintenance of arbiration cases, and to act as a back-up arbitrator.

In the event of an arbitrator leaving the Wiki for any reason another election is held to fill the arbitrator's spot on his line. If an election is due in less then two months on that line, the new arbitrator does not have to stand.

In the event of a conflict of interest in the case, the Arbitration Committee may nominate a back-up arbitrator for the case. It is recommended that the back-up arbitrator be the clerk, sysop, or bureaucrat. The back-up arbitrator shall be selected by the Committee, but it is expected that the users involved be involved in the selection.