Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration policy

From Guild Wars Wiki

Maybe "injunction" should be explained further. Probably in more layman terms... I mentioned to Xeeron that I don't really understand the meaning of it, so I think others also may not. The Free Dictionary says:

1. The act or an instance of enjoining; a command, directive, or order.
2. Law A court order prohibiting a party from a specific course of action.

So, it's kinda like giving ArbComm (or individual bureaucrats?) the power to declare that certain users absolutely cannot do something and banning if they go ahead and do it anyway? And this only while an arbitration is being considered or discussed? -- ab.er.rant 09:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. The way this draft is currently worded, any individual bureaucrat could technically use it for whatever (even outright banning/de-sysop-ing) with no hard limitations. It is still part of "arbitration process" though and soft-limited by the Guiding Principles and the note that they should be limited to what is practically necessary. I've tried rewording it to make this clearer. They are also to be limited to while arbitration is being considered or discussed, but this is really only another soft safeguard that makes them easier to scrutinize (note that nothing strictly prevents bureaucrats from requesting arbitration themselves). --Rezyk 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So...not much discussion going on here. Are you all still absorbing and thinking it over? --Rezyk 06:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, a lot that is written there makes sense ... but why should it be policy? It shoves a big lot of procedure onto arbitration cases which might be useful, but at times might be not. Apart from that, I have my usual complaint that the first part is not enforcable at all ("General fairness") and thus should not be policy. --Xeeron 11:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be made policy (assuming, of course, that it is fixed up to satisfaction) so that we have a more stable agreed-upon description of what we decide arbitration's role/powers/process should be. This would help all users better understand what to expect.

Do you think it would be more helpful/useful to users with less procedure? Why should something be enforceable to be policy? How is this fundamentally different there from behavioral restrictions like NPA? --Rezyk 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be split into a policy proposal and a draft guideline. -- Gordon Ecker 06:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which part(s) do you feel don't fit as policy? --Rezyk 07:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The more subjective or unenforcable portions of the guiding principles section. I also dislike the "very strongly warrented" line, as it gives trolls a great deal of leeway outside of both sysop and arbitration comitte jurisdiction, although it wouldn't be an issue if something about trolling or disruptive behaviour makes it into the blocking policy. -- Gordon Ecker 07:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with having those portions as policy? --Rezyk 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For the "very strongly warranted" line, does anyone have a suggestion on how else to try capturing the sense of "arbcomm as a last resort only"? --Rezyk 22:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What about "strongly warrented" or "clearly warrented"? -- Gordon Ecker 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "strongly warranted" and added a bit about "last resort". --Rezyk 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Gordon Ecker 06:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 The Arbitration Committee, shepherds of the flock 1.1 Stare decisis 2 Thoughts 3 Support? Oppose? 4 Too fearful to function 5 Arbitration and unblocking 6 Active 7 General Process - Steps 4 and 5 8 Revision

[edit] The Arbitration Committee, shepherds of the flock

"I would much rather get a clear statement from ArbComm as to whether such behavior is something that is acceptable on the wiki now, than to wait until it becomes unbearably disruptive later. --Aiiane 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) "

I'll make this short, since I've recently been starving for sleep: I disagree with anyone having such expectations from the ArbComm. I think the goal of this group should be to simply decide if they believe there is a problem in each individual case, and to recommend solutions that can help alleviate those problems. I don't think it should be up to the ArbComm to be the community's mariner's compass or friendly neighborhood preacher or anything of the kind.

By the way, I'm not even sure if you really meant it that way or if it was just the wording, Aiiane, so don't read this as being a response to your comment specifically. I just think it's an important point that deserves to be made clearly if the community agrees with it, or to be discussed further if there's disagreement. --Dirigible 06:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The ArbComm is supposed to deal with individual disputes, incidents and users. Hard rules are the domain of policy, and soft rules are the domain af guidelines. -- Gordon Ecker 07:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally like the proposal as it stands, but the NPA examples are a problem; they give the impression that ArbComm can rewite policy as they see fit. I'd think policy is above ArbComm. Else they'd have no mandate. Backsword 13:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Which piece of policy do they appear to rewrite? --Rezyk 09:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They're governed by policy like everyone else, but the adminship policy gives arbitration comittees the authority to deal with user conduct. -- Gordon Ecker 09:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Which piece of policy do they appear to rewrite? Can you explain more specifically about what it means for policy to be above ArbComm or ArbComm to be above policy? I might agree or disagree with some of the implications, but so far it is a bit too abstract for me to grasp/address properly. --Rezyk 08:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel the NPA examples read as usurping GWW:NPA policy as a whole? I put in one as an example of ArbComm possibly interpreting some of the ambiguous regions of NPA. The other is ArbComm executing part of the "consequences" section of NPA. I'd read both as falling within policy, not contradicting/extending/ignoring it. --Rezyk 08:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

With the "above" comment I mean that in a stuation where a considered and documented consensus obtains, as with a polcy, ArbComm should follow it. Eg. if a policy explicitly states that X is allowed, but Y is disalloed, then no one should be punished for doing X, or allowed Y by ArbComm decision.

"interpreting" is just the sort of thing I'm worried about, as in US juridical discourse it means legislate. Something I don't feel is the intention with ArbComm. Backsword 07:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Respecting community consensus and established practices" could be expanded to "Respecting community consensus, existing policy and established practices". If that's insufficient, something along the lines of "rulings shall not contravene existing policy, any ruling which contravenes existing policy shall be considered invalid". -- Gordon Ecker 10:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stare decisis

(regarding Backsword's concerns)
I suggest that the root issue may be better understood in terms of the different roles of "interpretation" between common law systems and civil law systems. Under a common law system, interpretations create case law (minor nitpick: really not "legislating" as it is non-statutory law) and we want to avoid the equivalent of case law usurping the role of legislation. On this axis, our model should tend towards following the theory of civil law systems instead, where interpretations do not create case law.

I think that the principle of "the wiki being generally managed by the community" already pushes somewhat against the creation of case law equivalents and against ArbComm disregarding policy, but we can be more explicit. To this end, I applied Gordon's first suggestion and also spelled out that rulings are not to be taken as binding precedent. I thought about how to change the NPA example, but I tend to already see it as well-oriented towards a non-case-law-like ruling. Compare:

1. Behavior XYZ (which User:Example has been doing) is to be considered a violation of NPA.
2. User:Example has been found to have repeatedly violated NPA.

The first one exemplifies a ruling creating case law and possibly expanding its scope (namely, that XYZ is now "illegal"). The second one is much more limited in scope, generally only pinpointing the specific case in question.

Does this address/alleviate your concerns enough? If you think we need to go further, I have at least 2 concerns:

• Statutory interpretation seems like one of the important functions for ArbComm in their role in settling things. What if we had a case where half of users think that a user's conduct should be considered personal attacks, half of users think that it should not, AND everyone generally agrees it is important to decide/resolve expediently?
• I balk at anything that might imply that ArbComm should adhere to policy strictly, because they should be able to cut through loopholes and such. So I prefer softer wording like "respect policy". This isn't perfect of course (and I worry that we may have issues with users too quickly taking their own interpretation as the spirit of a policy), but still.
  

Disclaimer: I am not saying that we should create or rigidly follow any legal system here.
--Rezyk 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You make some interesting points. Let me first explain that I find applying the distinction common/civil law to modern systems to be artifical nonsense, so that's not how I think about things.

In cases of ambiguous policy, it is preferable if this is brought to the community's attention and fixed before it becomes an issue. That will not always be posible, so it will be one of the functions of ArbComm to decide how to rule here. I actually think precedence would suit us here; it seems in line with our janitorial system to reduce the range of discretion for SysOps first. I suspect that they will be used as such whatver we put in policy; it's an effect you find in most continental juridial systems. Remains to define principle for how ArbComm should decide here. I took literalism for granted and sought to make that binding, but you seem to prefer a "mischief" stance. I find that problematic in the context of a consensus operated body. Being a non oppose rather than support system there simply exist no single intention or even a guarantee for a majority view. ArbComm would have to settle for the type view. (Which also brings up the topic of what standing talk pages have in general.)

The other side is that ArbComm is both more and less than a court. Primary among it's duties are handeling disruption and user conflicts that fall outside policy. Stare decisis would obvious be the same as legislating here but I don't see that as an issue; Admin policy makes clear SysOps may only uphold policy. A thing about the changed text here: There won't be policy to follow by definition, so does including "consensus" in the policy text give guidelines equivallent status here?

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing the policy implemented as it now reads. My primary concern of issues arissing in using it has been adequately covered.

Backsword

The problem I have with stare decisis is that it would allow the rulings of former bureaucrats to restrict the options of current bureaucrats, as well as scattering GuildWiki's rules over dozens of arbitration pages. -- Gordon Ecker 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like I addressed the wrong issue; sorry about that.

• Regarding which method of interpretation to use: I'd rather not bind us into literalism (textualism?), or the Mischief rule, or any particular school of thought.
• Yeah -- it isn't that there would/should not be any precedence effect at all, just not to the level of stare decisis.
• The guidelines aren't supposed to be taken as consensus. (But if consensus at that time is to follow the guideline for that case, that should still be respected as a matter of respecting consensus.)

--Rezyk 00:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually think any other school is viable, so it's not an issue for me. But it would be interesting to hear from the current ArbComm what they'd actually do.

As for guidelines, they do represent a sort of concensus, but are intended to be general ones that you can override in any specific case if so needed. That's why I wanted it to be clear, since it would seem specific cases is exactly when ArbComm will run into such issues. That is, ArbComm is not deciding on the general case. Backsword 11:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

Some food for thought...note this line: The committee can also take other cases in general when the community wishes them to (with an explicit consensus). So if we had, say, some content decision where we could not make a unified choice, but we generally agree that a decision should be made, and ArbComm accepts the case, ArbComm may end up doing a content decision. It might not be related to user conduct at all. This might even happen against the wishes of a bureaucrat, since neither consensus nor case acceptance need be unanimous.

For ArbComm, the principles should still be involved in this decision, but they may push in different directions. "Wiki stability", for example, would probably tend toward accepting the case (depending on how important it was to have a decision) while "the wiki being generally managed by the community" may push against it.

Is this acceptable? Or too much power? Consider that a content decision might be stuff like comment removal, fixing a policy wording, or a builds wipe. I expect that the requirement of an explicit consensus from the community should make this benign enough, but who knows... --Rezyk 02:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine as long as those content decisions can be overturned with concensus and requests for arbitration on content issues can limit options (for example: "Reversion policy proposal A and reversion policy proposal B both have strong support, but are mutually exclusive, choose one."). -- Gordon Ecker 04:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be no different from a consensus that any random group of three users should decide. Would be fine, but I don't see it happening. There would only be such a consensu if people think they can predict the oucome, and it is acceptable to them. But if so, the consensus can just settle on that outcome. Backsword 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Or a concensus that all of the possible outcomes are acceptable, and are preferable to further delays. Of course, this only applies if the arbitration comittee's choices can be restricted in content-based arbitration requests. Bureaucrats seem like the most appropriate people to serve as the official tie-breakers. -- Gordon Ecker 23:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Support? Oppose?

I'd like to get an overview of general opinion of this. Please respond, everyone, with a note about whether you support or oppose this proposal as policy -- preferably with a short explanation if you oppose (put any long explanations in another section, please). This is not meant as a vote, but as a measure of where we stand relative to consensus. --Rezyk 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Rezyk 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote no. To the poll that is. Don't see how it's helpful. What needs to be asked is 'Any remaining concerns?'. I'd still like ArbComm not being above policy made explicit, btw. Backsword 21:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

*grumble* That is not quite right, but whatever. --Rezyk 08:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the word "recuse", but that is a minor point not taking away from my general support of this policy. --Xeeron 14:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "abstain"? If not, how about more of a hint why. =) --Rezyk 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..the main thing I don't like about "abstain" though, is that I think it has more of a connotation of just refraining from that vote, rather than also from participation within the case. --Rezyk 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

After some more thought, I agree with switching off "recuse" wording myself. I'll edit the draft; see what you think. --Rezyk 01:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with the new wording. Just to point out why I disliked recuse: It has a connotation of the recusing member being somehow personnaly involved in the case at hand, but arbcom members might want to abstain for other reasons, despite no personnal involvement. --Xeeron 15:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too fearful to function

My concern is, If ArbComm has to follow policies , guidelines and "community consensus", what's the use for it? It's the last resort, so if an issue reaches the ArbComm, is because policy and such didn't covered it.reanor 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not seeking to bind all their judgments to be within stuff covered by policy. This draft even states that arbitration is generally not limited to addressing policy violations. (Also, guidelines do not have that status of have-to-be-followed.) --Rezyk 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's ok then.reanor 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration and unblocking

If arbitration is brought against someone, should they be unblocked to make their case? If so, should their edits be restricted to the arbitration talk page, and should they be re-blocked if they make edits elsewhere? Should the block be reinstated after the arbitration is resolved and does not overturn the block? -- Gordon Ecker 04:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently this would be up to injunctions to deal with. Is there a need to standarize? It would seem just to allow all parties to have a say.Backsword 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Would unblocking be within the scope of injunctions? Real-world injunctions take the form of obligations and restrictions, while temporary unblocking sounds more like bail. -- Gordon Ecker 04:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking would have to be done by a SysOp, as only they have the right. Injunctions would limit his actions once unblocked. Backsword 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've also expanded the wording for injunctions in this proposal to include "appropriate in facilitating arbitration". --Rezyk 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that blocked users can generally still edit their own talk page. If that is true, it may be simplest to have the blocked user post their input there (and others can move it to the arbitration page for them). --Rezyk 07:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we test that theory? It'd make sense if it worked. -Auron 07:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if we can get a volunteer. -- Gordon Ecker 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

--> -Auron 08:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Gordon Ecker 08:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Auron says: "http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/6558/blocktestingzj3.jpg" -- scourge 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He's unblocked now. Too bad it didn't work. -- Gordon Ecker 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He says you have to unban his IP please -- scourge 08:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Try using Special:IPBlocklist -- scourge 08:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ta. -Auron 08:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Too bad that didn't work. Does anyone know which MediaWiki setting or extension is needed to enable users to edit their own talk pages while blocked? -- Gordon Ecker 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As I posted on Raptor's arbitration article, I think unblocking in this instance makes sense, provided we limit that user to only post on their arbitration article. I really think this is more akin to letting someone out of jail to attend a court hearing, as opposed to just letting them out on bail. What do you think? LordBiro 11:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Found it: $wgBlockAllowsUTEdit needs to be changed. In the meantime, I agree that we might as well temporarily unblock Raptors with that condition. --Rezyk 17:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Active

If this is resolved and there are no further issues, I think we ought to move this into effect tomorrow. Backsword 06:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing so now. Backsword 03:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Process - Steps 4 and 5

A bit of nitpicking, but anyway: step 4 is supposed to happen when the ArbComm request is accepted by the bureaucrats, and is a step in which the community is free to add arguments and its opinion. What about the next step? I thought step 5 was for the bureaucrats (and only the bureaucrats) to discuss among themselves in order to reach a conclusion. As things are currently happening in the Raptor's ArbComm, steps 4 and 5 have mostly been fused - we have users giving their opinion on what should be done both in what would be "step 4" (everything above and including the "Lack of arguments brought forth here" section) and in what would be "step 5" (the "Decision discussion" section).

I think that's a bit redundant, as the community theorically would already have had its say, and it feels like users are acting in the decision making stage as if they were bureaucrats themselves. I would like to propose one changes: that no one but bureaucrats would be allowed to act on step 5, so no edits would be made to the "Decision discussion" (or about that section) by anyone who's not a bureaucrat, until a decision between bureaucrats is reached. Then users would be allowed to comment on it (that's more or less what happened on the Skuld ArbComm, for example).

(One way to make this clear would be by having the "Decision discussion" to happen in the ArbComm page itself, and not in its talk page.)Erasculio 12:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was previously in support of the bureaucrats discussing amongst themselves outside of this wiki and then provide either a transcript or summary of their discussion once they've reached a decision. They could try to move the talk in a not-so-obvious subpage but I'm thinking that as long as it's on the wiki, someone will find it and comment on it. Hmm... what if we protect the talk page that the bureaucrats discuss on? (and making sure no sysops intervene of course). -- ab.er.rant 12:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We discussed the ways of comming up with the final decision on User talk:Dirigible#Arbitration case erasculio. I don't see the rationale behind discussing it on the wiki, but not allowing others to comment. There are some advantages to discussing it amoung the bureaucrats only, but those would be bigger if the discussion is done privately in emails. In any case, I feel that discussing on the wiki and thus allowing others to comment is the slightly better solution.

Or maybe let me put it like this: When I read that section, I take into account any comment made, however, the ones that matter in the end are those by bureaucrats. The bureaucrats can use the comments in their draft, but the solution is reached by a consensus among bureaucrats, not by a consensus amoung all participants in the discussion. --Xeeron 17:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I plan on writing up a revision proposal for this policy. I believe that we should explicitly state that injunctions can immediately suspend sysop status in emergency situations (compromised account, rogue sysop on a banning / deletion spree etc.). I think the simplest option would be to add the following example to the rulings and enforcement section:

• User:Example's sysop status is suspended immediately pending reconfirmation.

I'd like this to be a quick, minor, non-controversial revision which can be passed before Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship/draft B, does anyone have any comments or suggestions? -- Gordon Ecker 00:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested wording looks good to me. --Rezyk 00:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's no change of policy, just an additional example. Just go ahead and do it. Backsword 02:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. --Xeeron 09:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, good idea. *Defiant Elements* +talk 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A minor thing, just a clarification imo, so no problems. - anja 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Implemented. --Rezyk 18:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)