Wikibooks talk:Arbitration/Archive 1

I think that a full policy proposal page is unnecessary. Thus far this is a one-time event. It is really blown out of proportion to expand it into an over-arching policy. We don't even know how the current process will turn out &mdash; User:Iamunknown 04:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately a preceedent is being set here. I am open to suggestions on how to improve this whole process, or perhaps to find a way to avoid having something blow up like this.  Indeed, I want to point out that in the past, instead of trying to seek arbitration as would be covered under this policy, several users instead sought out explicitly to bring in User:Jimbo Wales into the discussion.  Often this met with disasterous results, in terms of ill will flowing through the Wikibooks community.  I don't need to go into details, but my talk page alone is plenty sufficient to show some of the issues that have occured in the past.


 * We need to come up with some reasonable policies on when it is legitimate to block a long-time user who has shown some substantial quality edits in the past, but is causing some current problems in terms of editorial control of pages that other users resent. That seems to be the largest issue at the moment, and how to resolve these issues when it goes beyond the module talk pages.  --Rob Horning 17:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Procedures
Let's discuss what we like and what we hate about arbitration here, including specific steps we'd like to take when arbitrating. I'd also like to hear what people think on who should be the arbitrators. A rotating group of admins? Bureaucrats maybe? -within focus 02:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps arbitration should fit the problem:


 * If someone continually reverts text or violates no personal attacks then there is a behavioural dispute - a disciplinary procedure should be used.


 * If two editors vehemently disagree about content the solution might be to offer some sort of ad hoc editorial board to resolve the issue or, if this is refused, enforce a discussion period mediated by an admin and, if this doesnt work, include both views in the book. Both views would only be included in a final, published edition of the book if permitted by the editorial board that reviews that edition.


 * If two editors vehemently disagree about presentation an ad hoc editorial board should give binding arbitration (you cant really have 2 presentations).

So, suppose there is a disagreement about how to structure a Programming book.

1 Someone involved in the dispute should complain to an admin.

2 The admin should decide that this is a presentation issue.

3 If there are reverts going on then an admin should stop the reverts and warn contributors that this is a quick way to be banned.

4. The admin should approach three volunteer editors in the appropriate field.

5. The editorial board should approve one or other presentations or suggest a third way.

6. The editors should vote and produce a binding solution.

7. If the disputants re-open the dispute then the party who is at fault (reverting the board's decision) should be warned that this is now a behaviour issue.

In the case of a content dispute the disputants can agree to include both points of view or can call in an editorial board for a binding decision (once invoked the board's decision would need to be binding to prevent time wasting). If both points of view are included then any published edition will take the point of view favoured by the editorial board that reviews the book at that stage.

It should be the responsibility of the admin who begins the procedure to follow it through to the end. RobinH 12:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the fourth step should be removed and the editorial board immediately contacted through the arbitration page (all members of the board will need to watch the Arbitration page) by one of the editors, an involved mentor or admin. Furthermore, I don't think everyone who considers him/herself to be on this board should be allowed to be an arbitrator. Either something like admins on the board be the only possible arbitrators or there is a voting process to choose who is on the board. Some members may not have the appropriate skills to be an arbitrator. -within focus 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The admin would need to chair the proceedings. Perhaps the admin could act as the communication channel between the disputants and the board. The admin could present the editorial board's view, then feed back the disputant's reactions then present the final board opinion. If the dispute is about content the disputants can always agree to have both points of view in the book. It is only on the presentational issues that fireworks could occur. RobinH 15:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Having a middle-man admin just wastes time as I see it. With a properly-chosen editorial board, this doesn't need to happen. Volunteer editors shouldn't have anything to do with this. When binding decisions are made, you can't have possibly inexperienced users threatening the decision process because that then weakens the strength of the decision and the power of the board's actions. Disputants can talk directly with the board in a subpage of the Arbitration page. I don't think content or other small-impact decisions should be discussed in arbitration since they can be handled with the previous three steps of dispute resolution. Only large-impact issues will be dealt with here. -within focus 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This I think can be divided into two separate problems:
 * Disputes over module content, between two well-meaning users
 * Disputes involving policy violations, including abuse of power by admins.
 * I would say that in the first place, mediation would be the solution the two sides would contact a neutral mediator (we could maintain a list of people willing to play this role) who would in turn decide the matter one way or the other. People who enter into mediation, and violate the final decision, could be subject to some kind of discipline. I would say that for disputes involving module content, an editorial board could serve as the third-party entity for purposes of mediation. This would require, of course, the existance of a standing editorial board (or the ability to create an ad hoc board for the purposes of the mediation). For the second case, we would use an arbitration hearing, where a standing board of arbiters (an "arbcom", if we may recycle that term for our own uses) who would hear dispute cases and pass verdict. People on such an arbcom should be well-versed in wikibooks policy matters, they should be trusted, and they should be active. I think it is a serious misuse of arbitration to handle matters of book content. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said. Content disputes should involve experts. Behaviour disputes should involve admins. When disputes get to arbitration they have become serious and the disputants have lost patience with each other.  As you point out, the next step is a hearing and judgement.


 * If the disputants are behaving well but have a serious dispute about content or presentation then the possibility of editorial judgement may actually stop the dispute from becoming a behaviour problem.
 * RobinH 09:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of thing that should make it into the text of the dispute resolution proposal. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes over at Resolving disputes. I think we need to restructure the Editorial board somewhat so that it's more of a policy than a Wikiproject maybe? I think a voted set of editors in various categories should form this board. -within focus 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (reset)I would agree that something so important as an editorial board, especially if it is a prescribed step in the official dispute resolution process, should be more then just a mere wikiproject. However, an editorial board requires readers here to volunteer their expertise, and many situations may arise in which there simply are no people knowledgable in a subject on which there is a dispute. It seems likely to me that for many subjects, all the people who are knowledgable are going to be involved already in the dispute over the book content. I don't mean to completely contradict my previous statements on the matter, i'm just trying to think critically (and do the thinking out loud) before we go rushing to make all sorts of new policy proposals, and insert new wordings into existing proposals. We have two options, as i see it, and both come with inherent drawbacks:
 * Editors are picked from a pool of volunteers, as needed, depending on expertise. In this situation, we run the risk of not having any candidates for such a board (or a woefully insufficient amount), or having people on the board who know their subject well, but are relatively new to wikibooks (and therefore unlikely to make great decisions).
 * Editors are predetermined (elected by the community, volunteer for certain "terms", or something). We would always have enough people for such a board, but the people might not always be knowledgable on the subject at hand.
 * There are also some hybrid approaches we could try (some established wikibookians, and some topical experts). Either way, if we are going to make it more then an informal wikiproject, we are going to need to hammer out alot of details. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments at Wikibooks talk:Editorial board regarding this approach which I agree with. I'd prefer two boards that work within their own "spheres of influence" since these two dispute issues are quite different and require different approaches. Also, I prefer the second approach of a general board of several all-around knowledgeable editors. -within focus 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee
I think that we should use this page as a policy proposal to establish a standing arbitration committee. We could create such a committee either by a vote (as is done at wikipedia), or through some other mechanism. I feel strongly that such a committee should be very limited: it should only hear cases that worked through and failed at the previous three steps in the Dispute resolution policy (proposal). With proposals being created currently to establish an editorial board, we need to ask ourselves a few questions: If we can answer these questions, I think we will be well on our way to having a good policy here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Should it be possible for any member to simultanously be a member of both editorial board and ArbCom?
 * 2) How will the arbcom be composed? What qualifications should members have (if anything in particular).
 * 3) What authority should the arbcom have?


 * I'm sure the third will require a large response and I'm not quite ready to provide one, but for one I think that being on both committees will be fine and for two I figure we will have a long-standing vote for three or so users. We don't have enough action here that a user could not serve both groups by how I see it. If the user is active enough and voted in with the necessary substantial support, I think it's fine. Perhaps every year we will choose a new committee of active, experienced users. -within focus 03:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A yearly basis may be a bit too long, considering the small community and frequent changing of the guard. However, if we make it more frequent, it will become tedious. We could alleviate some of the problems by staggering the vote: elect a small portion at regular intervals (a quarter of the board every 3 months) so that nothing was stagnant. Ignoring the first question, we are only left with the question of authority, and you are right in thinking it will be a long discussion before we get that hammered out. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Staggering the users seems like an acceptable plan. -within focus 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take the few ideas that we've discussed here, and draft a quick proposal for this issue. I'll keep this page the same, and instead create a page at Arbitration Committee. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)