AVID:Requests for Comment/Introduce an "Arbitration" system

Introduce an "Arbitration" system
As many of you know, sometimes a dispute can go just a little bit too far. Hence, I'm proposing we introduce an "Arbitration" system, similar to that found on Wikipedia in order to find a way to settle things. The system would go as follows:


 * 1) Should a dispute occur, it should first try to be resolved on that page's talk page.
 * 2) Should said dispute be unsolvable, one participant of the dispute can make a post to AVID:Requests for Arbitration.
 * 3) staff takes a vote on whether to review the dispute. Should a majority of staff members vote in favour, it will progress to the next stage.
 * 4) Staff begins workshopping a solution to the dispute, with input from other users.
 * 5) Staff then crafts a finalised solution, which will officially close the dispute.

This system would be a situation of LAST RESORT only, and should be reserved for major disputes if implemented.

Given the demographic this wiki tends to attract, disputes like this happen more often than required, and implementing this system would at least help try and sort things out.

I would love to hear your thoughts regarding it.

Support

 * 1) . This will work wonders. Dominicmgm (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) This sounds like a great idea! Sickminecraft45 Signature Icon.jpg   (Talk to Me!) 09:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) for Raidarr's idea. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 15:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) Should probably shoutout Luke2505 for suggesting the possibility of introducing this system to AVID. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 08:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also note that most of the time, a vote to review the request will not be necessary, but rather should be utilised ONLY in the situation of a minor squabble being sent in for Arbitration. Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 10:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Step 3 seems to prolong things a little: a vote to decide on voting to deal with something. Beyond that, bringing everyone in to help resolve a dispute via staff brainstorming on-wiki would likely result in a situation that was pretty polarized to get this far becoming even more messy when everyone is putting their two cents in at the same time. If things get bad enough already that they result in a community discussion, it may be simpler to hold that community discussion in the first place. If it is an issue with a staff decision, the typical line of appeal is to go to a bureaucrat/get a second opinion and escalate to community discussion if things are unclear. If procedure is unclear an RfC would be created to clarify. In other words I'm not sure this bit of bureaucracy could fix all that much. For the most part I think if there is something unclear which results in a dispute, then it's not hard to deal with it using the tools that currently exist. If the staff want an extra venue of accountability then there is a model from another community I'll bring up in case it's interesting: a tribunal (or arbitration group) consisting of non-staff but trusted members who can review decisions based on the policy and practice of the wiki, and make a recommendation in case current policy does not cover the issue that comes up. This would be the remit of bureaucrats typically, but if we want to save their time this is an approach that could be considered to help them out given they're quite busy. --Raidarr (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clear this system isn't going to be effective, so I'm closing this poll.
 * Yeah, you are gifted with words, thats cool. Most of this community isn't, which basically leaves them with no choice but to follow a wall of text like this, which leads to a situation which I feel equates to "what you say, goes". It makes me feel like other opinions are being invalidated, just because you're able to put yours into words so much better than anyone else here can theirs.
 * Eternity Media Group Wordmark.png (Lets chat!) 02:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)