사용자:멀뚱이/중재
위키백과 ― 우리 모두의 백과사전.
영어 위키백과의 분쟁해결 절차 중, 중재에 대해 알아보는 임시문서이다.
목차 |
[편집] 영어 위키백과의 분쟁해결 수단
영어 위키백과의 분쟁해결 수단(Dispute resolution)
- 협상(en:Wikipedia:NegotiationNegotiation)
- 조언 신청(en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment)
- 제3자 의견(en:Wikipedia:Third opinion)
- 조정(en:Wikipedia:Mediation)
- 중재(en:Wikipedia:Arbitration)
- en:Wikipedia:Probation
- en:Wikipedia:Member groups
[편집] 중재 위원회
- 이 부분의 원문은 en:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee입니다.
영어 위키백과:중재 위원회
위키백과내에서의 분쟁들을 해결하기 위해서 중재 위원회가 존재한다. 중재에 의해서, 일정기간의 편집 차단을 포함한 여러 해결책이 제시될 수 있다.
중재 위원회는 다른 분쟁해결 절차가 모두 실패했을 경우의, 마지막 절차이다. 분쟁이 생기면, 우선 다른 분쟁해결 절차로 문제를 해결해보아라. 중재 위원회는 사소한 분쟁을 처리하는 곳이 아니며, 매우 심각한 분쟁만을 다룬다.
2004년 초반까지, 위키미디어 재단의 전 회장이었던 짐보 웨일스가 위키피디아를 통치했다. 사소한 반달리즘은 관리자들에 의해 해결케 하고, 중요한 분쟁들은 모두 직접 처리했다. 이 역할은 현재 광범위하게 중재 위원회에 넘어왔다. 짐보는 말했다:
- "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values." – January 2004
- To request Arbitration, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.
- The Arbitration policy details the rules involved.
[편집] 위원
중재위원의 과반수 찬성으로 결정된다. 위원회의 현재 활동중인 위원의 수에 따라 의결정족수가 변한다. 예를들어, 7명이 현재 활동중이면, 4명이 투표하면 다수 의견이 된다. 10명이 활동중이면, 6명이 찬성해야 결정이 내려진다. 만약 찬성과 반대가 동수이면, 짐보 웨일스에게 캐스팅 보트권이 있다. 그러나 아직까지 이런 경우는 발생한 적이 없다.
현재, 위원회의 의장은 없는 것으로 정했다.
2007년 3월 1일 현재, 영어 위키피디아의 중재 위원은 11명이다.
[편집] 위원의 선출
최초의 중재 위원회는 짐보 웨일스에 의해 임명되었다. 주로 자원해서 조정과 중재 절차에 참여하여 도와줄 의사를 표시한 사용자들 중에서 임명했다. 현재는 사용자들의 직접선거로 선임된다.
임기는 3년이다. 다섯 그룹으로 나눠져서 매년 재선거된다.
임기가 종료되었다고 해서 자동으로 위원에서 물러나는 것은 아니며, 재선거가 실시되어 교체되거나, 짐보 웨일스가 특별히 물러나게 하는 경우에만 물러난다.
[편집] 중재 정책
- 이 부분의 원문은 en:Wikipedia:Arbitration policy입니다.
The Arbitration policy acts as a guideline for the workings of the Arbitration Committee. These policies are now fully adopted, but subject to amendment.
중재 정책은 중재 위원회의 활동에 대해 가이드라인(지침)으로서 규율한다. 이 정책들은 모두 시행중인데, 앞으로 수정될 예정이다.
See the Arbitration policy comments, the Arbitration policy ratification vote, and the Arbitration rationale.
It has been indicated elsewhere (see e.g. the Arbitration policy ratification vote) that the "Arbitration Policy may be tweaked as the Committee gains experience and learns better ways of doing things". Jimbo Wales has also suggested that the policy is not subject to amendment by the community.
Several landmark decisions have been made in previous cases that may have an impact on current cases; see /Past decisions.
[편집] 개요
The Arbitrators reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute, at their discretion. The following are general guidelines which will apply to most cases, but the Arbitrators may make exceptions.
- 중재자들은 조정 위원회에서 넘어온 사건을 심리한다.
- 조정을 안 거친 경우, 조정으로 해결가능하다고 보이면, 조정으로 사건을 넘긴다.
- 특별한 경우, 짐보 웨일스가 직접 요청한 사건을 심리한다.
- 중재자들은 주로 개인간의 분쟁을 조사할 것이다.
- 위키백과 사용자들이, 컨센서스로 중재에 의한 분쟁해결을 할 것인지 말 것인지를 결정함에 따라, 중재자들은 사건을 심리하기도 하고 안하기도 알 것이다.
- 중재 신청이 되지 않은 분쟁은 심리하지 않을 것이다.
- 위키미디아 재단 위원회(이사회)가 평결을 내려야 할 사안인 경우 직접 해결할 수 있도록 이사회에 보고를 한다. 중재 위원회는 이사회의 이사들에 대해서는 관할권이 없다.
[편집] 중재 규정
중재자들은 다음의 가이드라인에 따라서 최종적인 결정을 내린다:
- 위키백과 내에서 형성된 관행, 관습
- 위키백과의 법률: 위키백과 이용약관, submission standards, 위키미디어 재단의 정관(bylaws), 면책 조항, 저작권 라이센스
- 한국 법률
이전에 한 중재 판결들은 후에 하는 중재 판결에 대해 선례구속성이 없다. 단지 참고만 된다.
[편집] 투명성
- Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the Committee, and to Jimbo Wales, but are not required to disclose them publicly.
- Each Arbitrator will make their own decision about how much personal information about themselves they are willing to share, both publicly, and with the rest of the Committee.
- Arbitrators take evidence in public, but reserve the right to take some evidence in private in exceptional circumstances.
- Deliberations are often held privately, but Arbitrators will make detailed rationale for all their decisions related to cases public.
[편집] 중재 신청
The Arbitration Committee accepts requests for Arbitration from anyone, and will decide whether to accept cases based on its Jurisdiction as described previously.
The Arbitrators will accept a case if a net total four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it ("net" meaning that each "reject" or "decline" vote subtracts an "accept"). Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitrator's votes, a minimum twenty-four hour grace period will be granted between the fourth vote to open the case and the actual opening of the case. The Arbitrators will reject a case if four or more Arbitrators have already voted not to hear it, or if a reasonable period has passed without overall acceptance and it is unlikely to be accepted. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved.
In the case of users whose editing privileges on Wikipedia have been revoked, they can request Arbitration by e-mailing a member of the Arbitration Committee.
[편집] Who takes part?
All Arbitrators will hear all cases, barring any personal leaves or recusals. If an Arbitrator believes they have a conflict of interest in a case, they shall recuse themselves immediately from participation in the case. Users who believe Arbitrators have a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process. The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response. Arbitrators will not be required to recuse themselves for trivial reasons – merely reverting an edit of a user involved in a case undergoing Arbitration, for example, will likely not be seen as a serious enough conflict of interest to require recusal.
[편집] 변론(Hearing)
Participants involved in cases heard by the Arbitration Committee will present their cases and evidence as directed on a sub-page of the case page, itself a sub-page of requests for arbitration, titled as "[Username]" or "[UsernameA] v. [UsernameB]" or the like, at the discretion of the Arbitrator or Clerk responsible for opening the case. Disputants shall be defined as the user or users named in the case or any advocates they identify.
Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves. Such evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Wikipedia edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources. The Arbitrators reserve the right to disregard certain items of evidence or certain lines of argument, most notably if they are unverifiable.
There is usually a grace period of one week between the opening of the case and the beginning of deliberations by Arbitrators. If the deliberations are made public, then outside commentary on the deliberations is discouraged until such time after the hearing has ceased that the Arbitrators define as the period for public commentary on the deliberations.
[편집] 금지명령(Injunctions)
At any time between the opening of a case and its closure, Arbitrators may propose Temporary Injunctions, which are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes. Such Injunctions take the form of Remedies outlined below and are enforceable by twenty four hour blocks per violation of the Injunction by those that are affected by it.
An Injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support. A grace period of twenty four hours is usually observed between the fourth Aye vote and the enactment of the Injunction; however, Arbitrators may, in exceptional circumstances, vote to implement an injunction immediately if four or more Arbitrators express a desire to do so in their votes, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have already voted to support the Injunction.
[편집] 최종 결정
During deliberations, the Arbitrators will construct a consensus opinion made out of Principles (general statements about policy), Findings of Fact (findings specific to the case), Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done), and Enforcements (conditional Decrees on what can further be done if the terms are met). Each part will be subject to a simple-majority vote amongst active non-recused Arbitrators - the list of active members being that listed on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Dissenting votes for and opinions on parts that pass will be noted. Arbitrators who abstain from a particular part will be treated as having recused from that part of the decision, which may lower the majority needed to pass that part. In the event of no options for action gaining majority support, no decision will be made, and no action will be taken.
Principles are general statements of policy on Wikipedia, and there is no strict form they take; they will, however, reference appropriate Wikipedia policy pages where applicable.
Findings of fact will be of a form similar to:
- XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior [in violation of ZZZ rule]. (diff of Incident 1) (diff of Incident 2) (further diffs)
Remedies will be of a form similar to:
- "User X is cautioned against making personal attacks even under severe provocation."
- "User X is limited to one revert per twenty four hour period on article A."
- "User X is placed on personal attack parole for a period of Y; if User X engages in edits which an administrator believes to be personal attacks, they may be banned for a short period of time of up to Z."
- "User X is prohibited from editing group Y of articles for a period of Z."
- "User X is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of Y."
Enforcements will be of a form similar to:
- "If User X edits group Y of articles, they may be banned for a short period of time of up to one week."
Remedies and Enforcements, once the case has closed as described below, may be enforced by intervention by administrators, usually in the form of blocks on accounts and IP addresses.
Once a decision has been compiled, and a sufficient number of Arbitrators have reviewed the case and cast their votes, a non-recused Arbitrator may initiate a Motion to Close the case. A Motion to Close shall be considered to have passed once four Arbitrators have voted in favour of closing the case; each opposing vote shall negate one supporting vote. A grace period of a minimum of twenty-four hours shall be observed between the fourth net vote to close the case and the going into effect of those Remedies passed in the case, unless four or more Arbitrators vote to close the case immediately, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have voted to close the case.
In due course, the Arbitrators will review the possibility of additional software-based security measures, but will not request such features at the present time, relying instead on Decrees.
Remedies and enforcement actions may be appealed to, and are subject to veto by, Jimbo Wales.
[편집] 미해결된 이슈들
Deliberately left unspecified at this time. See the sub-pages for discussion:
[편집] 더 보기
[편집] 더 보기
- en:Wikipedia:Resolving disputes 영어 위키백과:분쟁 해결
- en:Arbitration 중재
- en:Wikipedia:Arbitration policy 영어 위키백과:중재 정책