Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Yes, adopt the new updated policy: added self. |
→No, retain the old policy: no secret cases and decrees |
||
Line 349:
# I have a principled opposition to this policy, relating to its construction of jusiprudence, jurisdiction, and governance. [[User:Fifelfoo|Fifelfoo]] ([[User talk:Fifelfoo|talk]]) 07:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
# Not that it matters since there are already 100 supporting, but those commenting above summarize my views nicely. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 15:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
# Time to write out the "private hearings" provision that allows for closed-door cases without onwiki discussion. This is entirely contradictory to our open-model of governance and ArbCom's high position is no excuse for a run-around of this important feature of our model. If for legal reasons some cases cannot be held in public, then at least ArbCom needs to publicize on-wiki: 1. that an offwiki case is taking place 2. the parties involved and 3. any editor restrictions or policies developed from the case. I cannot support this unless I am certain that the final results of all arbcom decisions, including those decided off-wiki, are logged publicly on Wikipedia (preferably in the same place, such as the ArbCom noticeboard). '''[[User:Themfromspace|<font color="blue">Them</font>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<font color="red">From</font>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<font color="black">Space</font>]]''' 17:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
| |||