Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Ratification referendum: oppose per Sandstein |
→No, retain the old policy: it's directly from the old policy, so you're getting "primarily" no matter which side you vote on. |
||
Line 355:
# 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)
#: There is though another great principle, that we should do no harm. Please see [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification#Privacy and cases|'''my response on the talk page''']]. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 22:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
:#:<strike>I just don't see the reason here, there are problems with the existing policy yes but I don't see how this addresses them. I also share serious concerns about closed-door cases. Wikipedia is founded on principles of openness, to my knowledge I can see one and only one reason administrative proceedings should be private (WP:OUTING concerns) and even then they should only discuss in private what cannot be said in public for fear of further harm. What I mean is that I think that even the discussion of principles and facts of the case should be public, with ONLY the oversighted edits redacted. Also, I find arbcom's remit to only handle user CONDUCT to be pointless because content and conduct are often intimately intertwined. [[User:HominidMachinae|HominidMachinae]] ([[User talk:HominidMachinae|talk]]) 20:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)</strike> On review of more of the specific changes I think that this should be ratified and then amendments be discussed, including an open-forum requirement [[User:HominidMachinae|HominidMachinae]] ([[User talk:HominidMachinae|talk]]) 20:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
# Per User:Sandstein. Glad this was drafted, and otherwise entirely support. Is there a reason not to adjust this? [[User:Jd2718|Jd2718]] ([[User talk:Jd2718|talk]]) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
:#There are over 130 people who support the current wording (at least sufficiently to ratify); it would be extremely inappropriate to make what the opposers believe is a substantive change in the document once people have already voted to accept that wording. One does not make a substantive change in the middle of a ratification vote. I trust you realise that the phrase you are objecting to comes directly from the old policy, which you are supporting. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
| |||