Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:00, 11 June 2011

Revision as of 20:27, 11 June 2011

Line 354:

# 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''']]. &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]} 22:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

#::But Roger, both ArbCom and yourself personally do a great deal of harm. Writing or protesting that you won't do any harm is similar to the self denial and self belief we see in many cases in law, concering those with natures where they honestly can't see they are wrong, even though they are (I don't need to use hyperbole - I assume you get my drift). You '''do''' harm and hurt people so your moral and/or intelectual dishonesty in the advocacy of "do no harm" is somewhat revolting when you don't practice what you preach.<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;Chat&nbsp;</font>]] </span></small> 20:27, 11 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)