Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Ratification referendum: oppose per Sandstein |
|||
Line 356:
#: 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)
| |||