If you did want to bring in an "uninvolved" body trusted to deal with
sensitive information, as means of some independent overviewers of the
proceedings or as a body charged with dealing with the charges, there are
OTRS volunteers who should be as equally trusted as checkuser/oversight
people, there's checkusers/oversight people from Commons who seem very
trustworthy, and I believe the English language Wikinews has an arbitration
committee, though I don't know who's on their committee, so I can't say much
there.
On 27/08/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/27/07, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There is a delicate balance of interests in a
debate like this.
First, some topics will /only/ be fully explored in private with trusted
individuals, rather than the entire open community -- especially if
there
are seriously personal or admin/project reasons
to consider. Office,
OTRS,
arb-email, checkuser, oversight... Wikipedia is
far from completely
transparent and this /already/ has a high degree of communal assent.
The problem is that in this case we are in effect asking the inner
community to judge one of their own. So far their record in this area
isn't great.
There are ways around this such as asking fr.arbcom to reivew the
issues but that would tend to create language problems.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l