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@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/27/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l