Hi all
So, we've got some limited agreement on the thorny issue of Transparency, and we're moving on to discussing how folks will make Requests of us (in the future, after this temporary Jimbo-based session).
1) We plan to take evidence in public, but reserve the right to take some evidence in private in exceptional circumstances.
2) Each arbitrator will make their own decision about how much personal information about themselves they are willing to share, both publically, and with the rest of the committee.
3) Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the committee, but are not required to disclose them publically.
4) Initially, we will keep our deliberations private, based on a semi-formal vote amongst arbitrators. However, both Fred Bauder and The Cunctator have expressed strong distaste for this option, so the arbitrators are far from unanimous on this point.
5) We will make the rationale for all our decisions public, based upon our private deliberations.
-Martin
On 02/14/04 at 02:39 PM, "Martin Harper" martin@myreddice.freeserve.co.uk said:
- Each arbitrator will make their own decision about how much personal
information about themselves they are willing to share, both publically, and with the rest of the committee.
- Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the
usernames of those accounts to the rest of the committee, but are not required to disclose them publically.
Am I the only one uncomfortable with the idea that members of the arbitration commitee are using sockpuppet accounts for these activities? Isn't important that these individuals are known and trusted inviduals within the wikipedia community? Why for example does Kat feel obliged to use the account UninvitedCompany for her commitee work?
V.