Template:CharterVote2/40/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
I'm not so conversant with the workings of the Mediawiki software to know this, but is it possible to completely remove parts of articles from the database such that they are not even accessible by the history? The Ombudsman could re-write a page and then delete the original (but the original still remains somewhere in the Db and can be recovered). Given that we are operating under our real names, we should have the right to have dispute resolutions resolved privately and the record expunged, no? Russell D. Jones 14:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally, dispute resolutions should be heard in public. However,

1. Participants may request that disputes be heard privately.
2. Privately heard disputes forfeit their right to appeal on technical grounds.
3. in some cases, either at the discretion of the appellant council or at the request of a grievant, part of a public dispute resolution process may be restricted to a smaller audience permanently removed from the Citizendium. Such an exception shall require public justification by the Ombudsman.

Agree (I added a comma at the end of grievant) D. Matt Innis 21:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Joe Quick 05:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Russell D. Jones 05:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. What if the appellant requests us to permanently remove something that makes him/her look bad, but is essential to the case against them. If we permanently delete it, we permanently delete any defense of our actions in the real world, opening us up to an indefensible lawsuit. Am I being paranoid? haha. Maybe we should just remove it to another more private spot (such as the constable wiki). Perhaps we should say:

• in some cases, either at the discretion of the appellant council or at the request of a grievant, part of a public dispute resolution process may be permanently removed from the Citizendium expunged from public view. Such an exception shall require public justification by the Ombudsman.

I'm not totally happy with the language, yet. Help? D. Matt Innis 12:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I am hesitant to remove things completely. Now, if the Constable Wiki is to be brought into this, we need to identify it as a nonpublic function.

As a private organization, it's much more difficult to block legal action, but courts are very reluctant to delete things that could be considered essential to a case. This whole area may be one in which the MC needs to get legal advice. I am hesitant to have an Orwell/1984-style "Memory Hole."

In the 1975(?) IBM antitrust suit, the participants agreed to destroy the index but not the contents. If you look at state secrets privilege, you will find some precedent for sealing records. One possibility, at such time as CZ has legal counsel, is to have the lawyers hold sensitive material.

I'm not yet ready to discuss specific language; we either need to talk more, or agree on a broad principle and decide the details properly belong to the MC. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the aim here is to provide the option to "seal" a case from public view. Matt, you've persuaded me. How about we add an exception empowering the MC to develop policy. It should be understood that such MC policy could be challenged by citizens and placed on a referendum. Russell D. Jones 17:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• In some cases, either at the discretion of the appellant council or at the request of a grievant, part of a public dispute resolution process may be expunged from public view. Such an exception shall require public justification by the Ombudsman. This article may be revised and substituted by policy developed by the Managerial Management Council.

I can agree to "blocking public view"; "expunging from public view" is confusing. Expunging is not a good idea. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, Howard's right. Expunged pretty much means 'permanently destroyed'. Something better than "blocking public view"? D. Matt Innis 21:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking is awkward. "Sealed" is too legal. Does someone have a better word? We agree in principle, I think. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What about "hidden"? --Daniel Mietchen 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• In some cases, either at the discretion of the appellant council or at the request of a grievant, part of a public dispute resolution process may be hidden from public view. Such an exception shall require public justification by the Ombudsman. This article may be revised and substituted by policy developed by the Management Council.

Agree Russell D. Jones 23:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Hidden" has an unfortunate negative connotation, as in "something to hide." Who will have custody of this material? Who can see it? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest an alternative. Jones 23:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I Was adding this to the end too, but got in an edit conflict: "This article may be revised and substituted by policy developed by the Management Council provided such policy protects citizens' privacy.

In other words, the MC just can't substitute this article with a policy that says "All dispute resolutions shall always be viewable." Russell D. Jones 23:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest "restricted", but that implies restricted access is available to someone. This is something we need to define, which, in turn, may allow the article to be structured as "restricted to"... Howard C. Berkowitz 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's a wiki, the record will always be somewhere in the database unless some systems admin really hacks at the Db. Even deleted articles can be recovered with their history intact. And yes, restricted to officials of the Citizendium (who should have access) and the grievants. But, really? is "hiding text" even technically possible? A page wipe won't work if the history is intact. Creating a new page as a place holder and deleting the other, deletes the record except to a sysop who can recover the deletion.

So, this article proposes to delete the dispute resolution page. That would put barriers to access even though it wouldn't completely erase it. Is that what it means? Russell D. Jones 00:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think you can accomplish something by deleting (or locking) the dispute resolution page -- some development may be needed to have fine-grained read access. If it's not too wild an analogy, I'm thinking of things such as Presidential archives of national security decisions, where some are simply listed as "classified title." That doesn't lose the history that something happened on that date, but only officials (and other participants) can see it.

Of course, we can't protect from previous copies being published elsewhere. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a feature of wiki software called 'nuke-revision' the totally and permanently deletes the post and the history of the post from the computer. It cannot be recovered. The only person that has the power at this point is the Chief Constable and it was used a couple times to delete obscene and humiliating material placed on Nancy Sculerati's user page and in the edit summary by a vandal. D. Matt Innis 01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are times, due to privacy concerns, there might be a time when decisions need to be made behind closed doors, maybe by email and never in a place that can be googled. We need to leave this up to the discretion of the OMB at the request of the grievant. The MC should not be able to request it. D. Matt Innis 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt, I might go a step farther and designate the OMB as the Privacy Officer or Privacy Advocate. It occurs to me that there isn't a clear place for external biographies of living persons complaints -- that could be an OMB function. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. D. Matt Innis 01:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about the nuclear option! (I gotta get me one of those!) So, the point here is that having gone through a public hearing, some of the parties want to move it off-wiki, maybe even render a decision off-wiki. I'm wondering now if this is even necessary. Couldn't we just stick to the first two points? Russell D. Jones 01:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally, dispute resolutions should be heard in public. However, participants may request that disputes be heard privately. Privately heard disputes forfeit their right to appeal on technical grounds.

If there is a case between two citizens, should the case be rendered privately if only one grievant wishes, or do we need consensus? Or is the article fine the way it is? Russell D. Jones 01:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Up to the OMB after private correspondence. The grievers can decide if they want to proceed after the decision. Whatcha think. D. Matt Innis 01:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we're back to this, which is pretty much where we started above, except that I've clarified the appeal and use the phrase "remove from public view." It's pretty much up to the MC to figure out how to do it. Russell D. Jones 17:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Normally, dispute resolutions should be heard in public. However, participants may request that disputes be heard privately. Privately heard disputes forfeit their right to appeal on technical grounds, although an appeal will still be possible upon discovery of new information.
• In some cases, either at the discretion of the adjudicating council or at the request of a grievant, part of a public dispute resolution process may be restricted to a smaller audience removed from public view. Such an exception shall require public justification by the Ombudsman.
• This article may be revised and substituted by policy developed by the Management Council provided such policy protects citizens' privacy.

:Agree Russell D. Jones 17:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. D. Matt Innis 17:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "This article may be revised and substituted" is useful Charter language. If we want the MC to work out the details, we should leave them out here and say something generic (e.g. "according to guidelines developed by the MC"). --Daniel Mietchen 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(whimper) could we at least refer to the Omb rather than the OMB, so I don't keep wondering why the Office of Management and Budget is involved?

Whimper all you like, Howard. I like using "Om" as in "OOOOooooommmmmmmmmmm" Russell D. Jones 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Finish your statement, then. om ni padme hum." Howard C. Berkowitz 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Daniel's comment. The Charter should give the MC the authority to create privacy guidelines, and any overriding principles for them, but should not attempt to set the guidelines. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's in here, because this is an exception to the Charter Amendment process. If we don't get the privacy procedure right, the only way to change it is by Charter Amendment. With the clause, it empowers the MC to revise a portion of the charter without Amendment. This is the only place that the Charter grants the MC power to change the charter. Russell D. Jones 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How about:

• The Management Council shall create a procedure allowing for dispute resolution to be heard privately. Privately heard disputes forfeit their right to appeal on technical grounds, although an appeal will still be possible upon discovery of new information.
• In some cases, either at the discretion of the adjudicating council or at the request of a disputant, part of a public dispute resolution process may be removed from public view. Such an exception shall require public justification by the Ombudsman.

--Russell D. Jones 22:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Daniel Mietchen 22:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Russell D. Jones 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (By Jove, he's got it!)

Agree. D. Matt Innis 00:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Joe Quick 15:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

While pasting the text over, I was not sure what to do with the phrase "*Normally, dispute resolutions should be heard in public.", so I left it in and axed the "However". Please check. --Daniel Mietchen 19:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the text to which we've agreed. The text to which we've agreed is the last bulletted version above. Russell D. Jones 19:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)