Template:CharterVote2/40/Discussion: Difference between revisions
imported>Joe Quick No edit summary |
imported>Russell D. Jones (Agree) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Agree. [[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 05:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC) | Agree. [[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 05:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
Agree. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 05:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:34, 17 July 2010
< 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,
- Participants may request that disputes be heard privately.
- Privately heard disputes forfeit their right to appeal on technical grounds.
- 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 audiencepermanently 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)