Template:CharterVote2/40/Discussion: Difference between revisions
imported>Russell D. Jones (extended comments) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Agree (I added a comma at the end of grievant) [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 21:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC) | Agree (I added a comma at the end of grievant) [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 21:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
Agree. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 01:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:57, 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)