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)