From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This user likes all of the colors. |
 |
This user has survived the worst of Stalinist Excess from Leftists. |
|
I am a retired lawyer living in Crestone, Colorado. See also Wikinfo, also called Internet-Encyclopedia, a fork of Wikipedia. I remain involved on Wikipedia, do some editing and serve as one of the Wikipedia:Arbitrators. If you are interested in water resources and related issues, please see WaterWiki on Wikicities. I am Tiktok on BatMUD, but rarely play.
Proposal 4: Inquisitorial Review
- The initial proposal above seems based upon the traditional view of a panel of judges to whom evidence is presented by professional lawyers on behalf of their clients. This is not wikipedia. Wikipiedia expects that civility, consensus and a spirit of assistance will rule proceedings of the arbitration committee. Wiki does not have a professional police force tasked with impartially investigating complaints. It is not appropriate that the judges divorce themselves from the process of gathering evidence, but should take an active part in requesting further evidence, gathering evidence, and initiating dialog with any parties as they see fit. Any evidence uncovered should be presented for comment by all. All communication with parties to a case should be entered into openly on wiki for anyone to see, with the sole exception of communications between the arbitrators which may remain private as they see fit.
- Any party or arbitrator is entitled to request that a case be reviewed, by a publicly tabled reasoned request for the committee to consider a matter again. Arbitrators are no more obliged to accept such a request than they are to initially accept any case. An arbitrator asking that a case be reopened is not obliged to recuse from the case by reason of having asked for review.
- The committee will not be bound by the precedent of previous judgements. While judgements would not reverse from case to case, the committee has the right to reverse a judgement based upon similar facts to a previous case where circumstances now suggest that a different result or policy would be more beneficial to wiki. Sandpiper 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
