| Revision as of 05:27, 21 November 2007 editXDanielx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,282 edits →Legitimate reason: adding notes per talk← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:49, 9 April 2021 edit undoDB1729 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers137,360 edits Reverted 1 edit by 207.195.86.101 (talk): Unexplained blankingTags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| (67 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{historical}} | ||
| '''Misplaced Pages:Confidential evidence''' was a proposal to regulate the use of confidential evidence in administrative decision making. The goal was primarily to reduce the risk of error and alleviate the drama caused by intransparency. Although the idea was met with generally positive responses, a loosely conflicting ] decision<ref name="RFAR">In the ], the Arbitration Committee unanimously passed ]. Numerous questions were later asked, and clarifications were given; see ] for an overview.</ref> and some other complications<ref>Within a few weeks, the proposal had branched out into . By the time efforts to fix the problem arouse, interest and participation were running low.</ref> impeded the proposal's progress. Still, the ideas that were developed and the surrounding discussions shed light on some general principles which seem to be agreed on by most of the community: | |||
| ::{| style="border:black solid 1px" width="90%" | |||
| | <font color="darkgreen">Background: This proposal grew from a ] at ] where a section on confidential information in policy had gained a strong positive response. The issues related to secret evidence were too large for a subsection, and in any event, extend outside the narrow limits of blocking policy. Hence this.</font> | |||
| |} | |||
| {{shortcut|]<br />]}} | |||
| {{nutshell| Evidence that is not publicly available can be presented, and acted upon, in certain unusual cases, but this requires '''exceptional care and judgement'''. The burden of doing so is serious, and rests strictly on the person who claims to be relying on evidence that cannot be made public. }} | |||
| * There are reasonable arguments in favor of using confidential evidence in certain circumstances.<ref>Overview of justifications for using confidential evidence: | |||
| Misplaced Pages relies heavily upon consensus and communal peer review of decisions. While some cases involve confidential information that cannot be made public, editors should understand that this can undermine the ability of the community to review and consider the case, and undermine confidence in any decision. | |||
| * In some cases, a degree of confidentiality may be necessary where privacy issues are involved. | |||
| * Keeping sleuthing techniques private may keep persistent problem users from circumventing them. | |||
| * In extreme cases of persistent abuse from the same user or group of users, timeliness may come into play.</ref> There are also legitimate concerns associated with the use of confidential evidence.<ref>Overview of concerns surrounding the use of confidential evidence: | |||
| * Lack of external review may increase the likelihood of error. | |||
| * Lack of community participation may allow individuals to deviate significantly from community norms, making confidential action a bad example of ]. | |||
| At worst, poor judgement can lead to ]s and cause irreparable damage (including damage to the communal environment), where a user leaves or is condemned by one or few people's words, based upon evidence that has not been fairly presented or whose ] and importance has not been widely checked. | |||
| * Even when the proper outcome is realized, procedural intransparency can cause significant upset to editors, creating tension that may have been avoidable.</ref> | |||
| Accordingly editors should understand that '''non-public evidence is to be used as little as possible, and never lightly'''. A number of precautions are expected to be followed to ensure fair usage. | |||
| * While different editors regard the concerns with different degrees of importance, most rate them between moderate and momentous. Consequently, confidential evidence should be used only when the reasons for doing so are significantly compelling. | |||
| * When confidential evidence must be used, the situation should be handled carefully to minimize potential harm. Publicly communicating the details of an issue would defeat the purpose of confidentiality, but efforts should be made to communicate the nature of the dilemma. Users should be careful not to misrepresent or exaggerate the strength of the evidence. Generally, the evidence should be thoroughly reviewed by one or more users who can be trusted with access to it. | |||
| * In light of the Arbitration Committee's decision,<ref name="RFAR" /> users are generally expected to pass evidence through the ArbCom rather than acting on it themselves. As the principle states, this does not apply to evidence obtained through ], ], or ] tools. This could change in the future, as the ArbCom has expressed willingness to allow a community-formed policy to replace the provisions of the decision. | |||
| The above points are not intended as binding principles; ]. Still, for the time being, they may be useful in assessing whether particular actions are in line with communal ]. | |||
| == Confidential evidence == | |||
| Wherever possible, evidence that may be used in questioning or condemning another user's activities on Misplaced Pages should be presented on the wiki itself, so that everyone may see it. | |||
| === Notes === | |||
| Evidence is considered "confidential" if users with a specific, legitimate reason for the request, and who appear to be seeking information for bona fide purposes, are refused full disclosure of the information. | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| === Legitimate reason === | |||
| In general, any involved party, any editor with direct knowledge, and any reputable user wishing to review the matter with a view to contributing, has a legitimate reason to want to see the entirety of the evidence. | |||
| Especially, all directly and peripherally involved parties have a legitimate reason, and all administrators are generally presumed to have a legitimate basis of interest in all disputes, allegations of misconduct, and proposed sanctions, since their role involves reviewing the blocking and other decisions of their peers, and deciding how best to address disputes and conduct matters. | |||
| Exceptions may be warranted for known problem users or editors who clearly have malicious intent. Such labels should be applied with caution, however, as imprudent decisions may be difficult to review and/or reverse when evidence is kept confidential. | |||
| === Considerations and requirements === | |||
| Evidence may need to be presented confidentially for several reasons: | |||
| :* It may be necessary in accordance with the ]. | |||
| :* It may be appropriate as a response to legal concerns, such as illicit reproductions of copyrighted material. | |||
| :* In cases where there is no requirement of confidentiality, it might still make sense to keep sensitive information private as a courtesy to editors. | |||
| :* If the evidence is accessible to problem users, disclosing it might give them more insight on how to circumvent identification. | |||
| :* The nature of the evidence might disclose its source or other information which for various reasons might be harmful, improper or inappropriate. | |||
| :* (other) | |||
| However, there are several issues associated with taking actions based on confidential evidence: | |||
| :* It denies the accused and the community the opportunity to examine matters, so it is not a good example of ]. | |||
| :* It hinders communication by forcing editors to draw inferences from whatever facts are available, preventing them from understanding a decision holistically. | |||
| :* It often results in perfunctory notices rather than explanatory justifications, creating the appearance of reckless, capricious decision-making. | |||
| :* It may result in unfairness or divisiveness, or cause significant upset to the community and individuals, damaging morale or even causing some to become disillusioned and leave, creating tension and long term harm which might have easily been avoidable. | |||
| :* (other) | |||
| == Careful handling and judgment == | |||
| As a result of the above, confidential evidence must be used with care, and as little as possible. The following are principles that should be followed to a high standard, which help to ensure care and judgement is of the required standard. | |||
| # '''Good cause'''. There should always be a good reason why editors, or administrators, cannot be trusted or told the evidence, which is explained so any reasonable person can understand it. Avoiding scrutiny generally does not qualify as such a cause. | |||
| # '''Independent review'''. There should be independent review by persons not of the proponent's choosing - either administrators in general, or the arbitration committee, or some other representative group. | |||
| # '''Good and full communication'''. Actions based on confidential evidence should be communicated fully, in light of the fact a user is accused without sight of the evidence. Disclosing the precise details of the evidence would defeat the purpose of confidentiality, but editors should communicate the nature of the dilemma to whatever extent they reasonably can without compromising privacy. | |||
| # '''Factual evidence'''. The matters confidentially disclosed should be factual, based on evidence or strong likelihood, with flaws and questions disclosed as the matter progresses. | |||
| # '''Minimize damage'''. Attention should be paid to messages and other communications, to ensure that damage is minimized and the editor's reputation preserved as best possible, whilst the matter is under review, lest they be judged by rumor. | |||
| There are also three specific positive duties: | |||
| # '''No exaggeration'''. COnfidential information is already one-sided. It is important to ''counter'' this by taking great care never to overstate or stretch it, or imply that the evidence says more than in fact it does. Care should be taken to represent the evidence scrupulously fairly, ''including'' attention to uncertainties or other concerns related to it. | |||
| # '''Prompt clearing of name'''. To promptly clear the name (or clarify the extent to which doubt exists) of a person accused by secret evidence, to whatever extent is fairly possible, when there is room for doubt | |||
| # '''Publication as/when possible'''. To allow public examination of secret materialon request at any time, if the evidence tends to suggest that grounds for secrecy are not likely to apply to some matter. | |||
| For the above reasons, users with confidential information may initially wish to say nothing at all, or state simply that they have a concern, but request patience as they are seeking advice on it -- and give minimal (and non-provocative) information until they have done so, which they should then do promptly. | |||
| Remember that even the mere statement that there is a concern, will usually start much unhelpful speculation. | |||
| == Consequences of error == | |||
| ; For the accused party: | |||
| * Potentially jeopardizing the reputation of an innocent editor, possibly driving him or her from the project | |||
| ; For the community: | |||
| * ] - erosion of community trust each time a mistake is made, making it harder for authority figures to be trusted in future cases | |||
| ; For the person stating they have secret evidence | |||
| == Seeking advice / Burden of secrecy == | |||
| An editor who becomes aware of a matter in which they may need to present or take action based upon evidence they are not prepared to make public, is recommended to seek advice in the first instance. | |||
| If there is a question how to handle a matter like this, it should be referred to the ] (or an uninvolved Arbcom member) for advice, as the representative body best placed to advise on confidential matters that may have disclosure concerns. For matters specifically related to ] and ] issues, those two lists may be suitable instead. | |||
| Emails: | |||
| ::{| style="border:black solid 1px" width="90%" | |||
| | style="background-color:#c0ffc0" | Since confidential evidence is intended to be exceptional, '''the burden of good conduct and integrity is on the person claiming the need for non-disclosure in a case'''. They are expected to use -- and expected to be able to demonstrate -- independent advice was sought and reasonable good faith employed, in case of review. | |||
| Such users are '''strongly recommended''' to seek experienced independent advice before making claims based on evidence and deductions they are reluctant to disclose publicly. | |||
| |} | |||
| == Process == | |||
| (none?) | |||
| == Review == | |||
| Disclosure of non-public evidence relevant to a decision can be requested for examination by any bona-fide arbcom member, oversight, or checkuser user. An involved individual should nontheless recuse if this would show good judgement <font color="darkgreen">and such evidence should not be circulated on the relevant email lists </font>. | |||
| == See also == | |||
| ;Misplaced Pages: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ;Wikimedia Foundation: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
Latest revision as of 22:49, 9 April 2021
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Misplaced Pages:Confidential evidence was a proposal to regulate the use of confidential evidence in administrative decision making. The goal was primarily to reduce the risk of error and alleviate the drama caused by intransparency. Although the idea was met with generally positive responses, a loosely conflicting Arbitration Committee decision and some other complications impeded the proposal's progress. Still, the ideas that were developed and the surrounding discussions shed light on some general principles which seem to be agreed on by most of the community:
- There are reasonable arguments in favor of using confidential evidence in certain circumstances. There are also legitimate concerns associated with the use of confidential evidence.
- While different editors regard the concerns with different degrees of importance, most rate them between moderate and momentous. Consequently, confidential evidence should be used only when the reasons for doing so are significantly compelling.
- When confidential evidence must be used, the situation should be handled carefully to minimize potential harm. Publicly communicating the details of an issue would defeat the purpose of confidentiality, but efforts should be made to communicate the nature of the dilemma. Users should be careful not to misrepresent or exaggerate the strength of the evidence. Generally, the evidence should be thoroughly reviewed by one or more users who can be trusted with access to it.
- In light of the Arbitration Committee's decision, users are generally expected to pass evidence through the ArbCom rather than acting on it themselves. As the principle states, this does not apply to evidence obtained through Oversight, CheckUser, or OTRS tools. This could change in the future, as the ArbCom has expressed willingness to allow a community-formed policy to replace the provisions of the decision.
The above points are not intended as binding principles; consensus can change. Still, for the time being, they may be useful in assessing whether particular actions are in line with communal consensus.
Notes
- ^ In the Durova case, the Arbitration Committee unanimously passed a principle regarding confidential evidence. Numerous questions were later asked, and clarifications were given; see FT2's summary for an overview.
- Within a few weeks, the proposal had branched out into four separate versions. By the time efforts to fix the problem arouse, interest and participation were running low.
- Overview of justifications for using confidential evidence:
- In some cases, a degree of confidentiality may be necessary where privacy issues are involved.
- Keeping sleuthing techniques private may keep persistent problem users from circumventing them.
- In extreme cases of persistent abuse from the same user or group of users, timeliness may come into play.
- Overview of concerns surrounding the use of confidential evidence:
- Lack of external review may increase the likelihood of error.
- Lack of community participation may allow individuals to deviate significantly from community norms, making confidential action a bad example of consensus decision making.
- Even when the proper outcome is realized, procedural intransparency can cause significant upset to editors, creating tension that may have been avoidable.