Wikipedia: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[1] and some other complications[2] 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:

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

  1. ^ a b 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.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ 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.
  4. ^ 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.