User talk:Cynical/Archive 8

About your vote on my candidacy
I'm not sure I understand your reason for oppose. I'm completely against using secret evidence against anyone unless the party affected sees it and has an opportunity to respond. See my answer here. I think we have the same opinion about it. Or perhaps you could elaborate your vote. Cool Hand Luke 22:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, I completely misunderstood your views on secrecy. The summary page I read seems to have got a few such details completely wrong, judging from the number of related messages on my talkpage! Cynical (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it! I think the confusion might have been caused in my candidate statement, which must be concise about details, but my answers explain them more fully, I think. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your oppose of my candidacy either. I'm standing on a platform of transparency and believe that secret process is (a) grossly unfair and (b) damges credibility. Specifically I said: ''As a basic principle, everyone must (i) know precisely what they're accused of and (ii) be able to make an informed response to the accusations. Processes that dispense with fairness will inevitably attract criticism and, rightly so, because a flawed process will usually produce a flawed result. ArbCom must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair.''. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 22:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible that I might have misunderstood your views on confidentiality as the summary page I read seems to have got quite a few details badly wrong. I realise now that you don't approve of people not being told of the accusations against them, however I'm not sure what you think about evidence. My own view is that if evidence cannot be disclosed to the person it is being used against, then the evidence must not be used at all. Would you agree with this? Cynical (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Same from me, I'm afraid. I just looked over my questions page and couldn't find where I'd said that I would take evidence in private without giving necessary parties a chance to look at it. I believe the problem could be a misinterpretation of what I wrote here, which would be my fault as I wasn't terribly clear. I'm happy to clarify the answer, if you'd like. I'm not asking you to change your vote, as there are plenty of other perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose me, I'm just hoping to avoid future misunderstandings on the subject. Cheers, and thanks. lifebaka ++ 02:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have to admit I'm a little confused as well. I explicitly said in a response to Badger Drink's question that I did not support "secret star chamber-style trial(s)" and that as much material as possible should be made public unless there are extremely compelling reasons not to. I may have phrased something badly which gave you the incorrect impression - I would be in your debt if you could point me towards where I have done so that I might phrase my intentions more clearly next time. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC).
 * I did read your comparison to the Star Chamber - the reason for my oppose vote is that I have a tighter definition of what a 'secret trial' is. Essentially I believe that if evidence is of a nature that prevents it from being disclosed to the person it is being used against, then arbcom must not use it. Cynical (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom election question
"What exactly is the openness value of making evidence public after the case is over and after someone has been sanctioned on the basis of evidence they have yet to see"

I am going to answer to this if you don't mind. You very rarely you run into situations in dealing with a real trouble maker who calculates each step and attempts to manipulate people and evidence. This kind of disruption goes on for years and is hard to prove as the disruptive user finds or fabricates excuses for each of the questionable actions. While this may be hard to believe but I had to deal with such a disruptive user. For that you can take a look at: User:White Cat/RFAR/graph.

There is also the matter that some evidence cannot be published due to the privacy policy.

You also seem to confuse my stance. I am for discretely collecting evidence in advance before an arbcom case starts NOT during the official course of the case. Everyone deserves the right to see what they are being accused with the supporting evidence.

-- Cat chi? 01:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken about pre-case evidence collection, I misunderstood you on that. However I still disagree with your position on secret evidence. In my view, any evidence that can't be disclosed to the person it is being used against (for whatever reason) can't be used at all. Thanks for clarifying though. Cynical (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be changing your viewpoint on an edit by edit basis. You also seem to be quick into jumping into conclusions. Neither are good traits... -- Cat chi? 01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how I have changed my viewpoint at all - I oppose any use of secret evidence that the accused person is not allowed to see. Cynical (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Which question?
Which "confidentiality" question would you preferred I have answered? If there's an important issue I have not addressed, please point me to the question, and I shall answer (provided the question does not substantially duplicate one of the many "big issue" questions I have already entertained). I know it's too late for my answer to affect your vote, but I would still like the opportunity to further expound upon my platform.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The confidentiality question I was referring to was the one on the candidates summary page, which that page said you hadn't answered yet.Cynical (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your vote
Believe me, I am committed to "no secret trials". This does not mean I exclude confidential evidence automatically because there are some instances where it is necessary. Even when the evidence is confidentially provided to ArbCom, I would still support summaries of the evidence for the other parties and the community in general so that they may respond and react to it, even if they do not get to see the details of it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that - the Wikipedia Signpost summary page seems to have been about as accurate as the Dodgy Dossier. However I'm afraid that I'm something of an absolutist as far as secrecy is concerned - if evidence can't be disclosed to the person it's being used against, then in my opinion it shouldn't be used at all. Cynical (talk) 06:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Arbcom and openness
It's possible that I might have misunderstood your views on confidentiality as the summary page I read seems to have got quite a few details badly wrong. I realise now that you don't approve of people not being told of the accusations against them, however I'm not sure what you think about evidence. My own view is that if evidence cannot be disclosed to the person it is being used against, then the evidence must not be used at all. Would you agree with this? Cynical (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Entirely agree. I've just edited this to read:
 * Secret evidence : ''As a basic non-negotiable principle, everyone must (i) know precisely what they're accused of and (ii) be able to make an informed response to the accusations. As secret evidence conflicts with this basic principle, because you cannot make an informed response to something you haven't seen, it should be excluded. Processes that dispense with basic principles of fairness will inevitably attract criticism and, rightly so, because a flawed process will usually produce a flawed result. ArbCom must not only be fair but must be seen to be fair.
 * -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Cynical (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)