Lar's questions to Arbcom candidates, questions that demand answers Options

[Kato]

Lankiveil (T-C-L-K-R-D)

*odd, contradictory, woefully ignorant, or plain interesting replies are highlighted in red.

Questions from Lar

1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

I do not support changing the existing deletion procedure for BLP articles, but at the same time I do support tightening the notability criteria for biographies, so that there are less of these "marginal" cases, and things like BLP1E cases are considered kosher reasons for deletion.(Kato=What is BLP1E?)

2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

Response to (a) and (b): Question 1 touches on both content and policy. I think it's obvious that there is a problem with BLP, the issue is how to go about it. One camp advocates new rules to make it easier for BLP to be removed, the other advocates stronger enforcement of existing rules to make sure that any BLP is meticulously sourced and cited. I discussed my views on ArbCom creating policy on any topic above, but I am generally uncomfortable with ArbCom making policy in place of the community. The only way that the community's views on BLP should be able to be preempted is when there is a legal issue, and in this case the Foundation itself should step in, not ArbCom.
Response to ©: As I said before, I favour stronger enforcement of existing rules for sourcing, especially on BLPs. Local consensus can be damned here - any statement that is not cited to a reliable source on a BLP should be removed, period. This will of course upset a lot of people and lead to cries of 'deletionism!', but I think it's the only ethical way to proceed from here.

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. I'm not sure of the best solution, because straight up and down voting also has problems. I'm not even sure that there is an "optimum" way to govern a project of this size and nature. At this stage, I feel that any move to a different model will need to be mandated by Jimbo and/or the Foundation, as I doubt that the community itself can come to a consensus on reforms that would move towards a new model.

4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?

Again, this is a good idea, but there remain problems which I don't think have been sufficiently addressed at this point. I haven't followed the discussion on this topic closely, so I cannot give a more detailed opinion than that. However, I see this as a matter of the community determining policy, and thus outside the remit of ArbCom.

5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

Yes, obviously the availability of anonymity allows editors to be fearless in contributing material that they might not otherwise do if it were associated with their real name.

b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

Obviously, if someone wishes to 'undisclose' their identity, we should do all that we can do help them do that. Unfortunately, given the way the Internet is, this is not going to be a foolproof way to make sure that nobody else is ever going to find you again. People need to be aware of the risks of disclosing their real identity, and realise that once it's out there, it's hard to get it back.

d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

This would depend largely on the circumstances surrounding the case. I see outing only as a problem when it's done with the intention to maliciously intimidate or discredit someone. Based on what you've given me, it might be a problem, or it might not also.

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)

As discussed above, I'm under no illusions that someone would probably work out my real identity if they put a little effort into it. I certainly won't be out there broadcasting it, but if someone wishes to look, they can probably find it.

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

I don't see it as the role of the WMF to babysit users in this way - it seems to be to be common sense that psuedoanonymity, if someone wants it, cannot be guaranteed. ArbCom can assist in helping here by enforcing sanctions and penalties against those who engage in malicious outing and the like (see my answer to point 'g' also).

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)

This would largely depend on the circumstances surrounding the case, but in general I would take a very dim view of it. With that said, the usual sanctions like blocks and bans would not be as effective in this case as they would for other types of malicious user - since they can always go and continue to post incriminating details offsite (on their own blog, for instance). A community ban would be a good start though.

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

As in my answer to point (f) in the anonymity questions above, it should be simple common sense that if you work on a large site like this, you might have some unpleasant personal interactions with people.

b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

There is obviously a moral and ethical imperative that WMF should not allow its resources to be used for stalking (or any other criminal activity). I'm not naïve enough to believe that simply blocking stalkers will necessarily stop any stalking activity, but making it harder for them to do so by escorting them off of the project is a start. Note that this obviously only applies if it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that a stalking problem actually exists.

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

See point (a) above. We should assist in booting stalking and other antisocial behaviour off of Wikimedia projects, but I think that preemptive actions is going a little too far. Again, there may be some special circumstances that would justify extraordinary actions here.

d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

I would hope that the stalker would have their accounts blocked, and a community ban placed against the person behind the edits, no matter what form the stalking takes. Article protection should also be used if the stalker is manipulating the target's article.

e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

This is one of those things where a reasonable person can see where a line has been crossed. Continual and vexatious 'reviews' by the same editor or groups of editors would be an example of where the line has been crossed, but a good faith review of an editor widely regarded as problematic would not.

7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

Generally, I do not support the "revert all edits" principle unless it can be determined that all of an accounts edits, or a very high proportion of them (90%+) are vandalism. If an edit is good, I see no reason to revert it, no matter who actually made it. With that said, I would not blanket unrevert edits removed in this way without a wide community consensus (or ArbCom decision, or something along those lines) to do so.

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

Obviously, outside criticism is something that the project has to deal with. Constructive outside criticism is a good thing and something that we should listen to and act upon, rather than dismissing it out of hand. Saying that any criticism from editors must be kept on-wiki strikes me as rather heavy handed.

b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

No, I do not have an outside site which I use to discuss Wikipedia.

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

I occasionally read WR, although I do not post there. In general, I feel that it is a mixture of people with good intentions trying to offer constructive criticism, some people with legitimate grievances against misapplications of policy and procedure here, and a handful of paranoids and trolls who derive entertainment from pushing our buttons, stroking a persecution complex, and looking way too deeply into cases where there is nothing there.
Wikback is something that I was never particularly involved in, although from what I gather its rather onerous registration requirements may have prevented much uptake.

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?

No, I definitely do not think it to be inappropriate. As I said, many of the people who participate on these sites have legitimate criticisms, and listening to them and trying to correct wrongs that have been done is an essential part of remaining open and accountable.

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

As mentioned in point ©, no I do not, although I occasionally read said sites.

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

Yes, as I feel that a number of editors are allowed to flout the civility rules, on the strength of their continuing useful contributions. The solution is to apply the rules and policies evenly across all users, although in many cases actually making consequences 'stick' to these vested contributions can be tricky.

[Giggy]

(Kato=What is BLP1E?)

WP:BLP1E. People who are only notable for one event. A common example of its use is deleting articles on murder victims who made a few different newspapers, but who obviously aren't notable outside their being killed.

[SirFozzie]

The Star Wars Kid and Leeroy Jenkins would be two other BLP1E wonders

[One]

BLP1E is a small step toward progress, and that's why I referenced it. Some of the most skewed biographies seem to have skirted this rule.

[Giggy]

The Star Wars Kid and Leeroy Jenkins would be two other BLP1E wonders

Star Wars Kid and Leeroy Jenkins both have articles discussing the meme (as opposed to the person).

[Kato]

This guy Hemlock Martinis (T-C-L-K-R-D) changed his answers to Lar's questions a week after he first answered. Making the post earlier in this thread a bit of a mess. But quite frankly, his answers were so contradictory it was already a mess anyway.

He was wishy-washy on BLP and called himself an "inclusionist" the first time round, but has softened his approach on the rewrite - Though he still had time to make disparaging comments about BLP victims Daniel Brandt and Don Murphy while stating:

Yes. I support anonymity. End of story. I like the freedom I have to remain a private person. I don't believe I should have to tell you all who I am to be an Arbitrator. I've found that the external world only complicates Wikipedia, and who we are on the other side of the monitor should not be an issue.

Which might make it a rocky road for him should he be elected?

[dogbiscuit]

Yes. I support anonymity. End of story. I like the freedom I have to remain a private person. I don't believe I should have to tell you all who I am to be an Arbitrator. I've found that the external world only complicates Wikipedia, and who we are on the other side of the monitor should not be an issue.

Well, Wikipedia is complicated enough without the real world intruding.

Sounds like a bad case of Second Lifer - oddly though, my impression is that in Second Life, most people construct characters that are far nicer than real life.

Back to the point - surely the theory of ArbCom is that people have let real life intrude on the nirvana of Wikipedia?

[Hemlock Martinis]

Yes. I support anonymity. End of story. I like the freedom I have to remain a private person. I don't believe I should have to tell you all who I am to be an Arbitrator. I've found that the external world only complicates Wikipedia, and who we are on the other side of the monitor should not be an issue.

Well, Wikipedia is complicated enough without the real world intruding.

Sounds like a bad case of Second Lifer - oddly though, my impression is that in Second Life, most people construct characters that are far nicer than real life.

Back to the point - surely the theory of ArbCom is that people have let real life intrude on the nirvana of Wikipedia?

Wow, really? Out of all the stuff on my questions page and even within Lar's batch of questions itself, this is what you criticize me on?

My support of anonymity is relatively new-found, and this forum is the entire reason why. Although I have no problem with this place when you've actually got valid criticisms (I quite enjoy reading it, as a matter of fact), but you used to play host to some very unsavory figures whom I'm glad to see no longer participate here.

And yes Kato, I have nothing but disparaging comments for the "BLP victims" Daniel Brandt and Don Murphy. Forgive me if I find it hard to rally any sympathy for the individuals who almost drove Newyorkbrad away from the project. Even you guys have a hard time attacking NYB, and the sheer malice expressed by those two individuals towards not only him but other contributors is absolutely disgusting. I'm glad you've gotten rid of them. They're the main reason I don't unmask publicly. I support anonymity because of their actions and the actions of people like them.

[Kato]

Yes. I support anonymity. End of story. I like the freedom I have to remain a private person. I don't believe I should have to tell you all who I am to be an Arbitrator. I've found that the external world only complicates Wikipedia, and who we are on the other side of the monitor should not be an issue.

Well, Wikipedia is complicated enough without the real world intruding.

Sounds like a bad case of Second Lifer - oddly though, my impression is that in Second Life, most people construct characters that are far nicer than real life.

Back to the point - surely the theory of ArbCom is that people have let real life intrude on the nirvana of Wikipedia?

Wow, really? Out of all the stuff on my questions page and even within Lar's batch of questions itself, this is what you criticize me on?

My support of anonymity is relatively new-found, and this forum is the entire reason why. Although I have no problem with this place when you've actually got valid criticisms (I quite enjoy reading it, as a matter of fact), but you used to play host to some very unsavory figures whom I'm glad to see no longer participate here.

And yes Kato, I have nothing but disparaging comments for the "BLP victims" Daniel Brandt and Don Murphy. Forgive me if I find it hard to rally any sympathy for the individuals who almost drove Newyorkbrad away from the project. Even you guys have a hard time attacking NYB, and the sheer malice expressed by those two individuals towards not only him but other contributors is absolutely disgusting. I'm glad you've gotten rid of them. They're the main reason I don't unmask publicly. I support anonymity because of their actions and the actions of people like them.

Welcome to the review Hemlock Martinis.

Why do you think you think it is important that you have "the freedom to remain a private person", while people like Brandt and Murphy were forced to have biographies on Wikipedia against their will - and were attacked mercilessly when they complained? Not only that, but their biographies were deliberately packed with intrusive information, and on occasion defamatory lies? Have you not considered that their subsequent actions are a result of this outrageous experience?

(By the way, neither of them were "gotten rid of" and both remain members here.)

[Random832]

(By the way, neither of them were "gotten rid of" and both remain members here.)

Both of them are seen quite a bit less anymore, though. I think some people may have been under the misapprehension that Brandt was banned when he added Selina to hivemind, as well.

[Alison]

(By the way, neither of them were "gotten rid of" and both remain members here.)

Both of them are seen quite a bit less anymore, though. I think some people may have been under the misapprehension that Brandt was banned when he added Selina to hivemind, as well.

Well, Mr. Brandt was on here yesterday (or was it the day before?) and is likely still reading, I guess.

[Random832]

(By the way, neither of them were "gotten rid of" and both remain members here.)

Both of them are seen quite a bit less anymore, though. I think some people may have been under the misapprehension that Brandt was banned when he added Selina to hivemind, as well.

Well, Mr. Brandt was on here yesterday (or was it the day before?) and is likely still reading, I guess.

Well, yeah, I knew that.

[Ampersand]

(By the way, neither of them were "gotten rid of" and both remain members here.)

Edit: I guess they're both still here.

This post has been edited by Ampersand: Wed 26th November 2008, 6:36am

[Hemlock Martinis]

Welcome to the review Hemlock Martinis.

Why do you think you think it is important that you have "the freedom to remain a private person", while people like Brandt and Murphy were forced to have biographies on Wikipedia against their will - and were attacked mercilessly when they complained? Not only that, but their biographies were deliberately packed with intrusive information, and on occasion defamatory lies? Have you not considered that their subsequent actions are a result of this outrageous experience?

(By the way, neither of them were "gotten rid of" and both remain members here.)

Thank you! I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

Right, I forgot. If someone does something bad to you, the best recourse is to not only do something bad back, but to keep doing it for years at a time even after the offending material is gone. That's justice. That's the right thing to do. Some of my colleagues are idiots and jerks, but your guys are way way worse. And if it wasn't for people like them, I'd unmask right here right now. But since I kind of like not being harassed by Brandt or having my employer called by Murphy or my residence visited by Amorrow, I think I'll stay anonymous.

Now, I'm supportive of tougher BLP standards especially when it comes to notability. I've supported the creation of an opt-out with obvious caveats like litmus tests to prevent abuse by either party. That should be enough, and even then we can still have wide room to deal with cases on an individual basis.

I think I fell victim to the "Brandt banned when Selina was Hiveminded" thing. I still don't see them as active as they used to be in contributing, though.

[dogbiscuit]

Right, I forgot. If someone does something bad to you, the best recourse is to not only do something bad back, but to keep doing it for years at a time even after the offending material is gone.

That is something I'd take issue (and I'll try to ignore BADSITES conflation of WR members with other activities of independent people).

The BAD THING that Brandt has done is simply to link a pseudonym with a real name. In the real world this is a so what - a minor irritation like finding out who The Stig is on Top Gear. In Wikipedia, the problem is that this has been turned into a capital crime. The other thing is to recognise that there are still people on Wikipedia working to reinstate defamatory information - and the basic control mechanisms and politics of Wikipedia have not changed so it is rather unfair to characterise the situation as being "years at a time even after the offending material is gone."

Brandt claims he has been libelled and has had to fight to get information corrected or removed. Given that I don't believe anyone denies this, that is indeed a bad thing and is in fact unlawful. The bad thing he has done in return is identify the only people that take any sort of responsibility for the content of Wikipedia - the admins and ArbCom. There is nothing illegal about what he has done, and as far as I am aware, this has been achieved with information that is in the public domain - normally provided by the "victims" themselves. It is a reflection of the distorted priorities of Wikipedians that simply creating that site made a massive difference to how Brandt was treated.

I happen to agree that it is unpleasant when you know how badly someone will react, but given the vacuum within which Wikipedia is governed, Wikipedia does not give its victims a lot of choices. I find it fascinating that the odd nastiness that emanates from this site is in part generated by Wikipedians, in part is simply the documentation of the insanity of Wikipedia and then reinterpreted into being an attack under Wikipedian perspective, and then there is the occasional vindictive mess, which normally has spilled over from Wikipedia in the first place.

Murphy generally operates independently of this site and rarely passes by to update us. I think your criticisms of WR are based on fantasy of what you want WR to be - a nest of trolls - rather than what it is, some concerned people (pro and anti-Wikipedia) and a group of mal-content Wikipedians who borrow this site to continue their Wiki-Drama outside the rules of Wikipedia and tar the rest with their brush.

[Kato]

Some interesting answers here from Privatemusings.

Privatemusings (T-C-L-K-R-D)

*odd, contradictory, woefully ignorant, or plain interesting replies are highlighted in red.

Questions from Lar

1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

I began, and support WP:OPTOUT (non 'public figures' can, upon request, have their articles removed), I further believe all BLP articles should be semi-protected immediately. b) is a sensible measure also, in dealing with the truly remarkable amount of poison that wikipedia as a website puts out there. That the community haven't addressed this problem speaks to the effectiveness of the culture in many ways, in my book. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

I wouldn't see it as arbcom's role to make the changes I support, and don't really feel that their involvement in policy development has helped at all. Individual arbs are, of course, free (per NYB notably of late) to show leadership in promoting necessary change. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Posting my concerns regularly, starting proposals (and indeed a long term straw poll), and trying to keep a spotlight on the sheer scale of this immense problem has been the approach I've taken to date :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?

We've got problems, actually primarily related to the recognition of our problems, in my book! I harbour hope that wiki culture can evolve into a more functional state :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?

They should be switched on immediately. The inability to evolve a sensible governance structure has prolonged the 'herding cats' problem of big decision making. I don't see arbcom invovled per se, but I'd hope individual leaders can make a difference. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

I think there are significant downsides, and we'd do better to discuss them rather than ignore them. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

I'd encourage one and all to really think about why they should be permitted to (for example) write about a real living person whilst 'hiding' behind a cloak of pseudo-anonymity - engagement in the downsides may help one and all tread a careful, respectful path in their work on the project.

c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

This one's a minefield - I've discussing at the CoI noticeboard, for example, that there are many, and regular discussions speculating the real identity of a pseudo-anonymous contributor which are quite clearly acceptable / permissible by the project as a whole. Leaving this tension unresolved is a bad thing. My root position is that if information is being shared on wikipedia that an individual can reasonable ask to be kept private, I would support the use of oversight. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

Maybe - it's best not to try and codify these 'rules' too much - we'll only tie ourselves up in contradiction and double standards, I'd say.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)

I don't, and right at the moment, I don't plan to, because I don't really want to. Happy to go a bit further if you'd like :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

I think the foundation should probably seek more external advice on some of these matters, I think this would be a good basis for disc

g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)

I'm loathe to jump into broad brush answers without rigourous examination of definitions - so 'dunno' is the most honest answer here atm. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

per the above, I'd strongly support the WMF seeking external advice, and am not certain my own 2 cents would help at this point. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

per a) really... Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

difficult - ideally none would be necessary, but understanding and human kindness are always good things :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

see a) really - I'm not very comfortable offering a lay opinion on this important, sensitive subject. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

again, I'd seek external advice on this important sensitive matter - in terms of arb cases however, it's been my observation that I have on occasion disagree with the application of the terms 'stalking' and 'harassment', and would evaluate such on a case by case basis. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

I'd try not to play this game where possible - it's my view that the existence said 'rule' perpetuates the 'game'. Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

I'd encourage people to talk everywhere and anywhere! It's polite to let people know if you're talking about them, mind :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

I have a blog, which contains a few musings here and there, but nothing particularly interesting! Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

WR is a forum site, in quite a state of flux from what I can gather... I personally read, and post occasionally (though not quite as much as yourself, and NYB, I think?). Wikback made a great start (I think I was the 'top poster' there?), and it's a great shame that way too heavy a hand led to its demise in my view. Ultimately, of course, it failed because UC turned it off! Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?

I think folk are understanding a bit more that we can relax several notches on this one... this is a good thing! Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

heh... are there any other 'outside criticism sites' except Wikipedia Review? - your coyness made me smile! - per my previous, I think it's great that folk are understanding more and more that we can relax a bit on this one :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

It's my view that the problems stem not from the 'vested contributors' themselves, but the odd 'power eddies' which we (the community in totality) have allowed to evolve around them. I've said previously that some of the most difficult cases at arbcom this year have been examples of the system really (really) letting down some of wiki's best and brightest (on my kinder days, I even include the arb.s themselves within this!) - I think wiki-friends should be encouraged to be tougher on each other, and to be far kinder to your wiki-enemies (or to put it in a friendly way, folk you might not get on with quite as well). I think we're getting better on this front though, which is a great cause for optimism :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[Random832]

Right, I forgot. If someone does something bad to you, the best recourse is to not only do something bad back, but to keep doing it for years at a time even after the offending material is gone.

That is something I'd take issue (and I'll try to ignore BADSITES conflation of WR members with other activities of independent people).

The BAD THING that Brandt has done is simply to link a pseudonym with a real name.

In a list of people, some of whom may not wish to be associated with the actions of others on that list. Say I don't really want my name mentioned in the same context as half these people - wouldn't you agree that's a separate "bad thing" than if he'd simply provided my name and username on a page by itself, or had it as a search form where someone can just as easily find me by typing in my username, but it wouldn't show other people's listings along with it?

He has linked my name with not only _my_ actions on wikipedia, but with the actions of everyone on that list.

But having it behind a search form means it wouldn't show up on a Google search for each person's name - and Brandt showed during the NewyorkBrad incident that even if he does hate them, he's every bit as addicted to the Google juice as anyone. It would also mean he'd have to work for his drama - he couldn't be guaranteed people will notice right away when he adds someone unless he announces it; as it is, he can claim all he's doing is maintaining a webpage.

[dogbiscuit]

In a list of people, some of whom may not wish to be associated with the actions of others on that list. Say I don't really want my name mentioned in the same context as half these people - wouldn't you agree that's a separate "bad thing" than if he'd simply provided my name and username on a page by itself, or had it as a search form where someone can just as easily find me by typing in my username, but it wouldn't show other people's listings along with it?

He has linked my name with not only _my_ actions on wikipedia, but with the actions of everyone on that list.

But having it behind a search form means it wouldn't show up on a Google search for each person's name - and Brandt showed during the NewyorkBrad incident that even if he does hate them, he's every bit as addicted to the Google juice as anyone. It would also mean he'd have to work for his drama - he couldn't be guaranteed people will notice right away when he adds someone unless he announces it; as it is, he can claim all he's doing is maintaining a webpage.

Moulton picked up on this issue in a PM, pointing out that originally Brandt had gone over the top in his interpretation of some American statute or other and held that any admin was in breach of the law. After a debate, held here I believe, he was disabused of this notion and has quietly withdrawn that aspect of the page. He also pointed out that Brandt seems to be somewhat capricious in the selection of his victims - in other words he loses some of the moral high ground which he claims.

My response is that, as far as I am aware, the only objection that has really been raised by those listed is that they are listed. That may be an over-generalisation or over-simplification, but I don't recall those listed stomping about complaining of being falsely accused of breaking the law, or false associations with ne'er-do-wells, though I can well understand "the Wikipedia reformers" being aggrieved at what is a de-facto blame site. However, it is not a distinction Wikipedia makes either, (aside from that rouge admin thing that I never really got).

I'm actually a bit of a flip-flop merchant on HiveMind. I think it serves a purpose, but it serves its purpose best when targeted identifiable abusers of the Wikipedian system to hold power or attack and defame people - so don't nitpick my response too much - I reserve the right to be inconsistent!

[Kato]

Back to Lar's questions, there have been a series of thoughtful and progressive replies lately that have impressed.

These questions act as a survey to ascertain whether long term active Wikipedos had learned anything over the past 3 years or so, and whether they are prepared to change, move forward, or at least set an example.

[Kato]

BillMasen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

*odd, contradictory, woefully ignorant, or plain interesting replies are highlighted in red.

Questions from Lar

1)Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

I think that BLP articles on not-very-famous-people should be restricted to the information which caused them to be reported in a Reliable Source. If that only amounts to a stub, the article should be redirected to a bigger article.

b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

I agree with this, given the tendency to add too many biographical articles.

2) Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

Content.

b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

I'm not aware of any aspects of BLP which are egregious enough to get upset about.

c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

I would probably not bother to involve myself in changing policy. If I did, it would be as an ordinary contributor whose proposals were subject to discussion, not judicial fiat.

3) It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?

Yes, I think that with this many editors, "consensus" only happens when most are apathetic. This is fine for more specific policies. But for community-wide ones, a vote of some kind is necessary.

4) Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?

Arbcom should have no role in deciding this policy. For what it's worth, I think it's a good idea as proposed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions.

5)Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
Yes. Editing certain topics might arouse resentment in the associates of editors if their identity was known. Moreover, we don't want edit wars to become physical wars with real people.
b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
moot
c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
I think permanent deletion should be used if possible.
d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
Yes, it is contributing to exposure.
e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
I will disclose if elected.
f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
We should punish outers where appropriate.
g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
We should punish outers where appropriate.

6) Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
Yes, that is reasonable.
b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
I'm not sure. As you say, it doesn't come under ArbCom's remit.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
As above.
d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
Well, obviously the stalker should be banned permanently. What more can I say?
e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
Contributions are a matter of public record, and no amount of review is stalking.

7) A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

No-one should revert edits just because they are made by someone problematic.

8) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
Anything acrimonious must remain onwiki.
b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
I have no such vehicle.
c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
Once more, I have no opinion on this subject which is not salient to the ArbCom.
d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
I think that an arbitrator should keep it onwiki, or resign.
e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
I have no such account, and believe that other arbitrators should disclose it if elected.

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

In any legal case, the history of the offender is relevant to sentencing; so it should be in wikipedia.