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

[Kato]

In the midst of the irrelevant circus going on surrounding the largely irrelevant "Arbitration committee elections", Lar asks some interesting questions that demand answers from everyone - not just the roll call of candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...stions_from_Lar

Questions from Lar

Note: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?
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?
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?
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)
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?
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)

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

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?

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?
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?
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)?
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?
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? )

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)?

[Moulton]

The Final Absolution

Speaking of Lar, perhaps someone would like to pose this question (which was posed previously to the candidates for WMF Trustees)...

Hidden in en.wikipedia's Administrator's Noticeboard, there is a quote from w:en:User:Lar:

The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair.

The question, in response to quotes like this, is: Should Wikipedia reform its regulatory structure to better respect modern society's concept of Civil Rights and Due Process? --Whiteknight (meta) (Books) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In particular, should Wikipedia evolve its governance structure to at least catch up to where Thomas Jefferson took us some 235 years ago, when he wrote into the US Constitution a prohibition against Bill of Attainder (the legal term corresponding to the Jimbonic practice of banning and indefinite blocking without due process).

If not, should Wikipedia evolve its governance structure to at least catch up to where Hammurabi defined the Rule of Law back in 1760 B.C. when he required that banning at least be proven at trial?

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he can not prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death.

If not, should Wikipedia evolve to where Western Civilization has stood since the dawn of recorded history, where one could absolve themselves of the stigma of unproven charges of wrongdoing by engaging in a baptismal ablution ritual?

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

Finally, should there be some (perhaps more merciful) remedy for dealing with those condemned admins who have treated editors harshly (e.g. by arbitrarily, capriciously, and summarily imposing unproven bans or indefinite blocks), in accordance with the third secular law ever carved into stone tablets?

3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.

Finally, in view of the WMF Mission to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and to disseminate that educational content to students, teachers, and scholars around the world, should Wikipedia be modeling a more up-to-date governance practice than the pre-Hammurabic tribal overlordship that has come to dominate the absurd carnival of political soap operas of the Wikisphere's legendary drama machine?

[Kato]

Candidates are beginning to answer Lar's questions. This is interesting to me as it gives an idea of the State Of Mind of your average Wikipedo with regard to some of the essential issues. And we can gage whether Wikipedos have any chance of enlightenment.

First up is Sam Korn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...stions_from_Lar

Sam Korn (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.

Firstly, the BLP approach is avowedly not correct in all aspects, though it is improving. I think the idea that we have an ethical duty towards the subjects of our biographies is beginning to be generally accepted and some more radical actions are being taken. This is good news and gives me hope.
On the other hand, our approach is not vigorous enough and there is still frequent arguments between members of the community. What is fundamentally needed is a change in attitude that reflects our prominence and therefore our responsibility. It is happening, but it needs to continue happening. We must, as a project, do all we can to ensure that our biographies are of the highest editorial standard.
Taking this into consideration, there is an obvious corollary: that we should not have articles that we cannot keep in reasonable condition. I am opposed to (a), because I don't see it as sufficiently clear-cut: the debates over where people fall on each line will be just as bad as today's. The general principle behind ( b ) -- that the standards for notability for living people should be significantly more testing -- is one I endorse fully and without reservation. I would accept the system as presented there, although quite possibly there are other, more subtle ways of sorting it. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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.

a) It is a question of content policy, so both, to one degree or another.
b ) I disagree in general with the Committee mandating policy. This should only be allowed in the most extreme cases, where not to mandate action would be dangerous and irresponsible. Furthermore, it should be an interim measure, an attempt to give the community as a whole a kick to get a decent and long-term policy written. The Committee's actions in the past have conformed to a certain degree with this, but not wholly.
c) I think (b ) says how I would handle these things.
Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?

I do not agree with this thesis. It's harder work to get consensus for changes, admittedly. Something we have had to sacrifice is some idea of uniform application of policy, and that's alright, as long as the varying implementations are reasonable. If we don't think of a matter having consensus as being "something everyone agrees on" and instead think of it as "something everyone can agree with", I think the problems would be made smaller.
Further, I would say that it has always been the case that getting consensus for the really big changes has been hard, ever since I started editing. Maybe it has got a little harder, but not by an order of magnitude.
Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?

Firstly, I don't see the Committee as having any role whatsoever in this. The only possible role I can imagine is endorsing a community consensus to try the system and asking the developers to do so. Even then I don't think it has to be the Committee; it merely could be.
I would not be absolutely opposed to the idea of flagged revisions. I think they have the potential to do a good deal to help particularly with biographies. That said, I would want to consider properly (a) whether the system is manageable over a project the size of the English Wikipedia and (b ) whether it actually will help, rather than being a lot of effort without any gain.
Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?
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?
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?
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)
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?
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)

a) Yes, I support it, on the grounds that I feel it aids the Wikipedia philosophy that it is not who you are but what you do that counts. Further, I think it is necessary for the safety of the more vulnerable members of our community.
b ) I don't think it needs changing.
c) The project should do as much as possible to protect people who need to make their real-life identity as private as possible. We should do as much as we reasonably can to look after users (and even vandals).
d) That rather depends on how closely the two correlate. If it is trivial to discover and the user makes no effort to hide it, it can hardly be called outing. The answer really is "quite possibly, though not necessarily".
e) I do use my real name as my username. I think it is a good idea for members of the Committee to reveal their real name, as it stops anyone having any kind of hold over them and it is also an inducement to behaving with integrity. I don't, however, criticise any member of the Committee for not revealing their real identity, particularly on the grounds outlined in (a).
f) Yes, I think this is adequately clear -- I don't see how it could be made more clear. Indeed, I see little more that the Foundation or the Committee could do to make pseudonymity more reliable, except perhaps by taking stronger measures against those who would attempt to reveal non-public identities.
g) This is a very serious matter indeed. I cannot think of any mitigating circumstances that would warrant not banning the individual. If the outing is targeted at the user in their function as a Wikipedian, I don't think it makes any difference at all where precisely the outing is done.
Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?
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.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
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.
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?

a) The Foundation should do all it can to publicise the potential problems and how to avoid them. It is not, however, the Foundation's job to take care of the private identity of all its users.
b ) The Foundation provides tools such as Oversight to deal with stalking and can intervene (e.g. legally) in the most serious cases.
c) We should, as a project, be as generous and as helpful as possible in these incidents; exactly how depends on the exact circumstances of the case.
d) As a project, we should ban the stalker. Wikipedia must not be used for this kind of activity.

I apologise for the lack of detail in the above responses -- the questions are not particularly relevant to the Arbitration Committee (they are far more relevant to the Foundation's board) and I haven't had time to give them a huge deal of thought.

e) The line is not particularly well-defined. What can start as useful checking of problem contributions can easily become harassment. The judgement that needs to be made really is whether the scrutiny being applied is proportionate to the original user's activity and the fashion in which the scrutiny is applied. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?

With some editors, allowing them to edit at all is dangerous for the project and, in particular, for individual members of the editing community. They must not be allowed to edit and blanket reversions must be done.
With less problematic users, I am generally opposed to the idea of reverting good edits simply because they were made by someone banned. I wish more people would try to damage Wikipedia by making useful, productive edits!
Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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?
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?
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)?
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?
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? )

a) Since very early on indeed we have used external means of communication -- mailing lists have always been part of Wikipedia's discussion system, particularly for less-specific, "meta" issues. This is often helpful, as mailing lists make discussion rather easier than the wiki format, not being built for discussion. I hold generally, however, that as much discussion as possible should be open and transparent. Given that participation in mailing lists is now far less common, I feel that the vast majority of discussion should be held on-wiki.
b ) No.
c) I think a lot of the discussion (the underlying assumptions and the vicious personal attacks especially) at Wikipedia Review is extremely unpleasant. I do not participate there as I neither wish to give more prominence to the unpleasantness nor wish to engage in what appears to be, in the vast majority of cases, banging one's head against a brick wall on the part of the editors who have a generally positive experience of Wikipedia. Some participants have useful ideas; very many do not. If members of the Wikipedia community wish to take part there, that is up to them.
d) If they are engaged in legitimate, reasonable and temperate criticism, I think it is acceptable.
e) No, I do not. I do not think it sensible for members of the Arbitration Committee to covertly participate in such a site. Firstly, they run the risk of being outed -- there is the potential for pressure to be put on them. Secondly, it is unbecoming for such a senior member of the community not to have the confidence to stand by their opinions.
Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 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)?

There is, of course, always the issue with a wiki that users who have contributed a lot are given too much leeway with their other behaviour. This should certainly be avoided. The Committee must take great care to ensure that its actions against established users are fair, so that less established users are not discouraged. That said, we must always bear in mind that we are an encyclopaedia and the Committee should recognise the positive contributions a user makes when making decisions. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[Kato]

Jehochman  (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.

Answer: a) I believe that marginally notable individuals should be able to opt out. Why shouldn't we be respectful to people when we have the opportunity? b ) AfD discussions can be tumultuous. I think defaulting to delete on BLPs is a good idea, because borderline biographies are too easy to manipulate, which may result in unreasonable harm to a living person. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 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.

Answer: a) Question one is a policy question that should be resolved by the Community, unless the Wikimedia Foundation provides specific guidance to the contrary. b ) ArbCom has the ability to enact whatever measures are necessary to protect the project from harm. If BLPs have caused serious disruptions or other problems, the Committee can take whatever action is necessary to protect the project. If BLP problems are risking legal problems for WMF, I think ArbCom can and should act to prevent trouble. Past actions seem to have had a reasonable basis, or an arguably reasonable basis. c) I would want somebody to present a coherent argument with evidence that a better approach is possible. To date, I am not aware of any such arguments. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 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?

Answer: Consensus scales just fine because as we get bigger, people spread out. We should try to break up some of our larger noticeboards in order to promote orderly discussions. This is my personal opinion. ArbCom does not dictate such things. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 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?

Answer: My understanding is that sighted revisions were tested on the German Wikipedia with mixed results. I do not think we are in a big rush. These are potentially better technical solutions, such as controlling our feeds to the search engines so that we do not export vandalized versions. This does not need to impact users. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 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?
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?
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?
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)
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?
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)

Answers: a) I support the right to pseudonymity because some users could fear retaliation from their employers, governments, or other users because of their views. b ) Don't change it. c) The project should make reasonable accommodations to users who want to upgrade their privacy. I think blanking would be the right level of assistance in most cases. For serious problems, deletion or Oversight could be used. d) I think speculating on the identity of Wikipedia editors should be discouraged. If there is an intent to harass, annoy or hinder participation, that should probably be treated as outing. e) I am an out editor. This avoids the risk of being outed. Trolls are less interested in me because I am out. f) I think WMF and ArbCom have been handling the issue of pseudonimity well enough. Users are warned that we cannot guarantee their privacy completely. We can help, but we can't guarantee. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 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?
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.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
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.
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?

Answers: a) I think WMF should be proactive by participating in government or social discussions about online stalking. Warnings need to be issued to the public about all Web 2.0 sites, not just Wikipedia. b ) Real life stalking is something to report to the policy. WMF should cooperate with law enforcement. c) Information that is not verifiable is not of much use. If we somehow learn of a verified problem, we should use common sense to help the user. I do not see a formulaic approach adding much value. d) Stalkers who use Wikipedia to harass victims should be banned and if they are breaking the law, reported to the police. e) Stalking and harassment can be claimed by an editor as a means of gaming the system. I wrote an essay about this. See WP:WOLF. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 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?

Answer: I think common sense needs to be applied. If we are concerned that one in five edits is bogus, it may be more productive to revert them all than to check each one. If we see a banned editor has single handedly written a featured article, I do not see the point in deleting it. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 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?
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?
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)?
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?
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? )

Answers: a) People will talk where they like. We are not the world government. b ) I make comments about Wikipedia all over the place. It is part of the conversations I have with other people. Whatever I say is attached to my userid, Jehochman, or my name, Jonathan Hochman. You can stalk me via Google. c) I have a Wikipedia Review account, mainly to be able to track new posts, and make a very small number of my own posts. Knowing what people are saying is useful. I see no reason to pretend they don't exist. d) People are free to say what they like, as far as I am concerned, as long as they do not cross the line of doing so to disrupt the project. If somebody is disrupting Wikipedia via off site activities, we can do whatever within our power is possible to reduce or prevent disruption. e) My participation everywhere on the net is transparent. I am Jehochman. Exposing other identities that are not connected to real life identity probably does not constitute outing, but it could be considered harassment depending on the circumstances. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 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)?

Answer: Yes. People who feel like they are above the rules need to be confronted at the earliest stage. The longer a problem festers, the harder it will be to solve. Regrettably, some vested contributors get on a tangent that leads them to depart the site, either voluntarily, or involuntarily. Jehochman Talk 06:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[Kato]

Coren  (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.
*
(a) I am very strongly opposed to the concept of "opt out", (or in). Either a person is sufficiently documented and covered by reliable sources to reach our notability criteria and they should be covered because that is what an encyclopedia is, or they are not and they should be excluded. If we find, over time, that a great number of people are "marginally" notable according to our criteria and the gray area is wide, then it means that our criteria needs to be fixed by raising the bar (or, possibly, lowering it), not worked around on the whim of the article subject.

(b ) Default to delete in the case of BLPs is eminently reasonable; we should be more careful than not when real harm can be caused, especially to subjects who are not public figures by choice, and our BLP motto should be "First, do no harm".

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.
*
(a) Unarguably of policy; the BLP policy is both ethically and legally important to Wikipedia.

(b ) I agree, because of (a). Protection of Wikipedia, its editors, and of the article subject. I'm not going to second guess the previous committees' actions other than opine that the current BLP policy could be made stronger.

c] As I stated above, tightening the notability requirements would help a great deal; but this is a position I support as an editor. Altering WP:N falls entirely outside the remit of the committee.

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 mostly agree with this assessment. Getting a solid consensus amongst a few hundred dedicated editors is a simple matter of discussion; getting any sort of consensus between tens of thousands of editors, a significant fraction of which have vested interests in a specific outcome, to agree even in majority with anything is an impossible task; especially if we interpret "consensus" as near-unanimity as was customary.

A serious reexamination of Wikipedia governance will become increasingly important as time passes; whether it moves to a direct democracy, a representation system, or something else entirely is for the community at large to examine and decide.

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?
*
I am in favor of flagged revisions; having a "stable" face to the world is a net gain as it neatly defangs most casual vandalism, and protect BLPs from the even worse danger of libel; all in one fell swoop. And we get those improvements with a bonus: the ability of everyone to edit is fostered by flagged revisions since they will greatly reduce the number of times where it becomes necessary or useful to protect or semiprotect articles.

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?
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?
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?
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)
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?
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 going to answer this group of subquestions in freeform, if you don't mind:

Pseudonymity is a useful construct, because it reduces the "barrier to entry" for contributing to the encyclopedia. I have never been personally convinced that anonymity was quite as useful, but that is a philosophical point I am willing to concede.

An important point that everyone needs to remember, however, is that pseudonymity is a veil of discretion — not secrecy.It is a pragmatic construct, not an inviolate promise. The Foundation, ArbCom, and the community in general is expected to behave with due dilligence to prevent breaches of that veil but cannot, and should not, guarantee that it will be able to.

Disclosing an editor's real life identity is only really problematic insofar as the information can be, and has been used in the past, to attack the person that was behind the pseudonym. This is a very real, and very serious, danger that motivates and justifies our collective efforts to allow people to retain their discretion. This means that all of us may do much to help when identities have been disclosed (such as deletion and oversight), including when the disclosure came from the concerned editor themself.

Outing someone deliberately against their will is, quite simply, a grievous attack in itself and needs to be dealt with accordinly. On-wiki, reverting (or oversighting) on sight is the obvious first response that would then be followed by dealing with the attacker as we would any other. Knowingly linking to such a disclosure is just as much as attack as making the disclosure oneself, as the net effect is essentially the same.

That being said, outings that occur outside Wikipedia are well beyond the reach of ArbCom; they are deplorable, and can most certainly be used as evidence of bad faith from the attacker (when the link can be established conclusively, which is nowhere near as simple as many think), but they are not actionnable on-wiki.

As to the pseudonymity of arbitrators; I feel that arbs are volunteers just like any other and should be afforded the same courtesy of discretion if they so wish. Personally, I have no plan to publically disclose my real-life identity beyond what is generally known; but my veil is admitedly paper-thin. I choose not to publicise my identity if I am elected but, for the record, I would have still ran for a seat if that had been a requirement.

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?
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.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
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.
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'm going to address this topic singly.

The responsibility of the Foundation and of the projects towards stalking is the same as that towards any other illegal act: they must foster en environment where that behavior is neither encouraged nor tolerated, they must collaborate as needed with law enforcement agencies, and they must act decisively to stop any illegal act occuring within its authority.

That being said, someone who fears being stalked, or who feels it at heightened risk of stalking, should remember that editing Wikipedia is intrinsically a very public activity. While user privacy is taken very seriously, it is not (and can never be, for numerous reasons) perfect and there is always a risk of being identified through one's activities. All editors are expected to exercise judgment and refrain from participating if they feel that doing so places them at unreasonable risk.

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 would say that as a rule, blanket reversion of banned users editing around their block is appropriate, and required to maintain the seriousness of the ban. However, that rule of thumb should not be applied without judgment: the equally important concerns of avoiding drama and starving trolls are also to be taken into account.

Blanket unreversion falls afoul of the latter two priorities. It's drama prone and is more likely to feed a troll than make him quiescent. It may be appropriate to reinstate valuable edits, but the editor doing so must be deliberate, and take full and entire responsibility for the edit as if it was their own. Any blanket restoration of contents cannot be careful and deliberate, and thus should be proscribed.

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?
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?
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)?
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?
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 think that, fundamentally, criticism is a good thing. Not all of it, by quite a margin, is constructive; but even a broken clock is correct at least twice a day. People are free, and indeed welcome to express criticism or praise about Wikipedia anywhere they please, as far as I am concerned; but when it is done on-wiki the probability that the community notices, and corrects what might genuinely be going wrong, is much higher. This is why I keep all Wikipedia business on Wikipedia myself.

I don't mind WR. In fact, I peruse its forums regularity because amongst the vast amounts of baseless whining, sob stories from poor maligned vandals, and paranoid conspiracy theories is sometimes found kernels of true ills or piercing insight into real problems. I choose not to post there, but I see nothing wrong with other editors (regardless of their role) who do. I have no opinion towards WikBak for the simple reason that I did not know of it before this question.

As for outings on such sites, I have one piece of advice: caveat emptor. The administrators and owners of such sites have generally little love for our administrators and arbitrators, and no obligation towards our privacy and behavior policies. Any editor who willingly interacts with them needs to be aware of the possibility that it be used against them, and choose accordingly to their risk tolerance.

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)?
*
Oh, dear $DEITY, don't get me started. Yes, it's very much a problem; there are editors who count good contributions as buying "tickets" allowing policy bypasses, aggressiveness, and basically any behavior we wouldn't tolerate five minutes from a recent Wikipedian. This leads, unavoidably, to disenfranchisement from those editors who aren't lucky enough to hold fistfuls of those tickets; hurt feelings because of unjust enforcement of policy; and frustration from those editors who do stay within policy.

The solution? Simple: react to result, not how many FA an editor has under their belt. Behavior that isn't acceptable to a new editor is no more acceptable from Jimbo himself. Justice is, and must be blind. It's no coincidence that every reasonably democratic civilization places "all are equal before the law" amongst the highest of principles (even if, in practice, Real Life also has vested contributors).

[Peter Damian]

Coren  (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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)?
*
Oh, dear $DEITY, don't get me started. Yes, it's very much a problem; there are editors who count good contributions as buying "tickets" allowing policy bypasses, aggressiveness, and basically any behavior we wouldn't tolerate five minutes from a recent Wikipedian. This leads, unavoidably, to disenfranchisement from those editors who aren't lucky enough to hold fistfuls of those tickets; hurt feelings because of unjust enforcement of policy; and frustration from those editors who do stay within policy.

The solution? Simple: react to result, not how many FA an editor has under their belt. Behavior that isn't acceptable to a new editor is no more acceptable from Jimbo himself. Justice is, and must be blind. It's no coincidence that every reasonably democratic civilization places "all are equal before the law" amongst the highest of principles (even if, in practice, Real Life also has vested contributors).

Much of this deserves to be in red. A classic cabalist response. Require adherence to essentially arbitrary and narrow-minded conceptions of 'civility', brand anyone who questions these standards as 'aggressive' and in breach of policy. Brand those who question such arbitrary and narrow-minded restrictions as undemocratic and unreasonable. How unreasonable is that?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kato]

Rlevse  (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.

(a) I don’t support opt in or out. A BLP subject is either notable or not notable.
(b ) Default to delete in an AFD makes sense to me, it is in line with the “do no harm” provision of BLP.

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.

(a) BLP is there for two main reasons: common decency and legal reasons to protect WMF.
(b ) Yes in this regard they have stepped into policy but I feel this is the one area that warrants that, largely for the reasons in item a. Let’s use a real case that happened here on en wiki. A singer, still alive and singing, had a medical urinary problem and had a problem with that onstage. Some editors put that in her article—come on, let’s have some common decency here. Some editors promptly removed it-Yeah.

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 it has outgrown it’s model from its early days and we need to rethink some things, including arbcom. This basically a growing process. Just how we need to change should be done by community consensus, but out model of governance needs a serious looking at.

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?

See answers to the first questions of Mailer Diablo and Treasury Tag questions, plus it’s harder for us to change because we’re so big.

(Kato note: Not properly answering this question, but casually referring to other answers is really irritating and unhelpful - just answer the damn question)

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?
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?
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?
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)
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?
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)

(combined answer) Wiki permits, even encourages, an avatar-like existence. It is a basic construct on WMF. This does not equate to secrecy, though it is similar. The problem with outing is that it can has led to harassment and even death of users. This is SERIOUS business. Stalkers of wiki users have been jailed too. Involuntary outing should be dealt with accordingly, which we can do if it is done on wiki. This is more problematic if the outing is offwiki. Action should follow serious disruption remedies, long blocks, bans, etc.

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

Partially answered with item 5. Wiki should warn users about the possibility of stalking and take steps to prevent it and help prosecute stalkers and be decisive in doing so. Such acts are hardly conducive to the collaborative environment WMF operates. Editors should realize what they do is open to any Internet user and act accordingly.

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?

See answer to Giggy’s 3rd question on blanket reverting.
(Answer to Giggy: WP:BANNED does not allow editing by banned users. Period. By circumventing that, socking to get around that makes a mockery of our process and is a slap in the face to those who the banned user harmed, which is the whole community and the encyclopedia itself. Allowing this behavior is just asking for controversy. By applying this policy as it was meant to be avoids certain wiki drama and prevents the banned user from having only his good side seen in the spotlight. If an editor in good standing wants to reinstate those edits, that's okay, but allowing editing by banned users, all of whom have been given multiple chances before being banned, makes a mockery of our policy on banning. I'm all for a second chance--if the banned user wants to edit again, he should request reinstatement of privileges. It's very similar to allowing a blocked editor to edit.)

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?
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?
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)?
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?
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? )

Constructive criticism is good. Criticism in hate or spite is bad for everyone. WikiReview has its good and bad points, some good ideas have come from it. However, it has more than its share of whiners. Personally I only look at it when someone gives me a link. Anyone participating in these offwiki sites that discuss should be aware of their potential pitfalls.

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 indeed. I’ve said elsewhere on this page being civil or good does not entitle you to be rude and obnoxious. Permitting that breeds aggressive behavior and fills already overblown egos. Deal with the behavior, not the plumage on their user page.

[Peter Damian]

Rlevse  (T-C-L-K-R-D)

(Answer to Giggy: WP:BANNED does not allow editing by banned users. Period. By circumventing that, socking to get around that makes a mockery of our process and is a slap in the face to those who the banned user harmed, which is the whole community and the encyclopedia itself. Allowing this behavior is just asking for controversy. By applying this policy as it was meant to be avoids certain wiki drama and prevents the banned user from having only his good side seen in the spotlight. If an editor in good standing wants to reinstate those edits, that's okay, but allowing editing by banned users, all of whom have been given multiple chances before being banned, makes a mockery of our policy on banning. I'm all for a second chance--if the banned user wants to edit again, he should request reinstatement of privileges. It's very similar to allowing a blocked editor to edit.)

Interesting one there. I might follow up that question with him on-wiki.

[edit] Though I have to say I agree with him on the whole. Having policies which a significant number of users (both admins and banned editors) are subverting suggests either

(i) There is something wrong with the policy

(ii) Or something wrong with the way the policy is being interpreted or implemented.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Kato]

I'd love to see some sources for Rlevse 's claim used here to justify various accountability problems of WP:

(combined answer) Wiki permits, even encourages, an avatar-like existence. It is a basic construct on WMF. This does not equate to secrecy, though it is similar. The problem with outing is that it can has led to harassment and even death of users. This is SERIOUS business. Stalkers of wiki users have been jailed too. Involuntary outing should be dealt with accordingly, which we can do if it is done on wiki. This is more problematic if the outing is offwiki. Action should follow serious disruption remedies, long blocks, bans, etc.

[Peter Damian]

I'd love to see some sources for Rlevse 's claim used here to justify various accountability problems of WP:

(combined answer) Wiki permits, even encourages, an avatar-like existence. It is a basic construct on WMF. This does not equate to secrecy, though it is similar. The problem with outing is that it can has led to harassment and even death of users. This is SERIOUS business. Stalkers of wiki users have been jailed too. Involuntary outing should be dealt with accordingly, which we can do if it is done on wiki. This is more problematic if the outing is offwiki. Action should follow serious disruption remedies, long blocks, bans, etc.

Yes, that struck me as {{citation needed}} too.

[Milton Roe]

Coren  (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar
The solution? Simple: react to result, not how many FA an editor has under their belt. Behavior that isn't acceptable to a new editor is no more acceptable from Jimbo himself. Justice is, and must be blind. It's no coincidence that every reasonably democratic civilization places "all are equal before the law" amongst the highest of principles (even if, in practice, Real Life also has vested contributors).

This gets my "candidate out of contact with reality" vote. You can decide to hold Jimbo to the same standards as any newbie admin when he indef blocks somebody for a stupid reason, but you can't enforce your ideas. It's like deciding that the General of the Military Junta that controls your country (Cromwell, say) should be held to the same legal standards as anybody else. Well, who's going to bell the cat?

[Cla68]

I'd love to see some sources for Rlevse 's claim used here to justify various accountability problems of WP:

(combined answer) Wiki permits, even encourages, an avatar-like existence. It is a basic construct on WMF. This does not equate to secrecy, though it is similar. The problem with outing is that it can has led to harassment and even death of users. This is SERIOUS business. Stalkers of wiki users have been jailed too. Involuntary outing should be dealt with accordingly, which we can do if it is done on wiki. This is more problematic if the outing is offwiki. Action should follow serious disruption remedies, long blocks, bans, etc.

Yes, that struck me as {{citation needed}} too.

I believe he's referring to something that happened on another website, not Wikipedia, like perhaps that teenage girl who committed suicide after being hectored online by her friend's mother who was pretending to be a teenage boy.

[EuroSceptic]

Amorrow landed in jail for the stalking of wikipedia authors.

[Alison]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...stions_from_Lar

Sam Korn (T-C-L-K-R-D)

b ) The Foundation provides tools such as Oversight to deal with stalking and can intervene (e.g. legally) in the most serious cases.

With due respect, when has the WMF ever intervened legally in a stalking case? Ever?(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[KamrynMatika]

Amorrow landed in jail for the stalking of wikipedia authors.

I'm pretty sure he was stalking people before Alison et al were outed. And AFAIK no one has ever died because of it. That's ridiculous hyperbole and he should be called on it.

[Alison]

Amorrow landed in jail for the stalking of wikipedia authors.

I'm pretty sure he was stalking people before Alison et al were outed.

Correct. However, he was jailed as a result of stalking and harassing people involved with Wikipedia, both the first time and the probation violation time.

And AFAIK no one has ever died because of it.

Also true, needless to say. It's still a pretty serious issue, tho'.

[KamrynMatika]

Amorrow landed in jail for the stalking of wikipedia authors.

I'm pretty sure he was stalking people before Alison et al were outed.

Correct. However, he was jailed as a result of stalking and harassing people involved with Wikipedia, both the first time and the probation violation time.

The question was asking about the practice of 'outing'. In the only real documented case of genuine stalking and harassment (where stalking != calling people out on their abuses) the 'outing' of your name and others did not really make a difference one way or another, did it? It is not as if banning the revelation of real names will prevent psychopaths using the same tactics as Daniel Brandt to discover people's names.

And AFAIK no one has ever died because of it.

Also true, needless to say. It's still a pretty serious issue, tho'.

I think in your case it was a serious issue but it is foolish to use one isolated case as a reason to allow people to publish defamation, lies, stupid crap, or whatever else they like about real, named, notable individuals all across the internet whilst hiding behind a pseudonym.

Rlevse was talking complete bullshit and that quote alone should be enough for anyone to oppose his candidacy. I mean seriously, saying that people have died? That's fucked up on so many levels.

On the other hand, in the spirit of hoping the worst people possible get elected to the committee again this year, I'm adding Rlevse to my list of "people to support" alongside Bishzilla, Phil Sandifer, Jdforrester, and White Cat. Lulz for Arbitrators '09!

[Alison]

The question was asking about the practice of 'outing'. In the only real documented case of genuine stalking and harassment (where stalking != calling people out on their abuses) the 'outing' of your name and others did not really make a difference one way or another, did it? It is not as if banning the revelation of real names will prevent psychopaths using the same tactics as Daniel Brandt to discover people's names.

That's tricky enough. In my case, what Daniel Brandt did actually did make a difference as Lord Voldemort ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) ) got his tip-off directly from Hivemind, and stated so. It makes a difference in that Brandt made a honking-great screaming banner of peoples' identities, so there is the whole visibility thing. In the case of my info (and others, I'm sure), a dedicated psycho could dig deep enough and come up with the same stuff if they know what they're doing (mine came from EURiD, same as Selina's). Fortunately, many psychos don't have the where-withal to do that. The issue around Hivemind is that he makes it easy, and makes it visible while at the same time, tagging all there as being miscreants (thus "deserving it", etc).

Complex and YMMV.

I think in your case it was a serious issue but it is foolish to use one isolated case as a reason to allow people to publish defamation, lies, stupid crap, or whatever else they like about real, named, notable individuals all across the internet whilst hiding behind a pseudonym.

Nobody should be allowed hide behind a psuedonym for the purpose of willfully publishing defamation and crap on other people. It's inherently dishonest, for starters. I deliberately added the word 'willfully', as I guess people can inadvertently post untruths about others without meaning harm. It's still not good, mind.

Rlevse was talking complete bullshit and that quote alone should be enough for anyone to oppose his candidacy. I mean seriously, saying that people have died? That's fucked up on so many levels.

I don't know of anyone that's died as a result of being stalked on WP (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) and I doubt it's ever happened.

[Giggy]

I have asked Rlevse to provide evidence; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2...oldid=251664906

[Milton Roe]

Amorrow landed in jail for the stalking of wikipedia authors.

I'm pretty sure he was stalking people before Alison et al were outed.

Correct. However, he was jailed as a result of stalking and harassing people involved with Wikipedia, both the first time and the probation violation time.

And AFAIK no one has ever died because of it.

Also true, needless to say. It's still a pretty serious issue, tho'.

Alison, you have the dubious distinction of being probably the worst case WP has ever had. I'm sure that can ruin your perspective, but the world of adult reponsibility just does not work well on anonymity.

[Giggy]

I have asked Rlevse to provide evidence; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2...oldid=251664906

Clarified; death threats, not deaths.

[Alison]

Alison, you have the dubious distinction of being probably the worst case WP has ever had.

.. that you know of. There have been others, though nobody's really spoken of them. I can only speak for myself and my own case but I certainly know of other serious cases.

I'm sure that can ruin your perspective, but the world of adult reponsibility just does not work well on anonymity.

Well, yeah. And extreme cases may not make good laws. To be honest, I'm conflicted over the whole matter. I can see the need for openness and accountability but along with that, there are tons of irrational, freaky people in the world and it doesn't matter how honest, good, kind, whatever you are on WP, there are plenty of folks who'd like to hurt you. I've not commented before, but Colscott targeted me well over a year ago, for reasons unknown - just by the way. Adult responsibility is not enough betimes, and some people will just go after you.

Same with kids on WP. We've had editors as young as 9 years old over there, spilling out all their personal information and that of their families, on WP. This happens again and again and again & of course WP has had its predators, too, so those folks need protection (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

I'm still working on Oversight largely for those reasons above tho' I'm kinda done with WP as a whole. People here may disagree, but getting to know the inside story on Oversight also lets you see the myriad of people who've been hurt, who are just children, who are dealing with stalkers both on and off WP, etc, etc (and that's not even going there about BLP subjects and libel). I'm more than concerned enough to stay on at that job, and do what I can to help.

[EricBarbour]

Secondly, it is unbecoming for such a senior member of the community not to have the confidence to stand by their opinions.

I don’t support opt in or out. A BLP subject is either notable or not notable.

Yeah, right. Hypocrites.

Come on. Did anyone here REALLY think all (or even some) of these random Arbcom wanna-bes suddenly, magically might offer to pursue transparency and reform? They are afraid. And they will parrot whatever the "status quo" is, whether it follows the "regulations" or not. What their predecessors pursued (including juvenile punitive blocking), they will maintain. They've all seen the "reward" that comes from disagreeing with a few cabalistas who are pursuing a whitewash of truth. Rosalind Picard, anyone? Neuro-linguistic programming, anyone?

I doubt you will find an Obama in this bunch. (Sorry to be a bearer of bad news. Someone please prove me wrong.)

[Moulton]

Bildungsroman In the Age of Character Assassination

The issue around Hivemind is that he makes it easy, and makes it visible while at the same time, tagging all there as being miscreants (thus "deserving it", etc).

The Wikipedia Experience is not complete until one has taken a turn in the legendary role of vile miscreant. And thanks to Daniel Brandt, many more individuals have been thrust into that delightful role than would otherwise have elected to play it in the ever-astonishing Wikipedia Theater of the Absurd.

On my end of the Proscenium Stage, I have KillerChihuahua, FeloniousMonk, Filll Bob Stevens, Cary Bass and Jimbo Wales to thank for casting me in the challenging role of vile miscreant.

Like the Dementors of the Potterverse, these out-casting directors are cold as ice; they suck the nefesh out of your soul and leave you lying on the edge of the Lake, without so much as a Loofah or a bar of Vanilla Bean Soap-On-A-Rope.

Of course there is the unexpected salvation in the Patronus Charm, which the designated vile miscreants learn to invoke in these dark and chilly passages.

Or, in this case, it would be a Matronus Charm, since I reckon that Allison, Angela, and Kamryn are ahead of the learning curve on this passage in the Bildungsroman.

And so we have the Red-Headed League of Vile Miscreants, with Alison and myself as charter members.

Expecto Atonum.

[Kato]

Fish and karate (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.

A In favour of both a) and b ).

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?

A It's a question of policy; this needs to be put in place by the community, not arbcom. I feel sooner or later if the community does not act, such a policy will be imposed upon Wikipedia anyway by the WMF when something seriously damaging happens. I would rather see the community act proactively and prevent this arising.

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?

A Refers, I believe, to the "BLP special sanctions"(?) - the policy is already in place, so this wasn't mandating the policy, more the interpretation of it. BLP has to be strictly enforced, and I'm broadly in favour of what they did.

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.

A I would like to see BLP strengthened, through the "opt-out" and "default to delete" means mentioned above, as well as through a more liberal use of lengthy or permanent semi-protection for biographical articles that attract problems.

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?

A I disagree; while the English Wikipedia is getting bigger and bigger, the consensus mechanism works, still, in most situations. As Wikipedia has grown, it has also stratified and diversified, with the result being there aren't that many situations where the number of people having their say overwhelms things. There are situations where consensus fails, which are nothing to do with the size, rather the stakes people have in the issue. With such occasions, while we have something in place to deal with this in terms of conduct issues (Arbcom), we do not have a similar body to make final, binding judgements on content disputes. I believe it's something the community should consider.

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?

A I would like to see sighted/flagged revisions. Arbcom has no role in making this determination. I would like to see it piloted for a period of six months on a subset of articles, preferably BLPs (the latest trial proposes Featured Articles as the pilot, which would also work). I think most people are broadly in favour, but the ins and outs of how to implement it have caused it to stall. If the community is unable to come to a decision on exactly how to implement sighted revisions, then word needs to come from the top (and I don't mean Arbcom, I mean WMF).

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?

A Yes. I prefer to judge people on their contribtutions, not their identity or lack of.

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)?

A Moot, see a)

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?

A If they wish to change their identity, or dissociate themselves from their prior identity, then they should be prepared to create a new account and avoid editing the same articles in the same manner as previously. This has been done a lot more times, I think, then people realise. I am in favour of expunging personally-identifiable information from Wikipedia if it supports this, although if people keep giving things away after being given every opportunity to start afresh eventually the efforts others will be willing to make to continue to protect them will understandably diminish.

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?

A It is not outing, although I would hope most people would have the good sense to report it via email to the individual, and perhaps to arbcom.

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)

A I do not, no. I don't believe Arbitrators, or anyone, should have to; I recognise many do. I am "pseudo-pseudonymous"; my first name is known, I have revealed enough information about myself that if someone really, really wanted to they could probably link me to an online identity if I actually had any kind of online identity outside of Wikipedia. I don't, really.

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?

A The only way for someone to guarantee their pseudonymity is not to reveal personal information. We should be as assertive and helpful as possible in cleaning up issues when this does occur against a person's wishes. What should Arbcom be doing? Arbcom should set an example, and rigorously refrain from "outing" a user if their real life identity has not been revealed, or if they indicate they do not wish it to be further revealed.

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)

A If it is clearl and deliberate, then it's a clearly sanctionable offence. The severity of measures taken would depend on the circumstances; if it was done so through human error, then the sanctions would necessarily be less severe than if it was done so maliciously.

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?

A It's not the WMF's job to do so; I would expect WMF to participate fully if/when asked to do so in any broader inititative. Online stalking is not a problem unique to Wikipedia - far from it.

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.

A Real life stalking is not an issue WMF is equipped to deal with, nor should it be. In such a situation, which should be handled by the Office, full disclosure of the situation and full cooperation with the appropriate authorities is mandated.

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

A If they have been previously stalked in real life, I would expect them to be very cautious about releasing any personally identifiable information that might link them to their identity. We should be as helpful as possible in enabling and advising them how to avoid this, and timely and assertive in cleaning up any issues when this does occur.

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.

A If harassment is proven (not alleged - proven), the stalker should be immediately banned from participation on Wikipedia, and the stalkee supported as much as is humanly possible. Should this harassment spill out to other venues, then the stalkee should consider contacting the authorities.

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?

A Intent - solely reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor is not harassment. Doing so in a manner intended to demean, ridicule, offend or upset the editor may cross that line into harassment, but (and I keep saying this) each case should be judged on its merits. Allegations of harassment where none exists, or where no evidence is proffered, should be viewed as dimly as actual harassment.

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?

A Every edit should be taken on its own merits. If the edit is scrutinised and found to be a good one, undoing it purely because the user who made it is banned is foolish and counterproductive.

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?

A Discussion off-wiki is fine. Decision-making is not, as it removes the opportunity for everyone to participate.

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?

A I don't have a blog, or anything similar. I have never cared for blogs, and have never owned one. I have an account on Wikipedia Review, and participate there, in constructive discussions of Wikipedia and relared topics.

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)?

A There are users on Wikipedia Review who are supportive of Wikipedia, and those who are not. There are also those who support the aim of Wikipedia, but not its current ways of working. Differing perspectives are useful, and interesting. I have no real opinion on Wikback; it was a short lived site that I never really looked at much.

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?

A Yes, it is appropriate for anyone who so chooses to participate in an outside criticism site (note criticism does not necessarily mean negative criticism!). We have neither the ability nor the right to prevent them from doing so, nor do we have the ability or the right to cast aspersions on them on-Wiki simply because they openly have an account on an outside site. I would hope they would participate in a constructive manner, and should they fail to do so, then that can, and does, have an impact on their standing on Wikipedia.

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? )

A Yes, my account is called "Neil", on Wikipedia Review (link). If someone has an account on Wikipedia Review not publically linked to their Wikipedia account, then there wouldn't be much you could do about it, as you wouldn't even know the two users were one and the same person.

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)?

A I am of the opposite view; I believe the longer a user has been around, the less excuse they have for not knowing how to behave appropriately. I hold "vested contributors" up to a higher standard, not a lower one. Newer users should be given more leeway, as they at least have the excuse of not knowing what is tolerable. I appreciate this may be a little too far, but treating people equally would be a start.

[Kato]

Hemlock Martinis (T-C-L-K-R-D)

*odd, contradictory, woefully ignorant, or plain interesting replies are highlighted in red.
Note: This guy changed his answers a few days after he originally replied - the first answers have been struck through.

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.
God I hate BLP cases. Nobody's ever satisfied. The "Opt Out" thing sounds pretty, but without clear boundaries on where to draw the line it's unreasonable. We'd spend half our time arguing who "deserves" to be in and who doesn't and the articles would never get around to being written. Since I'm an inclusionist, "Default to delete" puts a bad taste in my mouth. This is something that is best dealt with on a case-by-case basis, because big overarching buzzwords and catchphrases are only going to come back to kick us in the pants later. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Opting out, if implemented, shouldn't be an automatic process. The way I'd ideally set it up would be thus: an article subject contacts Wikipedia, perhaps through a specially set up board or committee. The subject requests that their article be removed. Now perhaps either the committee or the community debates it, but there would need to be that element of editorial review. This would help us distinguish between politicians who got embroiled in a scandal and want it whitewashed and the good-natured average joe who is "notable" for a mistake he or she made when they were younger. I'd prefer that the committee in charge of this process set up a series of tipping points for inclusion or removal. Those tipping points would be vital in securing my support or opposition for such a group. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
No. I'm an inclusionist, which means I believe that the burden of proof for an article's deletion rests with the editor who nominates it for deletion. If they cannot give sufficient reason for its deletion, and/or they can't sway enough of the community to support them, then the article should remain. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?

It's a question of both content and policy, which is why it sucks so much. We have to be a little loose with our rules there out of practicality because ArbCom's the only body capable of resolving those issues, and we have to tread carefully so as to not infringe upon the "no content disputes" maxim. Again, I cannot stress enough how I deal with BLPs on a case-by-case basis and thus refrain from making catchall arguments that are Ackbarian-level traps. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a question of content, but it occasionally and unfortunately wanders over into the area of policy sometimes. We must always remember that the community exists to write content not policies, and all other concerns are secondary. The entire purpose of the BLP rules is to establish some level of editorial standard among our articles and to protect unwary public figures from possible libel and slander. I view BLP primarily through the goggles of content, mainly because the policy issues come from the editors who bicker over the policy instead of the policy itself. This is not to say that there aren't policy aspects; rather, I tend to focus on the editorial and the real-world impact before so. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
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?

In some cases, ArbCom needs to mandate policy. Some situations, such as BLP, are a tad too important to allow the community to argue endlessly about. When the community has exhausted the discussion, it is perfectly reasonable for ArbCom to step in and decide. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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 see two problems with our current BLP approach (not necessarily the policy, but the way in which we carry it out). First, it's ignorant. There's a growing portion of the community that's begun to realize Wikipedia's role in the real world and take account of the fact that what we write here is read by thousands, hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people. We have a duty and a responsibility to make sure that what we're writing is fair, neutral and not unrepresentative of living individuals who have to live with what we write.
Second, our resolution of BLP matters is incoherent and haphazard. The community has previously decided that some things are better left to more qualified individuals rather than the mob of the editors themselves. We give Checkuser to trusted individuals rather than the general public. We elect Arbitrators who have incredibly discretionary powers to hear cases instead of letting those cases be endlessly debated by entrenched editors. And we empower only certain individuals delete articles, protect pages and block editors. I know Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy, but this may be one area where a little bureaucracy could save us a lot of trouble. An independent editorial board with the ability to review BLP cases and make firm rulings on the content issues within, as well as adjudicate their possible deletion if so requested by the subject, would go a long way towards resolving the issues. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?

Haha, oh boy. I would love nothing more than a little more structure in Wikipedia. I'm tired of the haphazard anarchy we use to get through the day. It was benificial when we were just starting out and the undirected energy was a positive force, but now it's feeding upon itself and we're devoting our energy to excesses and frivolities rather than increasing the quality of the encyclopedia. I would love a Parliament, and an Editorial Council, and all sorts of other organs to bring a modicum of discipline to this place...but it's unrealistic. The community and the entrenched long-time editing cabals are almost universally against it. I've given up on trying to bring it about and now I'm focusing on the small stuff. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with your assessment. If you think of it in stages, we're somewhere in our adolescence right now as a community, as an encyclopedia and as a website. In our infancy and childhood, the lack of boundaries and walls allowed us to expand rapidly, and for a time that was a good thing. But now we're a top ten website, we're almost always the first hit on Google, and we have to realize that when making decisions.
I've been a big proponent of more hierarchy and discipline within the community. We're often too busy feuding over the later drama spat to actually write an encyclopedia, and I want to bring us back on the proper path of expanding knowledge. First, I would like to see a Parliament in which members are elected to represent the community and empowered to draft and write policy. The exact nature and layout and details of this I do not know, nor will I attempt to outline here, but the rough gist is something I would like to see. I would also like to see an Editorial Council similar to the one I proposed a few months ago to handle strictly content-related disputes. I believe this would help resolve underlying content issues that fester over into the user disputes we all know and love, as well as create an environment conducive to article writing.
Unfortunately, I doubt any of that will happen. There is a sizable chunk of the community, consisting mostly of the entrenched editors who have been here forever, that resists almost any changes made to the status quo. Even worse, there is an even larger portion of the community that blindly follows the orthodox portion and makes it even harder to actually debate the issues. The best I can hope for is that ArbCom can step up and fill in the gaps in which some order is so desperately needed. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?

I'm not a big fan of flagged revisions. There are two million articles on this encyclopedia, and we have a hard enough time keeping our articles at at least a steady level of quality, much less improving them. Flagging new pages is fine, but expansion past it is a waste of energy. ArbCom doesn't have a role in this; it's for the community to decide. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I discussed this the other day on IRC with a few people after answering, and they gave me a better depiction of what such a system would look like. I'd be willing to support it for a trial period of, say, a month. If it doesn't work then we can scrap it; if it does work, then full speed ahead. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?
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.
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)?
n/a.
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?
It's a Pandora's Box situation. If someone's disclosed their identity, they can't put that cat back into that bag. We can try to minimize the likelihood of someone finding that information through oversight and deletion, but given the increased awareness of our critics it might not be enough. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?
It depends on the intent. If I post it by accident, then no, not really. It'd be just an honest mistake. But if I post it specifically to out that person, then yes it's outing. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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)
In the past I would have said yes and been more than willing to reveal my identity. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has detractors who would use such information against us for personal, petty and vindictive reasons. What happened to one of the editors I respect the most earlier this year is proof enough of these individuals' disgusting malice. I will not reveal my identity under any circumstances except to the Foundation should I be elected. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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 it's fairly clear, yes. If the loss was brought on by the editor, then deletions and oversights can be used. If the loss was brought about by another, then in addition to oversights the outer would also be banned for disruption. ArbCom and the WMF are empowered to enforce such decisions, and should do so with all due haste. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
An indefinite ban would be appropriate. Outing not only disrupts the encyclopedia but also drives away good contributors and scares new ones from participating. It's the digital equivalent of invading our villages and salting our farms, and it cannot be tolerated. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
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. Unmasking one's identity is serious and should be dealt with as harassment and punished accordingly; I would do the Wiki equivalent of "throwing the book" at anyone who did so maliciously, whether they did so onwiki or offwiki because it's just as disruptive no matter the location it occurs. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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?

I don't know how we'd realistically go about doing this. Are we to place banners saying, "Editing here may lead to stalking"? While it's a realistic fear, it's not one we should be cautioning against per se. Rather, we as a community should stress anonymity's benefits. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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.

Stalking is a problem, but it's one we're really hard pressed to fix or correct from a realistic standpoint. We can ban offenders on Wikipedia, but we can't stop them from using other methods to harass editors. Doing so is simply outside our control as a community. It's unrealistic to have the WMF chase down stalkers, although cooperating with the authorities is reasonable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't know. I don't understand what kind of allowances or special provisions we could be making. Could you please be a little more specific as to specific allowances/special provisions? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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.

It's no different than a BLP violation and a regular case of harassment, except that the added factor of clear and present malice would cause me to bring the banhammer down even harder. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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?

There's a fairly clear line actually, and that's malice. If someone reviews my contributions to establish, say, a pattern of abusive editing on certain topics, then that's fair so long as the pattern actually exists and makes sense. If, however, one reviews an editor's contributions to find out what that person's name is or where they live, then that's malicious and should be smacked down as such. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting banners up that say "EDITING HERE MAY LEAD TO STALKING" is foolish. Banks don't put "PEOPLE MIGHT STEAL YOUR MONEY FROM US" signs on their front doors. Schools don't put "YOU MIGHT FAIL THIS TEST" disclaimers atop the SAT. Stalking is a problem, but it's one we're really hard pressed to fix or correct from a realistic standpoint. We can ban offenders on Wikipedia, but we can't stop them from using other methods to harass editors. Doing so is simply outside our control as a community. It's unrealistic to have the WMF chase down stalkers, although cooperating with the authorities is reasonable. I don't understand the "allowances or special provisions" for prior victims of stalking offline - what exactly would we be doing in treating them differently? It's a complicated topic but let me try to sum up: while I would love to see stalking and harassment end, there's realistically only so much we can do about it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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?

Removing good contributions does nothing but remove good contributions. We're not Chinese emperors, we can't just erase someone from the Imperial Histories. I think it's overkill and a waste of time and effort. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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?

Rather than look at this from an acceptable/unacceptable standpoint, we have to look at this from an evitable/inevitable standpoint. Humans are social creatures. We love to gossip; that's why they have all those magazines at the checkout stand. It is inevitable that discussions about Wikipedia take place outside of Wikipedia. Attempting to end such discussions is both 1) unenforceable since we have no powers outside the confines of the MediaWiki software and 2) futile since the discussion would likely just migrate to a different forum or go further underground. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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 no external blogs or anything of that nature. I only discuss Wikipedia onwiki or in the IRC channels. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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)?

I have no qualms with WR's existence, as I've always believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I think it's important to have a dissenting voice to listen to when we make decisions, especially given our role as a top ten website. There are a few crazies there, whose names need not repeating, but when I read WR I occasionally find some valuable criticism there.
Wikback failed for a variety of reasons, but first and foremost because it wasn't filling a niche. If you like Wikipedia, you discuss Wikipedia on Wikipedia. If you dislike Wikipedia or have criticisms of it, you discuss it on WR. If you're somewhere in the middle, you go to both or you go to neither. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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 don't find it inherently inappropriate for anyone to participate in WR. As long as administrators aren't blocking or unblocking others at the behest of external forces, and as long as Arbitrators aren't sharing juicy case secrets, I see nothing wrong with it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 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? )

I have no accounts on Wikipedia Review or any other site. I don't see anything wrong with having anonymous/pseudonymous accounts there, so long as they aren't doing what I described in Question 8d. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside criticism is a necessary evil. The reality is, we're a big thing on the Internets nowadays, and so we've attracted our fair share of critics. I do not participate in external sites with relation to my activities on Wikipedia, although I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia Review. I read Wikipedia Review because sometimes it can get a little too echo chamber-y on here, and we get so used to dealing with issues within our little bubble we forget to look at the larger picture. Although I frequently disagree with what I read on WR, I find them useful in stepping back and seeing what outsiders think looking in. There are plenty of bad apples there - Daniel Brandt, Don Murphy, etc. - but it's not that hard to discern valid criticism there from the potshots. Plus, I admit - there's a little ego in there on my part. I sometimes try to find if they've ever mentioned me but alas, no such luck. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 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)?

Yes, I think there are "vested contributors" on Wikipedia. I like to compare them to the monopolies and trusts under Teddy Roosevelt, where rather than unequivocally busting all trusts, T.R. only busted the "bad" trusts who were working against the public good whilst allowing the "good" trusts to remain. So too must we look at vested contributors. For this, I once again refer to my House test: does an editor's positive contributions to the encyclopedia outweigh that editor's negative impact on the community? For some entrenched members of our community (and I'm not going to name names because that's 1) unfair and 2) could lose me votes), they do more harm than good so I'd be willing to let them slide for the time being provided their contributions outweigh their drawbacks. But others have become more interested in advancing personal agendas and descending into personal attacks, and they should go. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[Lar]

Alison, you have the dubious distinction of being probably the worst case WP has ever had.

.. that you know of. There have been others, though nobody's really spoken of them. I can only speak for myself and my own case but I certainly know of other serious cases.

So do I.

[Moulton]

Alison, you have the dubious distinction of being probably the worst case WP has ever had.

.. that you know of. There have been others, though nobody's really spoken of them. I can only speak for myself and my own case but I certainly know of other serious cases.

So do I.

Atrocious behaviors arise on both side of the Thin Blue Line.

Eventually, one becomes so familiar with (and disgusted by) the unrevealed atrocities that one decides to found a new religion by transforming a generic instance of such atrocities into a passion story that remains in the public consciousness forever, even amongst infidels and non-believers. In the old days, this was called churching the unwashed masses. Nowadays, rather than start new religions, we just do the scientific research into the underlying sociopathy, whether it's criminal sociopathy or sociopathy under the color of law.

Wikipedia is a magnet for pseudonymous characters with sociopathic tendencies (most of which do not stray into the domain of extreme atrociousness). And the ones that do tend to be so terrifying that we don't talk about them in public, lest doing so exacerbates the untreatable cancer of recursive socipathic drama.

Eventually, some bard writes a functional comic opera about it, Seth Finklestein writes a theatrical review of the opera, and that's the end of it for the season.

But not to worry. These seasonal operas are hardy perennials.

After all, we've been re-running them for 4000 years.

Personally, I'm fond of Elmer Fudd singing, "Kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit..."

[tarantino]

Fish and karate (T-C-L-K-R-D)

Here's some additional questions that should be asked of Neil.

1. Soon after Poetguy was unmasked, you deleted all of his various identified accounts' user pages. Do you still believe this was appropriate and non-controversial?

2. Were these deletions of your own initiative, or were you asked to by Michael Baxter?

3. Why did you change your user name after your deletions were reversed?

[Random832]

It is not as if banning the revelation of real names will prevent psychopaths using the same tactics as Daniel Brandt to discover people's names.

Amorrow is not as clever as Brandt.

[Kato]

RMHED (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.
A. I'm all in favour of an Opt Out of the marginally notable, or to be clearer, anybody not in a traditional paper encyclopedia of one kind or another should be allowed to Opt Out of Wikipedia.
A. Yes to that, the sooner a non consensus BLP AfD is a default delete the better IMO.

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.
A. Primarily policy.
A. This kind of wide ranging BLP issue should be tackled by the Foundation who have up to now done bugger all, they need to be held to account. If Arbcom can add pressure on them to act then all to the good.
A. I'd try to pressure the Foundation into taking an OFFICE action of semi protecting all BLP's and introducing Flaged Revisions. This stuff is too important to be left to consensus, trying to get a consensus for any major change on Wikipedia is nigh on impossible these days.

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?

A. I agree Wikipedia is in a deep rut, it has stagnated. I'd change this by having a simple vote to implement policy or guideline changes, voting is not evil, it's practical and resolves deadlocks.

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?

A. Yes ASAP, any form of flagged revision is better than none, IMO the stricter the better.
A. The community seems incapable of making significant policy or guidelines changes. In this regard consensus has become a millstone around our necks, time to cut it loose and switch to straight majority voting. Arbcom has no direct role in this matter, it needs to come from the Foundation, Arbcom though could do a lot more by adding pressure on the Foundation to do the right thing.

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?
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?
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?
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)
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?
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)
A. Yes, as to do otherwise would discourage contributors greatly.
A. Oversight should be used in these cases if requested, though once the genie is out of the bottle you can't really expect total anonymity.
A. If a link is posted on-wiki to the site doing the outing then that really isn't acceptable as to do so would be an act of bad faith.
A. Nope I've got no plans to openly reveal my ID, except to the Foundation, if somebody outs me then good luck to them.
A. Of course there is no guarantee of Pseudonymity, many users reveal real life info about themselves unknowingly on and off wiki, and that's their lookout and bugger all to do with Arbcom.
A. Depends if that info has at some point already appeared on-wiki, if it hasn't then the editor should not have revealed it and they should be punished. If the outing is off-wiki then it is of no concern of Arbcoms.

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?
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.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
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.
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?
A. No and no.
A. None beyond cooperating with any law enforcement agency.
A. None, they don't have to edit Wikipedia they can find a new hobby if concerned about stalking.
A. If it's article manipulation then Ban the culprit and Perma protect the article. If the stalkee is an editor and if the stalking is genuine and not a 'cry wolf' situation then ban them, though this of course doesn't stop them returning. If it's really serious then suggest to the stalkee that they report the matter to their relevant local law enforcement agency.
A. Reviewing another users edits is not stalking, if that is all an account is used for then they are clearly a disruptive SPA and can be dealt with accordingly.

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?

A. Not if their contributions are useful, why go to the effort of reverting them, that just gives them even more attention.
A. Again, if the edits are good then just ignore.

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?
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?
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)?
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?
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? )
A. Any potential on-wiki action, especially admin actions, should only be discussed on-wiki, not on the likes of IRC. There is nothing wrong with outside criticism on other websites, it can be beneficial in some cases.
A. Nope, no blog.
A. I quite like Wikipedia Review it can be an entertaining read, I have no problem with anybody being a member there. I have no knowledge of Wikback so can't really comment. An ideal outside criticism site should be thorough in its examination of Wikipedia and offer helpful and constructive criticism.
A. Anybody should be free to participate at an outside criticism site. It's a matter of freedom of speech.
A. No.

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)?

A. No more than any other organization.
A. It's foolish to pretend that all contributors are equal, certain allowances should be made to those who have made significant contributions.

[Unrepentant Vandal]

A. Depends if that info has at some point already appeared on-wiki, if it hasn't then the editor should not have revealed it and they should be punished. If the outing is off-wiki then it is of no concern of Arbcoms.

wtf?

[Kato]

Charles Matthews (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

(Charles Matthews's answers are at the foot of the post, and are clearly unsatisfactory for someone who has spent so much time at WP.)

Questions from Lar

[b] 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.

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.

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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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)
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?
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)

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

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?
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?
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?
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)?
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?
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? )

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)?

1. Against any opt outs. Default to Delete would I think work out.
2. Policy. The BLP enforcement thing was worth trying as an experiment. If ArbCom suggests enforcement and the idea proves unpopular, the page will be retired. (c ) Don't treat AfD as a monolith. Just means splitting a policy page, but that would require consensus.
3. Disagree. I have said "middle-aged", hitting its own limitations and not so easy to change.
4. One day we'll introduce flagged revisions to get BLP under control, I feel. That's the killer app. Nothing to do with the ArbCom.
5. Too much here. We need very strict onsite policies to control editors using personal info on others. We should protect pseudonyms. We are not a Swiss bank, and reasonable expectations on our privacy efforts should apply.
6. Too much here. The WMF is a voluntary organisation with a small paid staff. It is not chartered as investigative or protective or whatever. The mission concerns the development of 700 websites.
7. Revert all edits is a possible remedy. Tell me about the case before asking whether the remedy is good.
8. Not going to discuss offwiki here. Relevance to the ArbCom? I edited the Wikback.
9. Answered above. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[Piperdown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...stions_from_Lar

Sam Korn (T-C-L-K-R-D)

b ) The Foundation provides tools such as Oversight to deal with stalking and can intervene (e.g. legally) in the most serious cases.

With due respect, when has the WMF ever intervened legally in a stalking case? Ever?(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

and when will you understand that some matters should be handled by real police and not role-playing game ones?

Fuck using victim status on WP as weapon. People, if they have any real reason to do so, should get justice via the real world, not via WP sympathy. The WP Admin Damsel in Distress Act from the Slimmys of the world is complete crap. Call a Mountie and stfu already, SV.

landed in jail for the stalking of wikipedia authors.

and you just gave this sort more incentive to see their names in lights. well done!

I have asked Rlevse to provide evidence; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2...oldid=251664906

Clarified; death threats, not deaths.

WMF should provide legal advice, at a minimum, in serious cases of outing/stalking.

Um, "rlevse", what part of "WP editors are not WMF employees" do you not understand?

WMF has no more obligation to "stalkees" that use WP than Telus does to stalkees that use the Canadian internet.

And no one has a "right" to anonymity. They have a right to open up a user account that is not in their real name. If some "outs" your anonymous account, stop using it if that bothers you.

WP is recording your IP address. Which is supposedly not via a proxy, ironically, per people like SV herself who has sabotaged several admin elections with that disclosure. If you use the internet without a proxy, any site you visit records your personal IP address.

IP editors are less anonymous than WP User account edits. I trust their editing motivations more than I do the anonymous admins of the wikiworld.

People like Linda were outing anonymous WP accounts every other week for years.

This post has been edited by Piperdown:

[dogbiscuit]

A couple of daft answers worth highlighting:

A. Depends if that info has at some point already appeared on-wiki, if it hasn't then the editor should not have revealed it and they should be punished. If the outing is off-wiki then it is of no concern of Arbcoms.

The pretence that Wikipedia is isolated from the rest of the world. RMHED seems to think that if something happens off Wiki then Wikipedia buries its head in the sand. This of course is a charter to take all disputes off Wiki in the full knowledge that ArbCom magically thinks that this alternate universe of Real World is irrelevant. I hear the tones of Seven of Nine - We are Wiki.

6. Too much here. The WMF is a voluntary organisation with a small paid staff. It is not chartered as investigative or protective or whatever. The mission concerns the development of 700 websites.

The Frankenstein's Monster defence - this has all got too big and complicated for us to control, so why should we? As we are not competent to manage Wikipedia, no blame can be attached for our failures.

[GlassBeadGame]

A couple of daft answers worth highlighting:

A. Depends if that info has at some point already appeared on-wiki, if it hasn't then the editor should not have revealed it and they should be punished. If the outing is off-wiki then it is of no concern of Arbcoms.

The pretence that Wikipedia is isolated from the rest of the world. RMHED seems to think that if something happens off Wiki then Wikipedia buries its head in the sand. This of course is a charter to take all disputes off Wiki in the full knowledge that ArbCom magically thinks that this alternate universe of Real World is irrelevant. I hear the tones of Seven of Nine - We are Wiki.

6. Too much here. The WMF is a voluntary organisation with a small paid staff. It is not chartered as investigative or protective or whatever. The mission concerns the development of 700 websites.

The Frankenstein's Monster defence - this has all got too big and complicated for us to control, so why should we? As we are not competent to manage Wikipedia, no blame can be attached for our failures.

Actually Mr. Mathews comment has within it a seed of sanity. It is responsible not to take on an activity that you do not have the capacity to do properly. The problem is that this needs to be applied not just to 'investigations" but to many of the core activities of publishing a proper encyclopedia.

[Neil]

Fish and karate (T-C-L-K-R-D)

Here's some additional questions that should be asked of Neil.

1. Soon after Poetguy was unmasked, you deleted all of his various identified accounts' user pages. Do you still believe this was appropriate and non-controversial?

2. Were these deletions of your own initiative, or were you asked to by Michael Baxter?

3. Why did you change your user name after your deletions were reversed?

You can consider them asked here:

1. I still don't see the big fuss; it wasn't particularly controversial at the time, and still isn't. Poetguy is now considered to be banned, and I still can't see a use for them that justifies keeping these pages around; the only real use I can see - as I said at the time - was for further fishing about salacious gossip about Poetguy (really not necessary).

2. They were of my own initiative; I have never been contacted by Michael Baxter (that I know of).

3. The name change had been something I'd been thinking about for a while, and was wholly unrelated to these or any other deletions. Why would I change my name because some subpages I deleted were subsequently restored? I changed it because I wanted a more interesting user name.

[Kato]

Phil Sandifer (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 lean towards b on this. I think we generally solve BLP problems adequately, but that there is a dispiriting tendency for more eyes to make BLP problems worse, not better. Much of this is caused when BLP problems get expressed in public, flamey ways instead of via OTRS, which tends to do a good job of quietly and effectively handling things. The problem with opt out is that "marginally notable" is still a floating term, so this doesn't remove controversy. Default to delete accomplishes a similar goal, but moves the goalpost from a subjective principle to a measurable outcome. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 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.
Question one is a question of policy. However, BLP itself is set policy, and it is within the arbcom's remit to enforce it. If the community fails to settle a BLP matter, it can fall to the arbcom to do so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 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?

I think consensus still works, but needs to be considered on local levels. I do agree that policy change has grown increasingly difficult to manage, and that bad policy decisions are getting enshrined as core and immutable decisions. This is most notable on WP:V and WP:NOR, where the written policy and actual practice diverge sharply and problematically. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 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?

I support flagged revisions, but do not see an arbcom role in their implementation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 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?
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?
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?
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)
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?
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 support the principle. I tend to think, however, that rolling back identities is difficult at best. My identity is public. In the case of outing occuring off-site, it seems to me a case by case issue. There are certainly attempts to out people that are actively abusive, and cases of outing that have problematic chilling effects. These should be combatted, but there are limits to what can be done here. The real thing we want to prevent is threats of real-world retaliation for on-wiki activities that are in accordance with our policies. The issue of outing is related to that, but what needs to be kept in mind is that outing is a tool to accomplish that, and we need to make sure that we focus on preventing the right thing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 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?
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.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
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.
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?
I think real world retaliation is a genuine problem - and I say this having been the victim of it in what remains one of the most vicious and destructive real-world attacks we've had. I think we need to do more. But the need to do more is not necessarily coupled with a clear course of action. I'd like to see more, but I don't have any good ideas on how to take productive action. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 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?

Banned users should be reverted on sight. Good edits can be reinstated later, but allowing banned editors to make good edits opens the door to trolling via making borderline edits. This is one of the oldest troll tricks in the book. It is far easier for the editing community on a given article to reinsert good edits and take responsibility for them than it is to play games with banned users. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 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?
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?
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)?
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?
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? )
Wikipedia should be discussed on Wikipedia. But I think we also need to look outside of the echo chamber and make sure we're serving our readers, not just ourselves. I don't think that WR is a useful venue for this, nor that "criticism" sites in general are. But that doesn't mean that thoughtful observations by readers in blogs, forum posts, etc shouldn't be taken seriously. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 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)?

Any long-standing community has that problem, but there's not much to be done - it's a fact of Internet life, frankly.

[Kato]

WilyD (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.

No, I don't believe in an opt out. Those cases we cannot handle ought to be deleted regardless, those cases we can handle we're handling regardless. In very fencish cases consideration of subject wishes makes some sense, though we'd never ever admit to considering "wish for inclusion" - which also makes "wish for noninclusion" a nonstarter - they're paired at the hip.

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 don't close anything as "no consensus", and as far as I can see the usual practice is "relist" anyhow. Rather than a hard and fast rule, consider that "BLP problems" are a strong "delete" argument. "Slightly spammy" shouldn't change the default to delete, though.

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?

It can be both. Enforcement of BLP has not stepped up in the way other policies have. In this sense there is a policy component.

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?

Functionally wrong, spiritually right. Admins need a stronger sense of how they're "allowed" to enforce policy, especially with regards to serious, immediate issues like BLPs. Statements from ArbCom over what is/is not acceptable in this regard are extremely helpful. I'm not sure how far we need to go - most "publicised" cases are handled reasonably well - it's detection that's the biggest problem.

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.

Would the community accept ArbCom adopting a practice like Reference questions? I think this would be a worthwhile approach.

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?
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?

I lie in bed at night dreaming of flagged revisions. I would suggest some minimal form as our own test rollout (possibly just featured content to start). I don't think there's a failure to come to a decision about it, it hasn't received the attention it needs.
I don't see any serious role for the ArbCom in this, barring truly exceptional circumstances. As community leaders, they ought to be pushing the idea everywhere they go, but as the ArbCom they cannot (and should not) do it by fiat.

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. There's great merit in meritocracy. Certainly similar projects have been tried without it to minimal success. "Usual internet practice" suggests not disclosing personal information, and disclosing personal information has historically created far more problems than anonymity.

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 do not see a reason to change it. I am not sure how practical it is - certainly "barriers" could be implemented, but last I checked, even Knol could only verify Americans listed in the phone book or with credit cards.

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?

In general, there is a mandate that editors must respect each other, including the desire for anonymity. I do not see a reason to forbid the use of oversight/deletion and so forth to protect this, as the case may go.

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?

Depending on the occasion, this should be reported "privately", yes.

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)

No; no; I don't see any value in real life identities - there is no apparent difference in actions around here for self-identified and non-indentified. I plan to re-disclose my identity to the WMF if elected, but that's all, yes.

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?

Of course, WMF can't promise pseudoanonymity. Once lost, it can probably never be called back - one can restart and hope not to be noticed, but that is about all. I am unsure there is any need to more strongly publicise the risk of exposure - this exists everywhere.

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 realistically consistute a personal attack with real life implications. I would support a long term ban of one form or another (most likely indefinite - with possible rescindation at some future point if the violator gets where they went wrong)

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?

Real life authorities probably should about internet presence in general. I'm not sure the WMF has a role here, though I have no voice there as a prospective or elected arb anyways.

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 have no sway over the WMF, of course. I couldn't suggest something like "spend money". The privacy policy has a pretty wide clause "Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public." for information release, and in cases of genuine stalking I see no reason not to disclose any and all available information to law enforcement agencies. Beyond this, I can do nothing as an arb, and can't begin to comment on what more proactive things WMF might do.

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

Special allowances for what? If there's cause to believe an established stalker has followed someone here, I see no reason to treat it any differently from one developed 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.

Err, obviously enough if someone uses Wikipedia for the purposes of stalking they need to be excluded from here as much as is possible, and any relevent information released to relevant legal authorities. I don't think it matters whether the victim is an editor here or not, the response will be about the same.

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?

There is no bright line; the difference is really in intent, manner and behaviour. Realistically, a single review of someone contributions, with a single publicisation to the communities of that review's results, are appropriate. Directing communications to the subject if they've asked you to desist, repeated cases of complaints and so forth journey towards harassment.

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?

Very unwelcome editors should probably be considered on a case by case basis, and the result chosen that gives them the least satisfaction. (There are few enough that this is probably plausible, of course, I'm not privy to all the details).
For regular banned editors it is silly and not worthwhile, but policy allows it so I'd not take any action as an arbitrator.

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 see no reason to confine discussion to here. Certainly private discussions will invariably take place elsewhere.

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 own no such venue. I have commented in various other places before (Wikback, User:Danny's blog)

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)?
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?
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? )

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, that's why I want to see Arbitrators with no allegiance issues. Those of us who're experienced and know the rules & practices should hold ourselves to a higher standard of behaviour, because we know better. And when we fail to, we should be held against it by our peers.

[Kato]

Casliber (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.
These issues become complex in a complex model - too strict and one can end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater; too lenient and we get problematic material. Maybe it is about process rather than policy. On paper all the guidelines are there to allow for the removal of material (i.e. material likely to be challenged must be referenced with a reliable source etc.).
No to (a), one is either notable or not. This could be a dangerous precedent.
(b ) has merit, especially if there is controversial material. In fact, this should be a prerequisite.

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.
Q1 (a) is about policy, as is (b ).
I haven't examined BLP cases at arbcom as yet.
Aha, this is the cunning plan. Need to promote BLP reporting - really need to promote usage and patrolling of this board - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and discussion therein. As referencing improves and standards change, this may get better (eg unreferenced material often gets asessed and removed pretty quickly from FAs and sometimes GAs now, and even DYKs, so the sands are a-shifting. A note in the signpost may help as it is important. This would be my first step as the rules and gudelines are all there, just the implementation is not quite. I was musing on this overnight and I think a triage system to rank urgeny of BLP issues would be good, as a swarm of 8000 unreferenced articles I think just scares people. Has this been done before? I don't know. Also a welcome template written in a nice friendly manner illustrating why this is an area which needs referencing "Supposing this were an article about you/your sister etc." which could be posted on folks adding material to BLPs.

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?

Big question. Answer. not yet. I think things are still ticking along ok in most areas (FAC, RfA, AfD) Some areas are problematic such as civility and notability

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?

I do my own version - called FAs/GAs and being progressively more liberal with semi-protection. Flagged revisions may help more but so may the abuse filter, which will be interesting to see.

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 have always edited under my real name, however, many have had experiences or fears which lead them not to (especially women). In an ideal world we all could use our real names without reprisal, but it isn't ideal and I have heard of some unpleasant instances of stalking and harassment. Unfortunately we do not have a parallel-world matched wikipedia which insists on real-name editing with otherwise identical parameters to compare which would produce an encyclopedia more easily. I guess my default point would be that I prefer editing to be done under real-names but can understand why many choose not to use them; in the end it is the articles that are important not the people. I would hope that this was used as a guideline somewhere on username discussion.
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?
As far as reverting release of private information, all options (deletion and/or oversight) should be open to any users who wish to erase their personal data on wikipedia. It isn't earth-shatteringly hard to become an admin (as the archtransit case showed), which then renders deleted (but not oversighted) data easily visible and findable. Editors who contribute their time to improving the project are valuable, and if a few clicks of oversight are needed to keep contributors, then it is a miniscule price to pay, if any, to keep folks in a comfortable environment they feel safer in.
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?
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)
Yes, this is much easier if I am male. I have not come to a decision on open identity to everyone, but disclosure to other arbs and WMF is good.
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?
WMF are unable to guarantee anonymity pure and simple. The best they can do is promise to keep anonymity for those who request it as far as possible. A link on the 'welcome' template, or somewhere on a username discussion is the best bet, giving people advice about preserving anonymity if they so wish.
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)
Outing is outing, no matter where it occurs. Simple malicious outing is serious and can be construed as a personal attack. A mitigating factor may be where an editor purports to be somethnig they are not and uses their misrepresentation to win or further arguments, akin to issues in the Essjay scandal. Though this is somewhat mitigating, the correct course here would be notifying arbcom. Need to read up on a few cases of outing and see what happened before I discuss outcomes.

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?
WMF should, there are alot of young vulnerable editors, and documented cases of a serious nature. It has happened and will again. Again, this should be tied into a discussion on anonymity on the welcome template.
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.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
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.
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?

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?
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?
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?
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)?
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?
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? )

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)?

I think a recurring pattern in these answers is that even the most diligent Wikipedos are fiercely supportive of protecting the anonymity and reputations of fellow Wikipedos, while holding up their hands and scratching their heads when the targets are innocent article subjects. This massive ethical discrepancy is at the heart of many of WP's problems.