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.