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

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)?

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?

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)

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)

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).

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?

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.

Amorrow landed in jail for the stalking of wikipedia authors.

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)

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.

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'.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

Clarified; death threats, not deaths.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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)

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.

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..."

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?

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.

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.

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?

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)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

. . .

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)?[/b]

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.

Ah, the Third Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia. Yet more evidence that anonymous editing is one of WP's sacred cows, and that wikipediots will absolutely maintain their supposed "rights" while denying the rights of others. Hypocrisy, thy name is Wikipedia.

I've answered Lar's questions, feel free to rip my thoughts to shreds (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

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

same here. I'm wondering if it'll be a sea of red (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I've answered Lar's questions, feel free to rip my thoughts to shreds :lol:

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

Well you get close to top marks from me! And the answers reflect the most credible positions to take on these matters from a real world perspective so far. I didn't agree with everything, but no Red Marks, and it is good to read some creative thinking in the survey for a change!

George The Dragon (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.

Opt out makes perfect sense, although it is hard to define "marginally notable individuals" and all the drama will revolve around the definition. I would rather opt for "No Original Biographies" - namely, if an individual has not been the subject of an entry in a print encyclopedia, they can opt out on request and have their name protected against creation, where applicable.

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.

BLPs are the most potentially dangerous area of the project in terms of defamation and real world harm to the subject of the article. Unless there is clear consensus, the default has to be delete.

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 policy and the most important one facing the community - and the community must tackle it. The longer the community takes to act, the more likely a real world situation will arise where the decision is taken out of the community's hands.

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?

Given the seriousness of enforcing BLP policy, if the community fail to act strongly, I have no real problem with ArbCom stepping in for both the good of the project and, far more importantly, the subject of the BLP.

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.

As mentioned above - No Original Biographies.

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?

EN has outgrown itself, yes. Given the number of members and numbers of edits, changes are needed. Sighted revisions and expert control by named, identifiable, credential-verified editors.

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?

Not down to ArbCom but I am in favour. I would also default to the sighted version, not the latest version, or all users and non-registered users, with the option of switching (with disclaimer that the latest version may be woefully inaccurate) attached.

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 would rather every editor was named, identified and proved their credentials, then we would be taken far more seriously. At the very least, I'd like a BLP class of editors who have to identify themselves.

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)?

Probably too late to go the whole way, so I would start with the BLP class of identified and verified editors.

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?

The project is not meant to be here to harm people, be they BLP subjects or editors, so oversighting would be fair. However, once the genie is out of the bottle...

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?

No. Anything that can be obtained via publicly-obtainable information is not outing.

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)

If elected, I will change my username to my real name. As I've already said, I'd prefer all editors to be identified, be they Arbs or not.

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?

It is down to the user not to give out information, anywhere, publicly, that links their account with their real name. ArbCom should, of course, act strongly against anyone who uses non-public information.

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)

Depends on how you define outing. If it's by using information publicly available, it's not outing - although perhaps bad etiquette. Anyone who uses Wikipedia-gained information not publicly available should be banned and any relevant legal action considered.

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?

What sort of stalking? Editors claiming they are "stalked" is far more of a disruption to the project that those who really, real-world, are. I have the utmost of sympathy for those who really are, but those who throw the word around make it harder for those who really are suffering to be taken seriously.

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.

Too big an issue for the WMF, who are in no position to deal with real stalking.

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

I would assume they would make their own provisions if they have suffered in the past.

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.

If proven and genuine stalking, then immediate ban and 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 bit like the line between what is a donkey and what is a hydrogen bond. The two are totally different and editors claiming "stalk" and "harass" when the only thing happening is an editor is being watched is highly disruptive.

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?

In that particular case, yes. There has to be a "very, very, very banned" category for editors who have posed a real world danger to other editors. But for the likes of some "banned" editors, why reverse edits that improve the project? We are cutting off our noses to spite our faces!

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?

Discussion is fine. Some "banned" and "blocked" editors have good ideas. NewYorkBrad, for instance, seems to have taken a lot of BLP and NOINDEX ideas from Wikipedia Review where, shock horror, he is an active member.

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 post on Wikipedia Review but would not be so vain as to share my thoughts with the world in a 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)?

Wikipedia Review has some great criticism - take the study that showed how senior US politicians' articles were basically defaming them for periods - here. Surely that shows how positive outside criticism can raise serious concerns? And let's not forget, every Wikipedia editor is different, and every Wikipedia Reviewer is different.

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?

Yes, I do myself and NewYorkBrad, who seems to be the most respected Arbitrator, does. The man has great judgement, that's good enough for me! Seriously, without outside consideration we are in danger of disappearing up our own backsides here.

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? )

Yes, I do. And my Wikipedia account links from that account and it is listed in the history of my talk page. Oh, and it is "The Wales Hunter" - because I hunt the dream of one day creating such a great project as our beloved God King...Best to have the same names, for action should not be taken against Wikipedia editors just because they post elsewhere. Unless banning the likes of NewYorkBrad, Alison and yourself, etc, etc, is the way forward.

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)?

The longer an editor has been here, the less leeway they should be given. They know what is and isn't expected, new editors don't.

would rather opt for "No Original Biographies" - namely, if an individual has not been the subject of an entry in a print encyclopedia, they can opt out on request and have their name protected against creation, where applicable

Is an Original Biography a form of original research?

would rather opt for "No Original Biographies" - namely, if an individual has not been the subject of an entry in a print encyclopedia, they can opt out on request and have their name protected against creation, where applicable

Is an Original Biography a form of original research?

The general thought is "sorta-maybe". Nominally, you are not supposed to write about a topic that has not been covered as that topic. In practice, a personal with notable associations to several events might be biographied and it be accepted because people do not know what else to do. BLP1E makes perfect sense, but BLP5E has not been written yet.

No original biographies has been thrown around in a lot of places, but it is probably not very helpful. In practice, if that were the cutoff, it would probably be easier to write BLPs and get them included, not harder.

No original biographies has been thrown around in a lot of places, but it is probably not very helpful. In practice, if that were the cutoff, it would probably be easier to write BLPs and get them included, not harder.

I guess it would be easier since you had an actual bio to extract from and not take bits and pieces from news sources.

No original biographies has been thrown around in a lot of places, but it is probably not very helpful. In practice, if that were the cutoff, it would probably be easier to write BLPs and get them included, not harder.

We're talking about when a subject requests that their biography be removed. In practice, that has happened only a handful of times. Angela Beesley, Rachel Marsden, Seth Finkelstein, Brandt, Don Murphy and so on.

None of these subjects have been given "encyclopedia biography" treatment before. (Murphy does get a tiny stub with no biographical details on the otherwise exhaustive film encyclopedia AMG).

I don't see how such a WP:NOBios / WP:DeadTree policy, which would mean no further issues surrounding these biographies, would make it more likely that BLP victims would be held against their will?

I don't see how such a WP:NOBios / WP:DeadTree policy, which would mean no further issues surrounding these biographies, would make it more likely that BLP victims would be held against their will?

As long as we make the (presumably accurate) assumption that a respectable dead tree encyclopedia would requite a certain level of notability for their entries.

I am more than happy to make that assumption for a dead tree project than an open-edited one!

No original biographies has been thrown around in a lot of places, but it is probably not very helpful. In practice, if that were the cutoff, it would probably be easier to write BLPs and get them included, not harder.

We're talking about when a subject requests that their biography be removed. In practice, that has happened only a handful of times. Angela Beesley, Rachel Marsden, Seth Finkelstein, Brandt, Don Murphy and so on.

None of these subjects have been given "encyclopedia biography" treatment before. (Murphy does get a tiny stub with no biographical details on the otherwise exhaustive film encyclopedia AMG).

I don't see how such a WP:NOBios / WP:DeadTree policy, which would mean no further issues surrounding these biographies, would make it more likely that BLP victims would be held against their will?

In that case, Murphy gets cut (probably, having not searched exhaustively), and Brandt goes back in. I believe enacting such a standard would result in "dead tree biography" effectively becoming a standard for inclusion, and rallying the anti-Brandt troops.

There is clearly a difference between a niche encyclopedia such as "Conspiracy" and one comparable with Wikipedia.

I am not totally convinced that "biographied in an encyclopedia" would result in an increased. "Print biography" would, but it would rely on newspaper biography, to be sure.

And Wikipedia is pretty explicitly both a "general" and a "specialist" encyclopedia. Wikipedia being a niche encyclopedia is necessary to its success, and almost everyone involved knows this. If it was just a condensed version of Encarta - a niche would open for a new comprehensive free encyclopedia.

I am not totally convinced that "biographied in an encyclopedia" would result in an increased. "Print biography" would, but it would rely on newspaper biography, to be sure.

And Wikipedia is pretty explicitly both a "general" and a "specialist" encyclopedia. Wikipedia being a niche encyclopedia is necessary to its success, and almost everyone involved knows this. If it was just a condensed version of Encarta - a niche would open for a new comprehensive free encyclopedia.

You are missing a vital component of the thing: OPT-OUT + WP:No Original Biographies.

When these discussions have occurred before, Wikipedos tend to argue on each individual point - without combining them to form one policy - perhaps deliberately to make the proposal seem less palatable to fellow members. By doing it that way, I submit, they hope the proposal doesn't gain the type of following likely to have a real impact on their fun and games.

Basically, if someone wants to OPT-OUT, you should ask yourself the question "Will Wikipedia genuinely suffer as a resource as a result of this?". If the subject is George Bush, then yes it will hamper Wikipedia as a resource and make it less useful than a established DeadTree Encyclopedia. If the subject is some guy who appears on page 187 of "The Conspiracy encyclopedia", or some woman in Australia who had a hand in the formation of Wikipedia itself - people who have never be covered in established encyclopedias and are just not public figures - then who gives a crap? Let them be excused, and release them from their torment.

These answers are really good, and I had no idea who Cool Hand Luke was until I got to the bottom.

Cool Hand Luke (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) Marginally notable people should be able to opt out, yes.
Wikipedia does not exist to make people sad, and we have a moral commitment to subjects who could be damaged by anonymous others. I also think that any subject should have the right to opt for semi-protection.
Editors have often opposed the opt-out principle because it seems incompatible with our current deletion process. Some editors imagine that some group (maybe OTRS) must decide what "marginally notable" means. However, I don't think opt-out needs to be so alien to our existing processes.
User:Durova, for example, has a standing offer to nominate any biography for deletion if the subject wishes it. Subject request should make the threshold for notability higher. Our notability guidelines have been crafted primarily to keep self-promoters out when they want to get in. Unwilling subjects are a different matter. I would like three arguments to be considered by closing admins in deletion debates (much like WP:BLP1E is):
* Subject requests deletion (sometimes called WP:OPTOUT).
* No other encyclopedia article exists for subject (sometimes DEADTREES or "no original biographies").
* Subject is a non-public figure.
When all three of these are present, I think the closing admin ought to delete. If two are present, deletion should be carefully considered by the closing admin. If all three are very clearly present, deletion debate might not even be necessary.
Each of these criteria is meant to capture the potential harm to a living person and weigh it against the article's value to the encyclopedia, and so I think all of them are consistent with our policies on WP:BLP and WP:N. The second reason also makes sense because of WP:WEIGHT. When no neutral biographical treatment exists for a subject, editors are forced to weave a biography together by synthesizing news stories. Through experience, this often leads to distorted and potentially harmful accounts of living people.
There's some ambiguity about both the second and third reasons, but these are the sort of things that can be hashed out in deletion debates. In many cases the answer won't be controversial. Politicians are public figures, and no encyclopedia entries means there are no existing encyclopedia entries. We'd have to decide case-by-case whether short directory entries in specialized encyclopedias count, but I think this is a sensible framework for conducting deletion debate.
b) This has recently occurred in some debates. It's a good thing, and it better approximates the "DEADTREES" standard for encyclopedic notability. Our notability guidelines were designed before Google made us #1 on searches, so they don't adequately capture the externalities—damaging information we sometimes dispense about living people. Both opt out and default deletion help balance our policies to take the lives of real human being subjects into account.

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.

WP:BLP is policy, and within ArbCom's power to enforce, and BLP deletions are within reasonable review of ArbCom. I think a lot of details flow from the BLP principles, and do not think that ArbCom has over-extended in this area. ArbCom can (and perhaps should) go much farther by validating practices like "default to delete" that some users have been courageous enough to implement.

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?

Consensus probably hasn't truly existed since 2001. The near-impossibility of drafting new policy is one of this site's biggest problems, and it's not obvious how we escape the problem—we could never get a consensus to run things by a simple majority (or even supermajority). Fortunately, policy like BLP has sometimes been ratified after it's already essentially implemented, so I advise users to be bold.

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?

Flagged revisions should have happened two years ago. In my view, it will be the greatest technical improvement to wiki software in our project since the introduction of the watchlist. It will dramatically reduce the incidence of damage to BLP subjects (and for that reason alone should be implemented), but it will also enormously benefit our project by making vandalism and edit wars more or less pointless. The community can't come to consensus about it because consensus doesn't really exist in a project this big (see previous answer), but I do think a supermajority of users—and indeed, most candidates—support the concept. As an arbitrator, I would signal that we are ready for the software, but I don't think arbitrators have special say in the 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)

I believe the principle of peudonymity is currently causing the project a lot of problems. Arbitrators have no control over the policy, but a lot of our current overhead is caused because we are uninterested in even casually verifying new users who often have malicious agendas. I don't see how the principle can be changed without disturbing our volunteers, and so it remains for now.
Perhaps future versions of the software could support a "verified identity" flag, which could be used to restrict editing on subjects with a history of sockpuppets and/or defamation—a new sort of semi-protection that depends on verification.
Outing deters our volunteers, so it's usually a bad thing. If an identity is not already out, deletion, oversight, blocking, and other measures are appropriate when the editor is doing nothing wrong. However, preventing abuse to our project takes priority over anonymity. A good example of this is linking two or more accounts as sock puppets. When anonymity gets in the way of building an encyclopedia, it is not sacred. {See also WP:IAR). The location of "outing" doesn't matter—only the effect it has on our project.

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?

Stalking is a potential problem on the internet, and Wikipedia does not seem uniquely immune; no disclaimer is necessary, although I would make our privacy policy seem less iron-clad (volunteers are responsible for enforcing it, after all). I really doubt the WMF considers this kind of assistance to be within their purview. People stalked in real life for editing deserve the same kind of protection that everyone does on-site, and it would probably be wise for them to start a new anonymous account. Real-life stalkers should also obviously be banned from the Wikipedia.
But at the end of the day, Wikipedia is a volunteer collaboratively-written encyclopedia. We are not a police force, and we are not your personal bodyguards or lawyers. Those in need of professionals should get professional help.

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 support reverting all contributions of a user who has made many vandalism edits and seemingly little else. In those cases, it's not worth discriminating whether the edits are good or bad—volunteers shouldn't waste their time studying the difference. If good edits are removed, editors are free to spot them and restore them.
That said, I don't think it's sensible to undo months worth of mostly-positive edits that happen to have come from a banned user. That strikes me as remarkably unproductive. In those cases, it's probably a better idea to identify the banned user's questionable edits and undo only those.

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) Some discussion about Wikipedia cannot occur on Wikipedia simply because we have banned users who may or may not have meritorious points of view. Users are banned because they are destructive to the encyclopedia, and such users should remain banned, but some of them nonetheless have keen insight into some of the site's problems.
b) I find blogs pedantic, and if I did have one I would not write about Wikipedia because I favor back-and-forth dialog.
c) and e) Yes. I am One.
Wikipedia Review harbors both current and banned contributors, and a lot of useful issues are discussed between these people. Wikback also allowed this, but did not allow anonymous posting (that is, accounts were linked to Wikipedia usernames). I think both forums had excellent commentary about, for example, the Mantanmoreland case and BLP policy. That said, Wikiback died out because it was somewhat over-moderated (users banned for seemingly trivial offenses that were not established rules). Wikipedia Review strikes me as under-moderated (giving too much deference to sockpuppeteers like User:Poetlister, and allowing absolute nutters to post conspiracy theories about Wikipedians). For example, I locked horns with a conspiracy theorist called "Disillusioned Lackey" on Wikipedia Review. This user liked to post absurd claims about Wikipedians (see, for example, post #10). I convinced her to leave the site by repeatedly seizing on her over-the-top claims. In the end, she concluded that Wikipedia Review was part of the conspiracy, and started replacing her posts with images ridiculing "One" and his "one inch [body part]." The admins on Wikipedia Review never intervened with her conspiratorial garbage, which was disappointing. I expressed such disappointment here (viewable only to WR contributors):

One @ Tue 23rd September 2008, 6:39am
Quote( Proabivouac @ Mon 22nd September 2008, 6:05pm )
Poetlister occurred because you didn't care who it was, so long as "she" opposed SlimVirgin. For years, the Wikipedia Review published these lies.

Accuracy and accountability are something towards which any publication should strive. Or do you disagree?

I think this is an over-simplification, but you also have something here.

Take Disillusioned Lackey (please). She posted tons of horseshit about SlimVirgin and Durova, weaving increasingly insane rants without a shred of evidence. I was always unimpressed when mods of this forum--who supposedly oppose the defamation engine of Wikipedia--provided DL with safe harbor and meek caveats about her views not being endorsed by the management. I'm sorry, but I think it was irresponsible and tasteless to tolerate it, and I wonder whether others are similarly tolerated too much. [color=red]*See footnote[/red]

I was also unimpressed when a mod suggested--before the PoetLister story broke--that if the Horde really was one user that it wouldn't matter to this site at all.

My ideal site would be in between, with less tolerance for idle speculative crap than WR, and more transparent moderation than WikBack.
Anonymous participation is appropriate because it's often useful to leave baggage at the door—as with Wikipedia, pseudonymous users are welcome for the sake of hiding their real life status, and protecting it from harassment. It might have been wise for Newyorkbrad to contribute pseudonymously there; it would have allowed productive dialog without threats and coercion.
Like other off-site intimidation, outing is sometimes used to gain an upper hand in Wikipedia disputes. When this happens, outing should be sanctioned—just as calls to an editor's employer should be sanctioned.
d) Participation is appropriate. Newyorkbrad gets some evidently valuable feedback and suggestions there. The wiki way is to accept good suggestions regardless of the source.

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'm not sure this problem exists per se—that is, prolific article writers are not given more than their due. I do think there is generally a double standard given to admins—prolific non-admin content contributors don't seem to be given extra deference for their actions, but admins are. I would try to eliminate the admin double standard. If anything, admins should be held to a higher standard due to their responsibility and experience.

*Can I just say that DL slowly appeared to go crazy - formerly writing some interesting posts making it difficult to ascertain what was going on - and you should have seen the stuff that was either deleted or went on behind the scenes, which makes her attacks on you look tame. Geez. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Oh, and I plead innocence as I wasn't involved in the site at the time DL went crazy this summer due to other "more poetic" annoyances. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

These answers are really good, and I had no idea who Cool Hand Luke was until I got to the bottom.

I really did not expect CHL to reveal the link... and I'm massively impressed that he did. I just hope it doesn't cost him, as he has some very good views. He and I disagree about something rather important (which we are arguing about via email as we speak) but he has my strong support, or will.

(see my views on the election (so far, subject to revision and elaboration) )

It is largely because of high quality candidates such as CHL that I chose not to run... at first I was considering it.

These answers are really good, and I had no idea who Cool Hand Luke was until I got to the bottom.

I really did not expect CHL to reveal the link... and I'm massively impressed that he did. I just hope it doesn't cost him, as he has some very good views. He and I disagree about something rather important (which we are arguing about via email as we speak) but he has my strong support, or will.

(see my views on the election (so far, subject to revision and elaboration) )

It is largely because of high quality candidates such as CHL that I chose not to run... at first I was considering it.

Now, it's official. Gomi, you just have to give up your Plastic Jesus avatar to One.

*Can I just say that DL slowly appeared to go crazy - formerly writing some interesting posts making it difficult to ascertain what was going on - and you should have seen the stuff that was either deleted or went on behind the scenes, which makes her attacks on you look tame. Geez. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Oh, and I plead innocence as I wasn't involved in the site at the time DL went crazy this summer due to other "more poetic" annoyances. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I can sympathize with that. I never saw the attacks she apparently made on Piperdown, for example. But the fact that she posted much worse things about other people makes me all the more surprised that she lasted so long.

It was a "vested contributor" problem, I guess.

Lar: I didn't expect to reveal it until after the election, but given my platform for transparency, I thought it was the most correct decision. It also helps that NYB (who nearly everyone credits as their most-admired admin) posts here openly.

Milton Roe: Heh.

This post has been edited by One:

Now that I had not caught.

Looks like a changing of the guards is now inevitable. I do not think there even are seven candidates who are running for the arbitration committee who are not members here.

*Can I just say that DL slowly appeared to go crazy - formerly writing some interesting posts making it difficult to ascertain what was going on - and you should have seen the stuff that was either deleted or went on behind the scenes, which makes her attacks on you look tame. Geez. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) Oh, and I plead innocence as I wasn't involved in the site at the time DL went crazy this summer due to other "more poetic" annoyances. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

I can sympathize with that. I never saw the attacks she apparently made on Piperdown, for example. But the fact that she posted much worse things about other people makes me all the more surprised that she lasted so long.

It was a "vested contributor" problem, I guess.

Lar: I didn't expect to reveal it until after the election, but given my platform for transparency, I thought it was the most correct decision. It also helps that NYB (who nearly everyone credits as their most-admired admin) posts here openly.

Milton Roe: Heh.

*chuckles*. Good on ya, man. I don't think I ever properly thanked you for your work on Mantanmoreland. I just scraped the surface. You and the other folks who did the work basically did the equivalent of taking a backhoe and digging the whole thing up.

Lar: I didn't expect to reveal it until after the election,

It wasn't a very well-kept secret. It was better you revealed it sooner than someone else later.

Lankiveil (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Kato=What is BLP1E?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, Wikipedia is complicated enough without the real world intruding. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Sounds like a bad case of Second Lifer - oddly though, my impression is that in Second Life, most people construct characters that are far nicer than real life. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Back to the point - surely the theory of ArbCom is that people have let real life intrude on the nirvana of Wikipedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

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

Well, Wikipedia is complicated enough without the real world intruding. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Sounds like a bad case of Second Lifer - oddly though, my impression is that in Second Life, most people construct characters that are far nicer than real life. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Back to the point - surely the theory of ArbCom is that people have let real life intrude on the nirvana of Wikipedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Wow, really? Out of all the stuff on my questions page and even within Lar's batch of questions itself, this is what you criticize me on? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

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

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

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

Well, Wikipedia is complicated enough without the real world intruding. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Sounds like a bad case of Second Lifer - oddly though, my impression is that in Second Life, most people construct characters that are far nicer than real life. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Back to the point - surely the theory of ArbCom is that people have let real life intrude on the nirvana of Wikipedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Wow, really? Out of all the stuff on my questions page and even within Lar's batch of questions itself, this is what you criticize me on? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

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

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

Welcome to the review Hemlock Martinis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, yeah, I knew that.

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

Edit: I guess they're both still here.

This post has been edited by Ampersand:

Welcome to the review Hemlock Martinis.

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

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

Thank you! I'm sure I'll enjoy it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some interesting answers here from Privatemusings.

Privatemusings (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BillMasen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8) What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

BillMasen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

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

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

Yeah, Bill, but in the legal system the guys who find for guilt or innocence don't know about the history. And the guy who does the sentencing is somebody else (unless it happens to be a judicial trial-- but the accused gets to decide that, and they generally don't). Even in a judicial trial, the judge makes the determination of innocence or guilt before he/she permits himself to review the past record of the accused. None of this happens on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, not only are grandjuries, judges, juries and prosecutors often the same people, but they're also executioners of sentence: wardens and jailers, too. Nor is there often any defense except (sometimes) what the accused himself is able to mount, acting as his own counsel (if he's lucky). Moreover, the jurors, judges, executioners, accusors, are often drawn from the same pool, over and over, and a lot of them have lunch together and discuss cases over meals or by backchannels.

The curbing of this kind of abuse in law is called "due process." It's what Wikipedia lacks. Moulton called it Bill of Attainder, but that's only one minor violation of due process. NYB called Moulton on that, for not correctly naming the problem. Points to you, NYB. But no points for figuring out what Moulton MEANT to say. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

The curbing of this kind of abuse in law is called "due process." It's what Wikipedia lacks. Moulton called it Bill of Attainder, but that's only one minor violation of due process. NYB called Moulton on that, for not correctly naming the problem. Points to you, NYB. But no points for figuring out what Moulton MEANT to say. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

I don't actually think it's so bad, as an analogy.

"A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial." - Even if this doesn't strictly happen with wikipedia's dubiously-fair "trials", it's hard not to see a parallel when, say, Jimbo bans someone on his own say-so that they're being "disruptive" or "trolling".

But no points for figuring out what Moulton MEANT to say. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Most of us score no points for figuring out what Moulton MEANT to say. And not just then, either. In fact, in most cases, it's kind of a (ahem) pointless exercise.

The curbing of this kind of abuse in law is called "due process." It's what Wikipedia lacks. Moulton called it Bill of Attainder, but that's only one minor violation of due process. NYB called Moulton on that, for not correctly naming the problem. Points to you, NYB. But no points for figuring out what Moulton MEANT to say. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

These dreadful and atrocious practices were excised so long ago that it's hard to find the correct terms to name them. What do you want to call it? Ostracism? Banishment? Fatwā? Writ of Attainder? Edict of Castigation? Witch-Burning? Scape-Goating? Hive-Minding? Scarlet-Lettering? Oppression? Injustice? Corruption? Abuse of Political Power? Narcissistic Wounding? Immurement?

Pick your terminology, your analogy, your literary metaphor from Edgar Allen Poetry.

Anyway you slice it, these are dreadfully atrocious and stigmatizing practices that civilized and enlightened societies wisely abandoned ages ago. You have to go back to dusty old history books to learn about them. But here, in the 21st Century, they are still routine practices on Wikipedia, where they provide never-ending grist for the popcorn-munching operatic soap-mill.

I don't actually think it's so bad, as an analogy.

"A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial." — Even if this doesn't strictly happen with Wikipedia's dubiously-fair "trials", it's hard not to see a parallel when, say, Jimbo bans someone on his own say-so that they're being "disruptive" or "trolling".

Precisely so. When Jimbo or KillerChihuahua or FeloniousMonk or Blueboy96 or Mike Umbricht or Cary Bass or Ottava Rima or Mike.lifeguard or Toddst1 issues an Edict of Attainder without Due Process, they are reprising one of the most dreadful and atrocious practices that has ever been chronicled in the bloody pages of human history. This is what Wikipedia is teaching the children of the 21st Century: How to reprise atrocious tribal practices that began to go out of style some 3768 years ago, when Hammurabi first conceived of the most basic principles of the Rule of Law.

Most of us score no points for figuring out what Moulton MEANT to say. And not just then, either. In fact, in most cases, it's kind of a (ahem) pointless exercise.

I meant to say that the conscious rejection of Due Process was an unwise move on the part of Jimbo Wales when he initially set up Wikipedia. It's a move that set Wikipedia back four millenia in terms of the hard-learned lessons comprising the sum of all human knowledge, insight, and wisdom.

[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 applies equally to arbcom "remedies".

(Arguably more so because policy is supposed to be descriptive of successful practice. Bad policy is usually the product of biased sampling and/or wishful thinking.)

The curbing of this kind of abuse in law is called "due process." It's what Wikipedia lacks. Moulton called it Bill of Attainder, but that's only one minor violation of due process. NYB called Moulton on that, for not correctly naming the problem. Points to you, NYB. But no points for figuring out what Moulton MEANT to say. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

I don't actually think it's so bad, as an analogy.

"A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial." - Even if this doesn't strictly happen with wikipedia's dubiously-fair "trials", it's hard not to see a parallel when, say, Jimbo bans someone on his own say-so that they're being "disruptive" or "trolling".

Yes. The U.S. revolutionists had an even better (current) bad governmental example in the lettres de cachet which were still being issued in France at the time of the American revolution (and even still by the time of the Constitution). England had, by that time, largely already cleaned up its act.

BillMasen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

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

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

I'm hoping this is red because it falls under the "plain interesting" heading, because I think it's bang-on.

BillMasen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

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

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

I'm hoping this is red because it falls under the "plain interesting" heading, because I think it's bang-on.

I highlighted it because I didn't understand what he's saying here. Could anyone who does elaborate?

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

I highlighted it because I didn't understand what he's saying here. Could anyone who does elaborate?

It made sense to me. If you define consensus as "the vast majority of those who acknowledge the point of dissent on an issue agree with one view" - with some big Wikipedian caveats like the way Big Names can declare the right answer in the face of dissenting voices - then as the project has grown, it is always possible to get enough dissent from the majority opinion that consensus cannot be found.

The answer is not quite spot on though. The author suggests that it is only now possible to get consensus when people are so disinterested in a topic, they cannot be bothered to voice their opinion, so will not block a decision. That is correct as far as it goes, but it does not recognise the dysfunction and the deliberate gaming of Wikipedia.

Those more familiar with how Wikipedia works recognise that there are ways to manipulate the principle of consensus. Off the top of my head:

a) discuss it in an obscure corner - someone's talk page; an article indirectly associated with the issue; a policy page;
b) identify dissenting voices as disruptive and harass into blockage.
c) dissemble.*
d) invoke the wisdom of the God-King to override dissent, whether by quotation of His Scriptures, or calling him down from On High (though as with the ancient gods, this capricious god is loath to descend to tend to his flocks, unlike times of old).
e) Identify the bad idea as associated with BADSITES, and therefore anyone who associates with the idea must be ostracised. Wise Wikipedians understand this process so are loath to support evil suggestions.
f) Implement the idea without reference to The Community and then invoke the Need For Consensus to remove the idea (I learnt that trick from a once all-powerful ex-administrator who owned the policy pages of old). Remembering that anyone who tries the same trick but is not Part of the Team can simply have their suggestions reverted, and be required to gain consensus by the Take It To Talk manoeuvre. (Not that I am bitter about this (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) )



* WOTW

Shell Kinney (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 think the policy hits it head on, but the community hasn't quite started using it broadly enough yet. For example, there is still a great deal of biographical information wandering around in various articles that aren't biographies themselves - these entries often get less scrutiny and sometimes end up sitting around with nasty edits from former employees or other people with an agenda. I think in general, the community needs to take a stronger stance on biographical information, where ever it may be found. This would include things like speedy removal of unsourced information, immediate stubbification of biographies lacking sources and more consistent notability requirements both for biographical articles and when weighting biographical information in articles.

a) I think we're already practicing this to some degree; AfDs sometimes reference a subjects request to have an article removed and editors seem to be considering that as a factor. I think its an excellent trend; as you said, clearly we aren't going to let obviously notable people demand article removal and thus hurt the encyclopedia while at the same time, recognizing that we do affect the real world and need to take that responsibility seriously.
b) I like this idea as well, but I'm not sure the community is sold on the idea yet. Its a considerable change in the way deletions are handled so there's understandable concern about whether this will harm our ability to cover encyclopedic content in the long run. I think the community is doing a good job of working their way through this slowly and finding the right balance, but I think it would be appropriate to ramp this up while making sure to keep an eye out to ensure that legitimate articles aren't being deleted this way simply from a lack of participation.

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) Its policy, but clearly content related (as opposed to our behavioral policies).
b) Its been hit and miss. The Sarah Palin case was appropriate - it encouraged and suggested without prescribing policy. The Footnoted quotes case overstepped - it created new policy and instructed the community as a whole unecessarily; its not surprising that the log there is practically empty.
c) Any approach I would take towards making changes to the way biographies are handled would be through community channels and unrelated to the Committee. Some things I might do would be making arguments in deletion discussions where appropriate (this does not include closing deletion debates for novel reasons not supported by community consensus), educating editors about problematic biographical content in non-biography articles and helping to police them or discussing possible solutions with other editors at WT:BLP.

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 disagree. In general the community finds ways to work together and generally self corrects over time if something does go off the rails. Clearly there are going to be times where the community can't come to a decision immediately and takes a few tries to find a solution that works for everyone; some times the solutions happen through evolving practice rather than centralized discussion or "voting". In my personal experiences, web-based communities that use straight voting tend to be subject to gaming and cliques on a larger scale than is seen here; at the very least, in most places on Wikipedia, editors need to make a reasoned argument instead of just tossing a yes or no on to a pile. I don't think there would be much to gain in moving to a different system.

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?

In theory, its a good idea especially the proposals that have suggested showing flagged revisions for visitors while still showing changes immediately to logged in editors. The caching system already does something like this, but unfortunately since no one is controlling which revisions get cached, sometimes visitors end up seeing vandalism that's already been reverted. There seems to be difficulty in general when trying to implement large changes like this via community discussion - I'm not sure if this is a failure of the system or if its just that no one has hit on the right proposal yet. I still think this can be solved through regular community processes; perhaps someone will stumble upon an even better way to handle this problem. In the meantime I don't think that ArbCom has any role in this process, other than acting as standard community members in this discussion.

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) Absolutely. We've had excellent contributions by editors using pseudonyms or even those identified only by their IP address. If it ain't broke...
Kato note: If it ain't broke? Geez.
c) Traditionally, the community has respected the right to vanish only in cases where an editor was leaving the community. Even in those cases, its a bit difficult to put the rabbit back in the hat. However, it makes sense that if a contributor experiences problems that make them rethink their decision to release their personal information, we should take reasonable measures to assist them. This would include renaming an account, facilitating an editor who wishes to abandon an account and start again on another, deleting edits that revealed personal information (not including edits that simply had a signature that was a real name) and possibly even oversighting edits that revealed identifying information such as location or employer. In regards to outing, if another editor were to mention an old account name that was also a real name, it should be met with a polite request not to do it again. If an editor continues mentioning the old name after receiving such a request, assuming of course that we're sure they saw the request, then I would support blocking to get across the point that we do take privacy seriously.
d) Yes. It think we have to consider the outcome here - regardless of whether or not you post a person's name or simply a link to their name, you are taking away someone's ability to edit with a pseudonym.
e) Yes, I do, but I don't think there's any reason it should be a requirement. The Committee exists to work out problems that the community has given up on; nothing in that mandate would require someone to give up their psuedonymity if they don't want to. I"m personally open about who I am and short of giving my address on wiki, I'll probably answer any question asked of me. However, since stalking and frankly, blackmail are problems that Committee members may have to deal with, I would never begrudge them an extra layer of security.
f) I think they do. Yes, we see a lot of newer users with unrealistic expectations but we see an equal number of new users who use personally identifying information as their user names or on their user pages. Whether or not a new editor realizes the Foundations goal and the impact of the username and information they release has a lot to do with how much time they take to look around before creating an account (and general internet savvy of course). I think its responsibility of the Community to ensure pseudonymity, not the Foundation (privacy is not the same thing as pseudonymity) or ArbCom.
g) That's a really difficult question to answer. Clearly, outing someone who does not want to be outed is way over the line, similar to blatant personal attacks or other serious harassment. But, no matter what we do, the cat's already out of the bag. We should quickly delete/oversight the offending remarks and block the editor until they clearly agree they will not make any further reference at all to the incident or the real identity they were trying to expose. Long term, we might even require that the blocked editor have no further contact with the editor they tried to out, even if that means giving up some of their favorite editing areas. Outing off wiki however, has traditionally been outside of the purview of the Committee (and the Community for that matter). Recently however, one editor did receive on-wiki sanctions for some rather callous and rude remarks made on another website perhaps indicating that the Community is starting to accept that someone's actions on another website that are intended to directly affect editors on wiki can still be stalking or outing.

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) Yes. I think most large social sites have tried to educate their users on internet safety; I think it would make sense for there to be some notes on privacy/pseudonymity displayed when an editor goes to sign up for an account, especially if we can then link those to longer essays that help explain why being careful is important.
b) The WMF already maintains a privacy policy for personally identifying information and has given editors the option of using a pseudonym. It should be clear (and I think it is) that oversight should be used any time personally identifying information is released on Wikipedia. However, just as starting a journal on MySpace that led to you being stalked wouldn't be the responsibility of MySpace, editing Wikipedia doesn't mean that Foundation is realistically going to be able to provide assistance should you get stalked. This is absolutely not meant to minimize the traumatic impact of stalking or suggest that the fault lies with the victim, but unfortunately, I don't believe the Foundation (or any internet organization) is going to be in a position to help users of their service in that way.
c) If someone is concerned that a stalker may follow them to Wikipedia or may use information on Wikipedia to find them, a quiet word to ArbCom or a trusted Administrator can help with the former or in the latter case, oversight can assist.
d) In the case where a stalker is stalking a real life person whom we have an article on, the stalker should be shown the door and the article protected if necessary. The same should be done if the person being stalked is an editor. As a community, we should have no tolerance for this sort of behavior.
e) If you're in a dispute with someone, that's not the right time to decide to go through their contributions and acerbate the problem - this has to be an actual dispute though i.e. acting as an uninvolved admin wouldn't count as a "dispute". If you stumble across a problem or see an issue at a noticeboard and check into it, you're clearly in the good. If an editor complains about having their contributions looked through, it doesn't hurt to get a sanity check from other editors just to be sure.

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?

Reverting all edits by a banned user is something that should be decided on a case by case basis. For example, if the banned user is simply coming back to test and see if we will revert the edits, then it probably makes sense to simply revert everything rather than play a game. If the banned user is simply interested in contributing and not being disruptive, then its actually causing the project more disruption to track down the edits and revert them.

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) That depends on the discussion. General discussion of Wikipedia, policies and criticism of the project should be welcome anywhere. However, this does not mean that trashing other editors, speculation on editors real identities or any other general tasteless conversation is appropriate.
b) Nope. I have written a Wikipedia guide for my clients (generally SMBs) in response to the number of questions I get about it which I would be happy to provide to anyone on request (or put it up on a user subpage if that would be better/easier). It explains, in detail, all the reasons why SMBs absolutely do not want to try to put their article on Wikipedia. As far as why I don't have a blog or journal, I'm not one to throw my feelings out there for everyone to see and my husband is a great listener, so I have my outlet.
c) Wikipedia Review has its good points and its bad. On one hand, there are some legitimate criticisms and good ideas thrown out. On the other hand, there is deliberate and intentional disruption of the project, reprehensible behavior with regards to editors and I believe it has been used to facilitate outing and stalking. Given that the owners have not stepped up to stop even the most egregious of offenses, I have absolutely no respect for them or the site. I understand why Wikipedia editors might contribute there, but personally, I would prefer if people did not, simply to avoid giving it any kind of respect or recognition until they clean up their act.
Of course, the salacious aspects of Wikipedia Review may be one of the reasons it has survived, where forums like Wikback failed. I also believe that many people who stopped using Wikback cited harsh application of rules as one of their primary reasons for leaving. I think the ideal outside forum would be something of a community site in itself with a forum, user pages and even a place member's could write their own blog, but it would require clearly defined limits that prevented the kind of abuse that happens on Wikipedia Review.
d) I think the decision to participate in an outside criticism site should be left up to the individual editor, regardless of what their position might be here. While I would personally prefer that editors not visit sites which allow harassment of Wikipedia editors, I don't think there should be consequences here for that choice.
e) I believe I signed up for Wikipedia Review at one time very early in their history and used my original account name here (Jareth), but have never posted there and do not even read or visit the site any longer due to my disgust with some of the things that have gone on there. Given the fact that editors have been harassed (here and at outside sites) for their participation in such sites, I think being anonymous or pseudonymous would make good sense. I don't believe we should allow Wikipedia to be used for outing any more than those other sites should allow outing of Wikipedia editors; there's absolutely no reason to stoop to their level.

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)?

Absolutely. We often see arguments similar to "but he has X number of FAs" as an excuse for behavior or a request for lighter sanctions. While we want to reward contributors and appreciate their work, we need to stop letting editors get away with inappropriate behavior based only on their contributions. Instead we need to consider the cases on their merits - is this a pattern or a single incident? does this editor have a problem dealing with a particular subject area or with particular editors? are their contributing factors? - counting contribs or FAs should never be part of this equation

There were some quite thoughtful answers early on, as well as some contradictions, but some of the later stuff is just garbage. Especially that crap about Wikipedia Review. If this site even contained a smidgen of the venomous bile and defamatory bullying that goes on at Wikipedia, I'd be out of here in a second.

SirFozzie (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.

1A. Opting out as the only measure isn't a cure-all, I think. I do think that we should take the subject's wishes into strong consideration during discussion at AFD and specifically by administrators by closing AfD.

1B. This I can get behind more. With the amount of articles about living people growing and growing, it's simply not possible for many of the lesser known BLP articles to be constantly monitored, and it's precisely these lesser known BLP articles that can cause harm when a piece of vandalism sticks in their articles for months (For all his notability in his chosen fields, there was no one who saw a piece of vandalism about John Seigenthaler for four months and We know how that turned out. Wikipedia should in such cases exercise a degree of caution with such articles. Defaulting to delete is the least we should do with BLP articles.

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

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

2A) It's a question of policy. The Biographies of Living People policy.
2B) I'm generally uncomfortable with ArbCom creating policy out of whole cloth. In general, I think the policy they came down with is a good first step, however.
2C) I would like to see the ArbCom create and lead a workshop on brainstorming ideas on further ways to try to make sure BLP articles are made to the highest standards possible. ArbCom may not be able to create policy, but I would love to see them lead the discussion for such change.

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?

3) In some ways, Wikipedia's grown so big, and opinions on certain issues has become so entrenched that gathering consensus has become very hard to do. I don't think a move to majority rule is a good idea (especially considering NPOV and other such priorities for the encyclopedia). I would look to try to find ways to limit blocks of editors (such as Wikipedia Projects, etcetear) from running over all opposition. Encourage consensus and discussion.

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?

4) It certainly would be a great way to handle the BLP issues. I think too many people look at it as preventing people from adding to article, which is antiethical to the encyclopedia anyone can edit'. I would instead encourage them to make sure it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I would support bringing it in for all BLP items, as a start. As for the community irretrievably failed to come to a decision part? I don't think so. I think a RFC on this issue, to run for at least sixty days (with a notice in the header, so everyone sees it as part of their watchlist notice, for example), would be a good way to determine if the community can or cannot come to a decision on this.

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?

5A) I support the principle of pseudonymity, to the point that it does not disrupt the encyclopedia. There was an ArbCom case in the not so distant past, where it was pointed out that a hypocritical user could disrupt the encyclopedia by lying about a Conflict of Interest they had and was given a free pass, while another user who was upfront about their identity and their Conflict of Interest was sanctioned for it.

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)?

5B) Honestly, I don't think it can be changed at this point. But we need to be more upfront about telling users that if you attempt to deceive the encyclopedia and get caught doing it, it's on your own head.

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?

5C) If some one's previously self-disclosed personal information about themselves, and now wants to retract that information from public view, unfortunately for that user, there's no stuffing that particular genie into that bottle. Commanding Wikipedia and its community to forget some information you yourself provided is like Canute commanding the tide not to come in. It's just not feasible or workable.

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?

5D) I'd prefer that the information NOT be used, but there always exceptions... If information reveals that someone is breaking Wikipedia rules (for example, the one in 5A, where disclosure of that user's real name revealed a conflict of intrest they had about a whole series of articles they were not-so-subtly pushing a particular point of view on.

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)

5E) Thanks to Wikipedia Watch, my real life information is readily available. I have never denied that I am the person they listed. I think that Arbitrators must be ready to face the fact that their personal information will likely be dug up and posted publicly, even against their wishes due to the simple fact that they are in a position of power on one of the Top 10 English language websites in the world.


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?

5F) I think that Risker's article about privacy Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion does a good job, and should be required reading. As to what WMF/ArbCom can be doing? I'm not sure what, if anything more they could do.

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)

5G) In general, outing another user (on or off-Wikipedia) should be met with harsh response, with limited exceptions. In general, such activities should be done privately, to an ArbCom member via the ArbCom mailing list, or what have you, and there'd better be a good POLICY-based reason for their outing. (IE, proving they have a previously undisclosed conflict of interest with articles). As for the difference between off and on-wiki actions, I think in general if an action is meant to affect ON-Wiki, it should be treated as such.

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?

6A) I wish that WMF would do a little more to make new users aware of the hazards of editing. As I said above, the article on privacy by Risker does a great job to make users aware of the problems that can come with editing Wikipedia. 6B) I think that WMF could do more to assist those being victimised by stalkers. For example, I could suggest that the WMF could formally serve those who use Wikipedia to stalk others with cease and desist notices. 6C) If someone has real life issues regarding to their account, I would support allowing them to let the old account die a quiet death and edit under a new account, although I would make it clear that if they continue to edit the same articles in the same way, a clever editor may (inadvertently or deliberately) figure things out and link those accounts publicly. 6D) As I said above, the WMF should serve a cease and desist notice (and follow through, if violated) on those who use Wikipedia to harass victims. 6E) Stalking is the use of Wikipedia to harass others. To the point where a stalker would deliberately post on pages they knew the victim would read, in an attempt to provoke fear. Reviewing contributions for other problematic edits is nothing of the sort.

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?

7) Certain banned users, such as the "remarkably unwelcome" editor mentioned in this question, should be treated like I mentioned above on question 6. The sooner they get the message that their edits (good, bad, indifferent) is not going to stand, and that they depart the encyclopedia, the better off we are. We don't ban users such as the "remarkably unwelcome" one above and then say "Ok, some of your edits are ok, so we'll let them stand". That just encourages them to continue to push the boundaries and annoy othersr..

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? )

8A) I am going to enrage some people at WR by saying this, but the thing is.. if there wasn't a Wikipedia Review, we would have to create a Wikipedia Review. There should be a place for people to go to vent off steam in such a way, or to criticise the things on Wikipedia that they think need to be changed. You do need to take a lot of things said with a grain of salt (in some cases, a grain of salt the size of a boulder is necessary), but there's no harm in listening to others.
8B) I participate on WR and participated on Wikback.
8C) I answered a lot of this with 8A, but while some of the users are on WR because they were forced off WP (for good reason or not), there are others who honestly think Wikipedia needs change and they don't think that they can (for whatever reason) get a fair hearing on WP. Wikback was a good idea, but it never got an identity seperate from Wikipedia itself (being run by a then-member of the ArbCom).
8D) Yes in all cases, with the caveat that they need to be careful about not disclosing private discussions or other such information. As I said, there's no harm in listening and discussing.
8E) Yes, I have an account on WR, samename as this one.

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)?

9) Vested Contributors means a lot of different things to different people. This is a rough question to answer, but I think we need to treat editors equally, and try to minimize the disruption to the encyclopeda.

Let me qualify answer 7, so it's clear. I had a long discussion with Probaviouac via Gmail on this issue, so I figure I should say here what I said there.

I do not support a strict reading of the ban policy (ie, revert at will) for your garden variety "banned" user, such as Peter or what have you, even though by reading a policy, anyone can do so. However, users like G***p or that "remarkably unwelcome" user, who are actively harming the encyclopedia (I'm thinking of one libel Grawp inserted in one run of pagemoves in particular recently that could have attracted certain attention, and was the very definition of actionable libel). It's a weapon yes, and it needs to be incredibly targeted closely, but it's a useful weapon.

This post has been edited by SirFozzie:

For what it's worth, I agree strongly with SirFozzie's sentiment of dismay over how COI is applied in his answer to 5A. We punish disclosure and reward pseudonymity. If Wikipedia wants to make real strides toward favoring disclosure and stopping pseudonymous attacks on living people, it should at least close the COI/pseudonymity gap.

Let me qualify answer 7, so it's clear. I had a long discussion with Probaviouac via Gmail on this issue, so I figure I should say here what I said there.

I do not support a strict reading of the ban policy (ie, revert at will) for your garden variety "banned" user, such as Peter or what have you, even though by reading a policy, anyone can do so. However, users like G***p or that "remarkably unwelcome" user, who are actively harming the encyclopedia (I'm thinking of one libel Grawp inserted in one run of pagemoves in particular recently that could have attracted certain attention, and was the very definition of actionable libel). It's a weapon yes, and it needs to be incredibly targeted closely, but it's a useful weapon.

These ones, perhaps, Foz? Grawp is playing with fire, there (right, Sylar?) given that his dox are all over the place .... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Thanks Allie.

There goes being circumspect. *facepalms* (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Thanks Allie.

There goes being circumspect. *facepalms* (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Oh, I'm done with being circumspect, Foz (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Especially where Grawp is concerned, given he such a damn hypocrite. Spreads dirt on everyone (including Daniel Brandt) but would pee his pants if anyone mentions his RL name. Fun and lulz without the responsibility (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Let me qualify answer 7, so it's clear. I had a long discussion with Probaviouac via Gmail on this issue, so I figure I should say here what I said there.

I do not support a strict reading of the ban policy (ie, revert at will) for your garden variety "banned" user, such as Peter or what have you, even though by reading a policy, anyone can do so. However, users like G***p or that "remarkably unwelcome" user, who are actively harming the encyclopedia (I'm thinking of one libel Grawp inserted in one run of pagemoves in particular recently that could have attracted certain attention, and was the very definition of actionable libel). It's a weapon yes, and it needs to be incredibly targeted closely, but it's a useful weapon.

Well, thank goodness somebody has identified the Grawps of the world as intrinsically more malignant to the encyclopedia than political or governance dissent.

You know, the "Guy" tunnelling under parliament trying to get gunpowder under there to blow the place up, should not be confused with the people protesting with signs out front, saying the prime minister is a cock up or plonker or whatever angry Brits say these days of their hacks. On Wikipedia, however, the dissenters are regularly treated far more harshly than the vandals. That's been one of the key complaints here on the Review: it only suggests that the politicians on Wikipedia are more interested in their own power than they are in the process they're protecting.

Thanks Allie.

There goes being circumspect. *facepalms* (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Oh, I'm done with being circumspect, Foz (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Especially where Grawp is concerned, given he such a damn hypocrite. Spreads dirt on everyone (including Daniel Brandt) but would pee his pants if anyone mentions his RL name. Fun and lulz without the responsibility (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Without betraying confidences or breaking privacy rules, do you and/or other Wikipedians know of his identity? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Thanks Allie.

There goes being circumspect. *facepalms* (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Oh, I'm done with being circumspect, Foz (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Especially where Grawp is concerned, given he such a damn hypocrite. Spreads dirt on everyone (including Daniel Brandt) but would pee his pants if anyone mentions his RL name. Fun and lulz without the responsibility (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Without betraying confidences or breaking privacy rules, do you and/or other Wikipedians know of his identity? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Yep. I do, anyway. Which is funny, considering he has no qualms about messing about with my full name (just one of many examples..

Question for Alison and Sir Fozzie : What's the best way to ensure you have an utterly unhealthy ongoing feud with some guy on the internet?

1. Publicly talk about him and his actions?
2. Attempt to foil him at every opportunity?
3. Call him out when ever you can?
4. Play cat and mouse with the guy all over the net?
5. All of the above?
6. Consider that you've done your bit - Start forgetting about the bloke, shutting up about him and letting others deal with him if need be?

Bwuh?

Kato, I only brought the AM up ebcause I was explaining in what cases I would use the BAN policy, and in which way I would push the Foundation to enforce it?

And in Grawp.. if we didn't at least think about taking those extra steps.. let's look at what Allie posted above. Don't you think that would have the probable cause of upsetting someone who's already gone to large lengths to publicly state his displeasure with the way Wikipedia's handled information about him, and gone to lengths to "return the favor to Wikipedia"?

Thanks Allie.

There goes being circumspect. *facepalms* (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

Oh, I'm done with being circumspect, Foz (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Especially where Grawp is concerned, given he such a damn hypocrite. Spreads dirt on everyone (including Daniel Brandt) but would pee his pants if anyone mentions his RL name. Fun and lulz without the responsibility (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Without betraying confidences or breaking privacy rules, do you and/or other Wikipedians know of his identity? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

Yep. I do, anyway. Which is funny, considering he has no qualms about messing about with my full name (just one of many examples..

This is the guy who used to be JarlaxleArtemis, right? In that case his real name is no secret at all, as he was quite open about it back then.

For what it's worth, I agree strongly with SirFozzie's sentiment of dismay over how COI is applied in his answer to 5A. We punish disclosure and reward pseudonymity. If Wikipedia wants to make real strides toward favoring disclosure and stopping pseudonymous attacks on living people, it should at least close the COI/pseudonymity gap.

So do I. It's not the number one problem facing Wikipedia but it's significant... thanks for raising it, you guys.

So do I. It's not the number one problem facing Wikipedia but it's significant... thanks for raising it, you guys.

It's clear that Wikipedia harbors a large number of pseudonymous editors whose main purpose for participation is to write attack screeds. If this is not the number one problem facing Wikipedia, it has to be in the top five. What do you think the top problems are, Lar?

So do I. It's not the number one problem facing Wikipedia but it's significant... thanks for raising it, you guys.

It's clear that Wikipedia harbors a large number of pseudonymous editors whose main purpose for participation is to write attack screeds. If this is not the number one problem facing Wikipedia, it has to be in the top five. What do you think the top problems are, Lar?

Good question.

It deserves a thoughtful, rather than snap, answer. Also I'd rather not try to rank order them, as I'm not very good at that. Note that the questions I asked of all ArbCom candidates already have my subconscious thinking on this as background

Ping me in a week if I haven't posted something. Or maybe I'll blog about it.

Preliminary and subject to revision (snap answer) these have to be in any list of top 10 I would say.
- BLPs in general (how do you count this? is the whole thing one of the top 5? or do you have to count each of the sub problems separately?)
- Vested contributors
- the overall governance issues
- POV and the pushing thereof
- how to encourage and enable quality improvement (experts vs anyone can edit)
- Consensus and how it relates to changing policy and making decisions
- the distortive effect of pseudonymous contribution and how it enables certain destructive behaviors
- pseudonymity and outing/stalking/harassment
- the COI problem.

Part of the difficulty in any such list is how do you divide up problems? Many of these are intertwined and are not discrete. you can't completely solve the COI problem unless you tackle stuff relating to socking and POV pushing... you can't solve ANY other problem without tackling the governance/policy/consensus one, etc.

you can't solve ANY other problem without tackling the governance/policy/consensus one, etc.

In my mind, I think that is the number 1. At some point, the WMF have to wake up and realise that the ground rules for WIkipedia 2009 are fundamentally different from Wikipedia 2005 and some hard nosed dropping of historical viewpoints needs to be done.

Starting from critical mass of editors + need for better supervisory structures + defined targets for the process, I think you would come up with something quite different from Wikipedia 2008.

I also think that such a change is both necessary and feasible.

I would put the governance problem at the top, since just about every other problem descends from it.

You articulated the core issue last Spring when you, GRBerry, Sam Korn, and others acknowledged that Wikipedia doesn't do Due Process, doesn't even have Due Process as an express goal on the radar screen.

And then, in the WMF Board Elections, most of the candidates endorsed the view that Due Process is not a significant community value.

I was frankly gobsmacked at this revelation. Up until that time, I thought my own case was just a one-off misadventure, and not a routine experience.

Now I realized I was just attached to one small shard on the tip of a huge iceberg.

That's when I began to appreciate that Jimbo's Ship was surely gonna be sunk by that colossal 'berg.

The sum of all human knowledge includes libraries full of bloody political dramas arising from systemic injustice, along with painfully won incremental gains in Due Process down through the past four millenia: Evidence-Based Judgments, Equal Protection, Civil Rights, Restorative Justice, etc.

The medium is the message. What is Wikipedia teaching young people around the world in terms of how to craft a functional system capable of achieving an over-arching goal?

To my mind, the founders of Wikipedia do 21st Century youth a disservice by inculcating them into an anachronistic tribal culture that has not yet even begun to embrace fundamental concepts of the Rule of Law.

Part of the difficulty in any such list is how do you divide up problems? Many of these are intertwined and are not discrete. you can't completely solve the COI problem unless you tackle stuff relating to socking and POV pushing... you can't solve ANY other problem without tackling the governance/policy/consensus one, etc.

Anonymity in goverance is behind it all. Because of it, you cannot have a real democracy (direct, representative, fluid, or otherwise), due to ballotbox stuffing and votestacking, and without democracy you have the same feudal system which gave us all the horror of history before humans learned that democracy was the best system so-far invented (with horrible problems, except for all the others being worse).

Stopping anonymous governance does not mean stopping anonymous editing. Even sportection and registered-editing can be anonymous (since screennames accumulate a history and reputation independent of their real-life IDs-- that's how WP works now with governance). But you can't allow these people to vote on anything. And you must have real voting, not this fake "polling/consensus" stuff based on screen-name-rep, which is just a gigantic lie to hide the fact that one cheating group which has accumulated social power, lords it forever over everybody else on WP.

In short, you've got the wrong (inappropriate levels) of accountablity at every level on WP. You let IPs edit, when only registered editors should. You let registered anon-names make governence decisions and you elect them by vote, when you should really require real-life ID checks (ie, you've super-registed by making a small credit-card or wire donation) for voting. You require real-life ID checks for the very top eschelons of WP governance, when these people should not only have IDs but also a decent paycheck (if you want decent people).

How to pay for this? The same way Google does. I don't know why WMF hasn't done the Adsense thing. They're primarily a charitable and educational organization, and they might be allowed to keep 501-c-3 status even if they had an advertising income. There are also non-profit organizations which are NOT 501-c's, and which pay taxes on the net profit they make (which is arranged to be little or none). Whatever it takes. Just don't have stockholders and run the thing like any other non-government educational institution (private University model). Private universities can charge tuition. The U.S. Red Cross can charge you when you get blood from them. Etc.

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

Well, Wikipedia is complicated enough without the real world intruding. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

Sounds like a bad case of Second Lifer - oddly though, my impression is that in Second Life, most people construct characters that are far nicer than real life. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

Back to the point - surely the theory of ArbCom is that people have let real life intrude on the nirvana of Wikipedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Wow, really? Out of all the stuff on my questions page and even within Lar's batch of questions itself, this is what you criticize me on? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

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

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

Hemlock- you are an idiot who deserves the shallow empty life you have. I never expressed any malice towards NYBRAD so please do not DARE speak for me or about me you worthless excuse for a human being. Once NYBRAD was identified I wondered if he was working on your shithole site and charging clients for it. The moment I put that up on MY PERSONAL SITE he quit WP which would make one think that he had something to hide. Who knows. As do you, though in your case it is your lack of intelligence and you hide it poorly. No one has gotten rid of me you baby. I am out here making a lot of money so when the time comes to throw some random lawsuits that YOU WILL BE ON YOUR OWN TO DEFEND (unless you think the lying, woman disrespecting Wales will pay for your defense) I will be fully funded. NY BRAD left because he knew that his actions on WP would shame him in the real world. YOU Have no shame since you are an idiot. And now are on my list.

This post has been edited by ColScott:

Gwen Gale (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.

"Opt out" for truly borderline BLPs, they're not worth the flurry. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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: policy. b: BLP is not easy, this is about the only area where I've been ok with arbcom writing policy, but only because I think WmF was behind it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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?

Straight voting is the road to chavel, tyranny. Consensus spins it for me, even when I don't agree at the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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?

Flagged revisions would mean the end of Wikipedia as we know it and meantime stir up more ugly project wars than you can think of. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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 don't think Wikipedia would have ever gotten close to being what it is without anonymity and pseudonymity. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

If someone asks, oversight the PI, unless they've wantonly spewed it over hundreds of scattered talk and project pages or whatever, then I'd say they're out of luck (other than getting a new username). Things change, help should be given where it can be given but without disrupting the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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 can be because it highlights the PI here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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)

No, no, for many, it's not worth the worries. No. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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?

Oversight on-site outings, otherwise see below. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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)

Block the outer. If it was done offsite a bit more slack can be given and much care must be taken in linking the username to the offsite outing but even so. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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?

The Internet is awash with help along these lines. Don't we have a help page about this somewhere? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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.

Block stalkers. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

None. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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.

Block stalkers. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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?

Neutrality, lit by helpfulness to the project. If there has been a content dispute with that editor, a one-time overview of their contribs is one thing, following them about and being nettlesome should be and more or less is blockable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I know who you're talking about (someone emailed me and told me, heh!) and as it happens, happily, I do agree with you. Less worrisome editors should be given more slack, so far as being allowed back goes. However, when they sock helpfully, one editor/admin/arbcom member quietly watching and saying nothing to anyone is one thing, arbcom knowingly allowing it without telling the community is a failure of arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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?

Wherever. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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?

Nope. Everything I need's on this website. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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)?

Can't happen, hence, I run that "ideal" site in me own noggin. I get thrashed sometimes but hey, it's fun to follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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 care, but will say, to forbid it would be a big docking marketing mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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? )

No. As for the rest, I don't care. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 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)?

We're all canny vested, one way or another, but we do what we can. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Risker (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 support the concept of an "Opt Out" clause for marginally notable individuals. I do not believe the proposal is ready for prime time yet, though. It is largely dependent on one of our most contentious guidelines, Notability; unless we can gain agreement about where the lines are drawn between clearly notable, notable, marginally notable, mostly not notable, and not notable, an "opt-out" clause will have limited usefulness. Some other points we need to decide: what happens when the opted-out subject becomes clearly notable? what if someone opts in, but the community decides they aren't notable? Who gets to determine whether or not the subject falls into the "marginally notable" (or lower) classification? I will throw in here that I'm not all that fond of the "dead tree" standard of notability; many clearly notable individuals work in fields where biographies are rare (e.g., the sciences), and those who have become more recently notable in certain fields (including many cultural fields) may have extensive, high quality reference sources but only a hagiographic biography and no mention in scholarly sources. I'd also be interested in knowing how frequently Wikipedia has been asked to delete biographical articles by the subjects of said articles; if this happens half a dozen times a year, and every time the person is marginally notable at best, it should be pretty easy to get buy-in. If it is happening hundreds of times a year, and many of the requestors are clearly notable, we have a much more complex situation, where the notability guideline interpretation may well become a battlefield on its own.
(b) - I can agree with a standard that if an AfD that is specifically a biographical article about a living person reaches no consensus, it should default to delete. As to DRV, given that it operates differently from AfD, I think that would work; I've tried to imagine the possible permutations and it seems to be okay. You will note, however, that I have stressed that the article would have to be a biographical article about a person; we have BLP information in probably 50% of our articles, but I think this deletion standard is too high for any but strict biographies. Biographical information about living people that is found in other articles should be edited with WP:BLP in mind. Of the two proposals, I believe this one is the more straightforward, and doesn't require a lot of additional work before proceeding; however, it would be a good idea to look at, say, the last six months of AfDs of BLP articles to see which ones were closed as "no consensus" at the time (and thus kept), to see which articles would have been deleted. What works in theory may not actually work in practice.
Otherwise, I think the BLP policy is fairly good, and probably better written than a lot of our other policies. It isn't perfect (none of our policies are), but it is heading in what I feel is the right direction. I have always been something of a deletionist when it comes to BLPs of marginally notable people, so I support moving in this direction.

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's pretty clearly a question of policy...policy about content.
(b) I assume that you refer to the "special enforcement provisions" that arose from the Footnoted quotes case. I think it went too far in several ways. First, any editor can remove material that violates WP:BLP and counsel those who insist on violating it; second, all of the remedies available to administrators under this clause were already available to administrators before it was written. Finally, the section that reads "Appeals of both the original action and of any subsequent reversal may be made directly to the Committee, or another body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future" means that the Arbitration Committee has set itself up to directly assess a content issue, and not just an administrative action; if a question of whether a page protection meets standards was brought before the committee, they must review the content itself to determine the answer.
The Sarah Palin protection wheel war case is the only time in which these special provisions were invoked. I note that it was overridden despite being invoked, too. I would rather have seen a temporary emergency desysopping of the administrators who unprotected or reduced the protection level against clear community consensus, with an RfAR addressed by summary motion, to address this issue; I think that would have been more effective in preventing future wheel wars over protection, and the administrators involved (having given their assurances they would not do it again) would have had their permissions reinstated quickly without having a cloud over their heads for an extended period.

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?

The consensus-based approach, especially as practiced on this project, is one of high ideals and limited practicality. It relies on a combination of numbers (85-90% supports to approve an RFB, for example) and quality of argument (a highly subjective determinant). In theory, in a situation where four people make excellent arguments in favour of an action, and one person makes an excellent argument opposed to the same action but twenty other people say "per person one, whose argument covers all points" to also oppose, the four excellent favourable arguments should be the consensus; I find this problematic. I realise that consensus assessment is not usually practiced this way, but the door is left wide open for it to be so. Perhaps one of the best hints as to how we can do it better here is when access was granted for rollback permissions to be handed out by administrators. The person who set this up on English Wikipedia is an administrator on another wiki, and he assessed there to be a consensus with a lower numerical standard (about 66%) than is usual on En.wp. Maybe we are looking for too high a level of agreement in such a diverse project.

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 think we don't have enough information to determine whether or not it would be an improvement or a hindrance. It's my understanding that the only place where it is currently being used is on the German Wikipedia, where it was introduced with minimal planning and created some fairly significant community upheaval which has not yet fully resolved. (My "random article" search on German Wikipedia revealed that only two of the 20 biographies I saw were flagged, and I will note that anyone could see the "unflagged" version with one click.) Since that time, I understand that several other wikis have requested flagged/sighted versions, but their requests have not been acted upon, so any discussion on this project may be moot at this time.
I think the concept of sighted/flagged revisions is good, but we as a wiki need to resolve some issues before requesting that it be made available. We need to figure out who should be given authority to "sight" the articles (it shouldn't be an admin tool, probably closer to a rollback function), what kinds of articles to flag (BLPs and featured articles seem to be the current thoughts), who can review and approve new edits and how they should do it (reviewing reference sources, agreement of knowledgeable editors, etc). My concern is that our readers are likely to assume that flagged revisions are (at minimum) accurate; unless the article is verified before being flagged and then each subsequent edit is verified before being included, we may be setting up false expectations for our readers. We need to sort this out before progressing. And I do not think the Arbitration Committee as a committee has any role to play in this discussion, although individual arbitrators should certainly be encouraged to participate in the decision, and if the community elects to go this route, then I think the Arbitration Committee should take that into consideration when making decisions where the issue is relevant.

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)
Generally, I support the concept of permitting pseudonymous editing (I include editing without logging in as pseudonymous, as I do not see IPs as being truly anonymous). The overwhelming majority of our edits (both useful and problematic) are made by pseudonymous editors, and development and cleaning up of the encyclopedia is unlikely to continue at anything near a sufficient pace to satisfy our critics if we require only real-name editing. If someone forks English Wikipedia (or the community as a whole decides to fork the project), then requiring real-name-only editing would be an option, but I do not think we have a choice otherwise, because it is a core WMF principle.
I do not believe that either the WMF or this project does enough to make clear the personal privacy implications of editing Wikipedia; in fact, there are special pages and related templates that are regularly used to implore IP editors to create a username, and they speak mainly of the "benefits" without adequately outlining the potential for problems. I recently reviewed the issues of privacy, confidentiality and discretion myself, and wrote this essay as a review of current practices and issues. Once someone has posted something about themselves on-wiki, I am very hesitant to sanction another editor for referring to that information, particularly if it had been on-wiki for weeks or months. I think it is usually reasonable to delete personal information posted by an editor at his or her request, even to the point of oversighting particularly problematic information (e.g., the usual list of oversightable edits, accidental IP edits, anything personal about a third party such as the editor's wife's name). Everyone should always keep in mind, though, that it is impossible to unfry an egg, and once the information has been released, it can never be considered undisclosed. Editors themselves need to take some personal responsibility as well; changing accounts to reduce the likelihood of outing, and then promptly returning to the same topic areas and making the same content arguments is the wiki equivalent of waving a red flag in front of a bull, and again I would not be too excited about sanctioning an editor who pointed out the new account. At the end of the day, whether editing under one's own name or under a pseudonym, I believe we are all "findable" if someone works hard enough; using a pseudonym or editing using IP addresses only reduces that likelihood but does not eliminate it.
I am somewhat flummoxed by what to do when editors post something off-wiki that clearly links themselves to their Wikipedia account; it seems to me to be taking advantage of our high regard for pseudonymity to then claim that the information shouldn't be referred to on the project. On the other hand, I've seen cases where people have been mistakenly associated with Wikipedia accounts by third parties, so I am not supportive of referencing such information on-wiki. I think, however, that sanctions can only apply for on-wiki activities; off-wiki activities can be an aggravating factor, of course.
As to myself, I edit pseudonymously with a username that I only use on Wikipedia, which I created at a time when I was dealing with serious real-world personal security issues. For me at that time, editing Wikipedia any other way really was a "risk" - part of the reason for my choice of username. Those issues have been resolved very recently, but "Risker" is how I am now known on the project, and I don't plan on changing that. I don't intend to publicise my real name, but if someone asks me if my name is XXX YYY, I will answer truthfully, whether the question is sent privately or is posted on-wiki.

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 it would be fair for there to be a mention that some of our editors have been harassed and encouraging people to think carefully before deciding to share personal information when editing Wikipedia. It's not clear to me whether that is a WMF issue or a Wikipedia issue, especially now that SUL is widely used; in the past, I would have said it was a project responsibility. I am not certain that much can be done to prevent real-life stalking. I think it is well within the WMF's privacy policy to offer to provide police or other regulatory bodies with whatever information we have in our database with respect to a known stalker (e.g., dates/times/IPs when a harassing email was sent through the wikimedia interface) at the request of the editor being harassed or stalked; however, I don't think that the WMF should be directly providing psychological support to the victims. A poor job in victim support can be more harmful than beneficial; it would be better to assist the victims in locating and accessing a qualified support organisation within their own community where possible.
I would hope that others who have been stalked in real life prior to their coming to Wikipedia would already be aware of the security issues of participating online; people must assume some responsibility for their own decisions, particularly those who are already addressing personal security concerns. On the other hand, some of the people who have fallen victim to both off- and on-wiki stalking are not those who choose to participate here, but the subjects of some of our articles. I do not think it is at all acceptable to permit editors to use Wikipedia as a base for their harassment of either subjects of our articles or other editors. I realise that some of the harassment that has occurred is such that it would be very difficult for an uninvolved individual to spot. After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that it is appropriate to take some extra steps in the revert, block, ignore cycle to keep others from unintentionally repeating the harassment by reinstating edits that are not thoroughly checked out, and by blocking accounts with some form of flag to alert administrators reviewing unblock requests that there are special circumstances. I won't take credit for this idea, as it is a variation of something that has been posited from time to time, but I think it is workable.
I have long said that the term "wikistalking" was inappropriate, because there is an enormous difference between reviewing someone's contributions and even making their life somewhat miserable on Wikipedia, and the stalking that involves telephone calls to friends, family and employers, emails to people, and following people in real life. The first, which has recently been renamed wikihounding is a nuisance and at worst can turn an editor off participating. The second can be symptomatic of a genuine physical and psychological threat. Having been on the receiving end of both, I can honestly say that there is no comparison between the two.

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?

Please see my answer above for some ideas on how I would handle the "remarkably unwelcome" editor, whom I would generally characterize as one who is editing Wikipedia with the intention to cause harm to one or more specific entities (generally, harassment of a person, but potentially also a business). After some careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there is merit in reverting all edits; the downside is that it may feed the ego of the remarkably unwelcome editor to know that they are causing some level of disruption, but the upside is that an independent editor will review the contribution and (hopefully) only return it to the article once it is fully vetted for appropriateness, verified, and found to be within the scope of the BLP policy without giving undue weight to an aspect of the subject. Care has to be taken not to revert back to a version that violates policy itself, though; some skill is definitely required, and it needs to be done in a way that the reversion does not cause harm.
Problematic editors who add good content are a greater challenge, because reverting their edits has the potential to cause more harm to the encyclopedia than good. It is this point where the needs of the project and our audience (the 160 million readers a day) may need to take precedence over the social aspects of encyclopedia-building. There are certain "problem" editors whose work is such that I would have a very hard time justifying its reversion. I would never be inclined to blanket unrevert, though; I believe that each of is responsible for any editorial decision we make, and I would not "unrevert" anything that I could not personally stand behind.

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? )
There's no way to ensure that all criticism will happen on-wiki, and to expect it to happen reveals a concerning degree of utopianism; I've even been known to make a disparaging remark or two at the family dinner table, not that anyone else around the table actually cared. I don't have a blog, though, and have no interest in writing one, especially not about Wikipedia. I don't have an account at Wikipedia Review and don't intend to start one, although I do read some of their threads, particularly the early posts in threads relating to articles, and I am well aware that my responses to this particular series of questions will be analysed in depth in that forum. Some of what is posted there is useful and well considered; some of it is simply gossip. I don't have a problem with anyone choosing to participate on WR, regardless of what permissions they hold, or whether they are arbitrators. I did participate in Wikback, which I felt started out as a relatively good forum for thoughtful Wikipedians to propose and comment on a range of ideas and concerns with less structure or "noise" than is normal within the confines of the encyclopedia. There were several factors that I suspect led to its demise; one was the rather heavy-handed sanctions handed out by its moderator (compared to almost every other forum I have ever read or participated in), but another, I think, was that people realised that there was limited opportunity to implement any solutions that arose there because whatever consensus was arrived at was unlikely to result in an on-wiki consensus sufficient to take action.

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 will note in answering this question that I have been unsuccessful in several attempts over the last week to open the link to this essay; however, I have read it in the past. My first thought is that this is an essay, based on the experience of a specific internet user, that highlights what that person feels are commonly seen issues. My second thought is that, outside of the internet, vested contributors are considered to be those who have made an investment into a project or entity and have developed a personal interest in its activities and outcomes; most of the world values vested contributors. While I agree with several of the points the author of this essay raises, I believe it leaves out an awful lot about vested contributors, focusing on the negative and largely ignoring the positive. Wikipedia could not survive without vested contributors; the encyclopedia relies heavily on people to assume a degree of ownership of the project to make major improvements in articles, to write software, to clean up vandalism, to clean up backlogs and prevent damage. Anyone who has taken the time to read this page, or has an interest in the election, is a vested contributor. I think it is about time we stop using the term "vested contributor" as a pejorative, and start looking at it as a positive.

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (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:

Nothing is "correct in all aspects," you Lego-loving lugnut. We didn't even have a real "BLP approach" until we got smacked with that Siegenthaler scandal a few years back.
You see, Lawrence, editing wikis is just so goshdarned fun and addictive that it's too easy to user overlook the reality that, given Wikipedia's sky-high ranking in nearly every Google search, an editor could easily affect someone's reputation or career, or just plain ruin their day with a few clicks of the mouse. And we're not talking vandalism; we're talking plausible but deeply embarrassing or incorrect information that might not trigger Mr. Huggle's suspicion and go unnoticed for months. Let's make it at least a little harder to do this.

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.

If an article is causing not-particularly-famous person distress, why leave it up? Spite? For the public good? I suspect that the majority of BLP victims don't want us to take their bio down altogether at first; they just want us to get the information "right," or to remove the hurtful information. However, if the OTRS team or administrators are unable to maintain an adequately policed article, junking or permamently stubbing/protecting the article (whichever the subject prefers) article is the only decent thing to do.

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.

If a not-really-notable figure wants his/her article deleted, just do it—no reason to waste time attempting to reform arcane and contentious AfD processes. If, on the other hand, your goal is to have less BLP articles overall, a better angle would be to raise the notability bar for BLPs. When possible, I avoid sticking my nose into the world of AfD; those guys are weird (please vote for me, guys; you know I'm just kidding).

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?

I don't understand the difference. Content is governed by policy. My candidate statement says I will use my immense girth to promote policy reform from my lofty ArbCom throne, and I stand by that statement. Will anyone listen or care? We shall see.

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?

Which actions are you referring to (stop being so vague!)? Badlydrawnjeff is the main one that springs to mind. That was a landmark decision, setting a clear precedent that our encyclopedia aspires to be something more than a knee-slapping repository of YTMND-style for hijinks at others' expense. Disclaimer: I love YTMND-style hijinks and really miss Badlydrawnjeff (I'm sad that, given his extraordinary contributions, the his case is permanently attached to to his name), but it's sometimes ArbCom's job to be the wet blanket, and they should act as such more often.

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 can't change Wikipedia policy. All I can do is keep beating that drum and make stern recommendations, confident that my infinite charisma, popularity, and cult following will inspire others to jump on the bandwagon and see the error of their ways.

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?

Sure, I agree with that. The lack of progress and agreement within such a large and diverse community can be frustrating. I'd be willing to at least try all kinds of wacky new approaches—for example, creating committees or even cute little elected parliaments of respected editors that, after hearing discussion, would place binding votes on certain types of big questions. Would that create new problems and new bureaucracies? Yeah, but I'm just brainstorming here; let's hear your brilliant plan. The point is, we (the community, as well as ArbCom) need to encourage bold new approaches that would limit some of the needless, fruitless and circular arguments/discussions that sap our time and joy and distract us from writing great articles.

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;l; in this matter?

Flagged revisions are great! Yes, we should implement them; setting the default view to sighted, certified/vandalism-free versions would be an excellent start and would instantly flummox the majority of vandals. Do I think the "the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this?" Are you kidding me? The majority of editors don't even know what flagged revisions are or haven't duly considered their immense and exciting utility. ArbCom doesn't have the means to flip the switch on, but Arbitrators are visible and respected members of the community and should use their influence to convince others to implement flagged revisions sooner rather than later.

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?

The problems of pseudonymity are endemic to the Internet, not just Wikipedia. I empathize with those who perceive that Wikipedia is gradually devouring the Internet, and that no one can see who any of us are! A move toward disclosing our identities would greatly increase the prestige/perceived accountability of the project.

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)?

Many of our greatest, most responsible and most prolific editors wish to continue editing anonymously, and the last thing I wish to do is alienate or drive off these wonderful writers. That being said, I would not oppose the implementation of a "Yes, that's really me!" system similar to that used on Amazon.com and other sites. Making this feature optional for editors over 18 and required for certain others (Arbitrators or even admins) would go along way toward selling the idea that it's "cool" and rewarding to edit under your real name.

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?

The Fat Man loves his gays (and if you met him in person, you would assume he was a bit queer himself) and dislikes the use of the term "outing" to refer to anything other publicly disclosing someone's sexuality. So let's not call it that, hmmm? I disapprove of administrators/beauracrats/oversighters bending over backward to help someone hide from their contribution history—it's one of the few tools we have for tracking accountability (albeit not a very reliable one, given the ease of creating sockpuppets). However, if an editor is being subjected to genuine malice/creepiness/criminality (someone posting your home phone number or address of your kids' school), oversighters should lend a hand.

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?

If the editor's alleged identity is relevant to problematic edits (say, promoting a lame book you wrote or maligning a real-life enemy's bio), these real-life links should not be suppressed (particularly if the evidence is strong). If you're speculating onwiki about someone's identity merely to aggravate, titillate or create lulz, go have a ball on Encyclopedia Dramatica instead.

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

I'm pathologically attached to the name The Fat Man Who Never Came Back and would prefer not to give it up. However, I'm not particularly secretive about my boring real-life identity and would happily set up a user subpage revealing my first and last name and other essentials, if elected.

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

That pseudonymity is not "a guarantee" need not be explained or disclaimed. Every action we take online or off- has an associated risk. WMF should encourage but not require editors to verify their identities in an effort to bolster the credibility of our encyclopedia. ArbCom should support this view. See my answer to part b).

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)

See my answer to part d). People who wish to frighten or disturb productive, responsible editors for their amusement should be swiftly expelled. However, legitimate efforts to expose conflicts of interest and editorial abuse should not be thrust under the rug.

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?

Lawrence, are you dim? Explaining the dangers lurking on the Internets is Mommy and Daddy's job, not Michael and Sue's.

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.

WMF should cooperate with law enforcement officials but lack the resources and expertise to be anyone's personal bodyguard.

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

If one of your wikifriends is being bothered in real life by some nut, feel free to independently contact your friend offline, offer support, call the cops, make sure they're okay. As to the Wikimedia Foundation's obligations, see my answer to part b)

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.

Oversight and ban the miscreant, cooperate with law enforcement officials as needed.

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?

Threatening or following someone in real life is stalking/harassment. Asking questions on talk pages or monitoring someone's contributions is either being vigilant, or being a cyber-pain-in-the-ass, depending the circumstance. Stalkers and harassers are reported to the authorities; vigilance is welcomed; cyber-pains-in-the-ass are invited to take up a new hobby.

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?

The edits of a known serial vandal, hoax artist, or self promoter could probably be safely reverted without too much thought. Reverting uncontroversial improvements to articles (even if such edits emanated from a boring, diabolical wiki-"experiment") in order to "send a message" is a waste of time. I'm more interested in the reasons behind someone's banning.

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 realize this question is purely rhetorical, so I'll refrain from composing an incredulous, snarky, condescending or otherwise insulting reply.

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

No. Blogs are lame, and all bloggers should be boiled in their Christmas pudding.

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 greater Wikipedian than myself said it best: "if anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses."[2] The Wikipedia Review does have its share of lunatics, bullies, outright bores and insufferable blowhards, but the preponderance of such characters is noticeably lower there than elsewhere on the Internet, Wikipedia included. I hear it's a mostly civilized and occasionally scintillating place to hang. I don't know what "Wikback" is and can't really be bothered to look into it.

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 greater Wikipedian than myself said... wait, I already used that line. The fact is they're already over there. I don't think Newyorkbrad or Alison and the many other prominent Wikipedians with WR accounts are doing anything particularly naughty.

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 wouldn't be caught dead on one of those sites, but I have a somewhat vapid young friend who posts on the Wikipedia Review under the handle "Obesity" and tells me most of what's going over there. A lot if it isn't very interesting. I have no problem with Arbitrators (pseudonymously or otherwise) participating in the message board of their choice and, even if I did, I'm not sure how I'd go about enforcing such a prohibition. I am not aware of any accusations of Arbitrators disclosing confidential information on such venues. We should, of course, continue to treat such participants like the pieces of shit that they are.

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'm not altogether impressed by that essay, but I do support the right of newbies not to be bitten and have always recoiled from clubby administrator cabals who "watch [one another's backs]" in content disputes, scheme on IRC channels and remain entrenched in positions of influence. I have, however, stated that truly skilled writers and expert content editors are our greatest asset and should be afford higher regard than AN/I busybodies and portly talk page socialites. I worry that we drive too many of them off by subjecting them to aggressive, finger-wagging pedantry (alphabet souping, template slapping, overciting, etc.).

These answers are really good. And an entertaining read.

I'm not sure about the bit I highlighted in red. I believe that seeing as Wikipedia makes a play for young editors by pushing the brand to schools (at least in the UK) they should be far more responsible about the way they go about their business. And warning of the dangers is essential - the least they could do. Of course, abiding by COPPA would be something WP should be doing. Instead, WP's paractices are an amateurish, devil-may-care, nightmare.

If the Fat Man was an admin, he would be elected.

If people actually read Fat Man's answers, he'd be elected.

Sadly, it seems 99 per cent of candidates will not do the latter before voting. It's the worst thing about democracy (or, in this case, quasi-democracy) - those who make the decisions are often doing so without really thinking about why.

Wizardman (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) My issue with opt out is how it would be enforced, more than anything. How do we know that the request comes from the person, for example? Is opting out hiding information that should be public, and is that okay? It may be okay to "test drive" it at some point, but the policy creates more questions than answers.
(b) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie gives you my answer to this one (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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 a policy, so the latter.
(b) The times where arbcom has set in actions in BLP have been done in cases where they weren't needed, but the BLP actions that they did have been overall helpful.
© I think the way that things have been progressing, while slow, have been on the right track.

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?

It is indeed uncommon for what is essentially a pure democracy to grow this big. The foudning fathers of the United States didn't trust the common person, yet Wikipedia does. As for answering the question, my answer would be that the consensus based approach, as we are right now, is fine, because the number of users actually hasn't outgrown wikipedia; it has basically plateaued. (Though the number of articles is becoming overwhelming) The question would be what could be done instead of pure consensus. A raw vote would be too susceptible to abuse, and putting it in the hands of a few hurts the principle of a wiki. If the number of participants skyrocket in 2009 or 2010, my opinion may very well change on this.

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?

Personally, I don't like the idea on enwiki. It's not that I hate the idea in principle, but just that it would be impossible to implement on a site with 2.6 million articles. I'd say a form where GAs and FAs could be flagged may be helpful as some of them could be heavily suspect to vandalism and false info. I haven't seen a truely strong discussion on the matter, so I don't think they've "irretrievably" failed to come to a decision. Flagged revisions are a community matter, no need for ArbCom to get involved.

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) I do. There are valid reasons for keeping identities a secret, and after all, we're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia that certain groups can edit. The problem with why I cannot oppose a falls into ©. You never know what someone is going to use any outed information for. If people want to maintain privacy and have a valid reason for it, it should be honored, though how far they should go would be a case by case basis. (d) is a tough one. If it's very blatant you could argue that they would just put it on wikipedia, and that not doing so is peculiar, ergo it could be outing. Yet perhaps they don't but don't mind it being public. It's really hard to gauge. As for (e), I do not disclose my real identity, since I don't really see a need to do so. If I wanted my name out there that's how I would have registered. I probably would not change my username upon being on arbcom. Seems like a couple of the better arbs imo are anonymous, so it's not too big a deal. For (f), the WMF should be taking a hands-on approach regarding psuedonymity when there are, as it is a BLP matter. The arbs acan only do what's given to them at arbcom. For (g), should they be truly outing someone, I'd support a ban.

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?
The WMF should note it somewhere at least about consequences of what could happen. It's tough to say what the WMF can do for a victim, in all realism they couldn't do anything directly. If someone's been stalked in real life before, we should try to make special provisions for them, such as oversight if the issues are bad enough. If a stalker is using wikipedia to harass and this can be confirmed, a ban with law enforcement getting involved is best. As for (e), there's not a thin line between them, the line's pretty thick, and I wouldn't worry too much about this comparison.

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?

For the former I'm find with reverting them all, for more run-of-the-mill issues, the edits should each be looked at to see if they're positive if there's not too many edits. If the editor has a lot of edits, some good mixed with some bad, a blanket revert may need to be done unless the good outweighs the bad.

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) Some conversation can be done elsewhere, no big deal.
(b) I did for a little while, but it only had 2 posts that discussed a couple random articles, and I doubt I'll restart it. If I do, I'll put it at [en.planet.wikipedia.org] so the public knows about it.
© WR has its issues sometimes, but they do have valid criticism at times, and I don't mind it as a critical body. I have an account, which i don't really use, but i have posted a few times. WikBack I don't really have an opinion on. On paper the idea was good, but it just kinda fell apart, didn't really work into the culture, I guess.
(d) NYB does, I think most would agree he's a good user (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Just as long as we're not being stupid on those sites, it's no big deal. The best way to combat criticism is to acknowledge it and fight it head on.
(e) My account at WR is Wizardman. If another site that discusses wikipedia piques my interest to join, I'll use Wizardman on that. If by anonymous you mean a name different from my username (like if on WR I were omg333), I do have a problem with that. Just use your WP name on those sites. In my case it wouldn't be outing, but for someone who uses their real name, it's tougher to say, and my opinion's the same as Q5.

(e again) To clarify whether or not outing a wp username of a wr account is actually outing, I would actually lean towards no. My reasoning for that is that if you wish to use a criticism site, that's fine, but using your real username makes sure that you have nothing to hide, and hiding under another username may be suspicious. I understand there may be reasons for using a pseudonym, and this comes from an idealist perspective that people wouldn't attack you for critical comments on an outside site.

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'd say that we do have a problem with them. The editors that feel they are above the rules are, well, not above them. They need to be confronted and tried to be reformed, and dealt with otherwise if they can't be. In terms of what I would do, the best option would be to talk with them and make sure they understand our purpose here. If they don't get it and feel they are right still, and they can't be reformed, then there are other areas on the web where they can use their vestments rather than here.

This comment by Wizardman staggers me: "It is indeed uncommon for what is essentially a pure democracy to grow this big. The foudning fathers of the United States didn't trust the common person, yet Wikipedia does"

Wikipedia is not a "big democracy" by any stretch. It is an oligarchy of warlords trying to control some 3000 fellow game players, and the content of the site, by any means necessary.

Democracies demand accountability and transparency. Impossible on Wikipedia when people can switch user names at a whim. Wikipedia is anti-democracy.

I didn't like his 'soft on BLP defamation' stance either. Sorry Wizardman.

Vassyana (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:

* The overall approach is currently too uneven and mired in arguments over minutae. A clearer policy, accompanied by a clear assessment of common good practice, is a necessity.

* 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.

* An "opt" system is well-intentioned, but lacking in my opinion. A couple of examples, regarding my line of thought: What if someone doesn't realize they have an article on Wikipedia and would want to opt out? The ability to opt-in would make Wikipedia even a further target of promotional campaigns.

* 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 default to delete position on BLP deletion discussions is not a perfect solution, but it is viable, works within current process and is likely to achieve the result of removing questionable BLPs.

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 is obviously a policy consideration. Just because something involves content does not mean it is automatically a "content question", as commonly defined on Wikipedia.

* 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 bit of both. ArbCom imposed a new process, which I believe is the root of the strong disagreement from some quarters of the community. However, it is the point of ArbCom to mandate, as in strongly enforce, policy. ArbCom could have easily set the tone by having a strong decision with strong statements about BLP, such as a principle that administrators have a generous latitude in enforcing BLP and a statement encouraging the community to better address BLP issues. If necessary, ArbCom as a committee, or an individual concerned arbitrator, can raise the issue for community discussion at the BLP talk page, notifying the community of the discussion through normal venues such as policy RfC, the BLP noticeboard, the policy village pump and the administrators' noticeboard.

* 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 clear survey of common good practice and a better version of the BLP policy that matches that are necessary. This can be accomplished through any number of means, including a broad community discussion on the policy village pump and RfC. The community needs to come together and develop a coherent policy and approach in order to resolve the issues.

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?
* There are obviously scaling issues. The project has grown well beyond the limitations of a few monkeyspheres (or see here for an on-wiki explanation). However, on the local article level and other small-scale discussions, consensus is still a viable model. It is the broader issues of policy and policy enforcement that have a far greater difficulty with the consensus model, due to the much larger number of users affected and participating in the discussions. It may be worthwhile in such broader areas to consider a "mixed" model, such as process with a discussion phase and a voting phase or a process similar to RfC with views and support/oppose signatures and rationales.
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 would like to see stable revisions implemented with an option to see the latest "draft" version. I believe the community has largely stumbled over the process for implementation. There is a profound lack of disagreement about how the articles should be reviewed and approved. ArbCom has no substantial role in thise. It is primarily a community concern that needs to be resolved with a new process and policy to implement the change. It is noteworthy that I am general opposed to expanding the proliferation of rules and processes.
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?

* It is a Foundation principle and I appreciate the desire for open participation.

* 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)?

* It would be exceedingly difficult to change at this late juncture.

* 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 most cases, the change of heart is related to harassment and other attacks suffered. We shouldn't force someone to continue enduring harassment. Oversight and deletion are appropriate tools to protect privacy. Once something is known it is almost impossible to make it unknown again, but that should not preclude us from protecting people from harassment and privacy violations.

* 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?

* Acknowledging public disclosures is almost excluded from outing by definition. If someone has outed themselves, pointing to that admission is hardly outing. However, it should be noted that such disclosures may be misused by "accusers" for the purpose of personal attacks, accusations of guilt by association and other harassment.

* 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, but I would reveal my real name if elected and it is clearly desired by the community. I am considering revealing my real name regardless. I do not believe it should be a requirement for arbs to reveal their personal identity. The vast majority of people on the project are normal everyday people. ArbCom work exposes arbs to a lot of potential harassment and serious threats. I would not be comfortable with forcing someone in that position to reveal their private information.

* 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?

* Yes. They do not make unrealistic promises while clearly indicating their idealistic goal. It is something that will be difficult for the Foundation to micromanage. Oversight is appropriate for handling the problematic disclosure of personal information. The WMF could reinforce the fundamental principles of open editing and privacy (which converge nicely in psuedonymous editing). Arbcom should deal clearly with outing and harassment. They should not be tolerable behaviors.

* 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)

* Generally, such personal attacks should be treated with indefinite blocks and bans. Harassment and real life harm are serious considerations and a fundamental violation of basic social expectations.

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?

* The project should take it upon itself to do so, if the community feels it is a serious concern.

* 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.

* It has the responsibility to turn over any relevant information to the abused party and law enforcement officials. The WMF should oversight through office actions any relevant on-wiki harassment or divulging of personal details. This is in accord with the provisions of the privacy policy, which permits the disclosure of private information as described above. Oversight policy and office action precedent permit the oversight actions.

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

* The editor should be taken precautions of their own to prevent further recurrances. In general, harassment and privacy violations against such an editor should be taken very seriously, as there is a substantial potential for harm.

* 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.

* My answers above should clearly convey my opinion. In the case of a person whose article is affected, they have the additional option of seeking assistance from the OTRS team.

* 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?

* If an editor is following another user around in an obvious attempt to cause duress and inconvenience, it is "wikistalking" or harassment. If an editor has an established history of disruptive behavior, reviewing their actions and interceding to counteract disruption is usually quite legitimate. Factors to consider include intent, the presence of bad blood, evidence of gaming the system, and block/sanction histories. The more likely the intent to disrupt or stronger the evidence of a long history of antagonism, the more likely it is to be harassment. The stronger the target's track record for gaming the system and being the subject of sanctions, the more likely it is to be legitimate.

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?
* It is appropriate treatment for unwelcome/banned editors. Run of the mill problem editors, outside of vandals, tend to have some positive contributions. Unless they are so unwelcome as to be full banned, they should not be blindly reverted. Fully banned editors should have their edits all reverted, including "good" edits. See my response to #3 of Giggy's questions for related thoughts. Blanket unreverting in such circumstances is usually a bad idea. Each edit should be carefully examined and redone separately if indeed it is a "good" edit, but care should still be taken due to the concerns I express in response to Giggy.
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?

* It is ridiculous to assume that all conservation about a project this large can be confined within it. As a general observation, demands for "in-house" critiques only are often a vehicle for controlling commentary and dissent.

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

* No, I do not. I just do not feel any pariticular need to establish such a forum for my view.

* 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)?

* Wikipedia Review is an outside site focused on discussing Wikipedia with a wide variety of participants, ranging from trolls to very well-reasoned posters. Wikback seemed similar, except with a more "insider" feel and more strictly controlled. I believe Wikback failed for same reasons I mention it as distinct from Wikipedia Review. I do not have an ideal outside criticism site for my own tastes, but as a general concept, one that isa fair and honest in its criticisms and constructively geared towards finding solutions to perceived problem would like be ideal.

* 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 do not see why it would not be acceptable to have such an account, unless it is specifically being used to game the system, organize an edit war, or something similarly devious. Whether or not it is in good taste is entirely distinct question, dependent on the particular site and usage.

* 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? )

* No, I do not.
* See the answer to d), immediately above.
* I do not think our outing rules are intended to provide an absolute shield of immunity. If it is solely being done to harass the editor and/or cause drama, it's obviously sanctionable as disruption and harassment. If the linked outside account has demonstrably canvassed, organized edit wars, or so forth, then it's not much differant than establishing sockpuppetry or providing evidence of off-wiki coordination/system gaming.

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, absolutely. There are obvious double standards enforced in a variety of ways.
* Encourage and implement more even enforcement. This is not the same as a "one size fits all" approach, as context must be considered. Please see my answers to #1 and #2 of The Land Surveyor's questions for related thoughts.

A couple of contradictions here. One is the claim that the WMF should have the responsibility of turning over the details of harassment against Wikipedia editors to the police, which is all well and good, but when Seigenthaler and other BLP victims have asked for the same details and protection, the WMF have refused to cooperate.

Basically, this is the recurring theme, that "the community" demands the kinds of protection for itself that it denies people outside "the community". And especially the victims of article defamation.

Roger Davies (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar


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

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

I'm not sure about the notion of optional notability: while an interesting idea, it's potentially very messy.

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.

Better I think to raise the bar for inclusion for BLP notability and enforce the requirement to cite more strictly.

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?

Both.

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?

ArbCom has a duty to protect the project from harm, which results in a responsibility to minimise the harm done to individuals by it. It can act more swiftly than the community in instances where BLP violations have the potential to shut/bankrupt the project or to blight an individual's life. Broadly, the current BLP stance is about right but is taking time to filter down, especially into articles which aren't primarily biographical but contain significant biographical content.

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.

Well-intentioned editors sometimes include horrifyingly intrusive/inaccurate/misquoted information about living people. POV-warriors often go further. Given Wikipedia's global prominence, information about living people must be accurate, responsible and sensitively written, erring on the side of caution.

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?

Consensus doesn't always work well on large issues affecting the project as a whole, though it was interesting to see how drama-free the C-Class category discussions were. Changing policy however is a different matter: partly, because those that do participate in policy changes are self-selecting rather than representative, and therefore often have an axe to grind. As a result, it might take several attempts and many months to forge consensus. In the longer term, adjustments to the model are inevitable though these are likely to be imposed solutions (probably from WMF) as the community is unlikely to be able agree on reform.

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 think it's an excellent idea to have landmark versions of key articles, though the discussion seems to have snagged on how to achieve it. I see this primarily as a technical problem that needs solving rather than within ArbCom's ambit.

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?

It's a fine principle. It encourages editors to start participating, free from concerns that their colleagues will disparage them or their neighbours will make judgments about them based on their editing interests. The focus on Wikipedia is the quality of the source material not the credentials of the contributor. Over time, pseudonymous contributors develop their own on-line credibility, based on the quality of their edits.

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)?

It is difficult to see how this could be changed without triggering a mass exodus of people who insist on pseudonymity.

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 some cases, yes, particularly with minors, but oversighting should be limited to removing identifying data (street address, school name, date of birth etc) rather than real names. Page blanking by contrast is quick and easy. The right to vanish is available too.

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?

Connecting an on-wiki account to an off-wiki source is outing no matter how it is dressed up.

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

I edit under my real name but this does not mean I want to have large amounts of personal data linked to the account. So I use my real name but am reticent about real life. The alternative would be to edit pseudonymously but be much more candid about my job, location and so forth, but it's a bit late for that now (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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 could make the new account sign up page more explicit about the dangers of revealing too much personal information. In particular, they should explain that once the information is out there in the public domain, it's impossible to get all the genie back in the bottle.

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)

Deliberate outing should always attract severe sanction. Apart from anything else, the outing is usually part of a pointy agenda, and involves the theft of their pseudonymity.

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?

Beyond recommending pseudonymity per my 5(f) above, no.

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.

WMF has no special responsibilities over and above the prevailing norms and has severely limited resources. Obviously, it should cooperate fully and swiftly with law enforcement personnel, and impose robust sanctions on proven stalkers. On the other hand, the community probably needs to look out for minors and vulnerable people, and help them to keep out of harm's way.

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

None. Though I would like to think they have learned from their experience and taken precautions to keep themselves out of harm's way.

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.

These examples can be dealt with under existing policies. I am not aware that of consensus for stalker-specific policy.

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 the rub. I have seen many accusations of stalking bandied about at AN/I and few have turned out to be the real deal so I tend to slightly sceptical. I do think that editors who "monitor" (for want of a better word) the activities of problem editors can easily expose themselves to accusations of stalking (particularly from the problem editor). Should ArbCom clarify this? Probably. A public interest defence of some sort should be available to the "stalker" though this, in turn, could be gaming but a genuine stalker. Needs discussion anyway.

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?

The edits of blatant vandals or POV-warriors can probably be reverted without too much scrutiny but automatic reversion of all edits in less certain circumstances can cause more harm that good. This needs consideration on a case by case basis. See Giggy Q. 3 above.

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?

We have no means of preventing off-wiki discussion and I have no reason to suppose that it's a Bad Thing.

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

No. I'd don't blog at all.

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 must have led a sheltered life but I haven't encountered Wikipedia Review or Wikback and have no opinion of either.

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?

We have no means of preventing off-wiki discussion. I would expect admins and/or arbitrators to be circumspect about discussing individual editors but see no harm at all in discussing reform or improvement.

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? )

No, I don't have one nor do I intend opening one. I'm generally uncomfortable about off-wiki sites becoming part of the ArbCom bailiwick. If nothing else, people have a right to self-expression. That said, I would take a very negative view of an arbitrator who followed one line in ArbCom but advocated the opposite elsewhere.

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 do not believe that a stack of FAs should be a "get out of jail free" card for serial misbehaviour or long-term disruption. The notion of celebrity status is somewhat at odds with my personal belief in community.

Some of these answers were quite good, but I get the feeling he doesn't grasp the scale of the nasty stuff that goes on at WP. A rude awakening and rocky road could be ahead if he is elected.

Jayvdb (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

****UNANSWERED****

Jayvdb, who is currently in line to become an arbitrator, hasn't bothered to answer Lar's questions. So we have no way of knowing his position in this survey.

If he hasn't got time or isn't bothered in the elections, then how can he be trusted to put in the time for Arbcom?

Jayvdb (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

****UNANSWERED****

Jayvdb, who is currently in line to become an arbitrator, hasn't bothered to answer Lar's questions. So we have no way of knowing his position in this survey.

If he hasn't got time or isn't bothered in the elections, then how can he be trusted to put in the time for Arbcom?

Jayvdb cannot be trusted, full stop. He not only drank the Kool Aid, he's one of the regional distributors of the toxic stuff.

His campaign was axed toward getting other members support through friendship.

Jayvdb (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

****UNANSWERED****

Jayvdb, who is currently in line to become an arbitrator, hasn't bothered to answer Lar's questions. So we have no way of knowing his position in this survey.

If he hasn't got time or isn't bothered in the elections, then how can he be trusted to put in the time for Arbcom?

This post has been edited by Xidaf:

WJBscribe (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar


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

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

I agree with this. Where there is a consensus that a personal is of marginal notability and they wish to their entry deleted - or there is good reason to think they would want their entry deleted were they aware of it - the article should be deleted.

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.

This seems a good way to implement (a) provided that the subject objects or is likely to object to the entry. I do not think it should apply where someone may want us to have an article about them - people often forget the OTRS complaints from people who have been embarrassed by friends and colleagues discovering that their entry on Wikipedia was deleted "because they weren't notable enough". That's becoming an increasing problem now the deletion log entry is automatically visible to someone who visits a deleted page (rather than the log having to be checked separately)

As a general answer, I think Wikipedia needs to give very serious thought to the effect the information we have on people now it's become customary for the internet to be used to research individuals. Even a well sourced biography may aggregate elements of a person's life together in a unique way that they are unhappy with - and the entry is likely to become a top google hit for their name. NOINDEXing biographies might be a solution, but it has been pointed out that the GFDL would allow a mirror site to copy these articles and support themselves through advertising revenue generated from the prominence these articles might get without a Wikipedia competitor. Effectively, this could lose prevent us from having any control over biographies. That said, these sites might have a significantly lower ranking. One way or another the idea needs further investigation.
I personally would support the semi protection of biographical articles given the harm that can be caused to people through them. Flagged revisions on such articles would also allow tighter control over this sort of content, which I think would be highly beneficial. Of course, as you pointed out above, ArbCom can't "legislate" on these issues, but you asked for my opinions.

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?

Both. Consideration has to be given both to our policies about editing biographies of living people and about individual editorial decision about the notability of such people, and what material they feel is encyclopedically relevant.

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

I think ArbCom approached the problem wrongly in the Footnoted quotes case. My comments on that decision at the time can be read here. Effectively they created special authority for administrators - giving anyone the right to use "any means necessary" has always been problematic - backed up by a special enforcement log. Such sanctions should in my opinion have been based on community consensus, rather than administrative discretion. In this area the role of ArbCom should be IMO to support those taking actions in respect of problematic BLPs and to impose tough sanctions on those whose misconduct causes BLP problems.

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.

It is not for ArbCom to implement such changes and indeed I suspect the community will reject policy implemented by ArbCom to the extent that an attempt to do so would be counterproductive. ArbCom should support those working to bring articles into compliance with the relevant community agreed policies and can propose new measures to the community, but it is not it's role to rule by fiat.

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

I don't think anyone foresaw that the project would grow to its current size and influence and this brings new problems. I do not think the consensus based model should be abandoned, but consideration needs to be given to areas where it is open to gaming. For example, canvassing has become increasingly problematic now that participants in discussions may be a very small sample of the community. It is important that we take steps to make sure such samples are representative by ensuring wide publicity in centralised locations and in taking action where it appears that canvassing has stilted the outcome of a discussion.
The Arbitration Committee is in itself an example of an area where the consensus model has been, to some extent departed from. Whilst the Committee is appointed primarily based on a community vote, it's mandate is to make judgments independently based on member's individual judgment. That is not to say that the wishes of the community are to be ignored, but that ArbCom is expected to do more than just count heads on a given issue and vote accordingly. People in voting for particular candidates - I hope - recognise that they will sometimes disagree with that arbitrator during their term. ArbCom is effectively designed to step in to provide a resolution to the dispute where the consensus based model has been unsuccessful in proving a resolution.
I think it should be borne in mind that consensus-based decision model has been something that has attracted a lot contributors and is generally empowering to our editors. Whilst I think we should be open to reform and deviation from the model, I think it also important that we are not too quick to exclude people from making decisions or reduce their input to a mere vote.

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 admit to being in two minds on the matter. There would be very valuable in certain contexts, such as biographies of living people, but I worry that they take us away from what makes it appealing for casual users to contribute. People underestimate how much good content comes from IP contributors and I worry that being able to see the changes they make immediately on the page is what is attractive about editing Wikipedia. If changes were approved quickly this might not be too much of a problem, but I worry about a backlog of unprocessed revisions resulting. The experience of the German Wikipedia does seem encouraging.
One of the problems there has been in approving this is that there have been a lot of different proposals and different ways in which this might be implemented. In a discussion at a recent meetup in Cambridge, it became obvious that three of us talking energetically about this issue had completely different models in mind. There has yet to be a single clear proposal put to the community for approval, which is clearly the next step.

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 do. I think it important that people are judged by the quality of their contributions to the project, and conduct in relation to it, rather than based on their off-wiki identity if that is their wish. I also think people can have very legitimate concern about unwanted attention they may receive due to Wikipedia's current profile and the negative consequences this can have. Female editors are particularly likely to be subject of such unpleasant attention. That said, if someone is comfortable disclosing their identity, they should be free to do so.
The question prompts me to comment on a recent experience I had on a train journey from London to Devon. I got talking to the train manager and, in the course of our conversation, she confided that the name on her badge was not in fact her real name but a pseudonym. Apparently her employers had advised train managers that they should adopt pseudonymous identities as a result of disgruntled passengers tracking them down and harassing them and their families. Her superiors kept a list of the pseudonyms used by each train conductor so that they would be able to identify which employee a complaint related to. The use of pseudonyms is becoming increasingly common where there is a real risk of harassment and abuse - the modern world, which provides ready means of accessing information about private individuals, has been felt to necessitate this. In the rail scenario, it seems to me that I knew all I needed to know about the lady I was addressing. I was aware of her position and how I would go about complaining were she to abuse her position. The train manager is not directly analogous to the Wikipedia scenario, but I think it draws attention to the fact that the use of pseudonyms is not an alien idea unique to Wikipedia or the internet.
One exception I would make to the general right of editors to be anonymous is that I believe there is a duty to assist someone who has been deliberately defamed by a Wikipedia editor in tracking down that person. As there is no right of action against the Foundation, I think assistance should be given to those who misuse the project for malicious attacks against other people. In appropriate cases, that should include disclosing the name of the person, if known, or otherwise information about their IP usage.

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 think any change would need to appreciate that many contributors would choose to cease contributing to the project if they could not remain pseudonymous - the cost of this to the project would need to be carefully considered if a change were seriously being proposed.

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 my opinion we should extend all courtesy to fellow editors. If someone has previously disclosed personal information they now would rather they had not, I think reasonable assistance should be given to them in reducing the incidence of that data on the project and it's profile on search engines. Redacting the information from pages seem appropriate and deletion/oversight may also be acceptable so long as material valuable to the project is not lost. It is something to considered on a case-by-case basis with kindness.

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?

There is little practical difference between posting "User:X is John Smith" and linking to a page that contains that same statement on another website. The reason for doing so may vary and will affect how serious an incident this is. The information could be posted in good faith to make someone aware of a potential issue (though I hope most would realise email were a better way to do this) or it may be done deliberately to draw wider attention to the information.

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

I do not publish my identity on Wikipedia but I have made it known to quite a lot of contributors who I have gotten to know. I choose not to make it more widely available as, at the moment, I would rather references to me on Wikipedia used my screen name rather than my actual name. I have not yet decided whether to make my name more prominently available were I to get elected - it is not however a very closely guarded secret...

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?

The Foundation doesn't to my knowledge make any assertion that users will be able to remain anonymous. I think there may be some merit in warning people who seek positions that have attracted unwarranted attention in the past - such as administrators - of the potential pitfalls, but this needs to be kept in some sort of context. Whilst outing and harassment are seriously issues, they effect only a small proportion of contributors and giving the impression that "if you edit Wikipedia, people will try to out and harass you" would be rather a disproportionate response.

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)

Context is to some extent important. It may difficult to draw attention to a serious conflict of interest (e.g. someone adding negative information to the biography of a former partner or business rival) without revealing information about the person who is doing so. That is technically outing, but rather different to deliberately revealing someone's identity out of spite where it is irrelevant to edits they have made. Where the outing is vindictive, I believe an indefinite block is needed - especially if it appears such behaviour will be repeated. In other instances, a more nuanced approach based on the circumstances may be needed.

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 would answer this question similarly to (f) above. It is important to keep things in proportion, but it is something that I think should be drawn to the attention of someone running for a particularly specific position.

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.

Real life stalking is something which the police of the country involved has a responsibility for. The Foundation does not have the resources or the mandate to assist in this area - short of hiring private detectives or bodyguards it is difficult to see what they can do. If a matter of this nature is the subject of police investigation, the Foundation should cooperate fully - including disclosing checkuser information to them (not the person allegedly being stalked) - but I think what they are able, and qualified, to do ends there. As to providing support, again this is a matter of resources.

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

I think someone in that position should be treated with kindness and hope the community would be understanding if they reacted oddly to comments that touched on this subject. But ultimately there's only so much allowance you can make - if disruption is resulting from someone behaviour, action is going to be needed however much sympathy one has for their situation.

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.

This is one of the rare cases where there should a blanket policy of reverting edits of accounts identified to be operated by the stalker. Seemingly innocuous edits can be made as part of a campaign of harasssment. It may be necessary also to protect pages, be it the biography of the stalkee or their user/talk pages. Ultimately however the most effective action in these cases will be taken by law enforcement agencies. Incidents that happy on the wiki should be forwarded to them and IP data relating to the stalker should be passed on - especially where it suggests the stalker was in close proximity to their victim when they edited.

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?

Yes of course. For instance there is a difference between someone arguing with someone as to formatting and then tagging all fair use image uploads by their opponent for review, and checking the image uploads of someone who has shown they do not understand Wikipedia's fair use policy in a discussion about one of their uploads.

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?

This can be an appropriate response in cases where edits are being used to intimidate others - see the hypothetical stalker discussed in my answer to 6. (d). Generally I think it appropriate that the edits of banned users can be reverted but that no one is obliged to do so if they believe the edit to have been beneficial. Blanket restoring such edits without ascertaining the reasons for the reverts and without considering each edit individually is problematic - users should restore only edits they are specifically willing to take responsibility for.

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 don't think discussion should judged based on where it occurs. I do think it important that decisions concerning Wikipedia are discussed on 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?

No. There's only so much time in the day and I've never been much of a diarist.

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 difficulty thinking of Wikipedia Review as a single entity - it has rather a wide range of posters with very different agendas. Some have raised legitimate points and drawn attention to matters that warrant further investigation. Others seems to have quite pointed personal agendas against particular people that they pursue with worrying zeal. As a forum for the outing of editors of this project, I have little time for it. There seems to be a lack of agreement among contributors there as to whether the site's aim should be to improve Wikipedia, or bring it crashing down. It won't surprise people to find that I have more time for the views of those who fall into the former school than the latter.
I was vaguely aware of Wikback but never really paid it much attention. I believe people felt moderation was overly strict and were frustrated that deleted posts appeared to be lost forever. I have not given thought to the form an "ideal" outside critcism side should take - I will update this answer should I later form a view on the matter.

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

I think this a matter for individual choice and think the manner in which someone participates is the more significant than the fact they choose to do so.

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 do not think it is appropriate for an arbitrator actively participate in such a site without disclosing this fact. No, I would not consider it outing for someone to reveal the link between such accounts. I think a certain transparency is needed and that arbitrators should be accountable for comments they make if they choose to participate on such sites. I have not been active on such sites and do not intend to become so active in future.

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 any project that has lasted as long as Wikipedia has faces this problem. From the point of view of ArbCom, I think it important that sanctions are decided based on the nature of the problematic behaviour being considered without undue regard to the identity of the user concerned.

These answers were quite good.