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

[Giggy]

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

Clarified; death threats, not deaths.

[Alison]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[EricBarbour]

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

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

Yeah, right. Hypocrites.

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

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

[Moulton]

Bildungsroman In the Age of Character Assassination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expecto Atonum.

[Kato]

Fish and karate (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

A In favour of both a) and b ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Moot, see a)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kato]

Hemlock Martinis (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see two problems with our current BLP approach (not necessarily the policy, but the way in which we carry it out). First, it's ignorant. There's a growing portion of the community that's begun to realize Wikipedia's role in the real world and take account of the fact that what we write here is read by thousands, hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people. We have a duty and a responsibility to make sure that what we're writing is fair, neutral and not unrepresentative of living individuals who have to live with what we write.
Second, our resolution of BLP matters is incoherent and haphazard. The community has previously decided that some things are better left to more qualified individuals rather than the mob of the editors themselves. We give Checkuser to trusted individuals rather than the general public. We elect Arbitrators who have incredibly discretionary powers to hear cases instead of letting those cases be endlessly debated by entrenched editors. And we empower only certain individuals delete articles, protect pages and block editors. I know Wikipedia's not a bureaucracy, but this may be one area where a little bureaucracy could save us a lot of trouble. An independent editorial board with the ability to review BLP cases and make firm rulings on the content issues within, as well as adjudicate their possible deletion if so requested by the subject, would go a long way towards resolving the issues. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm not a big fan of flagged revisions. There are two million articles on this encyclopedia, and we have a hard enough time keeping our articles at at least a steady level of quality, much less improving them. Flagging new pages is fine, but expansion past it is a waste of energy. ArbCom doesn't have a role in this; it's for the community to decide. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I discussed this the other day on IRC with a few people after answering, and they gave me a better depiction of what such a system would look like. I'd be willing to support it for a trial period of, say, a month. If it doesn't work then we can scrap it; if it does work, then full speed ahead. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
Yes. I support anonymity. End of story. I like the freedom I have to remain a private person. I don't believe I should have to tell you all who I am to be an Arbitrator. I've found that the external world only complicates Wikipedia, and who we are on the other side of the monitor should not be an issue.
b ) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
n/a.
c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
It's a Pandora's Box situation. If someone's disclosed their identity, they can't put that cat back into that bag. We can try to minimize the likelihood of someone finding that information through oversight and deletion, but given the increased awareness of our critics it might not be enough. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
It depends on the intent. If I post it by accident, then no, not really. It'd be just an honest mistake. But if I post it specifically to out that person, then yes it's outing. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
In the past I would have said yes and been more than willing to reveal my identity. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has detractors who would use such information against us for personal, petty and vindictive reasons. What happened to one of the editors I respect the most earlier this year is proof enough of these individuals' disgusting malice. I will not reveal my identity under any circumstances except to the Foundation should I be elected. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
I think it's fairly clear, yes. If the loss was brought on by the editor, then deletions and oversights can be used. If the loss was brought about by another, then in addition to oversights the outer would also be banned for disruption. ArbCom and the WMF are empowered to enforce such decisions, and should do so with all due haste. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
An indefinite ban would be appropriate. Outing not only disrupts the encyclopedia but also drives away good contributors and scares new ones from participating. It's the digital equivalent of invading our villages and salting our farms, and it cannot be tolerated. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I support anonymity. End of story. I like the freedom I have to remain a private person. I don't believe I should have to tell you all who I am to be an Arbitrator. I've found that the external world only complicates Wikipedia, and who we are on the other side of the monitor should not be an issue. Unmasking one's identity is serious and should be dealt with as harassment and punished accordingly; I would do the Wiki equivalent of "throwing the book" at anyone who did so maliciously, whether they did so onwiki or offwiki because it's just as disruptive no matter the location it occurs. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know how we'd realistically go about doing this. Are we to place banners saying, "Editing here may lead to stalking"? While it's a realistic fear, it's not one we should be cautioning against per se. Rather, we as a community should stress anonymity's benefits. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't know. I don't understand what kind of allowances or special provisions we could be making. Could you please be a little more specific as to specific allowances/special provisions? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

It's no different than a BLP violation and a regular case of harassment, except that the added factor of clear and present malice would cause me to bring the banhammer down even harder. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Putting banners up that say "EDITING HERE MAY LEAD TO STALKING" is foolish. Banks don't put "PEOPLE MIGHT STEAL YOUR MONEY FROM US" signs on their front doors. Schools don't put "YOU MIGHT FAIL THIS TEST" disclaimers atop the SAT. Stalking is a problem, but it's one we're really hard pressed to fix or correct from a realistic standpoint. We can ban offenders on Wikipedia, but we can't stop them from using other methods to harass editors. Doing so is simply outside our control as a community. It's unrealistic to have the WMF chase down stalkers, although cooperating with the authorities is reasonable. I don't understand the "allowances or special provisions" for prior victims of stalking offline - what exactly would we be doing in treating them differently? It's a complicated topic but let me try to sum up: while I would love to see stalking and harassment end, there's realistically only so much we can do about it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Removing good contributions does nothing but remove good contributions. We're not Chinese emperors, we can't just erase someone from the Imperial Histories. I think it's overkill and a waste of time and effort. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

Rather than look at this from an acceptable/unacceptable standpoint, we have to look at this from an evitable/inevitable standpoint. Humans are social creatures. We love to gossip; that's why they have all those magazines at the checkout stand. It is inevitable that discussions about Wikipedia take place outside of Wikipedia. Attempting to end such discussions is both 1) unenforceable since we have no powers outside the confines of the MediaWiki software and 2) futile since the discussion would likely just migrate to a different forum or go further underground. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I have no external blogs or anything of that nature. I only discuss Wikipedia onwiki or in the IRC channels. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I have no qualms with WR's existence, as I've always believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I think it's important to have a dissenting voice to listen to when we make decisions, especially given our role as a top ten website. There are a few crazies there, whose names need not repeating, but when I read WR I occasionally find some valuable criticism there.
Wikback failed for a variety of reasons, but first and foremost because it wasn't filling a niche. If you like Wikipedia, you discuss Wikipedia on Wikipedia. If you dislike Wikipedia or have criticisms of it, you discuss it on WR. If you're somewhere in the middle, you go to both or you go to neither. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't find it inherently inappropriate for anyone to participate in WR. As long as administrators aren't blocking or unblocking others at the behest of external forces, and as long as Arbitrators aren't sharing juicy case secrets, I see nothing wrong with it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Outside criticism is a necessary evil. The reality is, we're a big thing on the Internets nowadays, and so we've attracted our fair share of critics. I do not participate in external sites with relation to my activities on Wikipedia, although I am a frequent reader of Wikipedia Review. I read Wikipedia Review because sometimes it can get a little too echo chamber-y on here, and we get so used to dealing with issues within our little bubble we forget to look at the larger picture. Although I frequently disagree with what I read on WR, I find them useful in stepping back and seeing what outsiders think looking in. There are plenty of bad apples there - Daniel Brandt, Don Murphy, etc. - but it's not that hard to discern valid criticism there from the potshots. Plus, I admit - there's a little ego in there on my part. I sometimes try to find if they've ever mentioned me but alas, no such luck. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[Lar]

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

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

So do I.

[Moulton]

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

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

So do I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tarantino]

Fish and karate (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

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

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

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

[Random832]

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

Amorrow is not as clever as Brandt.

[Kato]

RMHED (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
b ) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
A. I'm all in favour of an Opt Out of the marginally notable, or to be clearer, anybody not in a traditional paper encyclopedia of one kind or another should be allowed to Opt Out of Wikipedia.
A. Yes to that, the sooner a non consensus BLP AfD is a default delete the better IMO.

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

a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
b ) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
A. Primarily policy.
A. This kind of wide ranging BLP issue should be tackled by the Foundation who have up to now done bugger all, they need to be held to account. If Arbcom can add pressure on them to act then all to the good.
A. I'd try to pressure the Foundation into taking an OFFICE action of semi protecting all BLP's and introducing Flaged Revisions. This stuff is too important to be left to consensus, trying to get a consensus for any major change on Wikipedia is nigh on impossible these days.

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

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

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

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

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

a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
b ) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
A. Yes, as to do otherwise would discourage contributors greatly.
A. Oversight should be used in these cases if requested, though once the genie is out of the bottle you can't really expect total anonymity.
A. If a link is posted on-wiki to the site doing the outing then that really isn't acceptable as to do so would be an act of bad faith.
A. Nope I've got no plans to openly reveal my ID, except to the Foundation, if somebody outs me then good luck to them.
A. Of course there is no guarantee of Pseudonymity, many users reveal real life info about themselves unknowingly on and off wiki, and that's their lookout and bugger all to do with Arbcom.
A. Depends if that info has at some point already appeared on-wiki, if it hasn't then the editor should not have revealed it and they should be punished. If the outing is off-wiki then it is of no concern of Arbcoms.

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

a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
b ) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
A. No and no.
A. None beyond cooperating with any law enforcement agency.
A. None, they don't have to edit Wikipedia they can find a new hobby if concerned about stalking.
A. If it's article manipulation then Ban the culprit and Perma protect the article. If the stalkee is an editor and if the stalking is genuine and not a 'cry wolf' situation then ban them, though this of course doesn't stop them returning. If it's really serious then suggest to the stalkee that they report the matter to their relevant local law enforcement agency.
A. Reviewing another users edits is not stalking, if that is all an account is used for then they are clearly a disruptive SPA and can be dealt with accordingly.

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
b ) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
A. Any potential on-wiki action, especially admin actions, should only be discussed on-wiki, not on the likes of IRC. There is nothing wrong with outside criticism on other websites, it can be beneficial in some cases.
A. Nope, no blog.
A. I quite like Wikipedia Review it can be an entertaining read, I have no problem with anybody being a member there. I have no knowledge of Wikback so can't really comment. An ideal outside criticism site should be thorough in its examination of Wikipedia and offer helpful and constructive criticism.
A. Anybody should be free to participate at an outside criticism site. It's a matter of freedom of speech.
A. No.

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

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

[Unrepentant Vandal]

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

wtf?

[Kato]

Charles Matthews (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?
5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

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

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

a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
b ) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

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

a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
b ) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

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

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

[Piperdown]

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

Sam Korn (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

With due respect, when has the WMF ever intervened legally in a stalking case? Ever?

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: Sun 16th November 2008, 6:31pm

[dogbiscuit]

A couple of daft answers worth highlighting:

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

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

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

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

[GlassBeadGame]

A couple of daft answers worth highlighting:

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

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

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

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

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

[Neil]

Fish and karate (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

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

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

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

You can consider them asked here:

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

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

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

[Kato]

Phil Sandifer (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
b ) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
I lean towards b on this. I think we generally solve BLP problems adequately, but that there is a dispiriting tendency for more eyes to make BLP problems worse, not better. Much of this is caused when BLP problems get expressed in public, flamey ways instead of via OTRS, which tends to do a good job of quietly and effectively handling things. The problem with opt out is that "marginally notable" is still a floating term, so this doesn't remove controversy. Default to delete accomplishes a similar goal, but moves the goalpost from a subjective principle to a measurable outcome. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
b ) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
Question one is a question of policy. However, BLP itself is set policy, and it is within the arbcom's remit to enforce it. If the community fails to settle a BLP matter, it can fall to the arbcom to do so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I think consensus still works, but needs to be considered on local levels. I do agree that policy change has grown increasingly difficult to manage, and that bad policy decisions are getting enshrined as core and immutable decisions. This is most notable on WP:V and WP:NOR, where the written policy and actual practice diverge sharply and problematically. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I support flagged revisions, but do not see an arbcom role in their implementation. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
b ) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
I support the principle. I tend to think, however, that rolling back identities is difficult at best. My identity is public. In the case of outing occuring off-site, it seems to me a case by case issue. There are certainly attempts to out people that are actively abusive, and cases of outing that have problematic chilling effects. These should be combatted, but there are limits to what can be done here. The real thing we want to prevent is threats of real-world retaliation for on-wiki activities that are in accordance with our policies. The issue of outing is related to that, but what needs to be kept in mind is that outing is a tool to accomplish that, and we need to make sure that we focus on preventing the right thing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
b ) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
I think real world retaliation is a genuine problem - and I say this having been the victim of it in what remains one of the most vicious and destructive real-world attacks we've had. I think we need to do more. But the need to do more is not necessarily coupled with a clear course of action. I'd like to see more, but I don't have any good ideas on how to take productive action. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Banned users should be reverted on sight. Good edits can be reinstated later, but allowing banned editors to make good edits opens the door to trolling via making borderline edits. This is one of the oldest troll tricks in the book. It is far easier for the editing community on a given article to reinsert good edits and take responsibility for them than it is to play games with banned users. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
b ) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
Wikipedia should be discussed on Wikipedia. But I think we also need to look outside of the echo chamber and make sure we're serving our readers, not just ourselves. I don't think that WR is a useful venue for this, nor that "criticism" sites in general are. But that doesn't mean that thoughtful observations by readers in blogs, forum posts, etc shouldn't be taken seriously. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[Kato]

WilyD (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

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

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

[Kato]

Casliber (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
b ) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
These issues become complex in a complex model - too strict and one can end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater; too lenient and we get problematic material. Maybe it is about process rather than policy. On paper all the guidelines are there to allow for the removal of material (i.e. material likely to be challenged must be referenced with a reliable source etc.).
No to (a), one is either notable or not. This could be a dangerous precedent.
(b ) has merit, especially if there is controversial material. In fact, this should be a prerequisite.

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

a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
b ) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
Q1 (a) is about policy, as is (b ).
I haven't examined BLP cases at arbcom as yet.
Aha, this is the cunning plan. Need to promote BLP reporting - really need to promote usage and patrolling of this board - Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and discussion therein. As referencing improves and standards change, this may get better (eg unreferenced material often gets asessed and removed pretty quickly from FAs and sometimes GAs now, and even DYKs, so the sands are a-shifting. A note in the signpost may help as it is important. This would be my first step as the rules and gudelines are all there, just the implementation is not quite. I was musing on this overnight and I think a triage system to rank urgeny of BLP issues would be good, as a swarm of 8000 unreferenced articles I think just scares people. Has this been done before? I don't know. Also a welcome template written in a nice friendly manner illustrating why this is an area which needs referencing "Supposing this were an article about you/your sister etc." which could be posted on folks adding material to BLPs.

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

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

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

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

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

a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
I have always edited under my real name, however, many have had experiences or fears which lead them not to (especially women). In an ideal world we all could use our real names without reprisal, but it isn't ideal and I have heard of some unpleasant instances of stalking and harassment. Unfortunately we do not have a parallel-world matched wikipedia which insists on real-name editing with otherwise identical parameters to compare which would produce an encyclopedia more easily. I guess my default point would be that I prefer editing to be done under real-names but can understand why many choose not to use them; in the end it is the articles that are important not the people. I would hope that this was used as a guideline somewhere on username discussion.
b ) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
As far as reverting release of private information, all options (deletion and/or oversight) should be open to any users who wish to erase their personal data on wikipedia. It isn't earth-shatteringly hard to become an admin (as the archtransit case showed), which then renders deleted (but not oversighted) data easily visible and findable. Editors who contribute their time to improving the project are valuable, and if a few clicks of oversight are needed to keep contributors, then it is a miniscule price to pay, if any, to keep folks in a comfortable environment they feel safer in.
d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
Yes, this is much easier if I am male. I have not come to a decision on open identity to everyone, but disclosure to other arbs and WMF is good.
f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
WMF are unable to guarantee anonymity pure and simple. The best they can do is promise to keep anonymity for those who request it as far as possible. A link on the 'welcome' template, or somewhere on a username discussion is the best bet, giving people advice about preserving anonymity if they so wish.
g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
Outing is outing, no matter where it occurs. Simple malicious outing is serious and can be construed as a personal attack. A mitigating factor may be where an editor purports to be somethnig they are not and uses their misrepresentation to win or further arguments, akin to issues in the Essjay scandal. Though this is somewhat mitigating, the correct course here would be notifying arbcom. Need to read up on a few cases of outing and see what happened before I discuss outcomes.

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

a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
WMF should, there are alot of young vulnerable editors, and documented cases of a serious nature. It has happened and will again. Again, this should be tied into a discussion on anonymity on the welcome template.
b ) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

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

a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
b ) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

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

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