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

[Cedric]

Casliber (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

[The Wales Hunter]

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

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

[SirFozzie]

same here. I'm wondering if it'll be a sea of red

[Kato]

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

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

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

George The Dragon (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As mentioned above - No Original Biographies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If proven and genuine stalking, then immediate ban and contacting the authorities.

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

A bit like the line between what is a donkey and what is a hydrogen bond. The two are totally different and editors claiming "stalk" and "harass" when the only thing happening is an editor is being watched is highly disruptive.

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rhindle]

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

Is an Original Biography a form of original research?

[JoseClutch]

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

Is an Original Biography a form of original research?

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

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

[Rhindle]

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

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

[Kato]

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

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

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

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

[The Wales Hunter]

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

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

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

[JoseClutch]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Wales Hunter]

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

[JoseClutch]

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

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

[Kato]

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

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

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

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

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

[Kato]

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

Cool Hand Luke (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lar]

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

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

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

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

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

[One]

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

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

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

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

Milton Roe: Heh.

This post has been edited by One: Mon 24th November 2008, 7:39pm

[JoseClutch]

Now that I had not caught.

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

[SirFozzie]

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

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

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

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

Milton Roe: Heh.

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

[tarantino]

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

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