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

[Milton Roe]

BillMasen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Random832]

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

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

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

[Lar]

But no points for figuring out what Moulton MEANT to say.

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

[Moulton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CharlotteWebb]

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

(i) There is something wrong with the policy

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

This applies equally to arbcom "remedies".

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

[Sarcasticidealist]

BillMasen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

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

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

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

[Kato]

BillMasen (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

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

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

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

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

[dogbiscuit]

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

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

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

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

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

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



* WOTW

[Kato]

Shell Kinney (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
I think the policy hits it head on, but the community hasn't quite started using it broadly enough yet. For example, there is still a great deal of biographical information wandering around in various articles that aren't biographies themselves - these entries often get less scrutiny and sometimes end up sitting around with nasty edits from former employees or other people with an agenda. I think in general, the community needs to take a stronger stance on biographical information, where ever it may be found. This would include things like speedy removal of unsourced information, immediate stubbification of biographies lacking sources and more consistent notability requirements both for biographical articles and when weighting biographical information in articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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

[Kato]

SirFozzie (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

[SirFozzie]

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

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

This post has been edited by SirFozzie: Sat 29th November 2008, 5:33am

[One]

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

[Alison]

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

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

These ones, perhaps, Foz? Grawp is playing with fire, there (right, Sylar?) given that his dox are all over the place ....

[SirFozzie]

Thanks Allie.

There goes being circumspect. *facepalms*

[Alison]

Thanks Allie.

There goes being circumspect. *facepalms*

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

[The Joy]

Thanks Allie.

There goes being circumspect. *facepalms*

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

Without betraying confidences or breaking privacy rules, do you and/or other Wikipedians know of his identity?

[Alison]

Thanks Allie.

There goes being circumspect. *facepalms*

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

Without betraying confidences or breaking privacy rules, do you and/or other Wikipedians know of his identity?

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

[Kato]

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

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