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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, really? Out of all the stuff on my questions page and even within Lar's batch of questions itself, this is what you criticize me on?

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

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

"Opt out" for truly borderline BLPs, they're not worth the flurry. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

a: policy. b: BLP is not easy, this is about the only area where I've been ok with arbcom writing policy, but only because I think WmF was behind it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Straight voting is the road to chavel, tyranny. Consensus spins it for me, even when I don't agree at the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Flagged revisions would mean the end of Wikipedia as we know it and meantime stir up more ugly project wars than you can think of. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, I don't think Wikipedia would have ever gotten close to being what it is without anonymity and pseudonymity. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

If someone asks, oversight the PI, unless they've wantonly spewed it over hundreds of scattered talk and project pages or whatever, then I'd say they're out of luck (other than getting a new username). Things change, help should be given where it can be given but without disrupting the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

It can be because it highlights the PI here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

No, no, for many, it's not worth the worries. No. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Oversight on-site outings, otherwise see below. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Block the outer. If it was done offsite a bit more slack can be given and much care must be taken in linking the username to the offsite outing but even so. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The Internet is awash with help along these lines. Don't we have a help page about this somewhere? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

None. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I know who you're talking about (someone emailed me and told me, heh!) and as it happens, happily, I do agree with you. Less worrisome editors should be given more slack, so far as being allowed back goes. However, when they sock helpfully, one editor/admin/arbcom member quietly watching and saying nothing to anyone is one thing, arbcom knowingly allowing it without telling the community is a failure of arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

Nope. Everything I need's on this website. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Can't happen, hence, I run that "ideal" site in me own noggin. I get thrashed sometimes but hey, it's fun to follow. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I don't care, but will say, to forbid it would be a big docking marketing mistake. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

No. As for the rest, I don't care. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
(a) It's pretty clearly a question of policy...policy about content.
(b) I assume that you refer to the "special enforcement provisions" that arose from the Footnoted quotes case. I think it went too far in several ways. First, any editor can remove material that violates WP:BLP and counsel those who insist on violating it; second, all of the remedies available to administrators under this clause were already available to administrators before it was written. Finally, the section that reads "Appeals of both the original action and of any subsequent reversal may be made directly to the Committee, or another body that is designated by the Committee for this purpose in the future" means that the Arbitration Committee has set itself up to directly assess a content issue, and not just an administrative action; if a question of whether a page protection meets standards was brought before the committee, they must review the content itself to determine the answer.
The Sarah Palin protection wheel war case is the only time in which these special provisions were invoked. I note that it was overridden despite being invoked, too. I would rather have seen a temporary emergency desysopping of the administrators who unprotected or reduced the protection level against clear community consensus, with an RfAR addressed by summary motion, to address this issue; I think that would have been more effective in preventing future wheel wars over protection, and the administrators involved (having given their assurances they would not do it again) would have had their permissions reinstated quickly without having a cloud over their heads for an extended period.

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

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

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

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

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

a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
Generally, I support the concept of permitting pseudonymous editing (I include editing without logging in as pseudonymous, as I do not see IPs as being truly anonymous). The overwhelming majority of our edits (both useful and problematic) are made by pseudonymous editors, and development and cleaning up of the encyclopedia is unlikely to continue at anything near a sufficient pace to satisfy our critics if we require only real-name editing. If someone forks English Wikipedia (or the community as a whole decides to fork the project), then requiring real-name-only editing would be an option, but I do not think we have a choice otherwise, because it is a core WMF principle.
I do not believe that either the WMF or this project does enough to make clear the personal privacy implications of editing Wikipedia; in fact, there are special pages and related templates that are regularly used to implore IP editors to create a username, and they speak mainly of the "benefits" without adequately outlining the potential for problems. I recently reviewed the issues of privacy, confidentiality and discretion myself, and wrote this essay as a review of current practices and issues. Once someone has posted something about themselves on-wiki, I am very hesitant to sanction another editor for referring to that information, particularly if it had been on-wiki for weeks or months. I think it is usually reasonable to delete personal information posted by an editor at his or her request, even to the point of oversighting particularly problematic information (e.g., the usual list of oversightable edits, accidental IP edits, anything personal about a third party such as the editor's wife's name). Everyone should always keep in mind, though, that it is impossible to unfry an egg, and once the information has been released, it can never be considered undisclosed. Editors themselves need to take some personal responsibility as well; changing accounts to reduce the likelihood of outing, and then promptly returning to the same topic areas and making the same content arguments is the wiki equivalent of waving a red flag in front of a bull, and again I would not be too excited about sanctioning an editor who pointed out the new account. At the end of the day, whether editing under one's own name or under a pseudonym, I believe we are all "findable" if someone works hard enough; using a pseudonym or editing using IP addresses only reduces that likelihood but does not eliminate it.
I am somewhat flummoxed by what to do when editors post something off-wiki that clearly links themselves to their Wikipedia account; it seems to me to be taking advantage of our high regard for pseudonymity to then claim that the information shouldn't be referred to on the project. On the other hand, I've seen cases where people have been mistakenly associated with Wikipedia accounts by third parties, so I am not supportive of referencing such information on-wiki. I think, however, that sanctions can only apply for on-wiki activities; off-wiki activities can be an aggravating factor, of course.
As to myself, I edit pseudonymously with a username that I only use on Wikipedia, which I created at a time when I was dealing with serious real-world personal security issues. For me at that time, editing Wikipedia any other way really was a "risk" - part of the reason for my choice of username. Those issues have been resolved very recently, but "Risker" is how I am now known on the project, and I don't plan on changing that. I don't intend to publicise my real name, but if someone asks me if my name is XXX YYY, I will answer truthfully, whether the question is sent privately or is posted on-wiki.

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
There's no way to ensure that all criticism will happen on-wiki, and to expect it to happen reveals a concerning degree of utopianism; I've even been known to make a disparaging remark or two at the family dinner table, not that anyone else around the table actually cared. I don't have a blog, though, and have no interest in writing one, especially not about Wikipedia. I don't have an account at Wikipedia Review and don't intend to start one, although I do read some of their threads, particularly the early posts in threads relating to articles, and I am well aware that my responses to this particular series of questions will be analysed in depth in that forum. Some of what is posted there is useful and well considered; some of it is simply gossip. I don't have a problem with anyone choosing to participate on WR, regardless of what permissions they hold, or whether they are arbitrators. I did participate in Wikback, which I felt started out as a relatively good forum for thoughtful Wikipedians to propose and comment on a range of ideas and concerns with less structure or "noise" than is normal within the confines of the encyclopedia. There were several factors that I suspect led to its demise; one was the rather heavy-handed sanctions handed out by its moderator (compared to almost every other forum I have ever read or participated in), but another, I think, was that people realised that there was limited opportunity to implement any solutions that arose there because whatever consensus was arrived at was unlikely to result in an on-wiki consensus sufficient to take action.

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

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions from Lar

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

a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.
b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.
(a) My issue with opt out is how it would be enforced, more than anything. How do we know that the request comes from the person, for example? Is opting out hiding information that should be public, and is that okay? It may be okay to "test drive" it at some point, but the policy creates more questions than answers.
(b) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie gives you my answer to this one

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

a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?
b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?
c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.
(a) BLP is a policy, so the latter.
(b) The times where arbcom has set in actions in BLP have been done in cases where they weren't needed, but the BLP actions that they did have been overall helpful.
© I think the way that things have been progressing, while slow, have been on the right track.

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

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

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

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

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

a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?
b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?
c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?
d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?
e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)
f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?
g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)
(a) I do. There are valid reasons for keeping identities a secret, and after all, we're the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia that certain groups can edit. The problem with why I cannot oppose a falls into ©. You never know what someone is going to use any outed information for. If people want to maintain privacy and have a valid reason for it, it should be honored, though how far they should go would be a case by case basis. (d) is a tough one. If it's very blatant you could argue that they would just put it on wikipedia, and that not doing so is peculiar, ergo it could be outing. Yet perhaps they don't but don't mind it being public. It's really hard to gauge. As for (e), I do not disclose my real identity, since I don't really see a need to do so. If I wanted my name out there that's how I would have registered. I probably would not change my username upon being on arbcom. Seems like a couple of the better arbs imo are anonymous, so it's not too big a deal. For (f), the WMF should be taking a hands-on approach regarding psuedonymity when there are, as it is a BLP matter. The arbs acan only do what's given to them at arbcom. For (g), should they be truly outing someone, I'd support a ban.

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

a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?
b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.
c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?
d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.
e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?
The WMF should note it somewhere at least about consequences of what could happen. It's tough to say what the WMF can do for a victim, in all realism they couldn't do anything directly. If someone's been stalked in real life before, we should try to make special provisions for them, such as oversight if the issues are bad enough. If a stalker is using wikipedia to harass and this can be confirmed, a ban with law enforcement getting involved is best. As for (e), there's not a thin line between them, the line's pretty thick, and I wouldn't worry too much about this comparison.

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?
b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?
c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?
d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?
e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )
(a) Some conversation can be done elsewhere, no big deal.
(b) I did for a little while, but it only had 2 posts that discussed a couple random articles, and I doubt I'll restart it. If I do, I'll put it at [en.planet.wikipedia.org] so the public knows about it.
© WR has its issues sometimes, but they do have valid criticism at times, and I don't mind it as a critical body. I have an account, which i don't really use, but i have posted a few times. WikBack I don't really have an opinion on. On paper the idea was good, but it just kinda fell apart, didn't really work into the culture, I guess.
(d) NYB does, I think most would agree he's a good user Just as long as we're not being stupid on those sites, it's no big deal. The best way to combat criticism is to acknowledge it and fight it head on.
(e) My account at WR is Wizardman. If another site that discusses wikipedia piques my interest to join, I'll use Wizardman on that. If by anonymous you mean a name different from my username (like if on WR I were omg333), I do have a problem with that. Just use your WP name on those sites. In my case it wouldn't be outing, but for someone who uses their real name, it's tougher to say, and my opinion's the same as Q5.

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

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

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

Questions from Lar

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:
* a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

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

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

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

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

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

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?
* There are obviously scaling issues. The project has grown well beyond the limitations of a few monkeyspheres (or see here for an on-wiki explanation). However, on the local article level and other small-scale discussions, consensus is still a viable model. It is the broader issues of policy and policy enforcement that have a far greater difficulty with the consensus model, due to the much larger number of users affected and participating in the discussions. It may be worthwhile in such broader areas to consider a "mixed" model, such as process with a discussion phase and a voting phase or a process similar to RfC with views and support/oppose signatures and rationales.
4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?
* I would like to see stable revisions implemented with an option to see the latest "draft" version. I believe the community has largely stumbled over the process for implementation. There is a profound lack of disagreement about how the articles should be reviewed and approved. ArbCom has no substantial role in thise. It is primarily a community concern that needs to be resolved with a new process and policy to implement the change. It is noteworthy that I am general opposed to expanding the proliferation of rules and processes.
5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.
* a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* No, but I would reveal my real name if elected and it is clearly desired by the community. I am considering revealing my real name regardless. I do not believe it should be a requirement for arbs to reveal their personal identity. The vast majority of people on the project are normal everyday people. ArbCom work exposes arbs to a lot of potential harassment and serious threats. I would not be comfortable with forcing someone in that position to reveal their private information.

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

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

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

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

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.
* a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?
* It is appropriate treatment for unwelcome/banned editors. Run of the mill problem editors, outside of vandals, tend to have some positive contributions. Unless they are so unwelcome as to be full banned, they should not be blindly reverted. Fully banned editors should have their edits all reverted, including "good" edits. See my response to #3 of Giggy's questions for related thoughts. Blanket unreverting in such circumstances is usually a bad idea. Each edit should be carefully examined and redone separately if indeed it is a "good" edit, but care should still be taken due to the concerns I express in response to Giggy.
8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:
* a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?
* Yes, absolutely. There are obvious double standards enforced in a variety of ways.
* Encourage and implement more even enforcement. This is not the same as a "one size fits all" approach, as context must be considered. Please see my answers to #1 and #2 of The Land Surveyor's questions for related thoughts.

Questions from Lar


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions from Lar

****UNANSWERED****

Jayvdb (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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


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

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

Jayvdb (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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



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

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

Questions from Lar


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions from Lar


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

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

I do not believe people should be slandered even if they do not mind it. We have WP:NPOV out there. If the person is nice enough to allow the slanderous version, people should be improving it as soon as possible so that it is worthy of the persons kindness. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

There is no reason to keep a slanderous version of an article in page history. AfDs are not always an accurate metric to determine weather or not an article should stay. Normally that is not a pressing issue but BLP has a legal basis. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

It is a question of policy AND content. BLP articles have content that is in violation of policy. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

When legal reasons are involved there is no such thing as too far. We should do our best to keep the site from legal trouble. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I think BLP needs work, I am not familiar with the legal issues that prompted WP:BLP so I cannot really comment on changing the approach. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I am unhappy with both voting and consensus models. Voting model doesn't work well due to meantpupetry. If ten friends in a dorm agree to be "funny" they can outvote nearly any decision. Consensus is used loosely on the site. Sometimes consensus on the site defies common logic. I do not see either model as a solution. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Flagged version is a good way to check for vandalism. I am unsure if we have the RC patrol capability to review and mark each edit yet. I just do not believe English Wikipedia is ready for flagged version. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Yes I do. Not everyone wants their real life to be tarnished by their disagreements on wikipedia. Also putting your real info on the site makes you a target of real world stalkers and other criminals. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I support it. Please do not change this. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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 community should go as far as necessary. Even if it means oversighting every edit or removing every bit of private info. However, this should be done without compromising from encyclopedic content. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

If someone wanted to reveal their private info they would put it on their userpage. No one needs help like that. One could be a very famous person and could also be modest enough not to take advantage of his real-world achievements on the site. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I am willing to acknowledge my identity privately to the WMF - though they already know it. I do not want to publicly acknowledge my identity for the reasons I mentioned above. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Both should be doing everything in their power to maintain peoples privacy. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

If someone is dicky enough to violate the spirit of privacy policy, in my view they are unwanted on this site. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

It could be an essay. There is no reason to terrify each new editor. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

If someone is getting stalked and hence violating the law, the privacy policy is very clear: "In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement".

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

Stalked users private info should be properly removed from the site. Anything beyond that, I do not know. We are not the police and unfortunately we cannot act as vigilantes. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Stalking should not be tolerated. Stalking is the exact opposite of our project goal. Our prokect goal is writing a free encyclopedia. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

If there is a problem editor, take the matter to DR. Don't be a vigilante as you may very well be wrong in your analysis. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I'd support a slow paced review of each edit rather than a bulk revert. There are many ways to disrupt and tricking the system to a mass reversion is one of them. The remarkably unwelcome edit could have been hijacked at some point for example. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

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

People are free to discuss in any median they feel comfortable with. However on wikipedia discussions have the benefit of community input. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I do not have a blog or other vehicle to post anything. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I do not have an opinion on either site. I am here to help create a free encyclopedia. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Case by case basis. If someone is criticizing the site or individual editor on an external site, that isn't banned. If they are trolling out there, that may have ramifications on this site. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

No I do not have such an account. Digging up private info of any kind should not be allowed. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

That page doesn't display so I cannot give an educated response. -- Cat chi? 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb (T-C-L-K-R-D)

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



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

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

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.
Reply
The correct approach is the one that works, and ... our current policy is the one that is working. This sounds like a tautology, but it is not. A stronger policy that doesnt have community support will not be enforced, and there will be big problems that slip through the cracks. Improvements in the policy need to happen in step with improvements in the community - sometimes a rude shock is the catalyst for this.
I honestly thought it was default to delete; I was involved in a wording clarification quite a while ago, and default to delete was one of the changes I thought was agreed upon.

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.
Reply
Question 1 is not a question of content or policy - it is question about policy.
I believe that Arbcom should not be extending policy. They should limit their remedies to "So and so is restricted/banned/etc..."
The community should keep improving the policy, or if they want to give Arbcom more flexibility, they need to loosen the policy so it can be interpreted more.
I will be "encouraging" the Wikimedia Foundation to put in place a firm groundwork policy about living people, similar to the fair-use resolution. I will not be editing policy; instead I will be giving my views as a contributor and crossing my fingers that the community takes the reins and avoids a media spectacle.

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?

Reply
I am leaning this way. My view is that we dont need to abandon the consensus based approach, but it doesnt happen of its own accord any more, and fails miserably when we try to "obtain" it. It is always something that we know when we see it. I believe that a solution may be found by a group forming around a need, and require that they solicit opinions and then bring a well-formed idea to the wider community for review. If the community doesnt have consensus, the group should not try to force it in; they need to listen and revise.

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?

Reply
It's time is coming, and I hope it comes soon, but in the meantime we are still very ineffectual at patrolling new pages, so I am worried about the additional workload that FlaggedRevs requires.

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?

Reply
Yes. It is a contributors choice. There are times that is required for personal safety, and also the community can end up saying some nasty things about some nice people, with or without good reason, and while that happens (I doubt it will ever truly stop), it is a big risk to edit using ones own name as it is not a similar matter to sue someone who lives on the other side of the world for defamation, irrespective of whether you know their name or 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)?
Kato note: This reply is interesting

I would support the Foundation passing a resolution requiring that certain classes of articles can only be edited by users who have a verified identity on file, and an "editrestricted" tag like we do for {{editprotected}}. For example, BLPs would be a very broad class where such a requirement could help. At present, I dont believe it is necessary to restrict all BLPs at the moment, because most of the BLP edits are boring.
Another example are the "hot potato" articles where there are litigation issues; currently we often use fully protection for these articles, and little obvious reason is given why full protection is used. Full protection isnt good enough, as unsuspecting admins could get themselves into very hot water by fulfilling an {{editprotected}} request that seems logical unless they know the details of the real world.
Note that we do not have the software support for something like this, and the Foundation would need to have community backing before they could pass such a resolution; but it is an idea I would support it if there was a need for it.

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?

Reply
Oversight should not be used if someone has outed themselves with informed consent. The identity of minors should be oversighted; I have knowingly broken the policy a few times in this regard, and when I have a little more time I will be begging the community to rectify this. Also if someone is really unaware of the action they are taking in releasing their private information, oversight is sometimes sensible. I prefer deletion in these cases, but it is risky with some of the people we end up appointing as admins. I have commented elsewhere on this page that perhaps we need an intermediate level between oversighters and admins, or maybe we just need more oversighters and have oversighted revisions more clearly merged with the existing edit history so people can see that there is a diff there, but cant see its contents.

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?

Reply
No, however if it draws unnecessary attention to additional private information disclosed elsewhere, it should be seen as bad form, and people creating those "links" need to be especially careful that they dont draw the wrong link. Ask first via email, mkay? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (and think worst possible scenarios before you say to yourself "I wouldnt care..")

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)

Reply
I always have used my real identity, and have been more detailed since running for arbcom. If it is not already the case, I believe it should be a requirement that all committee members must provide the Foundation with their identity, which is needed for oversight and checkuser anyway, and I would prefer that they all reveal their identity.

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?

Reply
I'll answer this tomorrow.

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)

Reply
I'll answer this tomorrow.

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

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

I'll answer this tomorrow.

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?

Reply
For editors that have demonstrated that they have no intention of helping build the project, Yes.
For other cases, it gets messy - it depends on whether the community wants to endure the point that is being made by that person. See #Giggy-mass-reversion

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?

Reply
I am a bit concerned about the need for this question; I thought they were going to be insightful?? I've seen newspapers discussing Wikipedia; I hope Arbcom arnt going to try and regulate that as well!

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?

Reply
I do not have a blog or web-based venue for making comments about Wikipedia. However, I do often participate in the IRC channels, and I view them as primarily a vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia, especially #wikisource where we rant and rave about the madness of writing a new encyclopedia. ;-)

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)?

Reply
I've watched Wikipedia Review a bit, and it is steadily growing respectable. I blocked someone about this. Enough said, I hope. I never got into Wikback, and I dont have much time for sites dedicated to criticism 'cause I've got a long laundry list of reasons why Wikipedia sucks, and I'm too busy trying to give them less reason to criticise.

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?

Reply
See below.

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? )

Reply
Yes, I am jayvdb at WR, and probably the same at WikBack or whatever it was called; I have zero posts on both because I have enough places to say my thoughts here, and a backlog of things to do and say here and especially on Wikisource.
I dont care whether arbs have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site, however I would expect that they can defend every post that they make on such a site, and so it should be inconsequential whether or not the link is made between their Wikipedia account and their account on another website. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Reply
Yes. While there are many influences that might turn a long-time valued contributor into a "VestedContributor", the main problem that causes this is we have gone way beyond DefendEachOther and AGF to DefendOurFriendsAndAttackAnyoneWhoAttacksOurFriends. This isnt a social network. Come equipt with your brain please, and analyse each situation and defend the defensible.