Finding and interviewing ex-editors

Three form issues:

Question 3: The number of edits (at the very beginning) -- 100 to 999 is pretty broad. We could afford to break this up into two ranges, if not three. (e.g.: 100 to 199, 200 to 499, 500 to 999)
Question 5, 8, 8a: "Check any that apply". It's really important that we get people to pick their top three, instead of just "any". I know some people will click more, but we want to avoid people clicking everything. There's a good chance that they all apply, to some degree.
Question 5 AND 8a: We need an "other", just in case.
... could we throw in an optional "tell us your username" thing at the end? Could be useful for follow up.

A few substantive issues:

Question 6: This question about "was there anything that needed correction" is too obvious. Almost everyone will say YES. It would be more useful to phrase it in a way that emphasizes that this was how much they personally wanted to contribute. Of course anyone could find something else to do. But was it something that they thought was important? Something they thought that they had a special set of skills that made them really suitable to fix it?
Question 8: Re: complexity, we should flat out test a null hypothesis: writing a good article is hard work, and maybe people leave when they realize it's more than they can handle. This is distinct from maintaining articles. "Yes, writing an encyclopedic article is difficult and time consuming."
Question 9: on the agree/disagree questions... I think the very first one is already addressed in the earlier question about why they left, and later in the agree/disagree form when we ask them if they would come back when their personal life permits it. I'd just drop it and shorten it. But if there's room, I'd also like to know if people would agree/disagree that "the community is too lenient on disruptive editors". Just a thought.

You also have some numbering issues. But I used the numbers I saw in the current survey.

All in all it's very good though. We did a great job, IMO.