Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/MastCell/Questions for the candidate

Question from Ultraexactzz
Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, one word? Probably "mature" or "grounded". And let me hasten to emphasize that by "maturity", I'm referring not to chronological age, but to outlook and perspective. I think that to be effective, an Arbitrator has to maintain a grounded perspective on what we're here to do: this is an encyclopedia, and we can't expect ArbCom to act as a fully functional judiciary system. Decisions should be undertaken in the light of what benefits the encyclopedia and the community (which is essential to the encyclopedic mission). I hope that answers your question... MastCell Talk 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern
My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

5. Two recent cases, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current. What should be done in such a case?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Edit-warring is bad. Anyone can slip up and exceed 3RR once, but a pattern of violations is a big red flag regarding an editor's dedication to the principle of WP:CONSENSUS. I'm in favor of 1RR or similar restrictions as an initial remedy - if an editor can't abide by their 1RR restriction, then that's a good indication that their approach just isn't very compatible with Wikipedia. There are all sorts of potentially mitigating (or aggravating) factors - civility, level of engagement on the talk page, the milieu in which the edit-warring is taking place - but those are too case-specific to generalize about.
 * 2. By the time a case gets to ArbCom, it's unlikely to be solely about incivility or personal attacks. I'm on record as saying that incivility is its own punishment in a collaborative environment, and I'm not in favor of blocks or parole based solely on civility. But in the context of other problematic behavior, incivility and personal attacks are a clear aggravating factor. Again, context may mitigate, but not excuse, bad behavior.
 * 3. People should be desysopped when their use of the tools becomes a net negative to Wikipedia. This depends somewhat on their positive contributions; in extreme cases even a single misguided or rogue action could be grounds for desysopping, but it's usually a pattern of bad judgement. I'm a big believer that everyone screws up and that admin screwups are highly visible. The major question is: does the admin apologize and try to make amends, or do they react defensively despite negative community feedback? As to temporary suspensions, I suppose they do underscore a point - that ArbCom is unhappy with one's administrative performance - but I can't say I see much use to them beyond underscoring such a point.
 * 4. A ban ought to be reconsidered if there's compelling evidence that it was unfairly enacted, or if there's compelling reason to think that the banned user has fundamentally rethought their approach. Assuming a ban had the support of the community, the bar for undoing it should be pretty high. Specifically, input should be solicited from editors who bore the brunt of dealing with the banned user, and there should really be some solid reason to believe things will be different the next time around.
 * 5. I don't think ArbCom has the luxury of throwing in the towel on an active case. In the case of Apartheid and THF-Shankbone, the underlying issue had, for better or worse, become largely moot. But in the hypothetical situation you're posing, where the underlying issue remains active, there just isn't an alternative to hashing things out. I suppose if the issue is that divisive, then input from Jimbo Wales and the Foundation would be appropriate as well.


 * I hope that answers your questions. MastCell Talk 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.
In addition to Special:Emailuser/MastCell enabled, will you publically provide an email address (eg. Example@hotmail.com), just so that users who have email blocked can still appeal to you (an arbitrator)?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I have no problem doing that. MastCell Talk 21:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wanderer57
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?


 * (Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, RfC's are not a prosecution; they're intended to be a means of gauging wider community responses to an editor's behavior. Unfortunately, their visibility isn't very high and often the responses come primarily from participants in the underlying dispute, which undermines the RfC's usefulness. Basically, a good RfC gathers input from uninvolved users. A bad RfC is just another forum for combatants to continue a dispute. I suppose you could parse this into "fairness", and I wish there were more "good" RfC's and fewer "bad" ones. But I'm not sure of the direct relevance to ArbCom. MastCell Talk 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718
Thanks, east. 718 at 22:17, November 30, 2007
 * 1) Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
 * 2) Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?


 * I know you've already opposed, but these questions deserve answers. "Too long" is probably not quite right. Cases that reach ArbCom are usually complex enough that they have no simple resolution, and given how widely cited ArbCom decisions are, "too slow" is probably preferable to "too rushed". In any case, it's not a lack of energy or activity that makes these cases drag, so I'm not sure how much anything I do would speed them.
 * I do think that cases often linger without visible Arbitrator input and degenerate into squabbling matches. One of the things I'd like to see Arbs do more of is to ride herd over the Workshop and discussion pages a bit more actively. Some of the worst on-wiki conduct I've seen has taken place on Arbitration pages, which tend to be a bit lawless. In this case, a sock of a banned user appeared and made trouble while a request for an Arb to perform a checkuser languished. Here's what I would propose to do: if a case is going to take a long time to suitably resolve, then I would make a concerted effort to monitor activity on the Workshop and discussion pages and try to corral them toward productive discussion and away from vitriol. Admins can do this, but they're often involved in the case as participants and therefore not in a neutral position. I'd like to see Arbs (or at least one Arb per case) be a bit more active in this regard.


 * When I've disagreed with an Arbitration case, I've generally made my opinion clear on the case pages themselves (for examples, see Paranormal or Allegations of apartheid). I should preface this by saying that the ArbCom does a generally phenomenal job. I'm focusing on the small percentage of cases where I disagree with some of their findings because that's what the question asks.
 * As to "failed" cases, I think the best example is the Paranormal case. This case took a left turn away from issues of user conduct into issues of epistemology and demarcation. I felt that the underlying issues of user conduct were being ignored, and said as much at the time. After the case closed, one of the editors I perceived as problematic began citing the ArbCom decision as grounds for a series of controversial content changes and continued the behavior I perceived as problematic. The ultimate result was a second ArbCom case, which ultimately addressed the ongoing user conduct issues in a more satisfactory (to me, anyway) manner. MastCell Talk 19:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

 * 1) What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
 * 2) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * 3) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * 4) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * 5) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to WP:SRNC, I'm in favor of unorthodox or outside-the-box methods of resolving particularly intractable disputes, so long as the involved parties are all willing to sign on. As to WP:RFAR/HWY, I'll only say that sometimes it's easy on Wikipedia to spend so much time chipping away at a particularly recalcitrant tree that one's appreciation of the forest is lost. I'm not criticizing the participants - I've done this as well - but when a particular dispute has consumed time and resources well out of proportion to its overall impact on the encyclopedia, sometimes it's best to refocus one's energies.


 * WikiProjects are immensely valuable as organizing tools for editors who share an interest, and well-functioning WikiProjects contribute immensely to the encyclopedia's mission. At the same time, WikiProjects are a means to an end (improving the encyclopedia), and not an end unto themselves. They don't have "authority" or "ownership" of pages, and cannot unilaterally impose standards on articles or other projects. On the other hand, WikiProjects do provide a conveniently centralized location for discussion on generic issues that affect a wide range of individual articles. That doesn't place them outside the consensus process, though.


 * Canvassing is actually pretty well-defined by the continuum at WP:CANVASS. A neutrally phrased WikiProject notice (e.g. "X article is being discussed at AfD") is generally not "canvassing". On the other hand, a WikiProject notice like "Hey everbody, deletionists are trying to purge our pet article - get out the vote!" are inappropriate. It's a judgement call, but usually not a particularly difficult one. As to IRC, I suppose discussion on general channels is no big deal. Even canvassing specific editors via IRC, while inappropriate, would be difficult to sanction, since it runs into the issue of how to address off-wiki actions on-wiki.


 * One of my pet peeves is misuse of the term "vandalism". It's pretty specifically and narrowly defined in WP:VANDAL. If there's some doubt that an edit is not "vandalism", but just horribly POV, ill-informed, unsourced, or generally a bad idea, then don't use the word "vandalism". If the edits need to be rolled back, they should be (regardless of terminology applied to them). If articles need to be protected, they should be. If blocks are necessary to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, then they should be levied, again regardless of the specific terminology applied. MastCell Talk 18:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

 * 1) What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Committee, overall, does an excellent job in a truly thankless role. Of course, I wouldn't be running if I didn't see some areas where I think things could be improved. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, on a procedural note I'd like to see at least one Arb per case keep a closer watch on the Workshop and discussion pages of each case, because these often degenerate (particularly on prolonged cases) into off-topic, inappropriate, or lawless behavior. I'd be happy to be a part of this.


 * In a handful of particularly contentious cases, I think that the focus of the case shifted from user conduct to wider issues. I think ArbCom functions best when it attacks problems using a clearly defined scope from the start, amending it only in response to dramatic new findings or evidence. Specific examples include the Paranormal case, where the user-conduct issues which generated the case were somewhat buried in an avalanche of more content-related questions. Also Allegations of apartheid, where the only pertinent question (whether there were user-conduct issues warranting sanction) was buried beneath a mountain of other issues. I should note that of course I'm not privy to the ArbCom mailing list - perhaps these issues were being discussed among Arbitrators privately. I can only comment on what I observe on-wiki.


 * In more general terms, I think many members of ArbCom are not highly active article editors, at least not in areas that generate controversy. Which is understandble given their other commitments. Still, I think it would be useful to have slightly more input from someone who's more recently been "in the trenches". In fact, that's the main reason I decided to run.


 * But I should be clear - I'm not running on a platform of "ArbCom sucks" or "Elect me to stir things up." I'm not a protest candidate. I think in the majority of cases, the sitting ArbCom has done a good job. I just think that the process can be tweaked, and I think my perspective would be useful on the Committee or I wouldn't bother running. MastCell Talk 18:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork
How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing".  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I completely understand its gist, so I might ask for clarification. If I understand correctly, it's saying that registration and editing thresholds rather than background checks are the best terms of suffrage for meta-activities like RfA or ArbCom elections. In which case I agree. I think that as a practical point, because it's so trivial to register an account, we need to set some limits on participation in these sort of events. For most (e.g. RfA), this is done on an informal basis - people just aren't taken as seriously if they registered yesterday and have no edits outside an RfA !vote or two. For the ArbCom elections, there are more specific cutoffs, which I think is as practical a solution as any. I'm not sure exactly how you mean "sleuthing" in this context, so I can't really comment there. MastCell Talk 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private. Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
 * Mailing list

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it  has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
 * Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
 * Recusals

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
 * Community oversight over the arbitration policy


 * While Irpen has already voted, these questions deserve to be answered, so I'll go ahead and take a shot.
 * Mailing list: Given the sensitive nature of matters handled by ArbCom, it's essential to have a private channel for communication between Arbitrators and for people to submit evidence confidentially to Arbitrators. Should people who are not current Arbs have access to the list? I'm aware of the arguments in favor: institutional memory, useful advice from trusted and experienced Wikipedians, etc. On the other hand, if one subject of a case has access to the mailing list while others don't (e.g. the Allegations of apartheid case), then it undermines the list as a place for private discussion. Here's my personal opinion: only current ArbCom members should be on the list (and Jimbo, of course). If input or advice from senior Wikipedians or former Arbs is deemed appropriate, it can be solicited off-wiki easily enough. That said, I don't see the presence of a handful of former Arbs on the mailing list as the most pressing issue affecting Wikipedia, though I know it's been a focus of recent discussion.
 * Private evidence: Again, given the sensitive nature of some cases before ArbCom, I think the precedent of allowing editors to submit evidence privately needs to be maintained. The whole point of electing trusted Arbs is that they will treat such privately presented evidence fairly, and not unilaterally act on it without considering or soliciting opposing viewpoints. Trying to limit private presentation to "sensitive" items is a slippery slope - who decides what's "sensitive"? And in any case, trying to prevent all off-wiki communication is unrealistic. I think the current system, whereby editors may submit evidence privately but Arbs are trusted to weigh such evidence appropriately, is the best one.
 * Recusals: When Arbs (or people with access to arbcom-en-l) are participants in a case, they should follow the same standards as everyone else - that is, they may submit evidence privately. In an ideal world, they would not be able to read arbcom-en-l, as I agree with Irpen that this gives them a probably inappropriate window into the private deliberations of the Committee. But it would be difficult to technically exclude them for the duration of a case. Realistically, I don't think we can prohibit anyone from discussing cases off-wiki or emailing ArbCom members privately - again, the solution not a technical one. It's to elect ArbCom members whom you trust to treat such communication with the appropriate degree of scrutiny.
 * ArbCom policy: The ArbCom doesn't exactly write the Arbitration policy, nor is the community powerless to affect it. The Committee does, apparently, retain veto power. I think that's fine. Consensus-wise, any significant change in the policy would be unlikely to be enacted if it were opposed by a number of Arbs, regardless of whether or not they have formal veto power. I think the community should be encouraged to propose improvements to the Arbitration policy, but I don't see ArbCom's consensus as a major stumbling block to improving it. If faced with a concrete situation where proposed improvements with widespread community support were being stonewalled or vetoed by ArbCom, I might feel differently, but I'm not aware of such a situation arising. MastCell Talk 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 23:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While there is some overlap on scientific topics, NPOV and SPOV are distinct. The neutral point of view policy requires coverage of all verifiable and notable viewpoints, even those which the scientific point of view would disregard. Hence, we have articles like AIDS reappraisal, Duesberg hypothesis, etc. If we adhered to a scientific point of view, it would be inappropriate to mention AIDS denialism in the AIDS article, or to bother to cover it at all, as it has no scientific credibility. However, AIDS denialism has had a notable social, cultural and political impact, especially in South Africa, so it is appropriate to cover it in the AIDS article (and its content fork) under the neutral point of view policy. Forgive me for using an example with which I have some hands-on editing experience.


 * One of ArbCom's most well-written principle findings is this: "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." This strikes exactly the right note. If Wikipedia is to fulfill its goal as a serious reference work, then on scientific topics the scientific point of view will provide context for the interpretation of "fringe" theories. At the same time, if Wikipedia is to be a serious reference work, it needs to acknowledge the existence and notability of theories and beliefs which the scientific point of view would ignore. And applying the scientific point of view to articles which do not cover strictly scientific topics is generally a mistake. MastCell Talk 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Random832
Some users have expressed the concern that your statement that you do not participate in mailing lists means you would not participate in, or would not pay attention to, the ArbCom mailing list—would you, if elected, join arbcom-l and at least pay adequate attention to information that is sent there?

Also, do you see yourself participating in any other off-wiki venues in the future, and if so, which ones?—Random832 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the wikipedia-en-l archive about once a month, and I don't post to it. I respect the mailing list's function, but I don't see it as essential to the work I do on-wiki. Additionally, real-life demands and logistics are such that, for me, it's just not feasible to contribute substantially on-wiki and follow the wikipedia-en-l mailing list or IRC. Of course, if I were to end up on ArbCom I would prioritize reading and attending to the arbcom-l list. I suppose I don't see wikipedia-en-l nor IRC as essential to the work of an Arbitrator, but that's just me.


 * As to other off-wiki venues, I don't want to make any promises I can't keep. Honestly, I don't see a lot of additional free time becoming available in the near future. If I were to end up on ArbCom, my other contributions to Wikipedia would certainly drop off substantially. I'm willing to make that trade-off, because I think I have a sense of what the position entails and I have something to offer there. I don't feel as certain regarding other off-wiki venues - I think that, barring a change in my available time and my capabilities, they're better used contributing content and mopping up on-wiki. MastCell Talk 07:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Mrs.EasterBunny
As a member of ArbCom, would you place more emphasis on content or behavior? For example, in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds case, there is voluminous discussion on whether SevenofDiamonds is really NuclearUmpf, but no discussion on what got NuclearUmpf banned in the first place. If SevenofDiamonds=NuclearUmpf, then this is a behavioral problem but doesn't have to be a content problem. If SevenofDiamonds edit was reasonable (I have not researched it) would it make a difference?

The above may not be the best example but it's one that I recently saw because I can't remember the parties involved in similar cases. On occasion, I have seen an editing admin block someone because of a dispute in editing an article that both of them are editing and the block seemed questionable because there is no overt POV. The blocked editor then probably feels the block is unjustified and creates a sock. Many times, people running for WP office will cite a clear cut case of someone with bad editing and bad behavior. However, what if there is good editing and improper block (which would point to admin misconduct about content), followed by sock creation justified because the block was improper (which would point to editor misconduct about behavior)? Does the first crime excuse the second? Or is the second one crime much more serious and punishable? (This is not an easy question because excusing the first crime by the admin would tend to increase the workload of ArbCom because it allows admin to do a lot with less oversight. However, excusing the second crime might seem to encourage socks). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I've fully understood, but I'll take a shot. Regarding SevenOfDiamonds, ArbCom cases desperately need a limited scope, or they quickly spin out of control. If the question under consideration is whether SevenOfDiamonds is a sock of a banned editor, then reviewing the rightfulness of the original ban is outside the scope of the case. I'm not saying bans should never be reviewed, only that the SevenOfDiamonds case was the wrong venue to review NuclearUmpf's ban. If Seven is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, it makes no difference whether his edits were "reasonable" - banned editors are not eligible to edit Wikipedia.


 * Your second question seems to be whether an editor who perceives himself unjustly blocked is justified in creating sockpuppets to evade the block. The problem here, of course, is that virtually every blocked editor considers the block "unjustified". There are mechanisms for appealing a block; blocked editors need to utilize them, rather than creating socks. MastCell Talk 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from wbfergus
What is your position on the following? wbfergus undefinedTalk 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A policy page has had a very active discussion for many months. All sides (loosely termed 'pro-change', 'anti-change' and 'issue-specific') of proposed changes have made their cases back and forth numerous times. The 'pro-change' group is mainly users, with a few Admins. The 'anti-change' group is mainly Admins (including those who helped write the policy over the years) and a few users. The 'issue-specific' group is a mixed collection of users and Admins, but mainly users. All three groups constitute around 40-50 people total, per announcements on the Village Pump and related policies, to garner more widespread community involvement either way.
 * 1) After numerous discussions, and comments over a span of several days to several weeks on specific issues, what should constitute a consensus? 60%, 75%, 90%, or unanimous approval?
 * 2) If around 75% agree to a change, is it appropriate for Admins (especially those who helped write the policy) to revert changes and protect the page from further edits against their approval?
 * 3) Is it appropriate for 6 or 7 Admins to more or less block changes to a policy through protection and reverts, when very active discussions have been ongoing and the majority of those participating constructively (not just saying "No" or "Oppose" without constructive comments) agree to changes?
 * 4) Would it be appropriate for such a policy page which does clearly have a disputed section to have a tag in that section stating that section is under dispute and to participate on the talk page?
 * 5) Should policies solely dictate acceptable and unacceptable content, behaviour, etc., or should they also define Wikipedia-specific terms and definitions (without stating so) that conflict with usage in different disciplines, or should such terms and definitions be more appropriately suited in a guideline linked to and from the policy?
 * 6) Do you agree that policies are meant for enforcement or 'enforceable actions', while guidelines are meant to give guidance?
 * For the record, I feel that I need to close my questions to all candidates, as one of the editors in the above 'subject' has filed an ArbCom request. As such, it could be interpreted as unseemly or whatever for these issues to be addressed in this forum. I was in the process of cancelling my questions and replying in an RfC and the related ArbCom request when I had to leave to take my wife to a Dr. appointment, so pardon the delay in cancelling this. wbfergus undefinedTalk 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pinkville
Wikipedia is a community that produces and maintains a (still-nascent) encyclopaedia. This community has particular social and political structures that define it and that, presumably, affect the character, quality, and depth of its encyclopaedic output. Can you briefly summarise some political and social aspects of the Wikipedia community that you consider important or noteworthy, that perhaps need to be challenged or developed? How does the structure of Wikipedia encourage or inhibit access to decision-making and issues of power/control? Or does any of that matter? And what are the implications for the Arbitration Committee and its members? Pinkville (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)