Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Sandstein/Questions

General questions

 * 1) Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
 * 2) *(a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
 * 3) *(b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * 4) *(c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * 5) *(d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
 * 6) *(e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * 7) *(f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * 8) *(g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
 * 9) *(h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
 * 10) *(i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
 * 11) *(j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.
 * Answers:
 * (a-d): As a lawyer and former law clerk, I have extensive experience in reviewing evidence and drafting decisions, which are the core business of the Committee, as well as with handling private information.
 * (e): I'll do that, though I am not comfortable with a dispute resolution body assuming quasi-governmental tasks such as these that have nothing to do with dispute resolution. But we do not seem to have decided on a better system for allocating these permissions so far.
 * (f-g): I'll use these tools if they are needed in the course of arbitral proceedings. But I would prefer to leave their regular use, especially checkuser, to the people who specialize in that job.
 * (h-j): These are necessary tasks and I intend to do my share of them if elected. A system of rotating responsability is probably best suited for this.
 * 1) Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
 * Answer: I have experience with stressful tasks, including WP:AE and WP:OTRS. While I edit anonymously, I am not very worried about any possible outing, since I try not to do anything on-wiki that could embarrass me in real life (and vice versa), and my professional environment knows about my Wikipedia activity.
 * 1) Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them ''in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
 * 2) *(a) "Private correspondence"
 * Answer: I agree with the principle behind this statement, but I would prefer to protect private information based on its content rather than merely on account of its form (e.g., e-mail). Information that is actually private, such as information about a person's identity or other aspects of their personal lives, absolutely deserves strict protection. But there is no compelling privacy interest for us to prohibit excerpts from e-mails in the vein of "Hey buddies, let's team up tonight to revert User:Foo's POV-pushing" from being posted on-wiki in the course of dispute resolution – as long as they do not contain any identifying or other private information. (On the other hand, the full message will often be required for verification, and thus it is still a better idea to forward the message privately to ArbCom instead.) The copyright argument does not apply to brief quotations, see Fair use and Fair use.
 * 1) *(b) "Responsibility"
 * Answer: I agree, but would add that even users carrying out official tasks should abide by this insofar as it is compatible with their obligation not to reveal private information which they have been made privy of in the course of their official duties.
 * 1) *(c) "Perceived legal threats"
 * Answer: I agree with the first sentence, "Editors should refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion." But I do not entirely agree with the second sentence, "For example, if an editor asserts that a second editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", the second editor will often interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." If somebody edits an article in order to state, without sources, that a certain living person is a rapist, then others should be able to tell the editor that these edits are defamatory without having to fear a WP:NLT block. When in doubt, it is better to first seek clarification that such expressions do not constitute a threat of legal action. Only if such clarification is not given unreservedly, a sanction for legal threats may be contemplated.
 * 1) *(d) "Outing"
 * Answer: I agree. But using voluntarily supplied personal information in an objectionable manner (e.g., "you only vote to delete this article because you are a dirty Foo-ian!") may still constitute sanctionable disruption even if it is not "outing" as such.
 * 1) Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
 * Answer: Everybody deserves a second and even third chance, but not necessarily a fourth, fifth or twentieth. Blocks as well as other sanctions should be preventative, not punitive, which is why I prefer not to think of them in terms of strictness or leniency: they should be as extensive, and last as long, as is required to prevent the problem on account of which they were imposed. This means that sanctions for repeated or severe disruption should either follow a scale of escalating duration, or be of indefinite duration. But especially in the latter case they should be lifted as soon as the sanctioned editor convinces the sanctioning person or body that they are no longer needed. Convincing the community or Committee that the problem will not reoccur should normally be easy the first time, especially if the editor shows that they understand why they are sanctioned, but it should become significantly more difficult each time the problem does reoccur and the sanction is reimposed.
 * In my view, the main problem with policy enforcement is not that it is either too strict or too lenient, but that it is conducted unevenly, because in practice it is shaped too much by social dynamics and not enough by rules. Popular and experienced editors can often get away with problematic behavior more easily than new editors who espouse fringe opinions. But it should be the other way around: The longer somebody participates, and especially if they hold positions of trust such as adminship, the higher a standard of conduct should they be held to, because they are expected to know better. An important purpose of ArbCom, in my view, is to remedy this systemic problem: because of its relative independence, it is in a position to effectively enforce policy in situations where the community can't arrive at a consensus.
 * Desysoppings without prior open discussion should only occur in emergency circumstances (mass vandalism with admin tools, etc.). Desysoppings (or other sanctions) as a result of a simplified proceeding, such as by motion, should remain possible in cases where the facts are neither complex nor substantially contested, such as in cases of self-unblocks or unauthorized reversions of arbitration enforcement actions, or when the account appears to be compromised. Generally, since adminship is a position of substantial community trust and responsability, I would not be reluctant to desysop admins who have repeatedly or severely conducted themselves in a manner incompatible with this trust and responsability. There is always a way back via WP:RFA.
 * 1) ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
 * Answer: In principle, yes. As a dispute resolution body, ArbCom is a combined (quasi-)judicial and executive authority, charged with interpreting and applying policy for the limited purpose of resolving disputes. Wikipedia policy, our "legislation", emerges from community consensus as manifested in practice and discussion, and ArbCom can't supplant community consensus. As with the decisions of real courts, though, some ArbCom decisions do influence editing beyond the scope of the dispute they settle: by interpreting and applying our more fundamental rules (such as "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a ..."), they inevitably provide an impetus for the continued development of these rules by the larger community.
 * 1) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?
 * Answer: ArbCom should continue not to decide content disputes. Its job is to resolve conflicts among editors and thereby help contribute to an environment in which there are fewer obstacles to resolving content disagreements through discussion. It can do so by assisting and enabling uninvolved administrators and other editors to maintain the ground rules that are essential to the Wiki model of consensus-building (no edit-warring, no socking, no excessive or persistent incivility etc.) and, if need be, by removing overly confrontative participants from the discussion. In rare cases, it is possible that establishing a formal framework for discussion may also be helpful.
 * 1) Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * Answer: A case is handled successfully if it is handled in such a manner as not to give rise to continued disputes among the parties (and others). In this respect, as another candidate has said, it is probably too early to tell for most 2010 cases. But it seems that the "smaller" cases which typically result in one-year bans for one or several people do not tend to flare up again as much as the "bigger" cases involving ideologically polarized groups of editors, which typically result in topic bans and discretionary sanctions. Several of these cases, including those about Eastern Europe, Israel/Palestine and climate change, continue to generate drama. But this is more of an enforcement issue, I think, than a problem with the decision itself.
 * 1) Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
 * Answer: To improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of the Committee, it should consider delegating more tasks to panels of e.g. three members, subject always to review by the full Committee, as is already done in the form of WP:BASC. Additional tasks that may be delegated could include procedural decisions during deliberations, motions in previous cases, or even hearing of some of the easier cases.
 * I also intend to propose methods to further streamline the arbitration process so as to prevent cases from lasting inordinately long and taking up too much time of all involved (as in the climate change case). For instance, we should normally
 * set a clear timeframe for submitting evidence;
 * be more active in removing evidence that does not conform to certain minimal standards of form (diffs!), clarity and conciseness;
 * allow parties to briefly respond to evidence by others; and
 * then try to base the decision as far as possible only on the submitted evidence, rather than endlessly engaging with the parties on a multitude of talk pages and other fora.
 * But we should implement any such changes in a flexible manner so as not to make arbitration unduly formalistic and legalistic.
 * Finally, the drafting arbitrator should take a (more) proactive and leading role in conducting evidentiary and other preliminary proceedings, which allows other arbitrators to concentrate on reading and evaluating the evidence.

Individual questions
This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:
 * be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
 * be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
 * not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format: -
 * 1) Question:
 * A:
 * 1) Question: In lieu of ArbCom directly intervening in a content dispute, you suggest "removing overly confrontative participants from the discussion." Do you think that stonewalling could sometimes qualify as confrontative, and if so, what pattern of conduct would qualify as stonewalling? You also mention possibly "establishing a formal framework for discussion". I hoped you might suggest examples of frameworks other than the typical RFC that might be helpful. (Sort of a compound question.) :) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: In the first respect, I agree with the guideline: stonewalling is a pattern of unproductive discussion characterized by "actively filibustering discussion, or repeatedly returning to claims that a reasonable editor might have long since resolved or viewed as discredited (...), effectively tying up the debate or preventing a policy-based resolution being obtained." It's perhaps not confrontative, strictly speaking, but similarly detrimental to collegial consensus-building.
 * As far as I know, ArbCom has provided for a formal content dispute resolution framework only once, in Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names. That seems to have worked, and something similar could be employed again if necessary. But there are probably good reasons why this case has been an exception: many content disputes are either so multi-faceted that they won't easily fit into such a framework, or they can likely be resolved through normal editing after a few very confrontative participants are removed from the discussion.  Sandstein   01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty clear to me. Thanks and good luck... Shooterwalker (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Secret (stolen from Lar)
 * Question: Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing?
 * Answer: No 40KB Wikipedia policy is likely to be correct in all respects :-) On the whole, though, I think that our current WP:BLP policy does a pretty good job at balancing the several interests at stake (most importantly: human dignity, verifiability and neutrality). After re-reading it, I have some quibbles about minor points and wording issues, but I can't point to anything in it which, given God-King powers, I would insist on changing. But I have not closely followed most of the several intense policy debates surrounding BLPs, and as a result, my views about the details of BLP policy are not set in stone. Since this question is being asked in an ArbCom election, I should also note that I am of the opinion that any wide-ranging change to BLP policy (or other policies) ought to be decided by community consensus, not by ArbCom. (Conceivably, of course, the Wikimedia Foundation might decide to mandate any changes in policy that they believe are required to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits.) The following opinions, therefore, are submitted in my role as an editor commenting on possible changes to current policy.  Sandstein   23:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Answer: I think I may have once closed a "marginal notability" AfD on that basis in a somewhat WP:IAR manner, and as a tie-breaker in rare borderline cases between "no consensus/keep" and "delete" this is probably a useful criterium. But I'm not sure whether it would scale well from a rare exception to a widely applied policy. We would need to discuss questions like: how do we verify that the IP or new user who wants the article deleted or kept is the subject? (We'd probably need to involve WP:OTRS.) Is it appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia to let some (but not all) of its subjects have a say about their inclusion? What if they later change their mind? Or only contact us after the discussion has closed? – I'm not opposed to any development of policy in that direction, but we'd need to resolve such questions first.  Sandstein   22:20, 23 November 2010 (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.
 * Answer: I would like to believe that the sourcing and other inclusion requirements for BLPs are now so stringent (as they should be) that if a discussion is closed correctly (that is, by giving any applicable WP:BLP arguments for deletion compelling weight), then the only possible reason for a "no consensus" closure are non-WP:BLP-issues about which editors can in good faith disagree, such as certain aspects of notability. I am not sure that, under such circumstances, the ethical and legal imperative to "get BLPs right" is still an issue in the decision whether or not to delete, and accordingly, whether that imperative justifies changing our longstanding "when in doubt, don't delete" rule. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, and it may well be that policy development trends in that direction, but I'm not convinced yet.  Sandstein   23:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * c) "Liberal semi protection" - The notion that if a BLP is subject to persistent vandalism from anons it should get semi protection for a long time (see User:Lar/Liberal Semi ... we were handing out 3 months on the first occurance and 1 year for repeats)
 * Answer: That sounds sensible to me, and I assume that our current protection policy (or at least practice) already allows this, as long as it is not applied indiscriminately (e.g., 1 year semiprotection for an isolated incident of random schoolboy vandalism). If this were used too excessively and applied to almost every BLP, we would probably have reached the threshold where we would stop being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". But I wouldn't object to a more aggressive use of semiprotection with respect to persistently vandalized BLPs.  Sandstein   23:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * d) "WP:Flagged Protection" - a trial, which ended up being called WP:Pending changes instead. Please comment on the trial results as they specifically relate to the BLP problem. (there is another question about revisions generally) Would you do anything different in the actual implementation?
 * e) "WP:Flagged Revisions" - the actual real deal, which would (presumably) be liberally applied.
 * Answer to d) and e): I've not followed that issue closely, so I won't embarrass myself by going on at length about the fine distinctions between the various implementations. In general, I'm currently not a big fan of this "flagged" or "pending" approach to editing, because I find the interface utterly confusing and I'm not convinced that the gain in vandalism protection outweighs the additional un-wiki-ness, bureaucracy and newbie-biting that goes with it. On the other hand, it seems to work well for the German language Wikipedia (but then again, it is well known that ve in ze German-schpeaking vorld, ve like zo make many rules and follow zem zo ze letter, jawohl. :-) On the whole, I am not yet convinced that it's worth the hassle to roll it out on a large scale. But I could warm to it as a less restrictive (and therefore somewhat more liberally applied) alternative to semiprotection, as soon as the interface becomes a bit more usable.  Sandstein   23:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Biophys:
 * Question: I like your words about giving people second chances. But this seems to contradict the practice of giving indefinite sanctions to "first-time offenders", because such person may not have his second chance even if he behaves well. Would you support the idea of never giving indefinite sanctions to users who were not previously sanctioned by Arbcom?
 * Answer: In my opinion, an indefinite sanction doesn't exclude a second chance. "Indefinite" does not mean "infinite". For example, vandalism-only accounts are routinely blocked indefinitely but I normally give them a 2ndchance template if they request unblock and tell us that they want to contribute constructively. Because I think that indefinite sanctions should be readily lifted to give the sanctioned editor a second chance (but less readily the third, fourth etc. time around), I do not favor limiting them to ArbCom-sanctioned editors only.   Sandstein   07:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from User:Jmh649 (Doc James): Here you state that you feel Wikipedians should not be involved in "advocacy" with your particular concern being this  template dealing with freedom of speech within science. If you are not willing to support freedom of speech are you willing to support the other principles on which Wikipedia is based?
 * Answer: It is long-standing policy that Wikipedia should not be used for "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise" (WP:SOAP). In particular, our guidelines forbid "polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons" on user pages (WP:UP). I agree with that, and also that, because we are not the government, people's right to free speech does not require us to change it (see Free speech). Consequently, I disagree with the premise of your question that free speech is a foundational principle of Wikipedia. Because our purpose is to write a neutral encyclopedia, we necessarily and routinely restrict the free speech of vandals, spammers, WP:TRUTH-bearers of all sorts and other people who come here with a different agenda. As regards userbox advocacy in particular, I recognize that as a matter of practice we give people a wide latitude about what they put on their user page, and would not support sanctions for such userboxes alone except perhaps in exceptionally divisive cases (e.g., expressing support for violence against specific groups). As such, the userbox at issue in the RfA in your question is pretty tame, but nonetheless I feel that administrators in particular should set an example and refrain from using their user space for any advocacy whatsoever.  Sandstein   07:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up question moved to the talk page by Sandstein.
 * 1) Question from Mbz1 According to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is considered to be an antisemitism. Would you block an editor for BLP violation, if an editor is to say that a cartoonist that uses those comparisons in his cartoons is drawing antisemitic pictures and therefore is an antisemite? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: WP:BLP instructs us to "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; [or] that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)." In articles, moreover, per WP:NPOV, "biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution and not as if they are facts". This means that calling a living person an "antisemite" on Wikipedia, which is a contentious characteristic, may only be done if one cites at the same time at least one reliable source that states: "Mr. Foo is an antisemite". In encyclopedic content, any reference to the subject's alleged antisemitism should take the form "According to so-and-so, Foo is an antisemite because ...[reference to so-and-so]". The policies WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:NPOV impose additional restrictions and caveats with respect to whether and how editors may make such contentious statements about living persons. It follows that it is a violation of WP:BLP to call Mr. Foo an antisemite only because (a) an editor believes that Foo's cartoons convey a certain opinion and (b) one government authority's definition of antisemitism includes communicating that opinion. This is because the cited definition (assuming for the sake of argument that it is reliable for our purposes) does not name Mr. Foo. Conjectural interpretation of both the source (i.e., whether its authors had works like those of Mr. Foo in mind when they wrote it) and of Mr. Foo's work (i.e., whether it does convey the opinion that the source considers antisemitic) is therefore necessary to arrive at the conclusion that Mr. Foo is an antisemite. But WP:BLP prohibits such conjectural interpretation. If Mr. Foo's cartoons are indeed perceived by many as antisemitic, then chances are that a reliable source will have addressed that issue specifically, and it is that reliable source that should be looked for and cited instead. Until such a source is cited, conjectural allegations of antisemitism or other contentious statements with respect to living persons should be removed, and the editor who made them should be made aware of the above. If they nonetheless continue to make contentious conjectural allegations against living persons, they may be blocked or otherwise restricted.  Sandstein   07:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Dnkrumah In view of the previous question, their are many who have identified Israeli actions in Palestine as equivalent to the actions of Nazi Germany, including Jews Video of Jewish Member of British Parliament. Many say that the articles on Wikipedia on Israeli or Palestinian actions and events are heavily slanted to a pro-Israeli viewpoint. Despite In the article on the Gaza War (under discretionary sanctions after a arbitration request) for instance I added up to date information on an Israeli court convicting two IDF soldiers of a war crime for using a child as a human shield. Yet, there is an attempt to keep this information out of the article. So, I would like to know what steps you are going to take to insure that information that is properly sourced and relevant is included in Wikipedia, especially when that information goes against the mainstream or Western viewpoint. Da&#39;oud Nkrumah (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: By long-standing convention, the Arbitration Committee does not decide content disputes – that is, it does not decide what information should or should not be in any particular article. It should therefore not take any steps to ensure that any particular viewpoint is represented more or less in our articles. Article content is decided by editorial consensus, and an important function of ArbCom is to help maintain the editing environment that allows editors to arrive at a consensus in a collegial and constructive manner – for instance, by enabling community or administrator sanctions against editors who disrupt the consensus-building process by edit-warring or socking. Nonetheless, ArbCom does have a job with respect to the representation of viewpoints in Wikipedia. Our core policy WP:NPOV commits us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ... This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. " (underlining mine). That the requirement to observe NPOV applies to editors as well as to content is, in my opinion, too-often neglected, probably because neutral conduct is very difficult to determine or to even-handedly enforce. Still, neutrality is a conduct as well as a content requirement. Therefore, while the Committee does not intervene directly in content disputes about whether an article or a set of articles is written neutrally or not, it may act to resolve conduct disputes that involve an editor "pushing" any particular point of view (that is, editing to favor that POV over others in a manner incompatible with WP:NPOV). To comply with the neutrality requirement, an ideal editor's contributions to articles should not betray what personal opinion, if any, they hold about the topics they write about (even though they may make their opinion clear in discussions). In practice, few people who write about contentious topics will live up to that ideal, and the Committee should not expect them to. But it should expect them to try. And it should, therefore, be a little less reluctant to sanction editors merely for consistently pushing any particular POV, even if they do not do so in an openly disruptive manner. I understand why it has so far been reluctant to do so: many POV-pushers also behave disruptively and can therefore be more easily sanctioned for disruption, and sanctioning any individual POV-pusher may create the unintentional appearance of bias in favor of the opposed POV. But is is ArbCom's job to tackle hard problems such as this one, even if it means that the arbitrators must ready themselves for even more personal attacks by editors associated with both sides of any contentious issue.  Sandstein   08:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question from Offliner. You are a veteran of dispute resolution at WP:AE, and therefore familiar with how ArbCom's decisions affect disputes. As arbitrator, what kind of approach would you take and what kind of remedies would you propose to solve battlegrounds such as the Eastern European one? Offliner (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: To deescalate multiparty conflicts around permanent battleground topics, the ArbCom's preferred approach in the last few years has been to authorize administrators to take discretionary sanctions against persistently disruptive editors. I support continuing this practice where necessary, because it effectively distributes the time-consuming and stressful routine enforcement work in these areas, seems to be broadly successful so far in preventing major flareups in most of these topics, and now works reasonably smoothly in a rules-structured environment that provides for swift action but also for appeals in the event of errors (see WP:AEBLOCK). There is, of course, always potential for improvement and fine-tuning of this system, but mostly at the arbitration enforcement level. (I can go into more detail on the talk page if anybody wants me to.) I am also interested, in particular, in this initiative started by PhilKnight; and look forward to see how well it works out. If it does, topic-level 1RR might become another standard remedy in such cases, but there is also the concern that it might just slow down edit wars and encourage revert-gaming. Finally, such battles very often take part mostly among a relatively small group of "hard-core" editors on both sides who are simply unwilling or unable to work collegially and constructively with others, or to edit neutrally (see question 6 above). Topic-banning all of them, as was done in the Climate change case, may sometimes be the least complicated and most effective way to stop the battle and to allow editors who are less ideologically and/or emotionally invested in the topic to contribute.  Sandstein   16:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Question: I've assembled a set of questions for the 12 candidates listed here. The questions are intended to see how you would respond to situations you will probably encounter if elected. I've picked one question for each candidate listed at the link above; the other questions can be seen here. Please feel free to answer only the selected question below, or all of them if you chose. Your question is what would you do in the following situation?: "Parties to a case make strident and repeated calls for your recusal". Carcharoth (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: If I believe the requests for recusal are justified, I will of course recuse myself. If I believe that they are not, I will ask my fellow arbitrators to decide whether or not I should recuse myself, and will do so if a majority of arbitrators believes that I should. (This is, more or less, the rule followed by courts in my jurisdiction.)  Sandstein   07:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)