Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Primefac/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions at the bottom of the page using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

There is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

Thank you for standing as a candidate and for your service as an arbitrator. Please describe your self-assessment of your successes and failures as a member of the committee with as much specificity as you feel comfortable with. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of my largest successes as an Arbitrator was as a drafter for WP:HJP; we had an unusual case structure with a huge body of evidence to work through, and the three drafters communicated really well to make sure things went as smoothly as they could. With all of the recent talk about (in)activity of Arbitrators, I would note that I have been officially inactive for approximately three weeks across my tenure, and only unofficially for a little longer than that.
As far as failures go, I think the largest one was around the COI management case; I got caught up in the drama, made some mistakes, and did not really act in the most professional manner.
Please describe what makes you feel (a) optimistic and (b) pessimistic about the future of the project. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am optimistic to still see new accounts joining the project; while Wikipedia does tend to have a high turnover, seeing new editors making efforts to write drafts or even just make grammatical corrections means that we have not stopped being relevant in society.
On the pessimistic side, I feel like we have seen an explosion of intractable disagreements; there have always been disputes on Wikipedia but I feel like the number of highly-contentious RFCs and drama spreading across multiple pages has increased significantly in the last five years or so. This is not necessarily something unique to Wikipedia — as it really is more of a societal/global issue — but it is in stark contrast to my optimistic point, especially when new(er) users get harassed or otherwise harangued by experienced editors who sometimes act insulted that someone would have an opposing view. It makes me somewhat concerned that our rules and policies will start being ignored or removed simply because a vocal minority manages to push everyone else in that direction.
In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management, there were 2 negative FoF about you. You were one of the four parties to the case, but claimed that "as I was recused from the get-go I was not following the case" (here) and elsewhere even (as an excuse for why you used your tools while involved) "I am not involved in that case" about a case to which you were a party! Why should we trust someone to be a good Arb who shows such disdain for or complete ignorance of ArbCom cases? Fram (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the answer to Q1: I made some mistakes and did not act in the most professional manner when it came to the COI case and the related events. I admitted as much, attempted to clarify some of the related editing around the recusal, and the Committee found that acceptable for moving forward. I know I cannot win back the trust of anyone who feels as you do regarding this case, but I would hope that for those who are on the fence they will see my actions following the initial incidents have indicated that I learned from this situation and will do my utmost to avoid it in the future.

Doesn't really answer the questions posed, "Why should we trust someone to be a good Arb who shows such disdain for or complete ignorance of ArbCom cases?" I am not talking here about your actions before the case opened, but about your actions (and lack of them) during the case, and your bewildering comments that you claimed not to be involved in a case where you were a party and so on. Fram (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe I showed disdain or ignorance of an ArbCom case, as I explained in the Workshop. If that means I cannot answer your question, then so be it. Primefac (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how would you describe someone who is a party to a case but can't be bother to follow it and even claims they aren't involved in it? What, if not ignorance or disdain, is your explanation for this? Fram (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that I "[couldn't] be bothered to follow it", it was that I knew that my part in the case was small, and that I did not need to watch every piece of evidence coming in the case that I would need to rebut or explain something. As I have said multiple times now in multiple locations, my "I am not involved" was a poorly-worded reply indicating that I was not involved as a member of ArbCom in the matter. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any topic areas from which you would recuse yourself from while acting as an arbitrator? If so, what set of facts informs that decision? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you feel should be the standard for Arbcom accepting a case based upon secret evidence? What measures should Arbcom take in such a case to ensure the community is informed of the outlines of the accusation and to defend the rights of the accused to respond to their accuser and to supply contrary evidence in their defense from the community? Carrite (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]