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]
I cannot think of anything specific off-hand, though some advice I was given as a new arb was to not become involved with disputes regarding administrators (e.g. conduct issues at AN) because those issues might make their way to ARC and if I were involved in the lower levels it would be much more difficult for me to remain neutral overseeing a case. For similar reasons I do not edit in CTOP areas or work AE, though for the latter it is also that I am not really interested in editing those subjects.
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]
I know this is a bit of a cop-out answer, but the standard should be the same for a case request based on public evidence: we should be reasonably convinced that the preliminary statement is enough to demonstrate that a case is needed. We have handled a number of cases with private evidence involved in them in the near past; I was going to list them but the historical elections case has a motion stating basically what my answer would be: if private evidence is collected, the editor(s) to which that evidence relates will be informed of what it is so they can have a chance to explain or otherwise reply to that evidence.
Recently, the WP:Administrator recall, including WP:RRFA, has become procedural policy. Theoretically and practically, how would the admin recalling process affect the activity of ArbCom in any way? George Ho (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a day-to-day basis, I do not think it will affect us much. We have seen a number of cases in the last few years of admins making mistakes and (with very small exception) not owning up to them, and there have been a couple of cases which were so big and mighty that we almost had to take them (I am thinking specifically of this case but there are others as well). Administrator recall will likely help out with some of the former instances, as disengaged admins will do so whether at recall or before arbcom, but since those cases are usually closed by motion or end up as suspended anyway it is not necessarily going to save us a ton of time or deliberation since we were not going to be expending that much in the first place. Recall is also not a fast process, so if someone must be desysopped we will likely be dealing with it anyway.
Your comment above: ...cases in the last few years of admins making mistakes and (with very small exception) not owning up to them... reminds me of a proverb attributed to Seneca: errare humanum est, perseverare autem diabolicum. Considering that such mistakes may or may not be evidence of an egregious pattern, when hearing a case do you believe that before pronouncing its verdict, sentence, or acquittal, the committee should examine the evidence more deeply, or simply as in the practice of RfC, evaluate, report, and action the consensus of the opinion of those requesting/demanding sanctions balanced with those providing arguments for mitigation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee should always look at the evidence deeply; it does not (or should not) particularly matter how many people advocate for one position or another when it comes to sanctions, we need to look at the evidence and see where it leads us in relation to existing policies, guidelines, and norms. For a case such as WP:HJP, we even set up a separate summary page for evidence, not only to make this evaluation easier for the non-drafting arbs but also to further remove the evidence from the people giving it.
Why was momentary admin candidate Saqib BLOCKED? {{ArbComBlock}} only answers the question "who?", not "why?" – wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I am not free to discuss the matter or provide information on what prompted this block.
I'm interested to hear people's thought processes beyond just reciting project-space shortcuts. Please would you pick one of my musings to fight me on and tell me why you think I'm wrong. Alternatively, you could pick one that resonates with you and tell me why you think it doesn't enjoy wider community support. Thank you, both for taking the time to answer this question and for volunteering to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Swift will never be safe; she is a global treasure and must be protected at all costs. somewhat more serious answer coming once I have actually managed to think about your musings
In your opinion, what is Arbcom's role in addressing non-neutral editing and WP:CPUSH behavior? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a past ArbCom case that you would have decided or handled differently? Pinguinn 🐧 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your plans to help the arbitration committee manage its workload effectively? isaacl (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]