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

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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.

Questions from Kudpung
I'm asking all  candidates the same questions.


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

Questions from A7V2
I am asking the same questions to all candidates.

Questions from Atsme

 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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: 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  for recognizing potential involvement, there is this diff.  Atsme  💬 📧 00:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , 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: 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  for recognizing potential involvement, there is this diff.  Atsme  💬 📧 00:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Epiphyllumlover

 * 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."
 * 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."
 * 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)

Question from Instant Comma

 * Fair enough. Thank you. Instant Comma (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thank you. Instant Comma (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from StraussInTheHouse
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)
 * Thanks for your answers    SITH   (talk)   00:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers    SITH   (talk)   00:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answers    SITH   (talk)   00:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Questions from Robert McClenon
Being asked of all candidates

Questions from David Tornheim

 * 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.
 * ArbCom does have some deadlines scattered about the documentation, such as Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration, Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)