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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Primefac

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.


Concerns

  • Concern this comment may have been a veiled personal attack to call me a CREEP although per WP:AGF I have to assume it wasn't and just of those occasions where the shortcut can have an unintended double meaning. Perhaps just careless ... but Primefac is an oversighter and going for Arbcom. - Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is patently not a veiled personal attack to call me a CREEP—from the context it's patently a reference to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Primefac has forgotten to Wikilink the WP:CREEP acronym. ‑ Iridescent 12:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect Primefac did not forget to wikilink, it's actually possibly good practice not to wikilink common acronyms but can be dubious in some contexts such as here if a double meaning can result. There are actually in my view a couple of acronyms that should possibly be depreciated as they can be used offensively often quite inadvertently. My current assessment of balance of probabilities is that Primefac did not intend to be offensive, however that is not how I initially read it at the time. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll note that BURO was similarly not wikilinked to WP:BURO, nor was DRV linked to WP:DRV. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amorymeltzer: With respect I assume by "You'll" you are referring to me; however I was making that specific point to Iridescent who by there response may have apparently not noticed the same. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This over zealous blanking of the Jeremy Hosking article. Discussions on the talk page got some of the Railway information restored. Its also far from clear to me Hosking's political contributions are irrelevant; perhaps even recent ones not recorded here. It was a blanking that made me uncomfortable. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If one looks hard enough at the thousands of edits made by a busy, dedicated user who has passed RfA and RfB with flying colours, makes, one is sure to find something that might be construed as suboptimal. In the case of Primefac if an edit had been possibly ambiguous, it certainly does not demonstrate a pattern of carelessness or over zealousness that would create a hurdle to a place on the Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: The implication from your statement is I looked through thousands of Primefac's edits. These two touch points between myself and Primefac over the last 6 months is what I recall, but I am open there may be others; especially perhaps the odd DRV or AFD, and I certainly would be more inclined to not register a less contenious event. My experience may be an outlier, and if is this will likely fully emerge here. As an oversighter the community probably need to ensure high standards are maintained. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark There was no such implication and your assumption is unfortunately totally wrong. Reading between the lines ("that is not how I initially read it at the time") and coming to the wrong conclusion happens a lot on Wikipeia and its effects can even get admins desysoped. What I was clearly inferring was that anyone who has made 166,361 edits is very likely to have made a misplaced edit, but certainly not to the extent that it should be a deal breaker. There nevertheless appears to be a culture on Wikipedia to criticise or punish hardest those who have worked hardest for the project.. I'll say again that I do not see anything at all in Primefac's history that could even be vaguely construed as an obstacle to a seat on the Committee. Popularity contest notwithstanding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: It is clearly not a wrong conclusion to consider that the wording and ordering of Primefac's response may have been intended to cause offence; Wilde, Yeats, and Shakespeare could likely have made such an arrangement with ease. I am currently minded my assessment of the balance of probabilities is there likely was no such issue, and from an AGF point of view that is the case. I will leave you to the last word. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would walk through fire for PF

The backbone of the OS team, a brilliant judger of consensus, actively works toward resolutions. Unimpeachable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

packet filter? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many questions

David Tornheim, you're only allowed to ask two questions. Happy to answer them, but if you could please select which two you'd like me to answer (and remove the others) that would be great. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. I didn't realize there was a limit. In 2018, I was able to ask quite a few, e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Candidates/DGG/Questions#Questions_from_David_Tornheim. Well, maybe I asked each candidate if it was okay to ask more. I don't remember. I didn't get the feeling anyone minded. These were the rules at that time were much simpler, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Questions. I'm sorry to see this unfortunate change. I will look into why this was changed. I will delete two per your request in the meantime. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is new this year per the consensus at WP:ACERFC2020. The intent is to keep the number of questions candidates get asked manageable and focused. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will abide by the rule under protest. I disagree with this close which says there was a consensus that the number of questions should be limited, as there were 16 who voted in favor of limits and 13 who voted for the status quo of no limits. There was a simple majority but not a consensus. No evidence was provided of "excessive questioning".
I further disagree with the claim "There is consensus to impose the same limit as on RfA, the limit on questions will be set at 2." (the end result of these these three,edits).
Of the 16 editors who supported limits
9 editors gave no number, despite the fact that the question specifically asked for one.
5 editors supported RfA limits
1 editor supported 3 questions
1 editor supported 3-5 questions
I simply don't see any consensus that editors should only be allowed to ask at most two initial questions. Only 5 out of the 29 editors who responded said that the limit should reflect RfA limits.
Additionally, I feel the RfC was inadequately advertised. I would have participated in it if I had known about it.
I particularly agree with Seraphimblade: "if you cannot handle a barrage of questions (not all of which will be asked in the best of good faith), you are not well suited for ArbCom." ArbCom is the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. Candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court are grilled for 8+ hours with countless aggressive and pointed questions. Answering these questions is a good test of the candidate's meddle to wade through mounds of editor statements and diffs. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest making a proposal at next years RfC if you want this changed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will for sure. It would be nice to get notice of the RfC on my talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was advertised on central notice for approximately a month, and on multiple arbcom related pages, in the administrators newsletter, AN, and VPP at least. I'm not sure you can legitimately claim that it wasn't advertised widely enough. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am signed up for Feedback Request Service, where I asked to get up to 60 notices of RfCs per month, and I got no notice of it. Is that what you mean by "central notice"? I can see that the admins all got notice of it in two places (their newsletter on their talk page and apparently somewhere at WP:AN). Village Pump has so much activity, something like that would be hard to notice.
How many non-admins (those who are not regulars at WP:AN) do you think responded to WP:ACERFC2020? I did a search on what links to that specific RfC and I got the impression that only those who were notified on their talk page were those who receive the admin. newsletter. Perhaps, non-admin. editors like me who want to stay informed need to sign up for the admin. newsletter? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By central notice I mean WP:CENT, which is apparently transcluded 5026 times. But if you are interested in participating in the RfC about the ArbCom elections (which happens in September every year) it's not unreasonable to expect you to look at the arbitration noticeboard or various other admin-related pages or the central discussions notice at least once a month. None of these venues, nor the admin newsletter, are exclusive to administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also maintain a watchlist for arbitration-related matters that is public (see Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Thryduulf/ArbWatchlist) where it is linked (and 2021's will be too) and you can watchlist future election pages now if you wish. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither here nor there, but for what it's worth Yapperbot is designed, per it's BRfA, to only notify somewhere around 15-25 users, selected randomly (alluded to on WP:FRS). It did indeed notify users of WP:ACERFC2020 (id: 0BEA1F5), see its edits from around 4:30 UTC, September 1. It looks like 12 folks got the notice. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow. Per your own assessment, an overwhelming majority of people who suggested a specific limit were in favor of the RfA limit of 2 questions, which was formalized and unchallenged as a consensus. That's just how things work here. Trying to rewrite the consensus system just because it didn't agree with you or you were not privy to a discussion is not and has never been valid. The ACERFC is universally announced by the software on talk pages, one can hardly say it's not adequately advertised to the community. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Candidates/Primefac&oldid=1067293578"