Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Isarra

Obligatory greeting.

Generic roundabout statement that Isarra is running for arbcom that never actually answers the question of why and instead devolves into a tedious note about some lack of other candidates, or issue with the process, or within ArbCom itself, with an unnecessarily inflammatory accompanying speculation as to why. Long rambling statement about pie. Overly verbose explanation of Isarra's Wikipedia experience, with excessive notes about drama and knives. Something about angry developers, and more knives. Something about cutting pie. With knives.

Thank you note that happens to be unclear as to what it's actually thanking anyone for.

• Various notes about inactivity, Wikimedia ecosystem interactions with both the user and arbcom, software development, and something about OTRS.
• Link to a list of alternate accounts that may or may not be accurate, with an explanation that Isarra can't remember if it's accurate or not, but it's all she's got.
• Follow-up note that Isarra also can't remember whether or not she ever identified with the WMF, but could if needed.
• Rambling tangent about pie, the importance of pie, and the overwhelming need for pie.

• Isarra (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2014 candidate: Isarra Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

2. Civility is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Do you think we have a problem with civility on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Do you think civility can and should be enforced on Wikipedia as vigorously as the other pillars like NPOV are? Why or why not?

   The thing about civility is that by itself, it's not something that's really enforceable. You can enforce doing things that are civil, or ban people for doing things that are uncivil, but those are specific things. General patterns of incivility vary wildly in their presentations and impact and really need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, especially since usually the patterns themselves only arise when the specific things are quite small.

4. Wikipedia has a undeniable gender gap in terms of who contributes to Wikipedia and what topics are covered. Do you think this is a significant problem for Wikipedia? Why or why not? What, if anything, can and should the Committee do to address this?

   This doesn't seem like it really falls under ArbCom's purview.

6. Personalized followup question: A user with a contribution history similar to yours for the last year has been indefinitely blocked by an administrator with the rationale that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. As an Arbitrator, would you vote to uphold this block? Why or why not? Please explain your rationale.

   I would need to see the contribution history of the user in question in order to comment on this.

Thanks in advance for your answers. Gamaliel (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Why are you standing for the Arbitration Committee? Last year, you came second to bottom in the results, and your nomination statement doesn't include anything to say how you would act as an arbitrator or why we should vote for you. Is your candidacy an incidence of WP:POINT?

   I never said you should vote for me. That's not the point. While I do have a purpose behind this, it is for the very opposite reason than disrupting the project - if anything, I would like to remind people to not take things too seriously. If we can take a step back and laugh at what has indeed become a rather formulaic proccess, then we will be in a position to better admire those who step away from the formula, as well as better support those who stick to it and make it work. These are all valid, and should not be discounted.

2. This is similar to the previous question, but I think it gets more directly to the, er, point: Your Candidate Statement appears to be a parody of other candidates' statements, past and present. It is somewhat amusing. So, are you actually serious about running, or are you just doing so to amuse yourself and/or others?

   Yes. I do encourage those with limited time and whatnot to simply ignore me, however.

2. This is also a similar question, which is unsurprising considering the unusual nature of your statement. Last year you made a very light-hearted statement that was mainly about pie. It was at least mildly amusing. This year, you seem to have gone with a statement that is an apparent parody of the form of the other, real, earnest, candidate statements. Other than pointing to a user who is obviously neither serious nor qualified for the position it seems incredibly poor form and not nearly as amusing as dumb jokes about pie. While I may question the fitness of some of the other candidates, I do not question their sincerity in running and I find your statement highly disrespectful of your peers who are not just doing this for laughs but because they want to actually, you know, help. In light of this I would ask if you would consider simply withdrawing your candidacy right now.

   This isn't a question.

Um, yes it is. I asked if you would withdraw in light of your flippant, sarcastic attitude toward the other candidates. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

   While it is indeed likely, sometimes a case is just what it takes to get to the bottom of a matter. Sanctions aren't the only way to resolve things, and sometimes they may even be a problem that needs to be resolved in and of themselves, such as from a previous case or something.

4. Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?

   It would certainly be nice if they did, but I get the impression that this isn't always feasible for various reasons. I don't know if these are necessarily good reasons, however.

6. Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?

   Honestly? This would probably happen if I mixed it up with another one. I mean, I've already done this a few times with RfCs on mw.org, and felt mighty stupid afterwards.

8. "Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?

   The policies and guidelines themselves ain't consistent, nevermind everyone's views on them.

10. Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?

    It's something to bear in mind. I dunno how much can be practically applied to the cases themselves, though.

12. Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?

    It's important stuff. Wikipedia is very large in what it can do to folks, so we have those policies for good reason.

14. How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?

    I dunno that we have factions. We have mobs sometimes. But are mobs factions? I think factions require a bit more organisation than we tend to have.

Thank you. Collect (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. How do you feel about the ArbCom's practice of deciding cases through private deliberation? Would you push for greater transparency, up to the point of holding all discussions on-wiki, so long as sensitive personal information is not revealed? Would you be prepared to make a personal pledge to make all of your own comments in public, unless sensitive personal information is involved?

   Private deliberation, if done right, can be an invaluable tool for quickly resolving problematic matters with minimal drama. While transparency is important, in a tricky situation it can often cause more problems than it resolves, when everyone's watching and waiting to jump on the first wrong move anyone makes. Thus waiting to publicly comment until after you have something that's solidified a bit can be a very good thing. Even arbitrators, after all, who are generally among the most trusted and responsible users on the site, are human. They cannot always think things through right away, or when jumped by a mob, easily avoid becoming defensive as opposed to adjusting their statements, and these are things to bear in mind when calling for transparency. So being able to talk things over and sort out some basics in private before coming forward with official stances is actually something I'd support, because if anything it helps in avoiding unnecessary drama - two people on a mailing list telling you you're an idiot because you suggested something weird is a lot easier to deal with and learn from than 200 people calling for blood because suddenly you're officially an idiot.

Everyking (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. As a break from past years, I am not assigning "points" for the answers, but the answers to the questions, along with other material that I find in my research, will be what my guide is based on. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

2. What originally led you to join Wikipedia? What do you do on the site on a day-to-day basis?

   I orginally started editing Wikipedia because as an Uncyclopedian who used IRC a lot I thought it would be funny to have a Wikipedia IRC cloak. I still think it's funny, but now I'm also rather proud to be a part of this crazy movement. These days I'm mostly just a reader, though I'm a lot more active on the surrounding projects.

4. What is your experience with collaborating and coming to a consensus with editors of different opinions and philosophies? What have you learned from these experiences?

   We interact with and collaborate with people of all manner of views constantly, but for the most part these differences don't actually come up. When they do, they either add to the discussion or result in conflict. When there are conflicts, ultimately someone wins, or loses. I guess the important thing, really, is to know when to step back - when it doesn't even matter.

6. Case management has been an issue in many elections, with some cases stalling for weeks with little reply, and others coming to a quickly-written proposed decision that received little support from other arbitrators due to concerns about it being one-sided. What is your familiarity with the arbitration process, and how do you believe cases should be handled? Do you plan to propose any reforms in this regard?

   I stuck my nose in a case once. It was kind of horrible. I had never before seen that many people on a single page yelling at that many other people. I don't think I've ever seen it again since. But while the process itself is kind of horrible, it's a very complicated beast and thus changing it is also a complicated process. I'm not sure how it could be improved. I'm not sure how much energy arbs are ever likely to have left over to try to change it, either, considering how stressful and exhausting the usual stuff can apparently be.

8. Several cases in past years have focused on the tension between so-called "subject experts" who know about the intricacies of the subject area and "general editors" who are familiar with the standards that are applied across Wikipedia. What are your thoughts about such issues?

   We need to get better at outreach and education, bringing in these subject experts to become more knowledgeable editors themselves. These are the people who will be most familiar with the sources, and we need them for that alone, nevermind everything else they would have to contribute.

10. In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains among the few projects (if not the only project) where the process for removal of adminship is not community-driven. What are your thoughts about how adminship is reviewed on this project, and do you think this should be changed, or are you happy with the status quo?

    The status quo seems to work for the most part. While it is indeed quite strange and not without its issues, changing it would likely solve some and cause others. There's no winning when you need to de-admin someone. There just isn't. It's painful and horrible and everyone loses, but when it's needed, it's needed.

12. Serving as a functionary (even more so as an arbitrator) often means dealing with unpleasant issues, including but not limited to helping those dealing with doxing and real-world harassment and communicating with WMF about legal issues. In addition to onwiki and offwiki harassment, functionaries have often had false accusations made against themselves, frequently in venues where they are unable to defend themselves or where the accusers are unwilling to listen to reason. What effects would both of these have on your ability to serve as an arbitrator?

    It wouldn't change much.

14. What is your familiarity with Wikimedia-wide policies, such as the CheckUser policy and the Oversight policy, as well as the Privacy policy? What is your opinion as to how Wikimedia (staff and volunteers) handles private information?

    I've run into them from time to time on other projects. Sometimes the results have been quite weird, like when it turned out we either not enough or too many checkusers or something for the stewards to help and it was just like... what? We just want to know what's up with this weird thing here. Why does it matter how many local things we have? Why do we need a local policy?

16. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to provide lasting dispute resolution in difficult cases that the community has difficulty resolving. However, of course Wikimedia is a community-driven project. To that end, what are your views regarding what should be handled by the community, and what should be handled by arbitration?

    The community handles what it can, ArbCom handles what it can't. That's why there's a thing about going through community dispute resolution channels before taking something to ArbCom, or some such.

Thank you. Rschen7754 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Isn't it true that this is just a playful candidacy no matter how you slice it?

   As long as you get the pie, yes. Unfortunately it might be possible to slice it in a way that avoids the pie.

2. Is an editor's refusal or inability to follow the reliable source criteria a behavior issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee? Why or why not?

   If it gets large enough and all normal attempts to resolve the matter fail, it certainly could be.

4. When an editor is accused of misconduct stemming from subtle behavior issues (i.e., POV pushing instead of e.g. edit warring) surrounding a content dispute, is it ever possible to evaluate their conduct without at least attempting to understand and verify the facts and sources of the underlying content dispute? Why or why not?

   I'd think such an attempt would be the first stage of verification in the first place. So... I don't think so.

6. How would you handle a group of experienced editors who came before you at arbitration if they had willfully and repeatedly removed some but not all of the conclusions of sources (which they admit are of the highest reliability) because they personally disagree with those particular conclusions, when they do not object to the other conclusions from those sources?

   Repeated wilful removal of relevant information due to personal is the issue; that they didn't remove other things doesn't change that, or even really affect it. If they can't edit particular topics without removing stuff that shouldn't be removed, then they shouldn't be editing the topics at all.

8. If an editor, when asked to provide an example of what they consider to be a high quality source on a given subject, responds with a source which was sponsored by a commercial organization with a clear conflict of interest, would you expect other editors to refer to that example when other COI issues concerning that editor and the same subject matter arise? Why or why not?

   It wouldn't be unreasonable. If it's related, it's related.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these questions. EllenCT (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. If elected into the arbitration committee, will you ensure that Wikipedians are in future permitted to edit after consuming vast amounts of Scotch to the point of being somewhere between having their head violently spinning like they are in a blender and completely comatose? I wouldn't ask, but unless the answer is "yes" or something to that effect I cannot support.

   The amount of scotch consumed is irrelevant; whether or not they can act appropriately is what matters no matter how inebriated they may or may not be.

2. When consuming Steak, how do you like it cooked, what sauce do you prefer and what side dishes? THIS IS ACTUALLY VERY IMPORTANT FOR REASONS.

   There are many ways to make steak good. I like the good ones.

2. Arbitrators do not make policy. How would you handle sweeping remedies which amount to policy change, for example the one that puts all BLP pages and LP mentions under discretionary sanctions?

   Ideally I would want to narrow down solutions to the specific problems, and if it seems a policy change is indeed required, then the proper approach seems like it would really be to send someone off to create and get consensus on a new policy through the proper channels. Nothing wrong with arbitrators making policy if they just do it right. Anyone can draft an RfC.

4. Arbitrators need a lot of time to do justice to a complex case, with request, evidence, workshop, talk pages, propose decisions, and talk pages all comprising maybe hundreds or thousands of diffs, and up to the equivalent of a short novel of text, not to mention email evidence and discussion, "the other Wiki" and background research. Do you have the time to conscientiously work on these sorts of case?

   Yes.

6. Because of the workload of Arbitration cases, it has been suggested that they should, in general, be heard by 5 or 7 of the active arbitrators, possibly with one "spare". Would you support a solution like this?

   I don't know.

8. Arbitrators need a lot of patience. I was very worried when one Arbitrator said on-wiki he had difficulty keeping his temper. Do you think you have the patience this role requires?

   If anything I have too much patience these days. And that is not necessarily a good thing.

10. Arbitrators need to be impartial and be seen to be impartial. If you became an arbitrator would you announce your opinion of the outcome of a case, or of an involved party at the request stage? Do you think Arbitrators should have the power to add any party they like to a case?

    It's entirely possible to have opinions and still approach something impartially, because expectations of the outcome tend to have little to do with the matter at hand. As for adding parties, there should always be a reason.

12. The Committee must also be seen to be impartial as a whole. If you were elected would you be willing to waive your right to bring cases for the duration of your office? If not why not?

    I don't get it. It's not possible to be entirely impartial as a whole; this is why recusing is a thing. Individual arbitrators recuse from cases when they need to, and that's good.

14. As an Arbitrator you would have access to the Checkuser right. As well as the obvious responsibility of access to private information, the right brings the power (if you have the block bit) to make effectively non-overturnable blocks, by simply labelling them as "checkuser blocks". This is because a block can be based on private information not available to mere administrators. A significant number of checkusers have used this privilege without any private information being relevant. Do you consider this something that you would do or condone, and why?

    This annoys me. It's just annoying. I don't know what to do about it, but sometimes it comes up and it annoys me.

16. The purpose of the Committee is to resolve disruptive disputes which the community cannot. On ex-Arbitrator commented that "it is not about justice and fairness". Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment, to what extent and why?

    I do agree. Resolving a matter is not the same as justice. It's not necessarily fair. A proper resolution prevents the situation from perpetuating and allows people to move on and get back to making the project better, but in doing so, those wronged may get thrown under the bus, so to speak, and those who have wronged may not necessarily be punished, either. But it's not about punishment at all. That's just not what we do.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

2. I just purchased a silicone mat for rolling pie dough. I see that they make large spachulas for lifting the dough off the mat and placing it into the dish. My girlfriend assures me that these are not necessary but it seems to me that one of these would be very helpful... What's your opinion of these devices? And I'm getting indicators of spelling errors for spachula and spatchula — how DO you spell that?

   They're probably indeed quite useful, but generally I tend to just use some cloth and a rolling pin. I once made do with a bunch of parchment paper and a cylindrical tin of salt, however. That was... less than optimal. And I believe the standard spelling is 'spatula'.

4. If you were assigning a letter grade to Arbcom for its work in 2014, what would that grade be? What was the committee's greatest success and their worst mistake?

   I dunno. I haven't actually been paying attention. I'm sure they've done fine, though. The biggest explosions I've heard about this year have all been on ANI and the like.

6. The Arbcom process is slow, generally running nearly 6 weeks from first case request to final decision. What can be done to speed up this process?

   Less people involved tends to speed things up. Being arbitrary tends to speed things up. Running around with giant hammers and hitting people with them at random tends to speed things up. Having been involved with all of these on other projects, I would advise against implementing any of them, however.

8. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?

   More pie.

Thank you for your answers. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Hi, Isarra. Last year, I asked you if you'd thought much about the "dark side" of being an arbitrator and how had you prepared. You replied with much levity as is your wont. Do you think anything has changed?

   Last year, I got it a bit wrong. People can be complete idiots and go completely overboard about things anywhere. We've had uncyclopedians lose their jobs before, and it's stupid, but sometimes stuff comes back to 'real life' and hurts us. Except this is all real life, and especially with something like this, we should only be here if we're willing to take the consequences, whatever they may be, however unfounded they may be. I want a penguin.

4. In addition - what do you believe has changed since last year that would make you a better candidate to be an arbitrator?

   I don't know that I am any better now than I was then. If anything I might be worse - as some folks have noticed, I've apparently become almost entirely inactive on the project itself. That being said, I've also become more involved in periphery stuff, including outreach, events, development and the like, which has provided useful perspective on many different issues facing the project. So don't know if this is really any worse or better.

Brilliant answers as ever. I want a penguin too. Worm^TT(talk) 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. This is about a simple, straightforward, matter relevant to most elections. Bribery. How many pies or slices of pie can we as voters expect to receive if we vote for you, who would choose the type of pie selected, and how would delivery arrangements be made?

   The plan currently is to use an experimental teleporter in order to distribute the pie. The pie amount and types will all be selected according to these forms I would like all bribees to fill out... links will be forthcoming at a later date.

4. Do you have any clear plans for arranging delivery of pie to your fellow arbitrators should you be elected, and would the amount and type of pie available vary depending on the difficulty of the case?

   Aside from re-utilising the teleporter on the off chance it proves successful, I'm afraid I do not. Planning, you see, is a very difficult problem; even coordinating between people in the same municipality presents issues, and here we need to deal with international concerns, time constraints, and even regional differences in taste. I feel that this sort of thing requires more hands-on experience before I can put forward anything concrete.

2. What is your opinion of User:Tryptofish/Draft B for ArbCom, in terms of transparency, privacy, and whether it should become part of ArbCom procedures? Thanks!

   I suppose it looks fairly reasonable. I know I've taken a similar approach with confidential stuff in the past, and whatever the case nailing down some more specific guidelines might be useful here.

2. Please take a look at a set of questions I wrote four years ago, based on my first term as an arbitrator. Please pick and answer one or more questions from that list. Provide as much reasoning as needed to allow the electorate to judge how you would respond to these and similar situations you will probably encounter if elected.

   Parties to cases post repeatedly to your talk page, and/or e-mail you and/or the mailing list
   Ignore them.
   
   Real life intervenes while you are halfway through voting on a case and you don't know when you will be able to continue
   Mention this, if needed, and then mysteriously disappear, preferably in a puff of smoke.
   
   An e-mail arrives at the mailing list requiring an 'emergency' response and you are the only arbitrator around
   Hide, pretending I'm not around either, unless there's something I can actually do about it.
   
   You fall out with a fellow arbitrator and have a big argument on the mailing list
   Pretend it never happened and proceed to treat the other person overly politely until something snaps in a horrible explosion resulting in cat gifs getting plastered everywhere and to everything and on everyone.
   
   Parties to a case make strident and repeated calls for your recusal
   If they actually manage to make a good argument before devolving into repetitive abuse, might as well oblige (hey, free excuse to just sit back and watch). Otherwise maybe make a note that it's not happening and then just ignore them.
   
   Poorly assembled ban appeals arrive at the mailing list and will require work to sort out
   Inform the senders what they need to do to do it properly or just ignore them, depending on whether or not this has happened before. They want to be unbanned, they can at least go to the trouble of showing they're serious by doing it properly.
   
   Banned sockmaster consistently denies socking and refuses to take no for an answer
   Get someone to block socks when they come up, otherwise just ignore it.
   
   You sense you are very tired/ill or not fully alert, but voting needs to be done
   I'm almost never fully alert, but if I can't even read the page properly or whatever I won't even try.
   
   You are trying to do some work on articles and someone pesters you about arbitration matters
   Ignore them until I'm done, unless I'm actually cogent enough to realise the 'articles' are stressing me out too much and I need a break anyway. In this case I'm using 'articles' as innuendo for 'refactoring the parser', however, which really is insanely stressful and if I have any sense at all I will never actually try to do it because it would be insane and pointless and insane. And really dangerous. And insane.
   
   After several months of intense arbitration work, you begin to hallucinate that you are God
   This really depends on whether they're good or bad hallucinations.

2. Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee?

   I do some, but generally currently only when someone else organises it. Since I don't currently take a very active role, I don't expect that it would change too much either way.

4. What is your favourite kind of pie?

   Good ones. Seriously, if they're good, they're good and I want them. I want them all.

6. Is shepherd's/cottage pie a real pie? (It has mashed potato instead of pastry for a lid for goodness' sake!)

   Yes.

8. What colour should the meat in a proper Melton Mowbray pork pie be?

   Purple. Like a good angel food cake.

2. I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of dispute?

   Ideally it shouldn't matter what we are - the specific views of the committee should always come after what is actually presented - but in practice it certainly can help in some situations if a member can say 'yo, what about blah' if something is just plain missing or some such. Even so, I'd rather not bring my gender or sexuality into this at this time, as if anyone seriously thinks I'd not be completely useless, I'd like it to be on account of what I could do, not what I am.

   I suppose for a bit of answer that is still fairly vague I could point out that I have been harassed over both of these things in the past, but despite this, I have never seen them come up as central to actual disputes (at least where both parties weren't idiots, which is case a lot on uncyclopedia). The thing is, when someone has to resort to bringing up gender or sexuality, generally they've already lost the argument. Similarly, with the topics of articles and whatnot, it also shouldn't matter what's what. We follow what the sources say and the BLP stuff and that's it, and if folks can't do that, that's the problem that needs resolving.