Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Isarra/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

---

Q from SchroCat

2. You have only 300 edits in the last three years: do you think you have a firm enough grasp of policy, procedure and practice to be able to act as an Arb?

   I'd say something about being neutral and unbiased and thus being able to bring in an evidently much-needed new perspective, but honestly this has similarly became an issue on Uncyclopedia lately, in that I have no damn clue what our policies are or who anyone is anymore, and recently we had a series of incidents really blow up, partially as a result of my own lack of proper context and vetting. So I am now much more committed to being appropriately paranoid, and assure you that I will overreact*, from now on, as much as possible in order to ensure that no such situations repeat themselves.

   * If I'm paying attention in the first place and even remember.

4. Given your seemingly trite opening statement and answers to questions, do you actually want to be on ArbCom? If so, can you explain why, without being as offhand as you have been so far?

   Let's just say it can't possibly be as messy as Uncyclopedia's cabal Discord calls, which are used for everything from dealing with a wasp that got into a crat's house the other day to resolving highly sensitive cases that if they had occurred on any Wikimedia site would probably just be immediately offloaded to Trust and Safety.

Question from Thryduulf

2. Is Arbcom a bug or a feature?

   Yes.

Questions from Newslinger

2. When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?

   I would expect it to be the same as with any other disputes that wind up at arbcom. Paid editing issues become proper issue as with any other conflict of interest when not properly managed according to policy, stuff winds up at arbcom when it gets completely out of hand, and even CoI issues that might seem cut and dry can get completely out of hand depending on the editors involved. The problem here is it's people editing things, and people are what get into disputes. So much would so easily be resolved by replacing all the editors with robots.

4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?

   Security is complicated, and the main thing our 2Fa seems to be seeking to resolve is bad passwords - and as with many issues with users perhaps not exactly following best practices, is similarly subject to vulnerabilities in terms of how the users actually manage their OTP generation and the device(s) in play. Is arbcom a reasonable body to be explaining this? I sort of doubt it, but getting word out to what can be an incredibly stubborn community that 2FA is generally A Good Thing in that it at least tends to improve the situation a bit can't hurt, as long as it's also clear it's still not going to magically solve everything.

Questions from Nosebagbear

2. Do you think that having a centre-aligned contents box for your user talk page is just too edgy for the Community at this time?

   Mon, I made and am using an entire fixed-width centred skin. You want edgy, switch to Timeless. Also please tell me all the bugs you run into if you do, as I've sort of lost track of what's extant at this point and what's been resolved since the last rounds of reports.

4. Last election from philistines opposed you on account of your position on pie well, so Izno says. Do you think you can convince them otherwise this time?

   As a developer, I prefer to simply charge headlong into bad decisions rather than learn from community feedback and adjust an overall design as needed. Anything else would just be negligent.

Questions from Vermont

2. How's your day going?

   I got to bed way too late last night and now I'm trying to answer upside down on my phone from outside all of the ongoing roundtables and I have no idea what's going on. Aaaaagh conference.

4. If elected, will you support replacing the main page with deserving content?

   I may or may not vote for anything at any time.

Question from Frood

2. To what extent do you support cake in the shape of $\pi$? What about $\pi r^{2}$?

   As long as I don't have to make it, I'm all for any size, shape, or colour of delicious cake.

Question from GMG

2. How do you feel that winning an award for your sockpuppet prowess helps to prepare you for serving on Arbcom?

   The award merely serves to demonstrate my knowledge and experience in the field of advanced sockpuppettry. Through the application of machine learning and scoring tools like ORES, one day we will even move past the world of physical and metaphysical socks, and something something socks will have to get better to get around that so plaster them with wings and eyeballs, I dunno.

Questions from SashiRolls

2. Recently there have been some novel calls suggesting that disciplinary sanctions (DS) banning people from wide swaths of the encyclical should be evidence-based. How do you plan to squelch this "evidence required" heresy for the greater good of the mandarin Quackers?

   ...but I like evidence. It lets me justify and delegate the actual effort to other people, and given evidence and reasons, they so rarely complain.

4. You yourself do not appear to be a mandarin Quacker. Do you speak a little creole or do you intend to use some other means of communication once in the MobCar? (PLCs maybe?)

   I am alarmed that you would even consider this. I don't know why I'm alarmed, as I have no idea what you're talking about, but I feel it is perhaps alarming, and thus I am alarmed. Seriously, have I mentioned I'm alarmed, here? Because I'm alarmed. So alarmed.

Questions from Carrite

2. What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?

   The biggest problem with arbcom is wikipedia. The biggest problem with wikipedia is people. People tend to be a tad eeeeh. That being said, the level of transparency where it's feasible, clear records, and community involvement in process for both the cases and the selection of the arbitrators themselves are all things I consider very important, and are the sort of good practices I like to point to as something other similar bodies throughout the movement should be learning from. I can't trust a black box that appoints its own members and when there's a case all you hear about is the final decision, and usually only from the person it impacts. I can trust this, because even when it goes in totally wild directions and the decisions don't make any sense, we still have context about it. We know there was a case, we can find out if folks are being targeted and process is being used against them by (other) abusers, we can point to passed outcomes after the fact and go 'wtf' and have something happen. We know who the arbs are; they got here because the community, on some level, trusted them to be here. And as dumb as wikipedia can get, overall, I do trust that trust.

4. I just figured out earlier this year that you're not a joke candidate, even though your candidacies are in-jokes — you're a serious Wikimedia political player of sorts. So as much as I want to ask you a question about pie, let me first ask you something serious... You're probably not going to win a seat this year, when you could have, because you are not an Administrator. Why have you not run the gauntlet at RFA?

   I've been meaning to, but honestly I think I just keep being too busy every time march/april rolls around. This year I was representing my regional user group at the affiliates conference, last year I was working, I'm sure I've just completely forgotten a few times. And let's face it, the only practical reasons I'd have for it seem to largely involve BJAODN - for everything else I know enough admins to just badger one at the time, or I'll just IAR and do whatever myself even if I don't technically have local clearance to, uh, do it. Which has admittedly led to some strange comments on meta, and some strange other user groups being added here in particular...

6. Now your obligatory pie question... "Shortening" is any fat which is solid at room temperature that is added to dough to make it flaky... Do you accept that axiom? So why is butter not considered "shortening"? Or is butter a shortening that gets short shrift? I mean, really, what so special about hydrogenated cotton seed fat? Which of those would you rather eat? It strikes me as a great injustice to butter manufacturers...

   Vegetable shortening is disgusting and unhealthy, and given the marketing that went on around deploying it, came to be pretty much the only thing 'shortening' was taken to mean. I think really it's just that those with actual standards had to make the distinction to clarify that no, butter isn't that, it's better than that. Lard too. Most animal fats are actually fine, as long as the animal was eating things that are decent. Don't use bear fat.

Thank you. And special thanks for not lending your culinary gravitas to the big bear fat trend in foodie circles. Slaughtering bears for flaky tart crust is simply wrong. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Question from WereSpielChequers

2. Obligatory pi related question. When using the first few digits of Pi as a keypad number, such as for entrance to the Science department; Is it better to round up or simply truncate?

   Depends on how many digits, how many digits change as a result, how secure you want the system to be...

4. Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).

   I can't think of any. Definitely given folks indefinite blocks without telling them why, but even then you at least want to have something somewhere properly documenting what the ban was for so you don't wind up with some poor sap unblocking your LTA ten years later because they can't figure out what was such a big deal, and before you know it you've got a repeat of everything that happened in the first place, but worse.

   Thanks, yes an indef block is slightly different, because sometimes the assumption is that they are never coming back, or at least not under that user name. ϢereSpielChequers 17:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions from Collect

2. Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?

   I don't know! That sounds complicated. How personal is personally involved? What sort of facts are we talking about? How related is related? Like, by my logic I don't even edit this site so I'm not likely to be involved with anything relating to any case, so I'd never have to recuse myself, and that sounds horrifying! But obviously your actual arbs do edit the site. They're, like, actual active users and stuff, right? They probably run into all sorts of things and all sorts of people and how much do they have to trip over something that turns up as a case for it to be an issue?

4. Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?

   I mean, within reason. If they're just completely offline for a few days it'd be a bit unreasonable to expect them to immediately respond. But on the other hand there are limits for a reason, and how much responding is even needed with a lot of things? Either they did something or they didn't, right? Or are we talking unsubstantiable accusations, here? That's a bit hairy anyway.

6. When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?

   Eh.

Question from Gerda

2. I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. If you had been an arb then, what might you have replied, and which of the remedies under 2 would you have supported?

   Well, the original action taken certainly was out of process, and my understanding is that this was like 90% of the problem (the other 10% involving something along the lines of it just not making sense, nobody having context with which to make sense of it, etc), so I am glad it finally wound up at arbcom and got sorted locally. As for what remedies I might have supported myself, I don't know because I haven't read up on all the crap that came out of that (let alone that never did come out because confidential materials etc whatever), and you can't make me. Unless you do. Uh. Don't do that.

4. No, I won't make you read you "all the crap" ;) - Please read remedy 2a and check if that might work for you. Try to find it yourself on the project page of the talk where I left my comment. As an arb, you will have to find your way in the sort of documents arbcom makes.

   Again, I agree with you that the action was out of process, however lacking the full context, I cannot say if I would agree straight reverting it would be in order either.

6. Most of the arbs did not thinks so, but the two I like best were a minority who thought it was in order. Too bad that the user for whom I'd have voted without questions died a year ago. See my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

   I just can't say what the right thing at that point would be without proper context. It's like something that comes up a lot when maintaining open source software: you just ignore a task you're not prioritising until someone else submits a patch, and then you have to actually give it a proper review and figure out what to do with it. Maybe the patch is good, maybe it's not even the right approach at all, maybe it's the right idea but just needs fixes, but now that it's in front of you, you gotta deal with it - and in this case it was akin to the even worse situation where someone else entirely had even gone ahead and merged it without asking first. But it still needs review. Generally better to give it that review before acting on it, one way or the other, however.
   
   And I'm sorry to hear that.

8. If you can't see the proper context, you can give up, or look at what you can see. I - not knowing much more about you than your last answers here - would like to know how deep you look and what you see. I have an easy one for you, but you can also say waste of time ;) - Please describe what happens in this diff (which was given as an example, in the vote to ban a friend of mine.)
   Did you look up his article? ... his advice that kept me on Wikipedia? ... his 10 rules?

   The diff looks like a pretty straight forward move putting the infobox at the top of the page, as most people would expect, plus some minor fixes and a typo that was quickly fixed, but I'm also not really sure what I'm supposed to be looking up, or for. Which person are you referring to with your subsequent questions? Is the advice in question important to you that I read it too? If so, why the hoops?

10. You described the edit well. I was rather horrified when an arb qualified the edit as a reason to ban a user, which was the majority to ban him then. The night was rather awful.
    
    The person I referred to is still the great SBHB we talked about, the user for whom I would voted without a question, link above, smiling on my talk (all year), advice (originally to another of my friends who was banned) below the smile, 10 rules when you click on the advice, his article when you click on his name. - Today, I have more shocking protest on my talk as well, on top. Nice talking to you, but I probably found 11 arbs to vote fore.

    Ah, thanks for clarifying. It's always... interesting.

Questions from Caker18

2. Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?

   Does banning everyone count? Mind you, usually I just yell at folks to knock it off and then stop paying attention. I'm not sure that really counts as mediation either.

Question from SQL

2. Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?

   Man, even off Wikipedia I can't think of any I'm proud of my part in. Horrified, yes. Proud? No. On the other hand, it's not like I tend to recall things that actually worked out as much to begin with. It worked. It's done. Task closed, resolved, fixed. Just do the same again next time and don't worry about it.

Question from Praxidicae

2. What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?

   It is... perhaps unwise, but as long as sufficient care is taken, I don't necessarily see any particular issue with it if folks really want to. Sometimes just talking to people is a good way to bring them around, clear things up, generally improve the nature of the situation. Maybe even get them to stop doing it, and whatnot. Also let's face it, care should generally be taken with these things regardless since we often don't actually know who people are, and whatnot. Like... I don't think you were that WO person I was talking to the other day, but for all I know...

Question from Piotrus

2. Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [1]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?

   Are you planning to pay the arbs? If not, then either get used to only ever having people without jobs/families/lives... or just accept that folks won't always be around. Why is that an issue? Isn't the whole point of having this many seats such that only a set number need to actually show up for any given thing, thus allowing everyone some amount of flexibility for something that is, ultimately, a hobby performed in their free time?

Question from Gadfium

2. In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run." What will you do if you're not elected?

   Nothing! Because my plan is to do nothing regardless! Probably. I mean, at some point I'm going to need to get back to maintaining stuff, and there's some templates and gadgets here, even, that I've been meaning to fix... but all this can happen after the margaritas on the beach, right? I need my margaritas on the beach! I was semi-half-sort-of-maybe promised margaritas on the beach!

Question from Wugapodes

2. What are your thoughts on codes of conduct in FOSS communities? Do you think a similar document would be effective in a wiki community? Why?

   I think... such codes of conduct do in many cases seek to resolve some very real problems, but depending on how well-implemented and managed they are, they may or may not serve to actually achieve anything useful (abusers simply go around them, find what isn't covered, or find that they're not actually enforced) or may even serve to make things worse (by simply adding more tools for abusers to use against their targets). Ultimately, it's up to any given community to manage itself and ensure that it is something that everyone involved in it even wants to be a part of, and to that end, this project already has guidelines, policies, and workflows for handling conduct in much the same way as a code of conduct would. Either of these are tools we can use, but it remains up to us as community to ensure people actually heed these policies and whatnot, and to find and resolve any holes in what they cover.

4. Many people have mentioned pi(e)s on this page. How many pies are there, expressed in tau?

   So I'm selling these fine leather jackets...

Question from Volunteer Marek

2. Apologies for late question. There has always been a lot of complaints about lack of communication and transparency with regards to the committee. While this issue is not new, it has never really been adequately addressed, aside from the ever presented hackneyed promises during election time. The complaints have been particularly vociferous recently. Please see this proposal and express your opinion on it. Would you support something like it (even if not exactly in this form) when on ArbCom? I might vote for you anyway.

   I'm sure we could get some damn useless minutes out of any body here. Maybe I should start insisting the uncyc discord calls publish minutes.

Question from Pythoncoder

2. You have not discussed baseball at all as part of your campaign, despite it being a central pillar of your candidacy last year. Have your opinions on baseball and its relevance to Wikipedia changed at all since this time in 2018?

   I realised later that I had simply failed to adequately represent the baseball platform, and thus it was best to step back from it entirely rather than try again prematurely. Such references require a finesse to fully play out that I just do not have at the moment.

Question from Banedon

2. There's a case request today. [2] Would you accept it?

   Well, I took a moment to just laugh my arse off, because seriously, portals, but then I realised it wasn't actually that funny, and really it only seemed particularly funny to me because it reminded me of the stories I'd been hearing about portals since back when I first joined wikipedia. So, what in tarnation, how long has this been going on? If y'all can't sort this out normally it's still causing conflict in $currentyear, maybe it really does need arbcom...
   
   Er, to actually answer the question, I don't rightly know. I think I'd need a better understanding what exactly the distinction is between a case and... other possible actions to really say, and if I had to say, that's basically my answer: I wouldn't accept. I wouldn't decline, I wouldn't recuse. If anything I'd disappear for a bit trying to figure out what really would make the most sense here, and then come back just in time to find out I evidently completely misunderstood the entire thing and everyone else has taken it in another direction entirely.

Q from Discuss-Dubious (t/c)

2. It interesting that you’re a developer of the software. Do you believe that having more people with development experience (aside from yourself, of course) would be a useful skill for the AC to have access to? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

   Really, I would hope that the committee would simply reach out as needed should something come up where technical knowledge or context is particular important and get the information from those who are more familiar with the area as it comes up. I would hope this would apply to any such specific knowledge area or context. It shouldn't matter if there's folks for every possible angle actually on the committee; those people need to be the ones who are able to handle confidential information and difficult scenarios in a way in which they can be properly resolved.

Question from Pinkd56

2. What are your thoughts on the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre?

   Since you didn't specify which Norwich, I'm going to assume you mean Norwich, Ontario, because I prefer its pronunciation. It doesn't seem so... french as the english one, and also rhymes better. And it seems like a really nice town. Pretty, well laid-out, and eminently walkable (or at least bikeable or... something, depending on where you're coming from, and how spiteful the weather wants to be).

Question from Josve05a

2. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?^{*
   *} I've been informed that woodchuck is another term for a groundhog, so that asks the questions: "How much ground could a groundhog hog if a groundhog could hog ground?^{[at 2:22]}

   A woodchuck would chuck no amount of wood since a woodchuck can't chuck wood.^[1] As for groundhogs, they're all underground, so that's a lot harder to say.

4. What if she'd been eating pie?

   I hope you're not implying pie eating and wood chucking are activities that go together... because if you try it, I expect you will find the results to be quite catastrophic. Even eating pie while others engage in the chucking of wood can oft prove rather dangerous, for wood is a fickle flyer and does not like to go where even the most experienced of chuckers intend.