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

Isarra

Template:ACE2019 discussion

Unqualified support

Because I've recently been told I'm unqualified. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, if you're unqualified, then nobody's qualified. Which means... everyone's qualified. WHAAAAAt. -— Isarra ༆ 02:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that nobody's brought up Isarra's on-wiki background yet, so here's my take on her for any passerby voters. Isarra loves to portray herself as a pie-obsessed goofball in her ArbCom candidacies, and most tend to oppose her on that fact alone. However, she is actually an incredibly astute volunteer developer that took a failed WMF project (mw:Winter) and managed to turn it around somewhat successfully (mw:Skin:Timeless) and, despite the silliness, actually knows what she’s doing and has the trust of Wikimedians who know about the work that she does.

While it’s true that she is not an administrator on enwiki, she is trusted enough to be a global interface editor (which is a considerably high bar, in terms of trust to grant that flag). Her interactions both on Phabricator and regarding Timeless indicate to me that she knows when to joke and when to take a situation seriously, so I would trust her to take cases seriously, given her track record. I intend to support her (although I suspect it's most likely going to be a moral support). OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing above, Isarra is an incredibly skilled and thoughtful Wikimedian, and would bring a unique and valuable perspective to ArbCom. I always appreciate the joke candidacy, but it would be nice to see a serious one someday too. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it will be a The Producers situation? Regards So Why 11:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will support

From all reports competent and well-intentioned, and the jokiness of the self-nom doesn't bother me nearly as much as the prospect of having almost no women on the committee. --valereee (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that I am in support

As I look more into Isarra, the more I begin to understand their satire. We're the joke. If you look past the veneer of "joke candidate" you'll see they're one of the best candidates in the field. The satire is that many people won't; voters will at best read Isarra's statement, think they're not serious, and oppose. I actually think I did that last year. But seriously, go read through their question page. Not only is it candid, the responses show a level of thoughtfulness which would be a boon for the committee. Their response to Piotrus's standard question shows an outstanding understanding of WP:VOLUNTEER and a willingness to apply it evenhandedly: 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? Their response to Gerda's third question, while probably not what she was hoping for, shows how their work as a software maintainer will translate to the committee: 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. Their answer to Carrite's questions are compelling. Their answer to the first question shows Isarra's commitment to transparent Committee deliberations and rpactices: 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. The answer to the second question shows a resistance to hat collecting, a willingness to apply WP:IAR when it is sure to benefit the project, and a commitment to the wiki movement in meatspace. I'm honestly surprised at how competent this candidate seems and I encourage other editors to look past the gimmick and consider whether Isarra has the judgement and temperament to be a good arbitrator. I honestly think they do. Wug·a·po·des 02:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what way did suppressing the redirect when moving Draft:JujuB to Draft:Gildardo García improve Wikipedia? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page for asking obscure questions of the candidate about pet issues is thataways. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot view deleted content so there's really no way I can begin to answer that question besides WP:AGF without content being undeleted or Isarra answering that question themself. Wug·a·po·des 20:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: You never did answer my question the last time you brought this up. What all was the problem? Was it the action itself, or rather that I was the one to take the action? If the former, how does it help the project to leave a redirect when moving a nonsense title (I think they created the draft with the title being their username instead of the subject of the draft article, or some such?) to a real title when nothing is even linking to the original nonsense title to begin with, and realistically speaking, is unlikely to ever do so (especially given we don't really link to stuff in the Draft namespace anyway outside of discussing specific drafts)? If the latter, does that I now have local page mover rights mean that it would not be an issue to do the same in the future? Again, I would like to better understand what's expected here, but I need your help to do so. -— Isarra ༆ 19:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will support

I'm very happy to be throwing my support behind Isarra. Having been acquainted with her for the better part of a decade, I can state assuredly that there's nobody whom I've encountered throughout my extensive time in the wikisphere with the skills necessary to perform the important tasks of an arbitrator in a professional manner that Isarra has. Unfortunately, the statement that Isarra has made for this election as well as those she have made the previous times she has run do not nearly do her justice in showing the skills and experience that she has accumulated over her time in the wikisphere, both on the various WMF projects and MediaWiki itself as well as the Uncyclomedia projects (which include the various Uncyclopedias and Illogicopedia). Myself being an administrator on the English Uncyclopedia, as well as having been a contributor there for over eight years, I can testify firsthand as to Isarra's proficiency as an individual in a position of power. Isarra is both firm in applying the rules and understanding of those who make mistakes: in my first year as an Uncyclopedia contributor, I was blocked permanently by Isarra for abusing multiple accounts. After nearly a year and a mea culpa, Isarra allowed me back into the community, after which I have become a long-term contributor and administrator. Isarra's experience with Uncyclomedia alone is enough to warrant her a position on the arbitration committee: in 2013, she facilitated Uncyclopedia's move to an independent server in a professional manner that reflected the desire of the community at the time. Isarra was nothing but kind and receptive to feedback during this time, and it is because of Isarra's leadership during the move and since then that Uncyclopedia has been able to thrive on its independent server and become the website it is today. Isarra has hosted the Uncyclomedia projects since then, and has always been able to be reached by users who encounter problems or bugs with the website. Over the course of the past two years, we have had to deal with issues regarding rogue admins as well as harassment originating within the highest ranks of the website, and Isarra's strong leadership and firm convictions helped us to make it through those times and ensure the safety of our users. In May 2019, users on another version of Uncyclopedia voted to merge with the version hosted by Isarra, and she graciously agreed to facilitate that merge. Despite the users of that community eventually deciding to move to their own server despite the outcome of that vote, Isarra was receptive to feedback and worked tirelessly to make the merge possible. She has been doing all of this work for Uncyclomedia thankfully and for free, without receiving a single lick of money other than donations. Ultimately, Isarra understands the importance of the community and consensus to wiki sites like this one, and her skills and experience would make her an excellent member of the arbitration committee. RAGentry (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it

With Isarra herself acknowledging that she has no idea how arbitration works, plus saying "But seriously, this is why absolutely nobody should vote for me", why would anyone support? Other points raised above are fine and all, but how do they trump these fundamental issues? Banedon (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm in the same situation. I'm sure Isarra is a wonderful friend and a hilarious person and a very proficient developer, and it would be incredible if she was elected, but she has openly admitted to not understanding the process of Arbcom. If this was a developer job, sure, but this is an arbitration committee... ~SlyCooperFan1 02:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SlyCooperFan1 and Banedon, she is making jokes. Also does anyone really understand how arbcom works until they're actually on the committee? ----valereee (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, arbcom seems to makes about as much sense as the parser, or content models, or the skinning architecture, or how the codebase relates back to the RfCs directing it. Y'all really think we (devs) understand the what we're doing, either? Anyone who says they do is probably either lying or just has no clue how clueless they truly are. -— Isarra ༆ 19:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote this one for president

And it's because of the shark picture ~Zingus J. Rinkle (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]