Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Isarra/Questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

1. While I understand you are not running on a pie platform this year, what is your position on pastries as a whole? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   If this is some suggestion of an attempt to bribe me, I'll have you know I am quite unbribeable. Which is to say I will totally take your bribe, and then totally forget what I was supposed to do with it. Unless it's coffee. That might work.

1. Goddammit, Pie Lady, you've gotta answer this... I find myself liking crust less and less as I get older. Is this a reason to get another dog? Thank you for running, and I really, really mean that. Carrite (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Absolutely not. Getting another dog should be the only reason you ever need to get another dog; the real question is really only do you have some reason not to get another dog? Such as, but not necessarily limited to, insufficient pie crust to give to said another dog.

Thank you for your answer. Carrite (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Does the ultimate authority for changing the user interface of English Wikipedia rest with the editing community, or the Wikimedia Foundation? Do you see the Arbitration Committee playing a role in arbitrating any possible disputes on this subject? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Personally, I believe the ultimate authority when it comes to the front end interfaces should rest with me, as I know better than everyone, especially the people actually using it on a day-to-day basis and creating and maintaining the very projects that give the software, and thus these interfaces, their very purpose. Don't be ridiculous.

   But seriously, just do a vote if there's a problem. We all love votes, and apparently they work pretty well for supporting random changes on phab/gerrit, so whatever the source of the issue is, we can probably resolve it by... resolving it. A demonstrated consensus does wonders for unblocking things.

2. In your own words, please explain why the infield fly rule exists. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't actually know anything about baseball, so I'm just going to link to the same wikipedia article you just did as my answer.

1. I noticed that you did not participate in this RfC asking 'Should the "repetitive usage" of the term "fuck off" by an editor targeted at other editors be considered "sanctionable"?’  Were you aware of this RfC with hundreds of respondents? If so, is there a reason why you did not weigh in?

   Naw. I don't generally follow RfCs anywhere unless they amuse me. That one's just baffling.

2. If you had weighed in, what would your answer have been?

   I seriously wouldn't have. It appears to have been an unactionable meta discussion about something that should already have been well established both on this project specifically as well as within the wider movement. I genuinely do not understand how this apparently became a question again, nor what the intended impact was supposed to be, though I suppose I am glad that it evidently reaffirmed that civility is... important? It... did, right?

3. Is it okay to say 'fuck off' in anger to other editors?

   Absolutely not. Giving in to anger is giving into the Dark Side, and we all know that's bad. We saw the prequels. We don't want more prequels, do we?

4. Is it okay to say 'fuck off’ to another editor in a dispute over content or when one believes the other editor to be breaking Wikipedia rules?

   It's not exactly preferable or particularly productive, but... eh. Ask them to stop if it becomes a problem. Remove them from the project if they don't. Wikipedia has plenty of editors.

5. What is your opinion about use of ad hominems?

   It's a useful method for someone to clearly communicate that they don't have anything meaningful to say and can thus be safely ignored.

6. Is it acceptable to use pejorative labels of other editors such as climate-change-denier, anti-vaxxer, flat-earther, etc., (especially without diffs) to discredit them in a dispute that has nothing to do with the topic under consideration?

   I'll accept it. As a reason to laugh at the person doing it, since they're really just discrediting themselves at that point.

1. Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?

   I bloody well hope not. But then again for it to get to that point it generally means everything else has failed, so... still naw. Maybe everything else failed because the problem wasn't even what everyone thought in the first place! Hmm?!

2. If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?

   Good question. Probably depends on the specifics - how they approach that editor in so doing, if it's fairly standard criticism, if others agree with it in general... I dunno.

3. Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?

   Allowing folks proper time to respond to all of it makes sense to me, within reason. You do need some limit, or there's folks who will be apt to take advantage and just try to wait out the entire thing until everyone gets tired of it (hi), but especially if they actually mention it'll take time, ask for it, etc, it should be doable to accomodate for the most part, and would be kind of rude not to. Otherwise you may as well just skip right to the bans.

1. Since you are busy on Uncyclopedia, I wonder if I could get your opinion on this, this and this and whether or not you think attempting to name-drop Oscar Wilde as often as possible in Wikipedia articles should be encouraged?

   As long as it actually makes sense in the articles in question, as appears to be the case with your edits, I don't see an issue with doing it. Encouraging it, on the other hand, could get iffy - newer editors in particular may not have your discretion and ability to effectively distinguish between where it actually adds to an article and where it's too tangential, even if they do add it in good faith.

1. Other than having the adequate technical skills and knowledge required, and having the level of experience consistent with being granted the role(s), what other specific areas, aspects, skills, and/or traits would you look for and personally want to see in a candidate who is applying to be appointed as a CheckUser or Oversighter? What specific areas (outside of knowledge and skill, experience) in an otherwise-good candidate would cause you to halt, make a complete about-face, and oppose their candidacy for Checkuser or Oversighter if you were to see or find it?

   I would expect demonstrated good judgement in general and the ability to take criticism well and learn from their mistakes. Not just that they can usually come to the right decision on their own, but that they're not afraid to and know when to ask for help, as well, or to take it after the fact if need be. Basically, the exact opposite of the average Uncyclopedia admin.

   Or maybe not, since we just give all admins checkuser rights there, and according to the logs they do seem to be using it sensibly. Odd.

1. How can Wikipedia better communicate its processes to outsiders?

   Start by communicating them better to insiders, and make them less complicated to begin with. I joined years ago, was told stories of a Wikipedia years before that that was actually simple and straightforward, and promptly gave up trying to keep up with any of it.

Thank you. feminist (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Certain genres of comedy, such as satire, black comedy and absurd humour, can raise social awareness and be a vehicle for change. I have asked a series of questions of other candidates, which you may also consider to be addressed to you by this. Alternatively, you could give me your angle on pi?

   Pi is not an angle.

1. Discussions within, and regarding, the Arbitration Committee proceedings are already seen as obtuse and self-referential. I fear that your platform of encouraging increased baseball related content within case requests would only increase this trend. Could you reassure the community on this important point?

   It is intended as satire of the fact that the whole thing is a giant mess. Lose the ridiculous process and just call it what it is - a (hopefully trusted) admin cabal that in particular handles a lot of sensitive information and deescalation behind the scenes. For the rest of it, have some votes. Run some RfCs. Vote someone into adminship, vote them out. Vote them in again. Vote to ban them forever, except for that one sock they run only when they're drunk. That one's okay. They can keep contributing as that. Anything goes if there's consensus, right?

Thank you for running for the hardest and most thankless job on the project. I am rehashing most of my 2015 questions because I don't think that these issues have been resolved over the past three years. Enjoy!

1. What are your standards for banning someone from the project compared to a topic ban or some lesser sanction?

   Frankly, I don't get it. Either they can (learn to) behave themselves, or not. How often does it actually come up that a person can only not behave themself in one specific area, or with one specific user, but is totally fine everywhere else? Even with CoIs, if they can't figure out how to properly do stuff in/self-regulate and avoid the CoI area, they're probably not going to do so well elsewhere, either.

   Disclaimer: As an Uncyclopedian, I think banning everyone and deleting everything are great solutions to pretty much every problem. But if warnings/coaching fail, they fail. We should just move on.

2. Nearly every case involves violations of the civility policy in some way, shape, or form. At one time, a remedy called a "Civility Parole" existed but it fell out of vogue. Today, the only tools in the current Arbitrator's toolboxes to deal with civility issues are interaction bans, topic bans, and site bans. What new and creative ways would you bring to the table to solve this problem?

   I recommend we force them to use only the mobile interface (or any other random thing that needs testing) until they behave. Not let them sign their posts. Prevent them from even locating talkpage and various other special pages. Take away all the site tools. Require them to submit five useful bug/feedback reports about their experience.

   Or just ban everyone. Admit it, that's a great tool.

3. Do you believe that the Super Mario Problem exists? How would you fix it?

   The goal should be simple - prevent the problematic bahaviour from continuing. So the question is really only what will actually do that? Would removing the admin tools without banning them entirely resolve the problem in the case in question? If so, then that should be sufficient. If the only way would be to ban them, then of course they should be banned. People shouldn't lose sight of this regardless of who they're dealing with.

4. Do you see value in Admonishments and Warnings as remedies at the end of a case?

   Unless they're actually new ones that haven't already been communicated in some way along the entire process to get the case to and through arbcom, not really.

1. Does the workshop serve as a useful portion of a case?

   What, in relation to baseball? I got nothing.

1. Why are there no left-handed-throwing, pie-eating catchers in the National Hockey League? Please show your work.

   They've moved onto curling.

1. Do you have the time and patience necessary to devote to this highly taxing responsibility, and by that I mean not judging an editor based on preconceived notions without careful examination of the case or simply agreeing with aspersions cast by opposing editors you may know and trust without personally investigating the diffs in the context the challenged editor intended, or waiting until other arbs have posted their conclusions and simply agreeing in an effort to avoid making waves? My primary concern is that some arbs are accepting the position when it’s quite obvious they neither have the time nor the patience required to actually read the diffs provided as evidence to make sure they were presented in the context originally intended by the challenged editor.

   What is this 'time' you speak of? A type of sandwich?

1. Are you willing to recuse yourself from an arb case involving an editor (either filer or filed against) with whom you have adamantly opposed in a prior argument or whose ideology you view unfavorably?

   I have no idea, as I don't actually know who anyone on this project is in the first place, and pretty much every dispute I've had recently that even registered as a dispute at all seemed to on some level concern internal WMF politics... how about, if y'all are insane enough to elect me, I just make some sort of promise to recuse from everything involving things I don't understand.

2. If you get the answers right, you’ll never run out of pies. Are you ok with that?

   I think I have already made my stance on this matter clear.

1. On your user page, I learned that you were an eggplant. At the Genderdesk (which anyone can google), I read that you are "exactly the generic rank-and-file person you would want on a jury." So which is it? Are we all eggplants now, or are you just a particularly good egg? (Disclosure: I'm leaning toward voting a straight "no" ticket because of my experiences with the MocBar (with no offense intended to anyone in particular). If you think that would be dumb, I'd love to hear a πι-θι reason why.)

   I've been accused of what, now? I assure you, I would never be allowed on a jury, for several reasons. Do whatever floats your goat, though.

1. How will you continue to improve mobile access to Wikipedia, especially devices with Android Pie?

   By getting back to work. This is me getting back to work. Right now. Back to work. Yup.

2. Will you recuse yourself in cases involving developers?

   As much as I would asbolutely love to, it tends to help to have people familiar with the context when sorting out issues, as long as they're not too close to said issues.

3. What is a good amount of Sabremetrics to use in a case?

   As much as you can get away with. Always. This applies to all things, always.

4. Is a hot dog a sandwich, and will that type of argument be used in cases involving paid editing?

   Of course it is a sandwich; it is a construct of one or more objects sandwiching another. I would absolutely expect nitpicking over wording to also come up in things involving paid editing as well, but I couldn't say to what effect.

1. If there was a block appeal to ArbCom by email for an indefinitely blocked user for spamming or BLP violations, and you were the one to reply to the user, how would you handle it? Would you discuss the block on the list first?

   Oddly those are possibly two things I might actually know how to handle/respond to, but given that I'm not an admin here, I'd still prefer to let someone who is handle it regardless.

2. Can you provide one diff of a well reasoned argument where you disagreed with the majority and took an unpopular view? The more recent, the more unpopular, the better.

   To put it bluntly, no. The more recent, and the more unpopular, the less comfortable I feel linking to it here. Many of the issues behind them remain unresolved, or still have weight hanging on them in other ways, so to draw unnecessary attention to these already heated and potentially even painful discussions just seems unwise.

3. Are you going to read each and every ArbCom email that comes across your desk?

   That sounds excessive.

4. Admin socking is a rare area ArbCom has the remit to deal with. If your brought a case of admin socking, are you willing to go through the investigatory process and potentially vote to desysop an admin? Especially if your met with silence (or a lack of a defense) from the admin?

   The investigation is the fun part. You get to try to dig into how far it goes, and piece together what and why, and sometimes it all comes together... and sometimes you get interrupted two hours in discovering you've been deopped and blocked yourself because someone else entirely was high on mushrooms. And then you have to remember the password for your own admin sock to fix it, and that's no fun at all. (But my admin sock was totally duly voted in, so that's okay.)

5. How familiar are you with the privacy policy and access to non-public data policy? What is one part you find interesting about one of them and why?

   I feel like I shouldn't answer this question in case at some point I really have signed documents attesting to what the answer to this question should be. Let's just say that if something specific comes up, I will reference the relevant sections of the relevant documents as needed.

Thank you in advance for your answers to my long set of questions. I ask these questions based on my experience as an Arbitrator. The answers may not be as clear cut as you think. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Pick any recent case. Was there anything you'd have done differently compared to the current Arbcom? Any motion or finding of fact or whatever you'd have voted against the majority?

   I did some very brief looking at recent ones, and I've actually got nothing. Even the somewhat bonkers Civility enforcement clarification that introduced me to arbcom in the first place seemed to largely make sense in the end, as I recall. This isn't to say it wouldn't happen, but I'm not going to keep looking for things to disagree with right now. They show up enough unwanted.

1. Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?

   Maybe. Are you saying I should?

   I don't tell people what to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps not. Lacking the overall context, I would say the points seem quite reasonable. -— Isarra ༆ 07:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   I voted, but might change. Some asked what I wanted to know, and I didn't help because finding out something is one of the qualities I want in an arb. I thought the question was clear enough: could you be convinced by arguments to decline a case which almost all other arbs already accepted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Okay, that... wasn't clear at all, at least to me. Bear in mind, though, that I actually hit my head pretty badly when I fell down those stairs, and it seems I'm still recovering, as I was having some difficulty even parsing the entirety of Opabinia regalis' statement there, let alone the context and meaning within the proceedings themselves. Sorry about that.

   This sort of thing comes up a lot on bug discussions, though - that no matter how many folks have said something, or who they were, there are issues that might be raised after/that they did not consider that can and should be weighed against, and potentially, over all of what has already been said. Security concerns that override usability, design concerns that override maintenance complexity, because they're important enough in practice to warrant at least stepping back and reconsidering the whole thing. And from what I've seen, not just coming up with these or realising they actually matter, but especially effectively presenting the argument for them, explaining why they matter, weighing them against the other issues in a way that doesn't downplay any of the other stakeholders involved, etc... is very difficult. We have a few folks who are actually genuinely good at it, and I am not one of them. -— Isarra ༆ 10:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you, understand, I think, and your brain seems to work fine ;) - I try to ask a question that is easy to ask but has facets, which worked from 2014. (In 2013, still hurting from arbitration, I asked 3.) - Best wishes for recovery! - "Stepping back and reconsidering" is a great step which takes matturity, - thank you for the phrase, - English is not my first language, I collect them, DYK? I saw that one of the guides whom I respect a lot votes for you, did you see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Aye, and thanks. Part of the issue with these kinds of questions for me is I probably take some things for granted that might actually be unusual here, and visa versa, though, as this is not my main project. Heh. -— Isarra ༆ 18:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. With the rise of far-right and hate groups online, are you concerned that editors espousing such beliefs may try (or are already attempting) to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda? Why or why not? If yes, what role do you think ArbCom could play in counteracting their influence on Wikipedia? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   The project has had PoV-pushers from the start. I don't really see how this is any different from any other random group that might be trying to push for a particular angle, or how arbcom would get involved any more here than any other such case, unless the specifics actually get weirdly complicated for some reason. But at that point it's still not apt to be the content that's the issue, rather how people are handling it.

1. What is your opinion on the essay WP:CPUSH, and do you think ArbCom should take special care in handling the kind of cases it is describing in the future?

   Raises some important points. How polite someone is really should not matter if their behaviour is otherwise disruptive and they do not stop doing this disruptive behaviour even after being specifically asked to stop. Disruptive is disruptive.

   That said, yes, absolutely - special care should be taken to avoid being... too taken in by a person's manner, rather than the content of what they are actually doing. It is possible to become biased toward someone who is being more polite over others who are being much less so even when the otherwise polite person's other behaviour is ultimately the heart of the problem, and having done this myself I will say that that is a trap that feels very, very silly to have fallen into in retrospect. But it's also not something that should necessarily be assumed, either - sometimes face value is correct as well.

2. Do you agree with this definition of "hounding", and the additional comment DGG left during ArbCom's !voting on it, particularly as it may relate to concerns over another editor's ability to properly read and interpret or concerns that an editor who has plagiarized a lot of text before may do so again? (Please note that this does not relate especially to my specific ArbCom case, nor to anyone involved in it; I just really like the definition as it is clearer than the one that's currently at WP:HOUND, and DGG's comment especially was something that honestly I would have liked to see enshrined in the final decision, and perhaps in any future statements ArbCom may make on the issue.)

   Seems reasonable to me. I might add a note about that even in good faith it can become a problem, though, and that users should also be open to or even solicit feedback from third parties if there's doubt. Any time there's issue with content contributions of such a serious nature, I would think that would indeed be valid cause to go through all of a user's contributions in order to ensure that any other incidents can also be resolved. Not hounding unless the person doing it otherwise makes it thus.

1. From reading your statement and your answers to several of the questions here, it looks like there is an inside joke to your candidacy. For those of us not privy to the joke, could you summarize why we should vote for you?

   You shouldn't vote for me. I am somewhat concerned that there appears to be some ambiguity on this matter.

2. Could you discuss your general philosophy toward enforcing our rules on undisclosed paid editing? Another candidate has said that our rules on UPE are weak, but the terms of use are quite specific: UPE is prohibited. What level of "proof" is required before you'd ban somebody for paid editing? Do admins need to follow these rules, or should they be held to a higher standard?

   If the rules are clear, they should also have a clear standard as to what meets them for the purposes of enforcement, with discussion happening as to how to apply them in specific cases as needed. And of course admins should follow the same rules as everyone else. This isn't Uncyclopedia.

3. This summer I sent a private complaint to arbcom about an administrator who had very obviously inserted material from one of his employer's press releases into the article about the company without making a COI or Paid Editing disclosure. The arbcom ruling was that the admin was not paid editor, but had a conflict of interest. He was not required to declare the COI. I was not informed about how the proceedings were being conducted, or who actually voted on the decision, or why the admin was not considered to be a paid editor, or even why he did not have to declare his COI. I was informed in a very short email signed by a single arb when the decision had been made, but there was very little information in the email. My request for clarification didn't result in any clarification. I understand you can't comment on the case itself, but can you comment on how such a case should be conducted?

   There is a specific page for requesting clarification and amendments on cases. If you have a clarification request that merits public response and consideration, I recommend using that.

1. If you are not running on a pie platform, then what about a pi platform? What's your opinion on pi? Is it a good number?

   It is an irrational number. Is irrationality good? Perspective is all a matter of what you define.

1. Have you read this academic paper on ArbCom? Anything you agree/disagree/find interesting? (Disclaimer: I am the paper's author. I am not looking for pats on the back, but I am genuinely curious if you heard of it, read it, and what do you think of it; feel free to be critical of it, I am interested in your honest opinion on whether such research is useful, not in having my ego stroked). PS. If you reply here please WP:ECHO me back. TIA. PPS. You can access the paper in Sci-Hub. Do let me know if you have any trouble using that platform.

   As the paper is not available to me, I shall not comment.

1. Isarra, your contributions on other wikis are impressive, but why do you want to run for ArbCom on specifically the English Wikipedia? Thanks in advance!

   Whyever would I choose this project, you mean? Because this project is the most ridiculous. It is the most overly serious. It is the most fertile ground for an exercise in the utterly absurd. Because I can.

That response is so beautiful I want to cry. Hdjensofjfnen (♪ Oh, can I get a connection? Alternatively, trout me.) 04:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Why do you want to become an ArbCom arbitrator?

   For great justice.

2. What is ArbCom useful for?

   Making drama boring and clinical by sectioning out everyone's statements and handling such that those involved no longer have a format available to them in which they can easily yell at each other, in order that the underlying issues might finally be resolved by an uninvolved entire group of admins making a binding decision (or five).

3. What is expected from an ArbCom member to do? What shouldn't do?

   According to WP:ARBCOM, they are expected to 'conduct the Wikipedia arbitration process' in order to 'resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite'. Further specifics are also documented further down the page and throughout the project.

   They probably shouldn't go running down the street naked wielding a fully decorated christmas tree.

4. If you are elected, what would you do in the hypothetical case you find me and some other editors edit warring in article Donald Trump? Do you think would be necessary to open a case in ArbCom? Why?

   If someone submitted a case request, the necessity of opening it would depend on the request itself, the statements provided, and the context that led up to the request in the first place. I wouldn't do anything until that request is submitted, however. I might not do anything after, either.

1. Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Monster Raving Loony Party?

   Well, no, but I considered joining Apathy in Action at one point. I don't think I ever actually got around to it.

2. Should Robert Mueller be fired to prevent him proving that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin colluded to suppress all evidence of your Pie candidacy in previous Arbcom elections?

   That sounds very convoluted and politicky. I'd rather bathe in paste.

3. Should all Arbcom candidates be obliged to swear that they believe in Jimbo's proven divinity?

   Again, I'd rather bathe in paste.

4. What sanctions should Arbcom impose on you for gross incivility towards your supporters, given that you have stated that they would be insane to elect you?

   Where did I say this?

   "if y'all are insane enough to elect me" (I quote from your answer to the 2nd of Atsme's two Questions 1, tho admittedly "y'all" might not necessarily refer to any of your supporters, especially if all those who voted for you believed that their name was Baldrick and that their vote for you was all part of a cunning plan to prevent you being elected) Tlhslobus (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, very well. But an apology should be sufficient, even then. Sanctions are for persistent issues. -— Isarra ༆ 07:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, Isarra, but I'm glad to see that your edit description makes it clear that you won't be apologising, as my inner sadist has always wanted to see the Supreme Cabal imposing its ultimate punishment (Oops, somebody forgot there are no punishments in Wikipedia ) its ultimate sanction. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5. In view of your fickle desertion of Pie in favor of Baseball, and, even more worryingly, given that some of your previous answers appear deplorably sane, how can your supporters be sure that they are voting for a genuine and trustworthy loony?

   In a world of loons, who is the true loony, the overt loony who stands against the tide, or the sweeping forests of all those who sit in the bushes sipping their kegs? Relatedly, actually stand against the tide if you're going to do that. Don't try to jump over it. In my experience, this does not end well, unless it's a really low tide.

   In answer to your above question, some might say that in a world of loons, the true loon goes along with the tide of his or her fellow loons, and sits and sips in the bushes with them, while others might agree with Jean Baptiste Rousseau (at least according to 37 Days) that to be wise when everybody else is mad is itself a form of madness, and that the true loon is therefore he or she who stands against the tide and/or tries to jump over it, especially if it isn't low. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. How do you plan to enforce your every whim on your fellow, albeit inferior, arbitrators (who may share different pie-related attitudes)

   I shall unfurl like a toaster first emerging from its box in the quietest moment of the softest spring. Building upon a foundation of good sense and trickling madness, I will grow into proceedings like a spider plant, overreaching at every pot, and yet there, always there. Silent. Grasping. Growing. Until the first frost of february cuts me down to ashes.

2. How can we remove the last shreds of decency from RfA?

   Wait until April 1st. It happens on its own.

1. If you are elected, will you continue to be moderately-to-severely funny, or will the dysfunction and futility of the endeavor crush you and usher in a decade of sadness and regret, like Will Smith after Seven Pounds?^[1]

   If you think this is a futile endeavour into dysfunctionality, you clearly have not seen what goes on in the discussions and work surrounding MediaWiki skinning. Which is usually nothing, in practice, because everyone's so busy avoiding it, but when it does, it's almost always a giant mess, on top of a giant mess, which I should probably stop talking about now as I'm supposed to be some sort of professional or something. So, ah, I mean, things happen, and we produce stuff, and stuff happens. Yes. Good.

2. If you are elected, other than the main page, which pages would you delete?

   As you well know, administrators cannot delete the main page. I would need to use some other tools to do that, and thus any election here would only be an espoused reason for it, and not what would enable me to actually do it. Now I kinda want to CSD all my incriminating userpages, though.

   
   I hope you will entertain some followup questions:
   
   

3. What is your response to these ridiculous, unsubstantiated rumors of some kind of so-called "Russian involvement" in your campaign?

   Без комментариев.

4. Вы закончили свое задание? Сообщите «Матушке Гуся».

   Нет.

Thank you very much for your time. _{Остерегайтесь Лоси и Белка} Levivich (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the past, the Arbitration Committee's role in dispute resolution had been described as "break[ing] the back[s]" of disputes the community is unable to resolve. Sometimes, this involved taking actions unpopular with the community or actions that were criticized as "draconian". More recently, I would say the Committee has become more hesitant to act unless their actions would have widespread support in the community, especially when those actions affect popular editors (or, less charitably, unblockables). At the center of this is a concern that taking decisive action on a dispute could lead to consequences, but in my experience, the default action of doing nothing often carries consequences as well. Further, doing nothing or taking only minor actions that do not resolve the underlying dispute often narrows the workable options available to the Committee, turning difficult-to-solve disputes into nearly unsolvable disputes. Could you comment on these two general schools of thought and what your approach to arbitration would be? More directly, do you think it is sometimes necessary to take unpopular or draconian actions to "break the back" of a dispute, or should such actions always be avoided?

   If the popular actions work, it's probably not going to wind up at arbcom in the first place.

1. What do you think about reverting an edition which provides true information, 100% of the info is based on reliable sources, it's objective, grammatically correct, not offending anybody and useful for the article but it's reverted because a new editor just claims this info is redundant?

   If it's useful to the article, it's not redundant. Reverting is correct, but it should come with an explanation why the change is useful and not just redundant. For a new user especially they'll need this, including the explanation, so they can learn from it and know what to look for in the future. Do actually talk to them, though. Turns out that's sort of helpful.

Discretionary sanctions (DS) now cover more than 30 topic areas (per WP:DSTOPICS).

1. In determining the "effectiveness" of DS, what factors should be taken into account?

   I had to have discretionary sanctions explained to me, as I was a little confused how ArbCom sanctions differed from those derived from community consensus (apparently it's mostly a matter of scale). Based on that, however, I have two answers:

   1. To objectively determine the effectiveness, you need to determine the metrics you want to measure - these would be the factors you're asking about, but in particular the measurable, comparable ones, that can be distilled to target goals and trends that can be compared over time. The problem is, the sanctions themselves are not necessarily comparable - a specific topic area or set of users is unique in every case, and will attract different problems and change over time as specific events affect it, specific people come and go, etc. You will not be able to cross-compare between different topic areas because either the control also needs sanctions, or it doesn't, but its factors and results will be different as well. Even in a specific instance, if the numbers indicate the sanctions seem to be helping over time, based on the measurable targets we have no way to be sure that things would have improved over time without them. So I frankly have no idea.

   2. Just ask those involved in the affected area if it seems to be better/worse after sanctions are applied/removed. If the users in question feel less stressed working on/with it, it's all less painful, etc, the presence/application of the sanctions was probably worth doing.

2. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

   I don't know; I haven't been involved in any of them.

3. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS not been particularly effective? If any, in what ways & why?

   I don't know, per above.

4. In which, if any, of the topic areas have DS been effective in addressing conduct or behavioural issues, but otherwise detrimental to the encyclopedia? If any, in what ways & why?

   This feels like a question about vested contributors, where we might wind up with admins with considerably more leeway to just boot the otherwise very productive, but very difficult to work with, problem users when they inevitably make problems. Personally I think it's probably worth booting them, and despite the immediate loss, less detrimental in the long run - yes, they would have made more good content in the short term, but they also would have chased off fewer folks in the long term, and others will be able to come in over time and fill in the gaps and it will be much easier for these newer users to come into it later if it's not already a battleground. We have all the time in the world. If people don't want to play nice, we don't need them.

5. Other than DS, what measures could ArbCom take in addressing conduct issues? Which, if any, of these alternatives should ArbCom take?

   They can also ban everyone. As an Uncyclopedian, I firmly believe in banning everyone.

6. Of which of your contributions to Wikipedia are you most proud? Why?

   I'm particularly proud of my contributions maintaining and developing on the MonoBook skin, especially that time I really pissed off the English and German Wikipedias in particular by making it responsive and fit on mobile. As a designer, I like to measure my success in outrage. Outrage = engagement.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]