This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
Because I've recently been told I'm unqualified. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And it's because of the shark picture ~ Zingus J. Rinkle ( talk) 02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but i think the Arbitration Committee elections are a serious matter and should be treated as such. There's a time and place for humor, and this ain't it. Terry77 ( talk) 04:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
Because I've recently been told I'm unqualified. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And it's because of the shark picture ~ Zingus J. Rinkle ( talk) 02:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but i think the Arbitration Committee elections are a serious matter and should be treated as such. There's a time and place for humor, and this ain't it. Terry77 ( talk) 04:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)