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

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Question from Carrite

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

Question from

 * Thank you. feminist (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Questions from Guerillero
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!

Question from Amanda

 * 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)

Question from Gerda Arendt

 * I don't tell people what to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. Lacking the overall context, I would say the points seem quite reasonable. -— Isarra ༆ 07:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Question from

 * 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)

Questions from Tlhslobus

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

Questions from Levivich
I hope you will entertain some followup questions: Thank you very much for your time. Остерегайтесь Лоси и Белка Levivich (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Question from User:Ryk72
Discretionary sanctions (DS) now cover more than 30 topic areas (per WP:DSTOPICS).

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