User:Ealdgyth/2019 Arb Election votes

It's that time of year again...

Note that I'm looking for folks who have their eye on the main point of this whole enterprise - writing an encyclopedia. With that in mind, I want content contributions, or at least the concept that they support content contributors. If you're an admin or not really doesn't matter to me at all. In fact, NOT being an admin should be a requirement for at least one of the seats, quite honestly. I'm also looking for folks who don't get so wrapped up in enforcing civility or rules that they forget that first goal above, the writing of the encyclopedia. I don't want to have my work interrupted by idiots who don't know the first thing about subject matter but who seem to think that their opinion on some tangental matter should trump the folks in the trenches writing the content and dealing with the vandals.

To that end - I expect folks to have at least 45-50% of their contributions to article space, unless they show a LOT of clue in supporting content creation. Stupid ruleslawyering or spending ages at ANI will not get you much support here. Well, that's a great goal, but no way can I just judge candidates on that ... because very few candidates meet that standard. And a few of the ones that do, are not otherwise qualified, at least in my eyes.

In line with the last few years, I'm much less likely to approve of folks who are hardline on civility, for example. Also note that I do not consider myself suited for ArbCom, I do not deal well with high stress situations nor do I have the tact required. Whether I think someone is suited for ArbCom has nothing to do with whether I think they are good contributors to the project in other means.

As a side note, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you wish to discuss any of these.

And this is number 11 of these things I've done. Good gods, I'm turning into an institution. A DECADE. Yikes.

Past votes

In the spirit of fairness

- Edit tools 132K edits total. Account started editing 2007. 72% to articles, 9% to article talk, 5% to user pages, 6% to user talk pages, 7% to wikipedia space, 0.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. 116 articles with over 100 edits. 77 edits to ANI, 37 to AN. 833 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 1 FT, 2 FLs, 58 FAs, 109 GAs. (I've been slacking this last year... just finished moving)

Handy!

To integrate

Candidates

Support

- Edit tools 192K edits total. Account started editing May 2006. 52% to articles, 13% to article talk, 3% to user pages, 8% to user talk pages, 15% to wikipedia space, 4% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 184 articles with over 100 edits. 331 edits to ANI, 245 to AN. 2016 "real" pages created. Is an admin. WP:WBFAN says 183 FAs - I didn't count the GAs.
Supported him in 2010, 2015

Only reason this isn't a slight support (like NYB) is that Cas spent two years off the committee. It would be nice if we had more new folks running that were qualified though...
- Edit tools 71K edits total. Account started editing Oct 2002. 75% to articles, 12% to article talk, 1% to user pages, 3% to user talk pages, 6% to wikipedia space, 2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 872 edits to ANI, 398 to AN. 1795 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No claimed FAs or similar on userpage.
Answers swayed me along with not having ever served on the committee. I especially liked the answer to Peacemaker: "As a PS, I'll note that I expect the day to eventually come when the ArbCom is forced to accept disputes based on content."

Slight support (for now)

- Edit tools 42K edits total. Account started editing Feb 2006, but some gaps. XX% to articles, 13% to article talk, 3% to user pages, 28% to user talk pages, 45% to wikipedia space, 9% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 6 months. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 1300+ edits to ANI, 968 to AN. 146 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No claimed FAs or similar on userpage.
Supported him in 2010, 2012, weak support in 2016

Came to the right decision on desyoping Fred Bauder

The only thing letting me support Brad here is that he did take a year off. I'm becoming concerned that we're starting to have "professional arbs" ... and NYB is pretty much the poster child for this.
- Rambling Man&project=en.wikipedia.org Edit tools 241K edits total. Account started editing May 2005, but there is one small gap in the around late 2008. 51% to articles, 4% to article talk, 4% to user pages, 12% to user talk pages, 21% to wikipedia space, 5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 83 articles with over 100 edits. 761 edits to ANI, 374 to AN. 633 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. Nothing claimed on their userpage, but I know they have contributed to FLs and FAs and GAs and DYKs.
Supported him in 2017

TRM can be somewhat of a PITA, but ArbCom kinda needs that in limited doses.
- Edit tools 38K edits total. Account started editing Oct 2005. 52% to articles, 9.6% to article talk, 1% to user pages, 9% to user talk pages, 17% to wikipedia space, 8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 3 months. 51 articles with over 100 edits. 208 edits to ANI, 140 to AN. 27 "real" pages created. Is an admin. WP:WBFAN lists 30 FAs he worked on.
Supported him in 2010, 2012

Like NYB and Cas, I'm a bit concerned with electing too many "old hands" to the committee ... reason he's just a slight support is that his participation has been spottier than I'd like since he left the committee (and he needs to write more paleontology articles!)
- That Turned&project=en.wikipedia.org Edit tools 23K edits total. Account started editing July 2008, but several long breaks. 24% to articles, 4% to article talk, 12% to user pages, 35% to user talk pages, 17% to wikipedia space, 6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 3 months. 1 article with over 100 edits. 190 edits to ANI, 133 to AN. 33 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 2 FAs, 29 GAs, and 52 DYKs claimed on their userpage.
Opposed him in 2011, 2017

Supported him in 2012

This section where " I believe it's perfectly clear what the wording says" is stated - well, no, obviously several good faith contributors did NOT understand...not a great look here, guys.

Came to the right decision on desyoping Fred Bauder

Voted to topic ban Cinderella

This cluster-fuck - while some of the remedies were needed - ya'll fucked this one up badly. It's still troublesome, and it's a fucking nightmare of POV pushing and bad sourcing and bad editing. Ya'll will be seeing this again. And the fucking limits on the evidence did not HELP the situation at all.

Fram - what a mess. I admire Worm's stand that the acceptance of the case was outside policy - it was. Granted, there wasn't anything else that might have solved the issue. I agree that the "review of first conduct warning" section is probably correct also. I applaud Worm for supporting the return of the sysop bit to Fram.

In the end, the fact that WTT was out there trying to communicate is what pushed him to slight support, rather than where Katie ended up. It's VERY slight though.
- Edit tools 42K edits total. Account started editing Feb 2007, but a long gap before this year. 51% to articles, 4% to article talk, 7% to user pages, 22% to user talk pages, 12% to wikipedia space, 1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. 7 articles with over 100 edits. 185 edits to ANI, 95 to AN. 33 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No claimed FAs or similar on userpage.
Although I have concerns about activity level, I do think generally they have views I can live with. And the thing in the end that pushed it to slight support was the Fred Bauder involvement...
- Edit tools 61K edits total. Account started editing March 2004, but did not reliably edit until June 2008, and has some long gaps after. 35% to articles, 6% to article talk, 7% to user pages, 18% to user talk pages, 25% to wikipedia space, 5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 411 edits to ANI, 269 to AN. 122 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 1 FA, 7 GAs and 52 DYKs claimed on their userpage.
While I'm not greatly impressed with SoWhy's rather rigid views on policy, I'm impressed with their ability to engage with others, and that's what in the end pushed me to support slightly.

Oppose

- block log says it all.
- entirely too prone to losing their temper. While it's certainly amusing to think of him and GW on the same committee, I'm not that cruel.
- I'm not saying Hawkeye is a bad editor - they are very welcome and helpful, but their judgment is quite suspect. I'm fine with the thought of a non-admin on ArbCom... Hawkeye is not that non-admin.
- Last 500 edits go back to JULY 2018. While they say on their candidature page they are retiring soon, I want to see that increased activity now, not as a promise in the future.
- Last 500 edits go back to AUGUST 2014. Yeah, yeah, I know they work on other stuff... but that little editing here does not show engagement with the community that exists HERE.
- Edit tools 35K edits total. Account started editing June 2006, but several long stretches with little editing. 34% to articles, 3% to article talk, 6% to user pages, 23% to user talk pages, 32% to wikipedia space, 1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 9 months. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 530 edits to ANI, 262 to AN. 105 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No claimed FAs or similar on userpage.
Slightly supported her in 2017

This diff where "you all know what we're saying" is stated - well, no, obviously several good faith contributors did NOT understand...not a great look here, guys.

Came to the right decision on desyoping Fred Bauder, but wanted to admonish Maxim

Voted to accept the German war effort case

Voted to topic ban Cinderella

Fram - what a mess. I agree that the "review of first conduct warning" section is probably correct also. I do not agree that the evidence provided shows that Fram's conduct was subpar as an admin. We're a freaking encyclopedia - not a social networking site. I think the encyclopedia got left out here. I know I am not motivated to stick my admin neck out on issues knowing that all someone has to do is whine a lot and whether or not I'm correct gets thrown out the window.

In the end - just too much negative. I'm for women on the committee, but I'm underwhelmed by Katie's decisions and involvment in the committee. We've got better candidates this year (thank the gods!)
- Edit tools 73K edits total. Account started editing Dec 2004, but a few short gaps. 23% to articles, 7% to article talk, 2% to user pages, 5% to user talk pages, 55% to wikipedia space, 7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 431 edits to ANI, 370 to AN. 110 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No claimed FAs or similar on userpage.
Was neutral on him in 2014

Opposed him in 2015

Cannot agree with his response to the question by Raschen. WMF is supposed to support the community, not dictate to it.
- Edit tools 95K edits total. Account started editing July 2007, but some short gaps. 23% to articles, 11% to article talk, 2% to user pages, 31% to user talk pages, 27% to wikipedia space, 6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 1400+ edits to ANI, 1500+ to AN. 78 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No claimed FAs or similar on userpage.
Opposed him in 2012

Was neutral on him in 2013

Nothing is so egregious that I have to oppose, and I've generally liked their opinions in various noticeboards.

Well, his behavior out on another site about GDPR shows me he's got some issues with listening to others when they tell him he's wrong. (Note... this isn't because Beeb is being cranky at Eric, it's because Beeb isn't listening to OTHERS when they tell him he's wrong)

Slight oppose

- Edit tools 17K edits total. Account started editing June 2005, but long long gaps and the only sustained period of editing started in March 2018. 35% to articles, 16% to article talk, 6% to user pages, 18% to user talk pages, 16% to wikipedia space, 7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 87 edits to ANI, 68 to AN. 174 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 1 FL and 20 GAs claimed on their userpage.
Okay, just became an admin very recently - long periods of not editing, not a lot of edits in their history, and not especially high content percentage. On the other hand, some GAs. I think this one is a slight oppose and we'll see in a couple of years.
- Edit tools 30K edits total. Account started editing April 2012. 27% to articles, 3% to article talk, 17% to user pages, 24% to user talk pages, 15% to wikipedia space, 5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 19 edits to ANI, 29 to AN. 14 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No claimed FAs or similar on userpage.
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Enterprisey/Questions - still has some unanswered questions with only three days left in the pre-election period. Can't say that fills me with confidence about their ability to commit the time needed. Given the problems for the last committee about arb retention - I'm going to say this is a problem and pushes me over into the slight oppose section.

Just became an admin in January of this year.

Neutral

- Edit tools 29K edits total. Account started editing Jan 2008, but long gaps and only since mid 2018 has been reliably editing in a long stretch. 37% to articles, 12% to article talk, 5% to user pages, 29% to user talk pages, 12% to wikipedia space, 2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 127 edits to ANI, 56 to AN. 20 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 1 GA and 2 DYKs claimed on their userpage.
This cluster-fuck - while some of the remedies were needed - ya'll fucked this one up badly. It's still troublesome, and it's a fucking nightmare of POV pushing and bad sourcing and bad editing. Ya'll will be seeing this again. And the fucking limits on the evidence did not HELP the situation at all. And the clerking did not help either - I'm definitely looking at the clerks as much as the arbs here.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Bradv/Questions answers aren't awful. I have a vague recollection that Brad takes a hard line on civility - need to look into that more.

I think in the end, after looking over the questions, I fall completely in the "nuetral" camp here. I agree with some things (Fram) but disagree on others (German War Effort), and there just isn't enough positive or negative to push me off the fence.
- Edit tools 132K edits total. Account started editing March 2004. 64% to articles, 7% to article talk, 1% to user pages, 18% to user talk pages, 5% to wikipedia space, 1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 61 articles with over 100 edits. 110 edits to ANI, 63 to AN. 375 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No claimed FAs or similar on userpage.
Answers are .. eh. Nothing stands out as terrible, but nothing screams "good answer" either. Frankly, looks like a lot of wishy-washy-ness, and I can't say I'm impressed enough to support.
- Edit tools 125K edits total. Account started editing July 2006 (but long hiatus until Jan 2008). 21% to articles, 7% to article talk, 14% to user pages, 31% to user talk pages, 19% to wikipedia space, 6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month, but had a long period of little editing prior to this last summer. 2 articles with over 100 edits. 2500+ edits to ANI, 2100+ to AN. 56 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. No claimed FAs or similar on userpage.
Opposed him in 2010

This is just ... i'm concerned about activity. And there isn't anything in the answers that pushes that concern away.
- their stunt with the Christchurch shooting video really says it all about their judgment.

Withdrawn

- brain&project=en.wikipedia.org Edit tools 21K edits total. Account started editing Jan 2008, but several breaks. 42% to articles, 5% to article talk, 3% to user pages, 21% to user talk pages, 25% to wikipedia space, 4% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2.5 months. 6 articles with over 100 edits. 166 edits to ANI, 23 to AN. 18 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 3 FAs and one GA on their user page.
Nothing I've ever seen from Laser has ever given me any concerns. Not a problem at all to support.