User:Ealdgyth/2013 Arb Election votes

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.

Note on 19 Nov 2013

Sweet mother of all the gods - I go to the afternoon matinee of a movie (Thor: The Dark World and it was excellent even for the second time) and there are 7 more candidates! It'll be a bit before I get 7 MORE sets of statistics worked up - I just did 8 or so this morning... yikes! And I thought we wouldn't have enough candidates this year. Now whether there are enough GOOD candidates, will have to be determined.

Interesting tidbit

The total number of edits by all the candidates I'm supporting is only twice the number of edits I've done myself (roughly). Only two candidates have more total edits than I do (I'm opposing both). No one has as many GANs or FACs as I do (although there are candidates with more FPs). Only two candidates have a higher percentage of edits to article space than myself, and only one has created more articles than myself. The point of this? I'm turning into an old old old editor on Wikipedia!

Past votes

Support

- Candidate Questions. - 1 GA and 39 DYKs claimed on user page. 30K total edits. 36% to article, 2% to article talk, 11% to user, 25% to user talk, 17% to wikipedia, 3% to wikipedia talk, 3% to template, 3% to template talk. Stats here. 105 pages created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back a month. Clean block log. Like the answer to Rschen's wikiproject question. Also like the answer to Sceptre's questions. I'm close to supporting but would really like to see answers to more of the questions. Okay, the last bits of questions are quite good. Like the answer to Gerda especially. (Would that she could actually take the advice...)
- Candidate Questions. - No FAs or GAs claimed on talk page. 15K edits, 19% to article, 3% to article talk, 5% to user, 45% to user talk, 26% to wikipedia, 2% to wikipedia talk, 1% to template. Stats here. 4 articles started - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 5 days. Two entries on block log - both appear to be mistakes - see here. Distinct disadvantage is the lack of time. Not a fan of the "too many individual questions" thing either - some of us don't know you well, and the questions are a way of judging whether we trust you or not. Declining to answer 7 questions from an editor doesn't make me think greatly of your ability to handle the insane amounts of questioning you'd get as an Arb. Gotta admire the reply to Sceptre's question. The question is, is the general "clue-d in-ness" and answers that I like enough to overcome the issue with the lack of time? And in the end, it did lead to support.
- Candidate Questions. - 2 GAs, 3 DYKs claimed on user page. 25K total edits. 44% to article, 2% to article talk, 3% to user talk, 43% user talk, 5% to wikipedia, 1% to wikipedia talk. Stats here. 14 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 1 day. Block log (here) shows what looks like a test block on themselves? Good answer on general question #6. Like the answers to Sceptre's questions. Also to Rschen's question about wikiprojects. And Rschen's question about vested contributors. I think we're definitely into support territory.
- Candidate Questions. - 4 GAs, 13 DYKs on user page. 14K total edits - 26% article, 6% article talk, 7% user, 28% user talk, 21% wikipedia, 4% wikipedia talk, 1% file, 1% file talk. Stats here. 31 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 19 days. Clean block log. Like answers to the general questions 8 and 9. Also the answer to Gerda's question (best description of the question yet - Socratic dialogue .. heh.) Wish he hadn't taken the bait on Piotrus' question on the US justice system - that's utterly irrelvant to this election. Okay, the answer pointing out his work with the Doncram case (as an editor, but the proposals he made were very close to the actual decision) was the deciding factor here. Also the vested contributors question.
- Candidate Questions. - no FAs or GAs on user page. 21K edits - 37% article, 24% article talk, 2% user, 16% user talk, 18% wikipedia, 4% wikipedia talk. Stats here. 83 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 2 days. Clean block log. Generally, I like their answers to the questions. What I've seen of them is generally pretty level-headed and gets the concept that this is an encyclopedia, not a project teaching decorum. Content is the reason for the project, and all else should be seen in that light. Like answer to general question #3, as well as the answers to Sceptre and Piotrus' question about nationality/etc.
- Candidate Questions. - 5 FAs on their user page. 32K total edits. 25% article, 10% article talk, 3% user, 21% user talk, 23% wikipedia, 15% wikipedia talk, 1% template, 1% category. Stats here. Over 100 articles created - stats here but it keeps timing out on me. Last 50 edits go back 12 days. Clean block log. Hm... this is concerning - how'd I miss this? (Thanks to Sven for pointing it out). I'm less concerned about the second motion Sven points out..Betacommand was often times the very epitome of the civil POV pusher, and an excellent example of someone who doesn't know when to quit and just walk away from something. I think in the end, it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Roger usually muddles through to a decent result, and that's better than being an idealogue. Might not be a bad idea to take a break from the committee after this term, though.
- Candidate Questions. - no FAs or GAs on user page. 24K total edits, 26% article, 6% article talk, 3% user, 29% user talk, 24% wikipedia, 10% to wikipedia talk. Stats here. 11 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 9 days. One 3RR block from 2006 - wayyy too long ago to worry about. See here. Agree with their choices of well handled and badly handled ArbCom cases from the past year. Has generally been a good voice of "middle of the road" at ArbEnforcement. Good answers to the questions. Especially like the answers to Sceptre. And like the response to Piotrus' question about nationality.

Neutral

- Candidate Questions. - 1 GA and one Featured Portal claimed on their userpage. 40K total edits, 9% to article, 1% to article talk, 4% to user, 25% to user talk, 30% to wikipedia, 7% to wikipedia talk, 21% to template talk. Stats here. 7 articles started - stats here. Last 50 edits go to the day before. Clean block log. Good answer to Hawkeye's second question. Still needs more answers. Would like to see him a bit less heavy-handed at times - he's got an occasional tendency to seem to lose paitence with folks up before the committee and just start thinking of "ban them all, let the internet sort them out" or something. And then, at other times, they go entirely too soft on folks who have exhausted the paitence of many other editors. I suspect in the end I'll end up supporting for many of the same reasons as I supported Roger, but ... it'll be a very weak support. In the end, I'm too conflicted and just cannot support. I can easily see why folks would support, and I won't cry if he's returned to the committee, but I just cannot feel comfortable supporting.
- Candidate Questions. - 7 DYKs claimed on user page. 69K edits - 26% article, 11% article talk, 2% user, 32% user talk, 23% wikipedia, 5% wikipedia talk. Stats here. 59 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 5 days. One block on their block log - but appears to be a mistaken case of someone thinking his account was compromised - see here. Nice that they didn't get drawn into Gerda's trick questions - also good for calling Piotrus' completely unrelated question on the US justice system. In the end, there was nothing that leapt out at me to support. He's not a bad candidate, but nothing that makes me actively support either.
- Candidate Questions - no FAs or GAs on user page. 57 DYKs. 57K total edits - 63% to article, 11% to article talk, 2% to user, 14% to user talk, 8% to wikipedia. Stats here. Over 100 articles started - stats here (Timed out on me when trying to load the full list). Last 50 edits go back 4 days. Not sure what's up with the self imposed block of two years lifted the same day - see here - I'd say it was a test block except for the edit summary. This is concerning. (Thanks Heimstern). Not sure I agree that "I think as a whole that Wikipedia does well in the areas of BLP and NPOV" is true either. I see he's qualified that in the answer to Sir Fozzie - just now I'd like to see answers to the vested contributors question and unless that's really off base, will probably support. Okay, disappointing answer to the vested contributors question. Too much emphasis on the "community" has meant that those of us writing content have to jump through insane hoops to deal with civil (and not so civil) POV pushing and general idiocy.
- Candidate Questions. - no FAs or GAs on user page. 24K total edits. 80% article, 12% art talk, 3% user, 2% user talk, 1% wikipedia, 1% file, 1% template. Stats here. User claims 1370 articles created - stats would be here if they didn't keep timing out on me. Last 50 edits go back 5 days. Clean block log. Good answers to Gerda's fishing attempt. Also to Piotrus' question about the US justice system. I need to see answers to the questions before I can even begin to think about supporting - if you can't handle the volume of questions, you're probably not going to be able to deal with the workload on the committee. Okay, more answers have come in. Like the answer to Sceptre. Still hasn't answered the questions fully. And no real evidence of any serious disputes makes me leery of supporting. I would love to see a non-admin on the committee, I just don't think this is the non-admin.
- Candidate Questions. - No GAs or FAs on user page. 76K total edits - 58% article, 7% article talk, 2% user, 17% user talk, 10% wikipedia, 4% wikipedia talk, 1% template. Stats here. ___ articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 3 days. 1 3RR block from 2007 (basically not worth considering) and a 2011 block for issues with removing protection from BLPs. See here. Managed to avoid sanctions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute - not easy to do. That's a plus. 4 RFAs is a bit of a concern, but did manage to pass back in 2010 and has only been slightly on the radar since then. Bonus points for recognizing that they need to recuse from stuff related to Kirill. Concerns about editing at Natalee Holloway. Going to park him in neutral, mainly because we do not see eye to eye on civility and vested contributors. I'm still thinking on this one, it's possible I could swing up to support (unlikely to swing down to oppose). Really like the effort he made with VE and keeping it out. My gods. Archive your talk page.

Oppose

- Candidate Questions. - no GAs or FAs on user page. 89K total edits. 60% article, 17% article talk, 1% user, 9% user talk, 8% wikipedia, 3% wikipedia talk. Stats here. ___ articles created - Stats here (it's timing out on me currently). Last 50 edits go back a day. Block log has 9 blocks for edit warring - all but one date from 2008. The one remaining is from 2012. Under ArbCom sanctions for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. All in all, I can't see supporting. Just too much abrasion and not enough actual compromise in their makeup.
- Candidate Questions. - 1 DYK as BW, nothing claimed on ESL. 34K total edits (plus 2400 as ESL). BW's percentages are 20% article, 3% article talk, 3% user, 46% user talk, 27% wikipedia, 1% wikipedia talk. Stats here. ESL's are roughly similar, but the article edits are only 11%. 67 articles created at BW (2 as ESL) - stats here. Has mostly been editing as ESL lately, so no stats on last 50 edits. Clean block log as BW. See also - clean block log there also. Need to look up the circumstances of BW's block of PumpkinSky - was BW edit warring with PS? (Thanks to Heimstern for the pointer). Turns out to be somewhat murky but not exactly a good shining example of adminhood on BW's side. In the end, just entirely too much that is concerning to allow me to support.
- no FAs, GAs or DYKs claimed on user page. 112K edits - 86% to article, 3% to article talk, 2% to user talk, 6% to wikipedia, 1% to wikipedia talk - stats here. No idea on articles created - stats here (although it timed out on me. Last 50 edits go back 8 days. Clean block log. Under ArbCom sanctions in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Candidate Questions. No. Cannot support anyone who makes accusations that ArbCom has indulged in "abuse of powers (including oversight) to suppress criticism of their decisions" without STRONG evidence. Nor do I think it's a good idea to elect someone under restrictions from ArbCom to ArbCom. I'm don't require ArbCom members to be saints - but really, electing the fox to guard the henhouse is a bit too much.
- Candidate Questions. - no FAs, GAs or DYKs claimed on user page. 15K total edits - 25% to article, 8% article talk, 2% user, 35% user talk, 26% wikipedia, 2% wikipedia talk. Stats here. 146 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back to July! Clean block log. Not a fan of the "return just to run for ArbCom" action. Also haven't been a fan of his views on civility. Needs to answer more of the questions. Good answer to Piotrus' question on the US justice system. BUt in the end, the lack of involvement in the project for the past year plus his stance on civility is just too much to overlook. Must oppose.
- No FAs or GAs claimed on user page. 3500 total edits. 34% article, 2% article talk, 9% user, 35% user talk, 13% wikipedia, 3% wikipedia talk, 1% file, 2% template. Stats here. 0 articles created. Last 50 edits go back to early Sept. One apparantly self-requested block from 2010 in log - see here. Candidate Questions. Unfortunately - just not enough experience on this project for me to be able to support. Only 3500 edits here is just too few to get an idea of the norms of the project, and without some ideas of those unwritten norms, I'm very uncomfortable with letting folks decide important cases.
- Candidate Questions. - 1 featured picture, 7 GAs (all roads), 3 DYKs claimed on their user page. 11K total edits, 30% to article space, 7% to article talk, 5.5% to user, 25% to user talk, 25% to wikipedia, 2% to wikipedia talk, 1% to file talk, 2% to template talk, 1% to category. Stats here. 30 pages created - Stats here. Last 50 edits go to 30 October, very respectable. Clean block log. Agree with them about their answers to the good/bad ArbCom decisions. A bit concerned that they are a "bad word" civility person - we'll see. Okay, answer to Sven's second question is just scary. Okay, the idea that ArbCom can just inject themselves into a dispute by making a motion is wrong. Cannot support someone who has that sort of idea of the powers of ArbCom.
- Candidate Questions. - no GAs or FAs claimed on user page. 15K total edits. 32% to article, 11% to article talk, 4% to user, 1% to user talk, 32% to wikipedia, 1% to wikipedia talk, 1% to template. Stats here. 10 articles created - stats here. Mistaken block is only block on block log (see here. Ugh - answer to general question #3 "I'm of the opinion that WP:CIVIL is laxly enforced" - blech. It's unevenly enforced. A number of admins habitually use language that would get a non-admin editor blocked... I need to see answers to the questions before I can even begin to think about supporting - if you can't handle the volume of questions, you're probably not going to be able to deal with the workload on the committee.
- Candidate Questions. - 3 GAs, 3 FPs, 6 DYKs on user page. 12K total edits. 29% to article, 3% to article talk, 9% to user, 25% to user talk, 30% to wikipedia, 2% to wikipedia talk, 1% to template. Stats here. 8 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 14 days. Only block on log appears to be a mistake - see here. I need to see answers to the questions before I can even begin to think about supporting - if you can't handle the volume of questions, you're probably not going to be able to deal with the workload on the committee. More answers have come in - like the answer to Sceptre. And the answer to Piotrus' question on the US justice system. Okay, further questions answered, and just too much emphasis on civility and "getting along" for me to feel comfortable. We're an encyclopedia and we have entirely too many civility warriors who forget that. I don't expect to like or get along easily with everyone I meet in the real world, I shouldn't expect to have my feelings kept from bruising here either.
- 3 FAs, 7 GAs, 5 DYKs on their user page. 12K total edits, 46% to articles, 13% to article talk, 7% to user, 18% to user talk, 13% to wikipedia, 3% to wikipedia talk, stats here. 9 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go to 3 November, very respectable. Clean block log. Candidate Questions. Agree with them that Tea Party was almost a train wreck with the no-fault topic ban idea. Do not agree with his civility ideas at all. The world is a variable place and we are not a kindergarten class teaching people to get along. First and foremost, we're an encyclopedia and people shouldn't expect that everyone is going to adhere to their ideal of civility if they come from a different cultural background. While I agree with the editor's ideas on civil POV pushing ... you cannot expect all editors to change their cultural background to meet your expectations. I like their content contributions - utterly disagree with their elevation of civility above all else. Must oppose, but greatly appreciate that they are here and editing. In the end, I'm utterly uncomfortable with supporting someone running on a "civility" platform.
- Candidate Questions. - 1 GA, 7 DYKs claimed on user page. 16K total edits. 53% article, 12% article talk, 4% user, 13% user talk, 15% wikipedia, 2% wikipedia talk, 1% template. Stats here. 24 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 3 days. 5 blocks - all for edit warring. The last was in April. Topic banned from 9/11 topics. No. Just too much gadfly and not enough actual ability to compromise and work that well with others on high profile subjects. Gadfly's have their place, but not on ArbCom.

Secret (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) - 3 FAs, 10 GAs on their user page. 8400+ total edits. 39.5% to article, 4% to article talk, 2% to user, 20% to user talk, 31% to wikipedia, 2% to wikipedia talk, 2% to template, stats here. 5 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go to 4 September. One block on log - I believe this is self-requested? See here. Candidate Questions. Unlike Isarra - Secret has an idea of the norms of the project, but the general problem with Secret's candidature is that they tend to get frustrated and do impulsive things. I don't think that's the best idea for ArbCom. Nor do I think the stress of ArbCom is a good idea to go with someone prone to impulsive gestures. These issues are best summarized in the numerous RFAs. This shouldn't mean that the editor isn't useful on the project and isn't a good editor - but just not in my opinion a good fit for ArbCom.

Withdrawn

Courcelles (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) - Candidate Questions. - 3 GAs, 22 or 23 FLs (I lost count... it's close), and 2 FAs on user page. Withdrawing - see here.

GregJackP (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) - Candidate Questions. - 3 FAs, 7 GAs on user page. 16K edits - 31% to article, 8% to article talk, 6% to user, 34% to user talk, 17% to wikipedia, 3% to wikipedia talk. Stats here. 64 articles created - stats here. Last 50 edits go back 2 days. Blocked two years for issues with Climate Change - see here. Only unblocked in March 2012, with restrictions. (Need to check if they are lifted). Answers are flippant and I have no great confidence in his paying attention to details if he hasn't been paying enough attention to notice the great vested contributors debate.

Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) - Candidate Questions. - No FAs or GAs claimed on user page. 7800 total edits. 38% article, 9% article talk, 6% user, 29% user talk, 14% wikipedia, 2% wikipedia talk. Stats here. 34 articles created - Stats here. Last 50 edits go back 4 days. Clean block log. Like the approach to taking the whole context. Do not agree with them about Phil Sandifer - he at the least needed to lose his admin bits as who could trust him again after the tone of his blog post and the outing of another editor. Like the BLP stance. Issue is the low edits - has he been around a long time? Check when started editing.