User:Ealdgyth/2018 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 10 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 115,000 edits total. Account started editing 2007. 69.1% to articles, 9.9% to article talk, 5.5% to user pages, 6.3% to user talk pages, 8.1% to wikipedia space, 0.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 weeks. Over 100 articles with over 100 edits. 65 edits to ANI, less to AN. 837 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 1 FT, 2 FLs, 58 FAs, 109 GAs. (I've been slacking this last year... still trying to move...)

Handy!

To integrate

Candidates

Support

- Edit tools 93,000 edits total. Account started editing 2006. 53.9% to articles, 18.8% to article talk, 2.4% to user pages, 9.9% to user talk pages, 8.1% to wikipedia space, 2.3% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. 14 articles with over 100 edits. 84 edits to ANI, 29 to AN. 185 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims no FAs or GAs on their user page.
Arbcom from Jan 2012 to Dec 2013

Cases: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2012, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2013

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision, cannot greatly disagree with the remedy - which seems to have mostly worked. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Proposed decision they voted against banning Betacommand - not something I agree with. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision waffled on some bans and ended up not voting on them.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/SilkTork/Questions - I like most of the answers, very thoughtful.

In the end, even though I don't always agree with some of their decisions, they aren't awful and they aren't a hardline-civility-enforcer. I can deal with a bit wishy-washy better than with a hard case.
- Edit tools 21,000 edits total. Account started editing 2005, but no major edits until 2010 and a large lull in 2013-2015. 40.4% to articles, 18.3% to article talk, 2.8% to user pages, 11.6% to user talk pages, 19% to wikipedia space, 4.3% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 14 edits to ANI, 30 to AN. 123 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 1 GA on user talk page.
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Joe Roe/Questions - a bit concerned about answer to both Peacemaker's and KEC's questions - we shouldn't think that only the "alt-right" is pushing their POV on wikipedia - there are a LOT of POV-pushers and pushing and its not always going to be easy to distinquish it.

Although I have a few concerns with their answers, they seem relatively level-headed. And new blood on the comittee is always good.

Slight support

- Edit tools 32,000 edits total. Account started editing 2006. 27.5% to articles, 6.7% to article talk, 3.9% to user pages, 25.3% to user talk pages, 25.9% to wikipedia space, 4.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2.5 months. 8 articles with over 100 edits. 210 edits to ANI, 25 to AN. 80 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 3 FAs and 6 GAs on their user page.
Arbcom from Jan 2017 to Dec 2018

Cases: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2017, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2018

Diffs: (1) this is related to this (2) This motion has bearing

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Mkdw/Questions the answers seem to be pretty good, actually.

I was not impressed with their behavior at the Arthur Rubin case, but given the questions were good and I don't have anything that's blindingly "Ugh"... we'll go with slight support.
- Edit tools 52,000 edits total. Account started editing 2006, took a long break from 2016 through late 2018. 9% to articles, 1.2% to article talk, 4.2% to user pages, 25% to user talk pages, 31.5% to wikipedia space, 7.7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 1 article with over 100 edits. 263 edits to ANI, 229 to AN. 12 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims no FAs or GAs on their user page.
Arbcom from Jan 2012 to Dec 2015

Cases: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2012, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2013, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2014, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2015

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision, cannot greatly disagree with the remedy - which seems to have mostly worked. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Proposed decision they voted against banning Betacommand - not something I agree with. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision went against banning one editor, which I think actually should have happened - as the behavior has not changed that much. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed decision voted to ban Lightbreather, which was needed.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/AGK/Questions - nothing screams at me "no", but nothing screams at me "gotta have him" either.

In the end, slight support. A lot of "meh" here though.

Neutral

- Edit tools 20,000 edits total. Account started editing 2015. 42.3% to articles, 3.4% to article talk, 1% to user pages, 17.6% to user talk pages, 31.3% to wikipedia space, 2.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. 5 articles with over 100 edits. 144 edits to ANI, 21 to AN. 32 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 1 FA, 2 FLs and 3 GAs on user talk page.
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Lourdes/Questions Like their answer to Peacemaker's question. Still a lot of questions unanswered. I have concerns about the answer to Mx7 - it's a concern I've had with them - the lack of taking up the admin bits after getting them. And I suspect they may be underestimating how much time ArbCom would eat of their time.

Although I'd like to see new blood on the committee, I have serious concerns about their not taking up the admin bit for a very long time after their RfA. And not answering a lot of the questions isn't a good indication that they'll have time for ArbCom.
- Edit tools 422,000 edits total, the rest of the statistics will not be available because they broke the tool. Account started editing 2006, but nothing major until 2009. Last 500 edits go back 3 weeks. Is an admin. 28 Featured Lists and 2 Featured Articles claimed on user page.
Arbcom from Jan 2012 to Dec 2013, Jan 2015 to Dec 2016

Cases: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2012, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2013, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2015, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2016

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2/Proposed decision voted against sanctioning Ohconfucius, which appears to be a good decision. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision, cannot greatly disagree with the remedy - which seems to have mostly worked. I also agree that voting for deadmining some others involved wouldn't have been too much of a stretch. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3/Proposed decision did vote to ban Betacommand. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision agree with their votes on banning some editors, even though they didn't pass. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed decision voted against banning Lightbreather, which was needed.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Courcelles/Questions - answers are so-so, but ducked the two I'm most interested in from them - 28bytes second questions and Peacemaker's.

Just... not enough "yes" to counteract the "no"

Oppose

- Edit tools 45,600 edits total, 28 automated, 45,66+ manual edits. Account started editing 2002. 43.8% to articles, 9.6% to article talk, 1.2% to user pages, 12.8% to user talk pages, 27.7% to wikipedia space, 3.2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to FEBRUARY - 9 MONTHS. 13 articles with over 100 edits. 312 edits to ANI, 125 to AN. 293 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims no FAs or GAs on their user page.
Links to cases: Not going to bother listing past decisions because the 9 months to do 500 edits is likely a deal-breaker for me.
Going to go oppose on this one. I hadn't planned on making my votes before nominations closed but his behavior over the weekend was enough for me to go into the "no" column. See here at ANI for details.
- Edit tools Last 500 edits go back to AUGUST 2013. Is NOT an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on their user talk page.
Not going to bother with the rest of the stastics - someone who has taken 5 years to make 500 edits is not in touch with the community and is wasting our time.
For a different view - see User talk:Ealdgyth/2018 Arb Election votes#Isarra
- Edit tools 46,000 edits total. Account started editing 2007. 35.5% to articles, 4.9% to article talk, 3.5% to user pages, 25.5% to user talk pages, 12.8% to wikipedia space, 4.9% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 8 MONTHS. 2 articles with over 100 edits. 111 edits to ANI, 58 to AN. 160 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims one GA on user page.
Arbcom from Jan 2016 to Dec 2017

Links to cases: Not going to bother listing past decisions because the 13 months to do 500 edits is likely a deal-breaker for me.
And it is a deal-breaker. Engage with the project before trying to jump back into ArbCom.
- Edit tools 100,000 edits total. Account started editing 2005, but break from 2007 to 2012. 11% to articles, 4.4% to article talk, 7.4% to user pages, 42.5% to user talk pages, 24.5% to wikipedia space, 4.4% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 weeks. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 1011 edits to ANI, 329 to AN. 90 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. Claims no FAs or GAs on their user page.
See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 143#Talk:Battle of Hastings where their attitude towards dispute resolution was quite unique. If it's a content dispute, it would make sense to try to familiarize yourself with the content under dispute, wouldn't it? This is also illuminating about his attitude towards dealing with disuptes. I opposed his RfA, and for reasons mostly having to do with his ability to handle disputes. That's definitely a deal-breaker for ArbCom in my mind.

Slight oppose

- Edit tools 243,000 edits total. Account started editing 2006. 33.1% to articles, 5.9% to article talk, 4.1% to user pages, 24.4% to user talk pages, 26.9% to wikipedia space, 4.1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 week. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 1573 edits to ANI, 659 to AN. 250 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims no FAs or GAs on their user page.
Arbcom from Jan 2015 to Dec 2018

Cases: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2015, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2016, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2017, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2018

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed decision voted to ban Lightbreather, which was needed.

This motion has bearing. And Votes to topic ban editors who weren't named as parties of the case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision was not helpful with the remedies other than LR.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/DGG/Questions - a bit concerned about their post to Joe Roe's page and then running shortly afterwards. Not impressed with the answers to Carrite's questions. The rest of the answers are "eh".

Answers didn't move me, not impressed with their work on the committee, and the thing with "not running" and then "running" was enough to push me to "no".
- Edit tools 253,000 edits total. Account started editing 2007, but major edits date from 2008. 49.8% to articles, 3.8% to article talk, 1% to user pages, 33.5% to user talk pages, 10% to wikipedia space, 0.4% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 week. 8 articles with over 100 edits. 5630 edits to ANI, 981 to AN. 1281 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 3 FAs, 1 FL, and 6 GAs on their user page.
Arbcom from Jan 2016 to Dec 2017

Cases: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2016, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2017

Diffs (1) relevant to elections (2) And Votes to topic ban editors who weren't named as parties of the case. Underwhelmed with their behavior at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Drmies/Questions are .. so-so.

I know everyone loves Drmies but ... I'm not sure he's well suited to ArbCom.. nothing really stands out to counteract the concerns I do have. Doesn't mean I don't think he's a good editor and (mostly) good admin... just... not for ArbCom.
- Edit tools 48,000 edits total. Account started editing 2007, but no major edits until 2009. 44.1% to articles, 2.9% to article talk, 2.2% to user pages, 41.5% to user talk pages, 7.1% to wikipedia space, 1.3% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 weeks. 4 articles with over 100 edits. 107 edits to ANI, 74 to AN. 45 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 2 GAs on their user talk page.
Arbcom from Jan 2014 to Dec 2017

Cases: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2014, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2015, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2016, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2017

Diffs (1) troubling block and then immediate full protection of the talk page. Given GW's history with TRM, this is extremely troubling and just outright acting as judge/jury/executioner. (2) And Votes against a proposal to topic ban editors who weren't named as parties of the case. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision where they voted against banning several editors who needed it. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision generally agree with their thoughts on the remedies. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed decision voted against banning Lightbreather, which was needed. [[1]] votes to topic ban Masem, which was overkill.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/GorillaWarfare/Questions - actually like the answer to Peacemaker's question. Am less impressed with the answer to Rashen's first question, but second one is good (and I definitely felt that GW handled themselves well with the Kudpung affair). Answer to KEC's question is good in the second half - but I'd say that ALL sides POV push on wikipedia, and we should be concerned about them all.

Generally, I like GW as an editor and an admin. I still have the concerns I've raised in the past about their ability to see when they are too involved with a topic/editor. I suspect when GW is as old as I am, life will have worn some of the "youngster" off them and they'll be more nuanced and I'd be happy to support then.

Still working on

Withdrew

- Edit tools 11,000 edits total. Account started editing 2014. 32.8% to articles, 1.7% to article talk, 5.9% to user pages, 49.1% to user talk pages, 9.4% to wikipedia space, 0.7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to OCTOBER 2017 - 13 MONTHS. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 257 edits to ANI, 23 to AN. 5 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. Claims one GA on their user page.
- Edit tools 193,000 edits total. Account started editing 2006, but few contributions until 2008. 49.5% to articles, 11.1% to article talk, 0.7% to user pages, 29.2% to user talk pages, 7.5% to wikipedia space, 1.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 weeks. 49 articles with over 100 edits. 2318 edits to ANI, 453 to AN. 30 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims no FAs or GAs on their user page.
Arbcom from Jan 2015 to Dec 2018

Cases: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2015, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2016, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2017, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2018

(1) This motion has bearing. (2) And Votes against proposal to topic ban editors who weren't named as parties of the case