User:Ealdgyth/2012 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.

This year, I've been pretty disappointed with a number of the decisions that ArbCom has taken or almost taken. And some of the behavior of the arbs has been very close to what they have admonished regular editors for. I'll probably be taking a much harsher look at candidates with last year's experiences in mind - 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.

Past votes

 * User:Ealdgyth/2009 Arb Election votes
 * User:Ealdgyth/2010 Arb Election votes
 * User:Ealdgyth/2011 Arb Election votes

Support

 * 1)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on user page - has been active with reviewing in both projects. 60,571 live edits - stats here - 25% to article space, 10% to article talk, 15% to user talk, 25% to wikipedia space, 16% to wikipedia talk. Carcharoth and I have occasionally seen differently on FACs, but I cannot but admire his ability to remain calm. We don't always agree on how to approach things, and I'm not sure we need another deliberative arb to join up with SilkTork, but I'll have to think on this one. Last 50 article space edits go to July - would really like to have seen more emphasis on article editing during his break. Awaiting answers to the 2012 case review and to Cunard's questions. He's finished his replies and I'm enough persuaded to support. If nothing else, he's not a drama magnet and is a voice of reason (even if it's a longwinded voice at times...)
 * 2)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on user page. 14,778 live edits  stats here - 9% to article space, 38% to user talk, 33% to wikipedia space, 10% to wikipedia talk space. Leaning oppose because his last 50 article space edits stretch back to September 2010. That's showing a great deal of separation from the actual purpose of being an editor here - which is building the encyclopedia. Okay, I wasn't going to support, in fact was leaning oppose due to lack of engagement with article editing and with the community - but this answer "I think, however, that the biggest problems in 2012 wasn't in how some cases were mishandled, but how so many requests were mishandled. The current committee refused to take a number of cases it really should have which resulted in situations deteriorating beyond salvaging, and make people reticent from bring problems to ArbCom. Worse yet, some intemperate fighting by the arbitrators in requests have led to situations getting worse. It's the committee's job to hear the cases the community brings to them – not all of them are ripe for arbitration, but if you raise the bar so high nothing short of nuclear warfare (no relation) can meet it, then you've failed the community at your primary purpose." in response to the 2012 case review question has me leaning support. Although I'm more inclined to take some account of "positive contributions" - I do think that Arb Com needs to take a more active role in nasty disputes BEFORE they rise to utter nuclear warfare. This is a great example of how the questions and the candidates answers can move me from opposing to supporting the candidate. But - Coren, you do need to edit outside of the Committee too - make it a point to get down in the trenches with the content editors and you might understand more why we get so pissy at times and call a spade a spade.
 * 3)  - No specific FAs or GAs claimed on user page, but he's got a few ...here just two slots below me. 30,286 live edits - stats here - 50% to article space, 10% to user talk, 17% to wikipedia space, 8% to wikipedia talk space. Last 50 article edits stretch to September, could be better. David hasn't been quite as effective on the committee as I might have hoped, but he hasn't disappointed me either. It would be nice if he took a bit more of a leadership role on the committee, but I have to go with a support on this one.
 * 4)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on user page, does claim a few DYKs. 30,304 live edits - stats here - 11% to article space, 29% to user talk, 47% to wikipedia space. Last 50 article edits are to early Sept, could be better. One thing with Brad, you know what you're getting. He's still a hair more leinent on some behaviors than I would really like, but he's been less wishy-washy this last two years and this is a good thing. He really DOES need to edit a few more articles - I keep saying - edit Taft - he's a good topic for you to get to FA!
 * 5)  - 2 FAs, 1 FL, 1 GA claimed on user page. 76,288 live edits - stats here - 41% to article space, 25% to user talk, 18% to wikipedia space. Last 50 article edits are to mid-Sept, could be better. Not fond of the not answering some of the "to every candidate questions" - including the review of decisions from 2012. Will probably want to see more answers to questions before deciding on this candidate. Well, he's answered the questions, and I can mostly deal with them. Has at least a clue with dealing with SPA and tendetious editors. Usually level-headed and we need that, so supporting, but open to changing my mind if weird stuff shows up - as it has a habit of doing in arbcom elections.
 * 6)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on the user page. 18,092 live edits - stats here - 37% edits to article space, 24% to article talk, 14% to user talk, 18% to wikipedia space. Last 50 article edits are to early October, fair. No answer to the 2012 case review question - also some other of the "everyone" questions not answered. And answers to Cunard's questions. Do like the civility answer to Boing's question. Also liked the rest of his answers and his answer to Sandy about Matisse was quite good. Nice to see folks who are willing to change their mind, rather than dig in their heels. That was enough to swing me to support.
 * 7)  - 8 GA and 18 DYKs claimed on user page. 13,623 live edits - stats here - 25% to article space, 14% to user, 39% to user talk, 11% to wikipedia space. Last 50 article edits are to last October, good. Like the answer on the Five Pillars, and most of the rest of the question answers. May swing support even though isn't quite as much a content editor as I would like. Answers swayed me. Still subject to further changes if information turns up, but I think level headed enough to be a positive to the committee.

Neutral

 * 1)  - No FAs claimed on user page. Does claim a few DYKs and one GA. 11,202 live edits - stats here - 26% to article space, 29% to user talk, 21% to wikipedia space. Last 50 article edits go almost to August - could be better. A number of questions have not been answered, nor do the answers that have been provided satisfy me about this candidate. Will await further answers, but nothing is screaming support to me so far. And still lacking on the answers... I think we've moved into neutral territory here.
 * 2)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on user page. Rather vocal about being against FAs, in fact. Do appreciate that the barnstars aren't on the user page. 37,153 live edits - stats here - 17% edits to article space, 20% to user talk, 28% to wikipedia space. Worth looking into (ArbCom request against Bishonen). Last 50 article edits are into October - which is good. The answers to the questions seem rather curt and superficial - I might have been persuaded to support but the answers did nothing for me. Right now I'm in the neutral category on him - there is some to like, and some not to like and I do not think it's enough to sway me to support. I could be persuaded otherwise by future events/questions/answers.
 * 3)  - Claims 6 FAs and 2 GAs and 2 FLs on their user page. 46,605 live edits - stats here - 45% edits to article space, 39% to user talk, 8% to wikipedia space. Note that 11K of their edits are from one month in 2008. Long period of no activity from Sept 2009 to March 2012. May not have been back long enough to be really in touch with current editing patterns and consensus. Last 50 article edits date to mid-November, excellent! Liked the decision on Requests for comment/Muhammad images - have concerns about their support for Alarbus/B'rer Rabbit/Jack Merridew's behavior. Like their reply on the 2012 case review question about the Perth case. Would like to see their view on the Civility case and the Malleus motion. No answers yet to Boing's question on civility and Cunard's questions, will await those answers before deciding. Still no answers .. and remain concerned with their support for Merridew/Alarbus/etc. Also remain concerned about their support for Rlverse/PumpkinSky's premature RfA - it should have been obvious that the community would not look kindly on returning the tools to someone that quickly after all the kerfluffle, and in the fallout was the loss of the editor that Keilana was trying to support. Neutral for now, but can definitely understand why some folks would oppose, I'm not that far from opposing due to the fact that they don't seem to investigate backgrounds to situations well. That's one thing being an arbitrator is - you must not just take the various combatant's word for things, you need the ability to dig into things and find out the reasons behind things.

Neutral with caveat

 * 1)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on the user page. 15,746 live edits - stats here - 15% to article space, 32% to user talk, 33% to wikipedia space. Last 50 edits to article space stretch to September, which could be better, but Elen's never made much secret of the fact that she concentrates more on resolving disputes and supporting the content editors. Like Brad, we know what we'll get since she's been on the committee - still works outside of committee space and I've been quite happy with her behavior on the committee. Note from 27 November 2012: I still remain happy with her work on the committee, but leaking emails from a private list, while I understand why she did it, is something that I find I cannot overlook. I may still vote for her for re-election, but I cannot in good conscience recommend that others vote for her. Everyone needs to evaluate her candidacy on their own, thus the "neutral with caveat" section. I haven't yet decided on my own vote, and I won't disclose it onwiki, but everyone interested needs to decide on their own, not based on someone else's vote.

Oppose

 * 1)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on user page. Note that the userpage is a giant collection of barnstars... I'd prefer to see more about their wiki philosophy or what they are working on, rather than a brag wall. 55,782 live edits - stats here. Only 28% to article space, ick! 12% to article talk, 31% to user talk, 22% to Wikipedia space and 4% to wikipedia talk. Request for 'Cratship. Last 50 edits to article space are all within this month, which is good. Do not like the fact that they haven't answered all the "to every candidate" questions - and the rest of Cunard's questions. Leaning neutral or oppose due to temperament issues and still lack of answers to some questions. Upon further reflections, opposing over temperament issues - he's a great editor and a decent admin, but a lot less level-headed than I might like in an arb.
 * 2)  - Anyone running with YOLO Swag isn't there to actually do the job.
 * 3)  - No. See User:Jclemens/Not a Wikipedian for some reasons why. It's not just that I've collaborated with Malleus quite well, it's Jclemens whole attitude - he seems to have decided that his election is a mandate for him to impose his ideas of civility on the project. While last year I went neutral because "I like his habit of calling a spade a spade, but unfortunately he does it a bit too often on the side of things I can't agree with." this year he seems to have gone off the deep end. While there is a problem with arbs being too "nice" - the solution isn't to go to the opposite extreme either. Add this diff as further evidence. And then there is this. While I think Mathsci would be best served by just ignoring a lot of the trolling - Jclemens' behavior there looks vindictive to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further here ... this reply "No, the most important public job of ArbCom is to settle conduct (not content, conduct) disputes by banning the people who cannot be banned by the community because the editors who are disrupting the project have enough partisans on their side to preclude any community ban motion from finding consensus." to one of the election questions is just so far wrong and out of touch with community ideals that it deserves to be highlighted. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  - No FAs claimed on user page. 3 GAs and 1 DYK. 9,791 live edits - stats here - 32% edits to article space, 25% to user talk, 25% to wikipedia space. First two years of editing were pretty sparse. Lean towards just not enough editing for the position. First 50 article edits go to early October, could be better. On the 2012 case review question - this answer "Other than that no cases jump out at me in particular as having been above or below average." is strangely out of touch with the commmunity's concerns with a number of cases this year and with my own concerns. Like the fact that they acknowledge they erred on User talk:Joefromrandb. Need to see answers to Cunard's questions before deciding. Still no answers and just have concerns about their being in touch with community standards as well as lack of experience.
 * 2)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on user page, does have one listed on WP:WBFAN (Natalee Holloway). 63,007 live edits - stats here - 59% edits to article space, 17% to user talk, 9% to wikipedia space. Last 50 article edits are to mid-November - good. Concerns with this part of his answers to questions "they never did desysop Scott Macdonald, despite the fact that he had wheel-warred and blocked another administrator during the course of his wheel-warring. As I said in my statement, I believe that Arbcom tends to miss the point of everything brought before it." and "I'm not so convinced that we do." in answer to the question about editor retention. Still have major concerns about his BLP views. I'm going to have to oppose because I do not share enough of his viewpoints - and I don't think most of the community does either.
 * 3)  - One GA claimed on user page. Not an admin. 9,629 live edits - stats here - 43% to article space, 12% to article talk, 20% to user talk, 12% to wikipedia space. Last 50 article edits are to the end of October, good. Like the content editing and the fact that a non-admin's view should be on the committee - not sure this is the candidate though. Just not the right time nor enough experience for this candidate. Would definitely want to see more activity and involvement before supporting.
 * 4)  - 1 FA and 6 GAs claimed on user page. 10,361 live edits - stats here - 49% to article space, 14% to article talk, 16% to user talk, 8% to wikipedia space. Last 50 article edits are to early Nov, good. Awaiting replies on Cunard's questions, as I have concerns about this editor's views on civility. This one is just ... difficult. It's very hard to pin down why I need to oppose on this candidate, as it's a "feeling" that between a number of different issues, this just isn't a good idea at this time. Some of its the number of edits, some of it is a lack of experience, some of its the answers to the questions, and some of it is just how I've felt in watching this editor interact with others. I can't point to any diffs, but my gut is telling me "no" on this one, and I think I'm going to go with my gut more this year.
 * 5)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on the user page. 31,280 live edits - stats here - 21% to article space, 45% to user talk, 22% to wikipedia space. Last 50 article edits are to early Sept, could be better. No answer to the "reflection on 2012 cases" question - that's a negative. Awaiting answers for questions - but the lack of replies at this point (22 Nov) isn't inspiring. Still no decent answers, opposing.
 * 6)  - No FAs or GAs claimed on the user page. 30,560 live edits - stats here - 16% to article space, 15% to user talk, 50% to wikipedia space. Last 50 edits are to mid July, not very good. Do not like the imposition of one way interaction bans - I understand why in theory they should work, but people aren't theories and being people, they won't work. Better to just make it two way and save a lot of grief. (Not that interaction bans aren't often sources of grief, but making it one way gets the worst of both worlds). Awaiting answers to Cunard's questions for decisions, but leaning oppose for now due to lack of content editing and the one way interaction bans. And the answers to Cunard's questions that I was particularly interested in were... non-answers so going with my gut here and opposing.
 * 7)  - no user page. 4,040 live edits. Not nearly enough. Oh, he was NWARep? Not a chance in hell.