User:Ealdgyth/2014 Arb Election votes

Plan to get to the candidates in the next few days.

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.

5 December 2014: We have 9 (nine!!!!!) slots to fill? Oh, gods. There is no way I can find 9 candidates I support. Do not expect nine supports from this guide.

Past votes

 * User:Ealdgyth/2009 Arb Election votes
 * User:Ealdgyth/2010 Arb Election votes
 * User:Ealdgyth/2011 Arb Election votes
 * User:Ealdgyth/2012 Arb Election votes
 * User:Ealdgyth/2013 Arb Election votes

Handy!

 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Guide

Candidates
An aside - the edit count tools are being very flakey this year - so I'm forced to not put up those sorts of stats. Luckily, despite what some have thought in the past, those stats are never the deciding factor for me - they were just a good starting point.



Support

 * 1)  Like the answer's to EllenCT's "trick" questions. Like the answer to G's civility question. Like the answer to Collect's 5 pillar's question. Would have been nice if they'd dodged Fae's question. Never been a big fan of Hot Stop's penchant for hanging out at the dramah boards (although it was certainly never among the worst). Last 250 edits to late Oct. May be leaning support. Wow. This support is my "flyer" for the year - the one outside the box support that may turn out to bite me on the ass later.
 * 2)  Eh, not a big fan of the answer to Collect's 5 pillars questions. Good answer on G's civility question. Again, would have been nice to have dodged Fae's question. Generally, I can't recall why they left the committee last time - but they served out their time, it appears. Not "enthusiastic" support, but support. (As an aside - seeing another guide writer call Coucelles "He is clearly a strong content creator" when C has 3 GAs and about a dozen FLs... is scary.)
 * 3)  Good answer to Gerda's question - seeing the whole background not just a technical focus on the single issue. Collect's 5 pillars question is ... "eh". Again, would have been nice to not answer Fae's question (In case those of you reading this hadn't gathered, I find that question very very offensive and against the concept of open editing). Good engagement with the project - last 250 edits go to early Dec. I fundamentally disagree with their position on some aspects of BLP - but respect their position because they have worked within the system when the BLP policies changed. IN the end... I think leaning support.
 * 4)  Good answer to G's civility question. Good answer to Gerda's question. Okay answer to Collect's 5 pillars question. No answer to Fae's question. Since I was one of the folks encouraging him to run, I'd better support. Have always liked his approach on fringe topics, and good engagement with the project (last 250 edits go to late November).
 * 5)  So-so answer to Collect's 5 pillars question. So-so answer to Gerda's question. Mostly good answer to G's civility questoin (really, did you HAVE to use "microaggression"... what a load of ... err.. ) Good answers to EllenCT's questions. GREAT answer to Fae's question. Okay, I supported last year and neutral the year before. I think support here.
 * 6)  Not exactly happy with the answer to Gerda's question. Not happy with no answer to G's civility question. Good answer to Fae's question. Need to look at your work on the committee before deciding. Okay, so they are engaged with the project (it's not fair to look at a sitting arbs last 250 edits as so much of what they do is arb related and not content related.) Felt like their work on GGTF case was decent (although the squeamishness about mentioning "the word" was a bit amusing to this Yank). I opposed in 2012 - mainly due to lack of answers to questions.  You mostly abstained in the Banning policy case, you did not vote in the Ebionites case, I generally agreed with your approach in the infoboxes case, and whether through luck or whatever managed to avoid the tea party case. I'm going to support here.
 * 7)  Sees the background behind Gerda's question, which is good. So-so answer to EllenCTs questions. Good answer to G's civility question. Decent answer to jps' question (usual grumble). Good calm reply to the question from Hastuer and Nick. Like the answer to Fae's question. I'll be honest - I had not thought I'd support but the questions are leaning me towards support. Last 250 edits are to early December, which is good. I wish they were more "content" oriented than technical oriented.
 * 8)  At least sees some of the background to Gerda's question. Answer to G's civility question leaves the actual method of enforcing civiity up in the air... not a good thing. Okay answer to Ellen's questions. Although they answered Fae's question, they at least answered it well. Last 250 edits go to late November, which is good. Does claim a few GAs on their userpage. One FA. Okay, having looked at the field as a whole, this candidate appears quite a bit better...

Neutral

 * 1)  So-so answer to G's civility question. None of the other answers stand out as good or bad - would have been happier if they didn't answer Fae's question. Not great engagement with the project - last 250 edits go to mid Sept. No sign of audited content contributions. Going to have go with with the whole "meh" feeling I'm getting and put them in neutral.
 * 2)  So-so answer to Gerda's question - doesn't actually appear to have looked at the background much. Good answers to EllenCT's questions. Good answers to G's civility questions. Better answer than most to Fae's question - they answered but then disagreed with the premise of the question. Okay engagement with the project - last 250 edits go to early November. Claims one FA contribution on their userpage. MilHist member. I'm not seeing a LOT of work on audited content nor much engagement with dispute resolution. Leaning support but may not. In the end, just not enough to swing me to support, but I could see where they won't be as scary as some of the other candidates.
 * 3)  Not a fan of the answer to Gerda's question, but at least they see they need to recuse. Okay answer to G's civility question, I remain a bit concerned that they are more "hard line" on civilty than the answer would suggest. Okay answer to EllenCTs question. Not a fan of the answer to Fae's question. Have usually not thought "Oh, gods, them again" when I see them around the project. Decent engagement with the project - last 250 edits go to mid-November. (Like the 42 userbox, btw). Really would have liked to see some sort of content stats on their userpage to go with their admin stats... falling squarely into "neutral" right now.
 * 4)  Okay answer to Gerda's question. Okay answer to Collect's 4 pillar question. Okay answer to G's civility question. Good job seeing through EllenCT's questions. Not a fan that they answered Fae's question. Good engagement with the project - last 250 edits go to late November. Not an admin, which is something of a bonus. A bit of a technical focus and not any audited content claimed. Nothing here to swing me to support.

Oppose

 * 1)  Not a fan of the answer to G's civility question. Not a fan of the answer to Collect's 5 pillar's question either - no, I do not think some of the pillars outweigh the concept that we're building an encyclopedia. THAT should come first. Better answer to Fae's question than I've seen elsewhere. Decent egagement with the project - last 250 edits go to mid November. In the end, the feeling that they are hardline on civility and don't really understand that content is king. Opposed last time they ran, and not seeing much change from then.
 * 2)  Decent answer to G's civility question - but otherwise very concerning answers to questions - seems to think everything falls into ArbCom's remit. Also very terse and quick answers - doesn't appear to want to answer the questions or the intent of the questions. The attitude towards questions as well as their past stances on things makes me oppose. Also note that the last 250 edits go back to APRIL... not really engaged with the project.
 * 3)  So-so answer to Gerda's question - focused on the technicalities, not the background. Okay answer to G's civility question. Not much liking the trend of the answer to jps' question. (And would SOMEONE make that account name not so much a slap to everyone else who has to try to use it???) Concerns with Sandy's points and with Fram's. Okay engagement with the project - last 250 edits go to late October. Fram's points on ANI are a concern also - even though I don't always agree with Fram's approach to problems.
 * 4)  - no reason to change from last year's position. Has only about 150 more edits than last year, just not enough engagement with the project. Last 250 edits go back to FEB 2013!!! Answers don't change a thing.
 * 5)  Not greatly impressed with the lack of answers to EllenCT's questions. (The fact that I disagree with her whole premise of the questions does not make them un-useful as indicators of how the candidates think). Uh - not a fan of answers to G's questions either. Did not answer Collect's 5 pillars question. NOt a fan of their approach to Gerda's questions either. Do like the non-answer to Fae's question. While I'd be a fan of a non-admin on the committee, I'm not impressed with the stance taken with the questions.
 * 6)  Good answer to Collect' 5 pillars question. Decent answer to Gerda's question - at least looks at the background. Good answer to G's civility question. Would have been better to have dodged Fae's question. Not so good engagement with the project - last 250 edits go to early October and most of those are dealing with Arbcom matters. Does claim some audited content on their userpage - but I've opposed in both the years they've run before. No.
 * 7)  So so answer to Gerda's question - doesn't really show much background knowledge. Not a fan of their answer to G's civility question. Decent answer to jps' question (obligatory grumble about his "real" username inserted here). Would have been nicer if they didn't answer Fae's question. Not enough here to make me support. Not a big fan of their "WO is fine to be nasty on but we need to be civil as I define it on WP" vibe I'm getting either. Also - lack of engagement with the project here - last 250 edits go back to MAY 2013.