User:Ealdgyth/2017 Arb Election votes

It's that time of year again... (it's beginning to look a lot like elections... everywhere you go.... )

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 9 of these things I've done. Good gods, I'm turning into an institution.

Important note

I'm going to be gone for a week starting 22 November through 28 November. I'll have some access, but the final guide here will likely NOT be finished until I return. Sorry, folks, but this is our one big "fling" every year, and we'll be off to the Texas Renaissance Festival to camp, dress up like children, drink too much, meet too many new people, and hopefully not spend too much money.

Past votes

In the spirit of fairness

- Edit tools 102,000 edits total, 5900 automated (not sure where these come from, since I've never installed Twinkle or Huggle or the like), 96100 manual edits (according to the tool, but it's actually right at 102,000). Account started editing 2007. 67.1% to articles, 10.5% to article talk, 5.9% to user pages, 6.7% to user talk pages, 8.6% to wikipedia space, 0.7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 2 months. Over 100 articles with over 100 edits. 53 edits to ANI, 23 edits 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

User:Ealdgyth/2017 Arb diff collection

Candidates

Support

- Edit tools 190,000 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2005. 50.5% to articles, 4.4% to article talk, 1.7% to user pages, 13.2% to user talk pages, 21.9% to wikipedia space, 4.7% to wikipedia talk pages, 3.3% to template space. Last 500 edits go back half a month. 64 articles with over 100 edits. 603 edits to ANI, 278 edits to AN. Is not an admin. Doesn't claim any GAs or FAs on their user page - but has many including FLs. 408 edits with alternate account.
Yes, he can be an ass. And sometimes he lets his cranky out way too much. But, there is no denying his commitment to the project and it's main goal of writing the encyclopedia. I really think we need a few more ArbCom members who actually do more than pay lip service to that goal.

Slight support

- Edit tools 59,000 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2009, but no significant activity until 2012. 23.1% to articles, 3.5% to article talk, 9.4% to user pages, 29.2% to user talk pages, 26.2% to wikipedia space, 2.7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. No articles with over 100 edits. 137 edits to ANI, 191 edits to AN. Is an admin and current arb. 4 GAs claimed on their user page. Less than 110 edits with alternate accounts.
Voted against desysoping Gamaliel. Voted to have a limited scope in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin, which is good. I had concerns about Callanecc's ability when he was elected in 2015, but he's managed to not bungle too badly as an arb, so I'm okay with slightly supporting him.
- Edit tools 33,400 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2006. 35.1% to articles, 2.5% to article talk, 5.8% to user pages, 23.1% to user talk pages, 31.2% to wikipedia space. Last 500 edits go back 2.5 months. No articles with over 100 edits. 517 edits to ANI, 244 edits to AN. Is an admin. Doesn't any GAs or FAs on their user page.
Meh. Nothing awful in the replies to questions, has a good engagement with the project, but not great.
- Edit tools 14,500 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2006, but drop off in activity until early 2015. 37% to articles, 6.4% to article talk, 4.1% to user pages, 16.1% to user talk pages, 25.6% to wikipedia space, 7.2% to wikipedia talk pages, 2.3% to template space. Last 500 edits go back 7 months. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 82 edits to ANI, 82 edits to AN. Is an admin and current arb. Doesn't claim any GAs or FAs on their user page. Less than 50 edits with their alternate accounts.
Voted against desysoping Gamaliel. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Proposed decision was not their finest hour, but seems to have taken on board the criticism they received, which is good. Voted to have a limited scope in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin, which is good. Declined the Joefromrandb case, which is good. Support for this from a secretive meeting is a bit concerning. Appreciated muchly that they refused to answer Collect's questions...
- Edit tools 137,000 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2005, has a few stretches of not editing, but rarely over a few months. 33.5% to articles, 12% to article talk, 2.9% to user pages, 8% to user talk pages, 15.6% to wikipedia space, 12.3% to wikipedia talk pages, 9.1% to template space, 3% to template talk space, 1.9% to category space. Last 500 edits go back half a month. 19 articles with over 100 edits. 465 edits to ANI, 244 edits to AN. Is not an admin. 2 GAs claimed on their user page.
I worry about his fixations - and the fact that he doesn't seem to recognize that if elected he should recuse from MOS-related issues. In his answer to Iri, he just mentions article topics he'd need to recuse from - leaving the elephant in the room of MOS totally out of the reply. That is a concern. Otherwise, I'd be a stronger support.

Neutral

- Edit tools 15,800 edits total, 1500 automated, 14,300 manual edits. Account started editing 2006 - but long hiatus 2008-2012 then 2014-2016. 25.1% to articles, 6.5% to article talk, 3.9% to user pages, 19.2% to user talk pages, 22.8% to wikipedia space, 3.2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 2 articles with over 100 edits. 287 edits to ANI, 70 edits to AN. 63 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Doesn't claim any GAs or FAs on their user page.
I actually think Alex would be great in this role - after he's been back a while longer. I prefer arbs that have at least a couple of years of solid editing on the project in the recent past.
- Edit tools 84,000 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2015. 39.3% to articles, 6.8% to article talk, 13.1% to user pages, 3.9% to user talk pages, 16.5% to wikipedia space, 2.6% to wikipedia talk pages, 7.5% to file space, 3.7% to template space, 1.0 to template talk space, 2.9% to category space, 2.4% to category talk space. Last 500 edits go back half a month. 1 article with over 100 edits. 397 edits to ANI, 328 edits to AN. Is an admin. 24 GAs claimed on their user page.
The big concern here is the fact they've only edited since 2015. Normally I'd want a longer editing tenure, but it's not enough to push me out of support. I do have to share Carrite's concerns about their early editing... this was enough to push me to neutral....
- Edit tools 22,700 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2003, but very spotty (and light) editing until early 2017. 44.5% to articles, 3.1% to article talk, 2.9% to user pages, 6.6% to user talk pages, 16.7% to wikipedia space, 1.0% to template space. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. No articles with over 100 edits. 58 edits to ANI, 54 edits to AN. Is an admin. Doesn't claim any GAs or FAs on their user page. Less than 20 edits with alternate accounts.
Seems decent enough, but hasn't really been editing solidly for very long.
- Edit tools 48,900 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2006, but a hiatus until 2015. 17.5% to articles, 1.4% to article talk, 6.8% to user pages, 50.1% to user talk pages, 23% to wikipedia space. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 1 article with over 100 edits. 1140 edits to ANI (2.3% of their total edits), 276 edits to AN. Is an admin. Doesn't any GAs or FAs on their user page. All alternate accounts were renamed.
I waffled badly here - the thing that kept Rick in the neutral column rather than support was fact that he's done less article work. I'd really like to see not just three years of solid activity, but also a good engagement with article editing.

Oppose

- Edit tools 58,300 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2004. 24.3% to articles, 6.5% to article talk, 2.1% to user pages, 11.2% to user talk pages, 52.6% to wikipedia space, 1.7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1.5 YEARS. 4 articles with over 100 edits. 193 edits to ANI, under 44 edits to AN. Is an admin. Doesn't claim any GAs or FAs on their user page. Former ArbCom member.
Cannot support a user who has made less than 500 edits in the last year, no matter how good their service in the past.
- Edit tools 22,300 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2008, but only serious editing from 2010, and has been pretty scarce since mid-2016. 25.2% to articles, 4.2% to article talk, 12.3% to user pages, 35.8% to user talk pages, 14.9% to wikipedia space, 5.0% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back a bit over 14 months. 1 article with over 100 edits. 132 edits to ANI, 182 edits to AN. Is an admin. Claims 29 GAs and 2 FAs on their user page. Former ArbCom member.
Cannot support a user who has made less than 500 edits in the last year, no matter how good their service in the past.

Super-duper oppose with all the trimmings on top

(Otherwise known as WTF were they thinking running?)

- Sorry, you mean well, I'm sure, but given your major editing interests and your block log, you don't have any chance at all. It would take an exceptional non-admin candidate to win an ArbCom seat - which means someone who either doesn't have a block log at all or someone who has never ruffled feathers. You're neither, unfortunately.

Withdrawn

- Edit tools 46,300 edits total, not opted in to allow for automated counts. Account started editing 2004, but a hiatus from 2015 until about 2 months ago. 40.7% to articles, 9.9% to article talk, 1.2% to user pages, 23.9% to user talk pages, 21% to wikipedia space, 2.9% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 1 month. 2 articles with over 100 edits. 2497 edits to ANI (5.3% of total edits), 453 edits to AN. Is an admin. Doesn't claim any GAs or FAs on their user page. Less than 50 edits with alternate account.
I find this answer to a question to be concerning - I do not think it at all fair to sanction non-parties to a case when they have had no warning that their behavior is not optimal. General fairness is an important quality in ArbCom, one that failed sometimes in the last few years.

Blocked

- Not even going to bother trying to analyze this editor because they haven't been around long enough to even begin to think about being on ArbCom. Only editing since August does not an ArbCom member make. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and withdraw .. it'll be much kinder to your ego.