User:Ealdgyth/2024 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 wish folks had 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 16 of these things I've done. Good gods, I'm turning into an institution. Over a decade. Yikes.

Past votes

Handy!

To integrate

In the spirit of fairness

- Edit tools 152K+ edits total. Account started editing May 2007. 71.2% to articles, 8.7% to article talk, 5.4% to user pages, 5.8% to user talk pages, 7.9% to wikipedia space, 0.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Sept 2024. 3 articles with over 1000 edits, 100+ articles with over 100 edits. 101 edits to ANI, 53 to AN. 839 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 58 FAs, 1 FL, 1 FT, 140 GAs.

The Candidates

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates

Listed out

Support

- Edit tools 111K+ edits total. Account started editing July 2007. 21.2% to articles, 12.4% to article talk, 1.5% to user pages, 30.6% to user talk pages, 27.5% to wikipedia space, 5.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Oct 2024. 4 articles with over 100 edits. 1917 edits to ANI, 1728 to AN. 106 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user page.
I think we all know what we're getting with JSS as an arb.

Let me make it clear - I have an account on WPO. I do not like Vigilant's attitude to doxing anyone and everyone. That I have an account on WPO (which predates much of the controversy about Vigilant's "campaign") does not mean I agree with Vigilant. If someone has an account on the wikipedia Discord (noting for the record, that I actually am connected to the wikipedia discord also, although I rarely participate there), does that make them complicit in any bad posts that happen in the discord server? No. Same applies to WPO - we should apply the same standards with the discord server as with WPO. (Now... Wikipedia Sucks? I do not have an account there... that place is insane).

And lets address the other elephant in the room - the Gitz situation. In this situation, I find the greater ethical situation is whether or not someone is allowed to know what they are accused of. Righting THAT wrong is much more important than a "rule" to keep discussions of accusations/charges/etc from the accused. I side with JSS in finding that keeping a banned editor's reasons for being banned from the editor is grotesque and his actions actually make me more inclined to support him for ArbCom.
- Edit tools 745K+ edits total. Account started editing July 2013. 22% to articles, 2.4% to article talk, 8.7% to user pages, 44.7% to user talk pages, 13.9% to wikipedia space, 0.5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Nov 2024. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 2689 edits to ANI, 933 to AN. (Tool crashed repeatedly trying to figure out how many pages created). Is an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on talk page.
Liz sometimes is a bit TOO easygoing when first weighing in on an issue, but they are always willing to see things and willing to change their initial opinions based on other information.

Note I opposed in her RfA in 2015.
- Edit tools 59K+ edits total. Account started editing Feb 2021. 18.3% to articles, 29.4% to article talk, 1.2% to user pages, 38.5% to user talk pages, 10.4% to wikipedia space, 1.2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Nov 2024. 1 article with over 100 edits. 765 edits to ANI, 403 to AN. 1 "real" page created. Is an admin. 3 GAs claimed on user page.
If SFR is elected to the community, who the heck is going to deal with AE???

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/ScottishFinnishRadish/Questions

I liked their answers to my questions and as long as they stay out of ARBPIA cases, I fully endorse them on arbcom. And the only reason I think they need to recuse from ARBPIA isn't because I feel they are biased, but because they have done so much enforcement that editors would be calling for their recusal and would make any case SFR took part in all about SFR rather than the actual case. This is a situation where the appearance of problems leads to the need to recuse even though the appearance is just that - an appearance not actual substance.

Note that I opposed their RfA over concerns about superficiality of their investigations of things. Generally, I've been pleased that they seem to have taken on board that concern. If elected to ArbCom, try to keep that going forward!

Slight support

- Edit tools 36K+ edits total. Account started editing June 2006. 34.1% to articles, 2.5% to article talk, 5.8% to user pages, 23.5% to user talk pages, 32.1% to wikipedia space, 0.5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Sept 2022. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 534 edits to ANI, 275 to AN. 104 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on talk page.
I am concerned that they are not going to actually have the time to contribute - they have severely curtailed their wikipedia editing in the last few years (last 500 edits go back two years!)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/KrakatoaKatie/Questions

I never had any major concerns with Katie's past actions as an arb, the main reason this is here and not a full support is a concern about activity levels.
- Edit tools 26K+ edits total. Account started editing July 2008. 23.5% to articles, 4.1% to article talk, 10.6% to user pages, 33% to user talk pages, 20.5% to wikipedia space, 6.2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Sept 2022. 1 article with over 100 edits. 135 edits to ANI, 202 to AN. 43 "real" pages created. Will be an admin. 2 FAs and 29 GAs claimed on user page.
I am concerned about their ability to contribute, given their past issues with having enough time for wikipedia. Their last 500 edits go back two years!

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions

Like with KK, I end up with slight support, with the main concern being activity levels.

Oppose

- Edit tools 13K+ edits total. Account started editing March 2008. 22.4% to articles, 38.5% to article talk, 0.7% to user pages, 9.6% to user talk pages, 27.0% to wikipedia space, 1.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to May 2024. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 642 edits to ANI, 82 to AN. 6 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user page.
Per answers to questions 12 and 13. For one, "It was a single comment in a heated moment - I will, of course, endeavor to arbitrate fairly, impartially and guided by the rules and norms of Wikipedia." is not quite enough for something that reveals Simon has such a strong view of the conflict area. It's quite a bit revealing of the actual views that Simon even knew that "IOF" is a term used instead of "IDF", and that alone should be enough to make someone aware that they cannot possibly "arbitrate fairly, impartially and guided by the rules and norms of Wikipedia". I'll draw attention to ScottishFinnishRadish's answer to a similar question of whether he would recuse himself in ARBPIA5 (question #3). There needs to be the appearance of impartiality - even if it means that sometimes a recusal happens even when someone is sure that they could be impartial, if others might not share that belief, better to recuse. (I myself recuse from any actual admin-ing in contentious areas where I edit - mostly Holocaust topics)
- Edit tools 236K+ edits total. Account started editing Oct 2010. 38.3% to articles, 6.2% to article talk, 3.7% to user pages, 11.8% to user talk pages, 13.3% to wikipedia space, 5.1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Oct 2024. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 386 edits to ANI, 1559 to AN. 121 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No FAs or GAs claimed on user page.
Per answer to question #3. Just - no. Primefac's had a distressing tendency to not recuse when he should and this reply to questions about a case which had two findings that Primefac did not behave properly in regards to the case shows that they still don't get it.
- Edit tools 78K+ edits total. Account started editing May 2006. 29.8% to articles, 6.4% to article talk, 3.7% to user pages, 18.6% to user talk pages, 35.5% to wikipedia space, 2.5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Oct 2024. 9 articles with over 100 edits. 1096 edits to ANI, 438 to AN. 234 "real" pages created. Is a former admin. No audited content listed on user page.
I'm failing to see their ability to engage with the community - I'm not seeing them stepping up to take on disputes so I'm not seeing how they would add anything to the committee.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Daniel/Questions

Request for removal of tools in Oct 2024

If they needed to drop the tools just two weeks ago, I cannot see that they are going to have the time for ArbCom.

Neutral

- Edit tools 58K+ edits total. Account started editing Feb 2014. 49.2% to articles, 14.6% to article talk, 4.5% to user pages, 8.2% to user talk pages, 9.2% to wikipedia space, 1.2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Oct 2024. 1 article with over 100 edits. 167 edits to ANI, 25 to AN. 357 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims one GA and one FA on user page.
I'm not seeing any actual work with disputes that gives me a clue about thow they would engage as an arb.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Elli/Questions

The given examples for my question did not give me much to work on. In the end, I just can't see much here to base a decision on so I'll go with neutral. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Edit tools 25K+ edits total. Account started editing Feb 2014. 40.1% to articles, 10.8% to article talk, 2.8% to user pages, 24.7% to user talk pages, 18.2% to wikipedia space, 1.9% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to April 2024. 4 articles with over 100 edits. 489 edits to ANI, 106 to AN. 32 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims two FAs on user page.
While I cannot say that I've considered Eek to be the most serious of arbs, they have at least tried to engage with the community. Lately I've felt like they are being shoved out to take the heat for the rest of the committee's inability to be organized or transparent.
- Edit tools 27K+ edits total. Account started editing Nov 2009. 28.3% to articles, 7.3% to article talk, 2.9% to user pages, 22.6% to user talk pages, 28.9% to wikipedia space, 4.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to March 2024. 6 articles with over 100 edits. 257 edits to ANI, 106 to AN. 69 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 3 FAs, 6 FLs, 1 FP, 10 GAs on user page.
I find his terse answers to the election questions not promising. On the other hand, he voted against recinding the topic/interation bans on My Very Best Wishes, which led to this series of edits at Gas van returning undue weight to the minimal possible use of gas vans in the Soviet Union. The article is again unbalanced with way too much weight on the possible Soviet usage as compared to the much wider and much more destructive use in German actions in WWII.
- Edit tools 43K+ edits total. Account started editing Nov 2017. 16.2% to articles, 6.7% to article talk, 9.1% to user pages, 10.1% to user talk pages, 14.1% to wikipedia space, 10.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Oct 2024. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 46 edits to ANI, 37 to AN. 63 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 5 FAs, 1 FL, 14 GAs claimed on user page.
I remain a bit concerned that they may not have enough experience with dealing with disputes.

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates/Theleekycauldron/Questions

I opposed at the first RfA in 2022 over maturity concerns. Did not vote in second RfA.

In the end, I still have concerns about ability to handle disputes and come down on neutral.

Withdrawn

Cases I'll be leaning on for my thinking