User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2017

Criteria

I use this guide mainly to clarify things for myself so don't expect more than a few vaguely stated impressions. My general expectations are that an arbc should have been around for a while and should have a reasonable amount of content edits under their belt. Helpful, though not necessary, if they're also an admin. I do read all the candidate answers (except for the obvious trolls) but beyond this my judgements are entirely subjective. Hopefully, User:Bishonen will unveil a much better guide at an opportune moment!

I've added an "Edit record" column that rates the candidate on their contributions to Wikipedia, trading off mainspace and wikispace edits. Fuzzily speaking, if an editor doesn't have a decent content space track record, then they are less likely to focus on the core of wikipedia (content!) and more likely to focus on a bureaucratic model of arbitration. Not always true of course. Just another piece of information to put into your pipe and smoke while you figure out who to vote for.

Also, note that if you're looking for a guide that predicts who or who will not be elected, you've come to the wrong place. A quick look at my past recommendations should convince you that my preferences don't necessarily align with those of the community (except that both I as well as the community will not support obvious trolls!). Think of this as an orthogonal take on the process and try to draw your own conclusions.

Rating

Support: Yup. Vote for them.
Neutral: Doesn't mean much. Don't really know the candidate
Oppose: Please don't vote for them. Really. The very fact that they've chosen to run means they have lousy decision making skills!

Candidate	Bottom line	Edit record	Thoughts
Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs)	Support	Passable 13,625 edits with about 40% to mainspace (plus mainspace talk).	The main issue here is the paucity of edits overall. But they've been an arb for two years and haven't broken anything so why not! Additional note. While reading Worm's responses to questions, I happened on this. An amazingly clear (though long and winding :)) view on civility etc. Unlikely to go wrong with a person who thinks like this!
Worm That Turned (talk · contribs)	Oppose	Passable A bit better than the last time around (in 2011). 21,000 edits with 30% (low) in mainspace. Of course, the elephant here is the disappearing and then returning straight into an arbcom election. But that's a separate issue.	I like worm - who doesn't - and did support their candidacy back in 2011 (has it been so long). But, here I must fall on the oppose side. Frankly, I don't think worm understands the content side of wikipedia very well. For example, the response to SilkTork's question is particularly troubling. Any admin in a contentious area can attest to the usefulness of arbcom sanctions in controlling socks, pov pushers, etc. who periodically invade wikipedia. There's also the issue of the lack of recent editing. I don't understand this need to come back to Wikipedia after an extended hiatus and head straight for the arb committee. Even putting aside the "arbcom or bust" possibility that this raises, I fear that a WTT on arbcom will, fairly quickly, lead to an empty seat on the committee. We need to see some evidence that that won't happen and, short of an extended "on-wiki" period, I don't see it likely that it will appear. Sorry.
Alex Shih (talk · contribs)	Oppose	Poor Less than 15,000 edits with only a bit above 30% in article space. Lots of user talk though - hopefully some of it is content related.	I actually liked some of Alex Shih's responses. Particularly DGG1 and the CG one. Not sure about the SilkTork response though (sort of what one would expect from someone not editing content recently). However, the edit history is too poor for me to support. Hopefully next year.
Callanecc (talk · contribs)	Support	Passable Plenty of edits (55K+) but less than 35% in mainspace.	Way back [1] I thought Callanecc would be too rule bound to be an arb. But, looking through the responses (see the response to Fram for example), and their record as an arb, I think I was wrong. Looks like a thoughtful enough person. So, support.
KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs)	Support	Passable Plenty of edits (31K+) but less than 35% in mainspace. And very few to article talk pages (which, imo, usually means that mainspace edits tend to be "safe" ones rather than content deep).	Answers to questions are uniformly good. I particularly liked the responses to Biblioworm's improvement proposals (which, imo, are mostly solutions in search of a problem) and the non-answer (and I mean that in a good way) to SilkTork's question. The outing response (to DGG) is also spot on. But, rather than focusing on specifics, what I liked was their ability to see gray where gray was necessary (Banedon's 2nd question) and to see b&w where that was the better color (Banedon's first question, outing, etc.). I guess that compensates for the barely passable edit record.
SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)	Withrawn	Excellent Don't really need to see this but 40000+ edits with approx 50% in mainspace. No problems with content focus here.	Tough one. SoV has a history here that can't be easily ignored. Add to that, the answers to the questions are almost uniformly noncommittal (which doesn't sound like the Sarek we know) - cf. the answer to Nick's question on cases and the response to SilkTork. But, from amongst all the candidates (and I mean all) my gut says Sarek is the most likely to recognize the danger to the project that polite but disruptive pov editors bring to the project and the most likely to take a hard line with the worst of these editors. So, yes. Push the support button without hesitation.
BU Rob13 (talk · contribs)	Support	Good No concerns. 75,000+ edits with more than 45% in mainspace.	No flags from the questions. Response to Gerda good, most others are ok though I'd hoped from more from an active checkuser on SilkTork's question. But no worries.
Mailer diablo (talk · contribs)	Neutral	Good Long time conributor with plenty of edits (51,500). Perhaps skewed toward wikispace (55%) but good enough content edits as well (31%).	I'm going to go with a wimpy "Neutral" here - even though this leaves me with less than 8 candidates - because I can't figure Mailer diablo out. Might come back to this later.
SMcCandlish (talk · contribs)	Oppose	Superior Another stellar contributor. 130k+ edits with 45% approx to mainspace. Nice!	A reluctant oppose on this. While good content editors are a plus on arbcom, I'm generally not in favor of non-admins (or rather, never been admins) on arbcom because they, by definition, have received less scrutiny from the community. I'm also not happy with the responses to several questions - Gerda's, DGG 2 (the ban/unban part - it ain't so easy to reban and the damage done by bad actors is often hard to reverse), the DGG outing question, and the SilkTork question (I think a personal view was being asked for). OTOH, responses to some questions are quite good, particularly the Banedon one. Curious to see the response to BMK but the non-admin-ness trumps (ulp!) the other pluses and minuses. I'd suggest an RfA first.
RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs)	Neutral	Barely passable Though RiB has plenty of edits (34K), less than 20% are in mainspace. A hefty 51% in user talk which ain't so great.	Some answers are good (SilkTork, DGG outing), some not so good (DGG Q1) and Insane Hacker Q3, and the editing history is barely passable. Perhaps next year?
The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)	Support	Superior Rare (and nice!) to see a stellar content contributor on the arbcom candidate list. With 182,000+ edits, 55% to mainspace and 25% to wikispace there is no question about TRMs editing credentials.	This is a tough one. TRM is clearly well invested in Wikipedia and that's a plus. Unfortunately, TRM is also equally clearly been on the not so good side of the arbitration process, and that's a minus. Reading through their responses to questions, there is some of that aggrievement showing (cf. the response to MastCell's question) which is not so great. On the balance though, because of the content investment, I think they will fall on the "doing right by Wikipedia" side of whatever cases come up and so a risk well worth taking.
Sir Joseph (talk · contribs)	Oppose	Borderline passable 12,000+ edits with about 45% to mainspace.	This one is easy. Barely enough edits. Bizarre exchange with Carrite on the Questions page (does the candidate even know how to run for a position?). ~~And, apparently thinks that a "little shit" comment is a lot worse than labeling someone a "terrorist".~~ Absolutely not.
Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)	Support	Good 21,000 edits with almost 50% to mainspace. A bit light on article talk pages but good enough imo.	Never come across this editor but I like the answers to questions. In particular, I suggest reading the response to DGG Q1 and the SilkTork question. If that's the way you look at the world, I'm happy!

Guides for past elections