User:Ealdgyth/2011 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.

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.

As another side note - I'd like to address User:John Vandenberg/ACE/2011 guides - where I'm taken to task for not supporting 8 candidates. No law/rule/policy says I have to support 8 (and I believe we're filling just 7 anyway). If I don't find 8 candidates that meet my standards, I don't have to settle for less than what I consider acceptable. I'm also taken to task for "guide says it puts weight on content edits, but the actual votes dont appear to follow that approach, and vary from it without any decent explanation." - well, see those numbers that say %% to article space? That's the content metric I start from. Above, I point out I'm looking for 45=50% contributions to article space. Yes, two of the opposes fit that category, but I believe i've set out my reasoning for each of those. None of the neutrals reach that status, which is the main reason for the neutral votes. It's not the only metric, but if my main decision is made from that, I generally don't bother to explain, figuring that the numbers and lack of other content edits would be enough explanation.

Support

1. Courcelles - 206K edits total. 54% to article space (a plus), 4% to article talk, 1% to user space, 22% to user talk, 8% to wikipedia space, 1% to wikipedia talk space, 3% to file space, 3% to template space, 2% to category space. Claims 21 GA reviews on their talk page. One featured topic, over 20 FLs, and two FAs claimed on user page. 17 articles with over 100 edits (4 more in the 90s) with the highest number of edits being 307. Almost 1900 edits to requests for page protection. Almost 1700 edits to AIV. Only 176 edits to ANI, and 108 to AN. Toolserver timed out while researching number of articles created - need to do this later. My interactions with this editor have always been pleasant, without them being idiotic about civility or anything like that. To my mind, the standout of the candidates.
2. SilkTork - 55K edits total. 55% to articles (a plus), 15% to article talk, 3% to user space, 11% to user talk, 8% to wikipedia space, 2.5% to wikipedia talk, 1.5% to template space, 2.5% to category space. Claims 18 GAs as well as over 100 GA reviews on user page. 2 FAs claimed as well. 8 articles with over 100 edits. 123 articles created. I sometimes find SilkTork to be a bit TOO deliberative and occasionally too "sweetness and light" but there is no doubt that the editor has the concept of the encyclopedia coming first as their goal.
3. AGK - 30,500 edits total. 11.75% edits to articles, 2% to article talk, 5% to user, 34% to user talk, 34% to Wikipedia space, 8% to wikipedia talk, 1% to portal space. Only one article with over 100 edits to it. 8 pages created. 200 edits to ANI. No FAs or GAs claimed on user page. Although the amount of article editing is a concern - I liked the answers to the questions. Taking a flyer on this one, and we'll see if I regret it.
4. Risker - 18K edits total. 29% to articles, 6% to article talk, 5% to user space, 27% to user talk, 22% to wikipedia space, 10% to wikipedia talk. 5 articles with over 100 edits to them - 1 is over 600 and another is close to 300. 200+ edits to ANI. 1 GA and 1 FA claimed on user page. 2 articles created. While I like some stances Risker has taken, I've been less than pleased with some of the "shoot first" blocking actions lately. May have become burned out on arb'ing and think perhaps it might be best for them to step back for a year or two and get back in touch with the nicer side of the project - editing articles and not getting involved in conflict. I've switched to support because after checking out the other incumbents, I can at least agree with most of Risker's stances on decisions. Really though, get out and edit more.

Oppose

1. Eluchil404 - 10,700 edits total. 41% to article space, 10% to article talk, 2% to user space, 4.5% to user talk, 40% to wikipedia space, 2% to wikipedia talk. Very sparse editing history - of the last 12 months, only two months with over 100 edits per month, and the highest number of edits per month in the last year was 218 for this month so far. 1 article with over 100 edits to it. No GAs or FAs claimed on user page. 29 pages created. Lack of recent editing dooms this candidate in my mind - if you don't edit much you can't be in touch with the community and have an idea of community norms.
2. Geni - 28K edits total. 46.5% to article space (a plus), 9% to article talk, 2.5% to user space, 12% to user talk, 19.5% to wikipedia space, 7% to wikipedia talk, 1% to file space. 2 articles with over 100 edits (plus one at 95), 600+ edits to ANI with an addition 500+ to plain AN. 130+ to Req for Adminship talk. No FAs or GAs claimed on user page. 98 articles created. Note Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 3, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Geni 4. Opposing not so much because of the desyop, but because of the lack of contributions in the last few years as well as the impression I get that Geni is out of touch with the mainstream of wikipedia opinion any more. Yeah, the fact that they were deadmin'd by ArbCom is a hair concerning, but the main concern is their behavior when I've seen them in action about the project - they just seem out of step. And a bit too pleased to be harsh.
3. Hot Stop - 844 edits total (a big big minus). 25% to article space, 16% to article talk, 1% to user space, 9% to user talk, 42% to wikipedia space, 5% to wikipedia talk, 1% to template space. Highest number of edits to any article is 28, with 10 to the next highest. 201 edits to ITN nominations page. Two articles created - The BLP has inline citations, at least, but the other article has only general references and they are to an 1833 encyclopedia and to the 1911 EB. Blech. Just not enough experience. I don't expect 100's of thousands of edits, but I do expect more than a couple thousand, as well as some knowledge of Wikipedia.
4. NWA.Rep - 4300 edits total. 35.5% to articles, 11.5% to article talk, 10.5% to user space, 26% to user talk, 13.5% to wikipedia space, 2% to wikipedia talk. No FAs or GAs claimed on talk page. 2 articles created. Do NOT like the fake "you have new messages" banner on their user page. At all. Just no. Between the ranty tone of the nom statement and the silliness on the user page, plus the lack of contributions, I see nothing that looks like they would solve problems. Actually, I see nothing that shows that they know what the problems ARE.
5. Panyd - 9700 edits total. 33% to articles, 13% to article talk, 2% to user space, 23% to user talk, 11% to wikipedia space, 1.5% to wikipedia space, 4.5% to wikipedia talk, 7.5% to template talk, 3.5% to template talk. no articles over 100 edits. No FAs or GAs claimed on user page. 29 articles created. My main concern is the lack of edits here - I don't see a lot to show me that they would be an asset to the committee nor do I see a large history of helping with disputes or content creation.
6. Worm That Turned - 8900 total edits. 35% to articles, 5% to article talk, 14% to user space, 30% to user talk. 9% to wikipedia space, 5% to wikipedia talk, 1% to template talk. Highest number of edits to an article is 85. Claims 7 GA on their talk page. 11 articles created. As above with Panyd, just not a lot here yet.
7. Kww - 57K edits total. 58% to article space (a plus), 7% to article talk, 1.5% to user space, 18% to user talk, 10% to wikipedia space, 3.5% to wikipedia talk, 1% to template space. 27 articles with over 100 edits - the top is over 300. 791 edits to ANI (ouch). No FAs or GAs claimed on user page. 4 articles created. Cannot agree with their stances on inclusion nor with their ideas on BLP. We do have a duty to living people - lightly watched BLPs on only barely notable people ARE a problem.
8. DeltaQuad - 16,500 edits total. 18.5% to article space, 4% to article talk, 11% to user space, 22% to user talk, 38% to wikipedia space, 5% to wikipedia talk. Highest number of edits to any one article is 28. Only 56 edits to ANI, with over 200 to RPP. No GAs or FAs claimed on the user's page. 13 non redirect pages created. Unimpressed with their answers to the questions, and there just isn't enough to overcome the concern that they aren't in touch with content contributors or regular editors.

Neutral

1. Coren - 16K edits total. 10% to articles, 2% to article talk, 4.5% to user, 38.75% to user talk, 33% to Wikipedia space, 10% to wikipedia talk, 1% to template space. Top edits to an article are only 40 - and goes rapidly downhill from there. 5 pages created. 361 edits to ANI... No GAs/FAs on their talk page. Pretty much as above - I'm sensing burnout and a break of a year or so may be best. Edit some articles, after all - that's the point of the project, right?
2. Kirill Lokshin - 70K edits. 13% to articles, 12% to article talk, 1% to user, 9.5% to user talk, 28.5% to wikipedia space, 17% to wikipedia talk, 10% to templates, 1.5% to template talk, 4% to category space, 2% to portal space. 76 articles created. 6 articles with edits over 100. Claims 5 FAs on his user page. Only 108 edits to ANI - most of the Wikipedia space edits are WikiProject MilHist related (including over 800 to the article review page and 1400 to the main MilHist page.) While he used to contribute content, I'm not seeing a whole lot recently and I'm not that impressed with his work on the committee.
3. Jclemens - 32K edits total, 35.5% to article space, 8% to article talk, 3% to user space, 23% to user talk, 23.5% to wikipedia space, 6.5% to wikipedia talk. 5 articles with over 100 edits to them. Almost 500 edits to ANI. Claims 10 GAs, 1 FL on their talk page. 10 articles started. 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. Not enough to pull me over to support.
4. Roger Davies - 29,800 edits total. 25% to articles, 10% to article talk, 3% to user space, 22% to user talk, 22% to wikipedia space, 16% to wikipedia talk, 1% to template space, 1% to category space. Claims 5 FAs on user page. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 123 articles created. I've seen nothing that screams "must keep" and I seem to be in a "vote the bums out" mood as far as the incumbents are concerned. Might as well make it a clean sweep.
5. Hersfold - 33K edits total. 13.5% edits to articles, 2% to article talk, 9% to user space, 42% to user talk, 25% to wikipedia space, 2% to wikipedia talk, 3% to template space. No article with over 100 edits to it. 900+ edits to the Help Desk (a plus), 400+ edits to ANI. No GAs or FAs listed on their talk page. Only four articles listed as "substantial work on" on their user page. Open to recall (a plus). 38 articles created. I have concerns with the fact taht they found the role of ArbCom too much before - if they'd quit after a year or so, that might have been better, but to quit five months in, is a concern. There are no other outstanding pluses to drag this from neutral to support.