User:Ealdgyth/2021 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 13 of these things I've done. Good gods, I'm turning into an institution. Over a decade. Yikes.

This year has really slammed me ... not necessarily in a bad way but it's run me ragged like never before. I'm busy as crap in RL and just don't have the time this year for the detailed statistical analysis of the candidates. So this year you're just going to get the comments, since to be honest, most of the candidates are at least not joke candidates.

Past votes

Handy!

To integrate

In the spirit of fairness

- Edit tools 141K+ edits total. Account started editing May 2007. 71.1% to articles, 8.7% to article talk, 5.1% to user pages, 5.9% to user talk pages, 8.1% to wikipedia space, 0.6% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to July 2021. 3 articles with over 1000 edits, 126 articles with over 100 edits. 80 edits to ANI, 43 to AN. 838 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 58 FAs, 1 FL, 1 FT, 115 GAs.

The Candidates

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates

Listed out

Support

Nada - no one gets my full support.

Slight support

Please picture me holding my nose and voting anyway as below because ... only voting to support one candidate is too much for me. None of these candidates make me happy. In the end, I see the UCoC as being pivotal in the next two years, so opinions on that were a bit part of swaying me to at least slight support the following. But... gah....

- Edit tools 49K+ edits total. Account started editing Aug 2005. 60.3% to articles, 9.3% to article talk, 3.1% to user pages, 17.2% to user talk pages, 5.8% to wikipedia space, 3.3% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to October 2021. 20 articles with over 100 edits. 203 edits to ANI, 91 to AN. 303 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No audited content claimed on user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Donald Albury/Questions
Did not vote in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs

in the end, the answers to the candidate questions weren't so awful that it pushed me to opposing or neutral, but the main thing that pushed me to a slight support was the feeling that someone with heavy content contributions would at least offer a new perspective on the committee.
- Edit tools 25,714 edits total. Account started editing July 2008. 24.5% to articles, 4.2% to article talk, 10.8% to user pages, 44.5% to user talk pages, 18.6% to wikipedia space, 6.1% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Jan 2021. 1 article with over 100 edits. 133 edits to ANI, 192 to AN. 42 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 2 FAs, 29 GAs on their user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Worm That Turned/Questions
See "Noting while I support this motion, that I oppose any block and would rather allow him to leave with dignity" from 2018 but did Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Proposed decision at least firm up in 2020. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision voted against desysop. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Proposed decision - if you think SD was behaving badly, stand up for it, don't abstain because it's already failing. BLECH!

Did not vote in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision - the German history ban for Cinderella is ... way overkill. You should be ashamed.

So ... I've opposed them in 2011 and 2017; but supported them in 2012 and 2019. Talk about on the fence!

Epiphyllumlover's question - the behavior Epiph is describing is a MAJOR problem. "freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki" is basically buying votes for battleground issues. I'm not opposed to the concept of paying/helping editors with getting sources for article editing, but what Epiph is describing should be stomped on ... and any candidate who doesn't react with horror to it is not fit for ArbCom. Worm's reply "Subverting our consensus model is, in my view, one of the most problematic behaviours that can be shown on the encyclopedia." hits that, which helps push him into support.
- Edit tools 101,000-ish edits total. Account started editing July 2007. 22% to articles, 11.6% to article talk, 1.5% to user pages, 31.2% to user talk pages, 27% to wikipedia space, 5.7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to October 2021. 4 articles with over 100 edits. 1628 edits to ANI, 1588 to AN. 101 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No audited content claimed on user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Beeblebrox/Questions
Voted in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs to allow use of discord logs for on-wiki dispute resolution in cases of egregious misconduct.

Opposed in 2019 and 2012, neutral in 2013.

Unlike some commentators - I don't find their discussions on WO to be "unbecoming an arb" - quite frankly, the idea that arbcom members should be some sort of remote judge without opinions is pushing arbcom into a judicial role that's a bad bad idea. We need to get away from the idea that ArbCom is the project's "Supreme Court" - and that instead its a bunch of volunteers trying their best but that most of them aren't lawyers and that they should't be lawyers (and which law would they follow, anyway? British? American? Some continental or other country's law code? Oh, THAT sounds like a fun fight to have... not.)

Epiphyllumlover's question - the behavior Epiph is describing is a MAJOR problem. "freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki" is basically buying votes for battleground issues. I'm not opposed to the concept of paying/helping editors with getting sources for article editing, but what Epiph is describing should be stomped on ... and any candidate who doesn't react with horror to it is not fit for ArbCom. While not a total "oh, fuck no!" that I'd hope for, his response at least gets that it's not good - "If this is as widespread as you describe, some sort of coordinated response is certainly in order."
- Edit tools 16,765 edits total. Account started editing May 2006. 39% to articles, 6.2% to article talk, 3.7% to user pages, 15.6% to user talk pages, 25.4% to wikipedia space, 7% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to August 2021. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 84 edits to ANI, 88 to AN. 327 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 2 FAs (from before 2009) and 2 GAs. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Opabinia regalis/Questions
Did not vote in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision - enough said.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram/Proposed decision which shows them willing to buck the WMF ... which I appreciate

Supported in 2017 and 2015

Epiphyllumlover's question - the behavior Epiph is describing is a MAJOR problem. "freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki" is basically buying votes for battleground issues. I'm not opposed to the concept of paying/helping editors with getting sources for article editing, but what Epiph is describing should be stomped on ... and any candidate who doesn't react with horror to it is not fit for ArbCom. I could wish for a bit more upset about the corruption of processes ... but gotta admire this quote "arbcom is not the disciplinary committee, and I suspect their annual budget of $0 is not going to make an effective bounty system"... heh.
- Edit tools 21,730 edits total. Account started editing Nov 2009. 27.5% to articles, 6.6% to article talk, 4.2% to user pages, 25.3% to user talk pages, 25.5% to wikipedia space, 4.9% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to March 2021. 5 articles with over 100 edits. 221 edits to ANI, 79 to AN. 61 "real" pages created. Is an admin. 6 GAs, 1 FA, and 6 FLs claimed on user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Guerillero/Questions
Did not vote in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs

Per answer to George Ho's question: "What I am skeptical of is the GlobalArbCom who is supposed to enforce the UCoC. It is still an open question if the GlobalArbCom is going to hear appeals from our ArbCom and in what way. Also if it hears things from projects with established self-governance like the French, English, and German Wikipedias" - that's good. It's VERY good to be skeptical of the whole UCoC, which I frankly see as an attempt by the WMF to try to impose it's viewpoints on the various projects. I'll admit there needs to be some oversight (Croatian wiki, anyone?) but the proposed UCoC is, in the words of Iridescent, basically an imposition of San Francisco's very odd notions on "civility" onto a worldwide stage.

Oh, hey - see LB unban discussion where: "I'm fine with yinz lifting the site ban, but I think the i-bans (With Eric, Sitush, and Mike), topic ban, and revert restriction should remain. The disruption that lead to her ban was extensive and widespread. I have little doubt that the community will enact the reverse topic ban if she goes back to testing the community's patience" (snorts). Yeah, right the community would.

Oppose

- Edit tools 14,191 edits total. Account started editing March 2006. 70.7% to articles, 5.7% to article talk, 0.7% to user pages, 1.4% to user talk pages, 17.5% to wikipedia space, 3.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to May 2021. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 12 edits to ANI, 9 to AN. 12 "real" pages created. Is NOT an admin. No user page so doesn't claim any audited content on their user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Banedon/Questions
Did not vote in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs

Note that there is no archives easily visible for their talk page. This is apparently their "archiving". Not a good look. Oh, hey, this is certainly a good look for someone wanting to run on making things more like court cases.

In general, I want a non-admin or three to run and become arbs. I think it'd be a good thing. I'm not seeing this as the candidate. I do not think their approach is a good one for ArbCom and would in fact be a regression. I must oppose.

Epiphyllumlover's question - the behavior Epiph is describing is a MAJOR problem. "freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki" is basically buying votes for battleground issues. I'm not opposed to the concept of paying/helping editors with getting sources for article editing, but what Epiph is describing should be stomped on ... and any candidate who doesn't react with horror to it is not fit for ArbCom. Banedon's answer utterly fails to see the problem - "I have no strong opinion on this."

Not a fan of his "block rather than try I-ban" approach either.
- Edit tools 34K+ edits total. Account started editing April 2012. 23.7% to articles, 2.7% to article talk, 20.3% to user pages, 23.8% to user talk pages, 16.3% to wikipedia space, 5.3% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Sept 2021. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 54 edits to ANI, 54 to AN. 19 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No audited content claimed on user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Enterprisey/Questions
Did not vote in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs

Per the answer to George Ho's question about the UCoC "Despite some feelings among the editor community, the final document looks pretty good to me. I appreciate the effort the drafters put in. I specifically appreciate the precise identification of some good and bad behaviors, like mentorship on one hand and psychological manipulation on the other. I note that the precise wording of the "hounding" bullet point is likely to come up in a dispute, but I know they did their best with a tough problem - I'm not sure I would've put it any differently." ... ugh.

Opposed in 2019. Nothing seeing that changes my mind here.

While I do think that sometimes folks get a little too "I-ban happy", I do think they have a good place, and the fact that "They're not in the formal moderator toolbox of basically any other website I can think of" is actually not a reason to oppose their use. I do agree that if someone racks up three or more i-bans with different users, we probably have an issue with that person's behavior, but sometime editors just don't get along and trying something short of total blocking/banning sounds like a good idea.
- Edit tools 84K+ edits total. Account started editing Dec 2004. 21.5% to articles, 6.2% to article talk, 1.9% to user pages, 4.7% to user talk pages, 56.9% to wikipedia space, 6.8% to wikipedia talk pages. 15K+ edits to "Wikipedia:Department of Fun" and subpages. Last 500 edits go back to Nov 2021. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 451 edits to ANI, 313 to AN. 212 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No audited content claimed on user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Thryduulf/Questions
Did not vote in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision - not helpful

Voted neutral on them in 2014, against in 2015 and 2019. I've seen nothing from them since 2019 to make me change my mind on my comments from then

While I like their candidate statement about "readers first, then content creators, then the folks who support the content creators" ... I'm less impressed with their actual implementation of said statement.

Epiphyllumlover's question - the behavior Epiph is describing is a MAJOR problem. "freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki" is basically buying votes for battleground issues. I'm not opposed to the concept of paying/helping editors with getting sources for article editing, but what Epiph is describing should be stomped on ... and any candidate who doesn't react with horror to it is not fit for ArbCom. Kudos to Thryduulf for the full on "this is bad, shouldn't happen, let's fix it" reply.

Also kudos for "For me what matters more than anything is whether the user concerned is actually disrupting the encyclopaedia, if they are then it doesn't ultimately matter (in almost all cases) whether they are a sock or not..." which I wish more folks would take to heart. I think too many folks get a thrill out of "sock-hunting" (Do they think they are PIs or something?) and we just need to worry about the actual effects - if it's disruptive, block for that.
- Edit tools 70K+ edits total for this account (29K for the repeat account, 26K for the bot account on top of this, but these are automated, mostly). Account started editing Dec 2006. 31.7% to articles, 4.9% to article talk, 4.2% to user pages, 7.3% to user talk pages, 19.2% to wikipedia space, 8.3% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to Nov 2021. 3 articles with over 100 edits. 99 edits to ANI, 305 to AN. 22 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims no audited content on user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Izno/Questions
Did not vote in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs although is a mod on the discord server.

Per the answer to George Ho's question about past arb com cases - "I've been most sensitive to the outcomes of the most-recent bot-operator related cases (Magioladitis and Rich), as these are closely connected to the areas I've worked in. For example, while I respect our policy on WP:COSMETIC changes, I think a lot of good could be done to regularize wikitext, making it easier for newcomers, even though those changes would not make a difference in the final rendered output. (There have been some other bot-related cases that did not reach ARBCOM [yet] that I have looked on with similar wariness.) Those cases on the books are one of a few dampers on such a dream world for me." Ugh. No. No. No. We should not be allowing fait accompli editing such as Magioladitis and Rich's... just no.

Per answer to Joe Roe's question: "Discord is not subject to all the same rules as Wikipedia" ... it should be if it's going to be used for any sort of directing of edits on the encyclopedia. That it's being treated like IRC is just plain wrong, no matter what a bunch of discord users managed to swarm a discussion into their own preferred decision.

Epiphyllumlover's question - the behavior Epiph is describing is a MAJOR problem. "freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki" is basically buying votes for battleground issues. I'm not opposed to the concept of paying/helping editors with getting sources for article editing, but what Epiph is describing should be stomped on ... and any candidate who doesn't react with horror to it is not fit for ArbCom. And Izno totally didn't call out that behavior - instead focusing on the "bounty" program. They rightly get that it's not in ArbCom's wheelhouse, but the lack of seeing the forest and instead focusing on the trees is a problem.
- Edit tools 19,792 edits total. Account started editing March 2015. 32.6% to articles, 9.7% to article talk, 6.9% to user pages, 8.7% to user talk pages, 22.8% to wikipedia space, 5.2% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to July 2021. 1 article with over 100 edits. 108 edits to ANI, 408 to AN. 30 "real" pages created. Is an admin. Claims 3 GAs on their user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Wugapodes/Questions
Voted to not allow use of discord logs in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs. Not a fan of the "go hang out on discord and be assholes but don't have to actually be accountable for it" - reminds me too much of IRC. No thanks.

I'm ... really getting a vibe of "too much WMF" candidate here. I am not a fan of the WMF's approach, I think they are basically a bunch of freeloaders who eat at the gravy train of the folks like me down in the trenches doing the hard work. And I frankly resent that. 14 years of dedication to the encyclopedia and I've managed to have some free database subscriptions and ... five books bought for me. And then I get this UCOC shoved down my throat from some folks who've never written a GA, much less a FA. No thanks.

Oh, hey, I'd forgotten they didn't see any issue with LB returning - see their statement.

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Proposed decision#Wugapodes' section has this gem "A desysop would be incorrect for the reasons already given" - also this whole section is a great example of how Wug manages to out-SilkTork @SilkTork: - heh. We're into @SMcCandlish: territory here. (signing briefly so the pings work) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover's question - the behavior Epiph is describing is a MAJOR problem. "freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki" is basically buying votes for battleground issues. I'm not opposed to the concept of paying/helping editors with getting sources for article editing, but what Epiph is describing should be stomped on ... and any candidate who doesn't react with horror to it is not fit for ArbCom. Uh... can we like ... see the issue with corruption of consensus before we gush about some bounty system that ArbCom can't even take on? And ... again, this answer does not help my "WMF over ArbCom" feel that their candidacy gives me.

Neutral

- Edit tools 119K+ edits total. Account started editing Feb 2008. 38.6% to articles, 1.4% to article talk, 16.1% to user pages, 27.7% to user talk pages, 11.9% to wikipedia space, 0.8% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back to November 2021. 0 articles with over 100 edits. 200 edits to ANI, 82 to AN. 60 "real" pages created. Is an admin. No audited content claimed on user page. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Cabayi/Questions
Did not vote in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs

This is real close to an oppose, because there's nothing... here. But ... there's nothing here to make me go "oppose oppose oppose" so...

Epiphyllumlover's question - the behavior Epiph is describing is a MAJOR problem. "freelancing market where Wikipedia editors from non-English speaking countries sell RfC votes and talk page comments to paying editors on enwiki" is basically buying votes for battleground issues. I'm not opposed to the concept of paying/helping editors with getting sources for article editing, but what Epiph is describing should be stomped on ... and any candidate who doesn't react with horror to it is not fit for ArbCom. Mostly good answer - they see the corrupt behavior at least.

Withdrawn

Cases I'll be leaning on for my thinking

Thanks to Moneytrees for digging these up:

Soapbox

Don't read here if you don't want unvarnished opinions.

I think Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision was insane. To be utterly frank - I think comparing this decision to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Proposed decision or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision I can not escape the impression that BrownHairedGirl was held to a higher standard of civility than male admins are held to.
As further evidence - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog#Statement by Ealdgyth and the reply at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog#Statement by Alex Shih where the comments from women editors (and arbs!) are dismissed as "Bringing gender into this case for the pure purpose of illustrating the point about women's vulnerability when gender was completely uninvolved in this very case is unnecessarily divisive and puts undue weight on a certain class" or "How inappropriate, the gender comparisons really needs to stop. Harassment comes from all genders and affects all genders in the context of Wikipedia, and you know that very well."
Don't get me started on WP:NONAZIS and the insanity that is the unthinking support of it. The fact that the people supporting it can't see how their support of it is one of the things that actual Nazis did just ... amazes me. (For those unable to figure it out - one thing the Nazis did was loudly proclaim that some things were "what everyone supports" and that those things should be considered unarguable and thus folks who didn't support those "unarguable" positions shouldn't be considered part of the "healthy community". It's one step further from that to considering those "unhealthy" persons as unpersons and then well... those unpersons don't need to live, do they? Yes, that is a very simplified discussion but it's ultimately HOW the Nazis got to the place where they could murder 6 million Jews and 3+ million Slavs, not to mention the actual war casualties.)
Oh... the joys of inconsistent behavior from arbs. Look at the differences between Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision where Cinderella157 gets a German history topic ban and a one-way interaction ban with KECoffman for making comments like this, but accusing someone of making stuff up is fine and doesn't get a topic ban that sticks. The whole Polish-Jewish-WWII edit area is so incredibly toxic I had to take most of the articles off my watchlist because it was too unhealthy for me to even see the crappy sourcing/personal attacks/utter battleground behavior that went on. And yet, that area is routinely let slide. Get your act together, ArbCom and at least try to be consistent.