User talk:Ealdgyth/2010 Arb Election votes

Interesting approach
I like the way you are doing an in-depth analysis of the edit stats. Hopefully some of the candidates will respond here, as stats don't tell the whole story. As with some of the other guides I've been reading, I've been wondering how I would shape up here! :-) I'm glad that more people are writing guides, and I hope some of them prompt discussions on the talk page (about the conclusions drawn). My experience from 2008 was that it felt wrong as a candidate to respond to what was said in the guides, but as someone voting, I would be interested to hear whether the candidates had anything to say about this sort of analysis (e.g. would they do this to assess parties in an arbitration case?). Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say yes, but with an extreme pinch of salt and a need to look at the pattern behind the edit counts. Someone who's done a lot of new-page or recent changes patrol who's doing the job properly is likely to have a huge number of user talk edits, as they'll be explaining to new users and IPs what they're doing wrong, or issuing vandalism warnings—this can make it look like someone's spending a huge amount of time goofing around on talk pages. Likewise, someone like Moni, Giano or myself appears to have an artificially low mainspace edit-count, as we do most of our rewriting in userspace sandboxes and then paste it into mainspace in big chunks once it's completed—something like this counts the same in editcount terms as moving a misplaced comma. – iridescent  00:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, I came onto this talk page independently to say much the same. % article-space edits is significantly distorted by a number of factors, not the least being auto-applications and whether the editor previews before hitting "save" or goes back and back to fix. I'd like to see this single stat put in perspective and downgraded as only one of a number of determinants. Tony   (talk)  07:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll note that the various stats aren't the determining factor here ... I'm supporting Elen who has a very low percentage of main space edits, and for that matter, so does NYB. I'll probably support Sir Fozzie who has a low percentage also. It's just that you need something to overcome that, you can't just do edits without a clue. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOVE your page, very useful data. Thanks for taking the time to compile it! --Elonka 18:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Link
Just FYI, FT2's GAs are listed at User:FT2/Article contributions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Point
Like Iridescent, Giano writes in user space, at least latterly - his articlespace edits are surprising low even when the various accounts are combined. Keep up the good work! Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to try to determine numbers on Giano ... with Giano you either love him or hate him (often, both at once). My support is based on just figuring if we put him on ArbCom we'll be entertained and we can tell him to shut up since he's involved in things now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Curious
I'm interested in your comment, mainly as I've been a consistent content writer since 2004. When not writing articles I'm almost always helping others with theirs. I'm not an FAC writer but the quality is good for all but FAC. Outside content work, my focus is making it easier to enjoy editing, to remove "gamers" and warriors, and removing problems from others wishing to edit. Dispute resolution and good policy/process can cut out whole areas of distraction. Direct payoff.

In project terms the best resolution for bad disputes is not glossy soundbites but clear factual explanation. Nothing clears up bad assumptions like showing each side what the other side thought and why it went as it did. Time and time again that helps quell major drama. I accept that I don't have a gift for concision. It's difficult. I do have a gift for dispute resolution and neutral analysis. In serious disputes, the latter pays off and in that role I've calmed many big issues that were set to explode or had ignited. That's again an immediate benefit to the project and its editing community.

I respect your right to differ of course, but I'm unclear what you would like to see from me in a year and what it would demonstrate that isn't already demonstrated? Thanks :) FT2 (Talk 14:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer to see more solid content building and less concern with policy and the drama boards. And if I was involved in a dispute that you were trying to help solve, I would find your methods of discussion to be too long winded to deal with. It's a personal preference that I prefer slightly less wordiness and less concern with civility. As to what might show me more in the future - reviewing GANs and FACs shows a good grasp of contributing to the encyclopedia while managing to engage with other editors. I'd like to see more GAs (I recognize not everyone can do FAs, but GAs are easily within most folks abilities.) I'd like to see folks contributing to reviewing GANs, especially the more contentious ones. Less concern with "meta" level issues and more content building would help counteract my impression of you being more interested in process than content building. Don't get me wrong, you are not the worst candidate out there, but I'm not convinced you would be an asset. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)