User talk:Ealdgyth/2012 Arb Election votes

Oops
Hi Ealdgyth. I think you might have mixed up the descriptions for NYB and myself. Best, NW ( Talk ) 22:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did. This'll teach me to edit while on sinus pills. Fixed (i hope). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, not that it's a massive issue... I claim 8 GAs, not 1. Content's not my strongest area, but I am proud of the stuff I've written. Worm TT( talk ) 11:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed! thanks for pointing that out. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try
... but my library contains mostly references in computer science (which is very well covered on enwp) and musicology (in which I claim no status higher than "interested amateur"). Perhaps finding a good CS article to bring to GA might be in my limited range of skills; I'll try to do something along those lines whether I get a seat or not. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

move section from User talk:Ealdgyth
You know, there are days where I just can't wwin : )

Some say my writing is tl; dr.

And others say that it's too short and not explanatory enough (I think one guide even said both! : )

Soooo, with that in mind, let me ask: What would you like to know? - jc37 18:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * lets move this over to User talk:Ealdgyth/2012 Arb Election votes - which is more germane. And bear with me, it's the great turkey slaughter here in the states - I'm currently trying to keep from screaming at my favorite football team. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me compile a few (probably not exhaustive) list here ... not necessarily examples of "curt" or "too short" but where your answer didn't really tell me much. General question 1b - you answered (in part) "In the last year there are three arbcom situations which stick out in my mind: Perth, PR; and CE. If you read over the talk page of the first one, you'll see the surprise by the members of community at the results which led to the desysopping of an admin" - I was unclear what part of the whole big talk page you were specifically referring to ... and wasn't clear on what the point of the whole reply was. Eventually, I got the impression that you regarded the Perth decision as being some sort of case law that meant that you had every right to file your case request against Bishonen - but in answer to general question 3e, your answer was "Yes. As advisory." to whether past ArbCom decisions should be considered binding or just advisory. I'm not seeing how you could consider Perth as allowing your case request if past decisions are just advisory... and a fuller answer to the 3e question might have made your position clearer. A bit further down ... 4a "Arbcom is the arbitration committee of the English Wikipedia. The WMF has more of a broad focus, concerning all the Wikimedia projects." is correct, in as far as it goes, but doesn't really address the point of the question ... which I understood to be more about specifics of how the division should be made. And the answer to the last of Cunard's question about when you'd vote to site ban an editor with positive contributions ("See: WP:BAN") was quite terse and doesn't give other editors much insight into your thought processes and why you think that. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, to try to clarify.
 * It wasn't a "caselaw" thing. It was because Arbcom's interpretations of policy tend to get quoted/linked-to by the community at AN/I and elsewhere when they're trying to decide what to do. And, as I noted, I was concerned that since the second phase of the wheel (which isn't "warring" (as interpreted by arbcom, and past concensus) but is still the stage that has the potential to "set up" the next stage - the 3rd turn of the wheel - which has been called wheel warring in the past) had happened, a third stage to the wheel was easily possible to foresee, and due to the perth case where kwami was desysopped, I didn't in good conscience want to see that happen, when all I was looking for was review of the situation.
 * Others may (and have) disagree(d), but I sleep just fine with the belief that I spared some well-meaning admin from potential desysopping. NYB may have been right that it would probably be an "over-reaction" to the situation to desysop a "third mover" in this case. But yet, he also opposed in the perth case, and Arbcom acts as a group, not individuals, as we have seen.


 * And hmm, maybe I need to make the following clearer: When I opened the case, it wasn't my first attempt at Arbcom review. (Which is all I wanted. I repeatedly stated specifically that I was not looking for sanction of the editor.) I had first posted to a different Arbcom subpage. And there, the Arbs suggested to me that I needed to open a case if I wanted the situation reviewed.
 * Honestly throughout it all, I felt batted about in the bureaucracy.


 * "Yes. As advisory." answered 2 separate questions. Looks like I need to make that clearer on the page.


 * The "division" question was odd to me, because I think they two have different jobs, with different focuses (foci? : )
 * WMF maintains the site(s) (and related), and has that focus. Arbcom arbitrates for the en.wp community, on merely one of the sites. So while at times they may find need to interact, I'm not seeing where/how there is "power" that needs dividing up.


 * I started to answer (exhausting the community's patience, etc etc), and felt like I was just quoting WP:BAN, so I decided that a link would be enough.


 * I'll update these questions a bit (though I doubt that those who have looked at the page will be back to re-read the changes : )


 * And please, if there is anything else (including the above) you would like to have clarified, please feel free to ask. - jc37 19:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am remembering correctly that you're pretty opposed to the FA/GA process, correct? (I will freely admit I'm getting older and the memory isn't what it once was... and I've always been horrid with names). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Rschen7754.
 * I'm not opposed to articles being reviewed/assessed at all. But I am opposed to (what seems to me) needless BURO, some of which I think could be discarded if the review process was "un-merged" from the "should we have this on the main page" process/discussion.
 * I'm also not happy that, in the way it's currently designed, it can tend to reinforce an idea of ownership of articles. (Though other terms like "shepherding" are used, of course.)
 * And why is starting a page any more important than editing it? The goal is to add information to the encyclopedia. Who cares who edited a particular page first? We're all Wikipedians here.
 * I think that the "messedrocker" solution of the AfD of Esperanza is the way to go here. (Essentially: Break it up into separate parts. Keep what's good, discard the rest.)
 * I realise that this view may not be welcome to some who frequent those processes, but it is (as far as I can tell) grounded in existing policy. Though of course, I welcome discussion on this. - jc37 20:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who has had 23 articles I've shepherded through FAC up on the main page, I would be estatic if none of the rest of them ever appeared on the main page. It's a pain in the arse and insane and just not fun at all. I think as we move from a "create lots and lots of pages because we're missing lots of encyclopedic articles" to the "need to improve articles we already have" stage ... you're going to have to accept that "ownership" is going to occur more often. Speaking for myself - the amount of work I put into William the Conqueror makes me very uninclined to deal with Randy from Boises who come in having seen some mention of William in some video game and think that what they learned about William in the video game should trump what a century and a half of historical scholarship has to say on him. And I regularly read the "reader comments" relating to articles on my watchlist and most of them are utterly ignorant of what an encyclopedia article should be. Three days ago someone left this comment about the Conqueror's article "include more facts and pictures of william" - all I can say is that sort of thing makes me want to beat my head against the desk.  Feedback on William the Conqueror ... if what I'm doing is bad by keeping much of that away ... then we all have no idea what an encyclopedia is. I think you worry too much about "ownership" and should worry more about keeping the good content editors (such as myself) from leaving because we're tired of dealing with idiotic crap.
 * I'm not quite clear what "And why is starting a page any more important than editing it? The goal is to add information to the encyclopedia. Who cares who edited a particular page first? We're all Wikipedians here." has to do with the FAC process. I didn't start William's article - but I did do most of the research required to bring it up to GA/FA status. I tried hard to incorporate what was already in the article prior to me starting heavy work on it, but starting an article isn't a requirement for an editor to nominate something at FAC. And none of "my" FACs have been solely "my" work - I rely on lots and lots of copyeditors to help me - no writer is an island and everyone's prose can handle having it reviewed by other people. With William, I not only had help with copyediting, but I also reached out to other editors in the subject area to make sure they were happy with the content - that I hadn't forgotten something important or missed some of my own biases creeping in. Perhaps you don't have a complete picture of the FAC process? Yes, it can be a bit more beaurocratic (I swear I can't spell today... but that word always gives me problems) than some other areas of wikipedia, but its no worse than DYK with its insane number of different rules to follow - or god forbid the speedy deletion process where there is some arcane set of rules they all refer to that I can't figure out.
 * I'm quite opposed to the walled-garden type of ownership of articles - but if an editor or group of editors has invested literally hours of effort into an article, we should understand that they perhaps might have a better understanding of the nuances and intricacies of the subject matter and try to not run roughshod over them either. I guess what I'm saying is that there is a range of behavior that is called "ownership" and that some forms of it we want to encourage because it improves the encyclopedia. Yes, it can be destructive at the most extreme, but condemning processes because they might contribute to overall "ownership" is a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence the messedrocker solution. I want to toss out the bathwater and leave the baby : )
 * And maybe I'm confusing fa with dyk, but I thought article "creator" was a part of it when people place the "awards" on their user pages. If not, then I'm happy to be mistaken : )
 * As for your other comments, it sounds like you would be happy to see the assessment process separate from the "Main page presentation" discussion : )
 * Imagine if the review process was renamed: Exemplary articles (and by extension, Exemplary content). - jc37 20:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be thinking of the WP:Four Award - which is just basically like a barnstar - it's awarded to an editor who starts, nominates for DYK, nominates for GA, and nominates for FA the same article. There is no "review" involved in the award, it's purely fluff. While I have a few, I have plenty of other articles I've worked on that I didn't start. Anyone who contributes to an FA is welcome to add that they worked on it to their talk page/awards page/hate page/whatever page. For example - Thoroughbred was a collaborative project by the Equine wikiproject ... we worked together to bring it up to FA status and most of the editors who worked on it claim it as a "fluff award" ... but it was mainly the need to improve a core article in the topic area that drove us. We're slowly (and in fits and starts) working on Horse with the same goal. In the first part of this year - I worked on the WP:Core Contest with Middle Ages - and used the GA review as an "outside check" on my own work. Same for WP:Wikicup and William the Conqueror - I focused my efforts in both contests on already existing content and improving it. I use the GA/FA review as outside voices and as "carrots" to make me motivated to deal with the idiots when dealing with such a big topic area. It's a lot easier to work on small topics. Check out User:Ealdgyth where i point out which articles that are listed there are ones I created. YOu can see that I "claim" a lot more FAs than those I just started. I respectfully submit you might be mistaken about the GA/FA claims of most folks needing to be articles they started. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification : ) - jc37 21:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And an FYI: I did some updating, as noted above. (1b in particular.) I used some of my comments above to help clarify. - jc37 00:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit percentages and article work
Hi Ealdgyth. I noticed you said you were waiting for my responses to Cunard's questions (which were asked today). I probably won't get to those questions before the weekend now, so wanted to let you know that. About my editing history, there are two reasons why my last 50 article edits go back to July. Firstly I took a wikibreak of over a month between 25 September and 10 November (see here). Secondly, if you look at that list of last 50 edits there is one big edit in there, the addition of Charles Illingworth (a similar article to the GA that you reviewed). That article was moved into mainspace from a draft in my userspace, where I had done some 50 or so edits in September, as can be seen from the page history. You also say that you "would really like to have seen more emphasis on article editing during [my] break". I don't do as much editing in mainspace as I would like, but I have consciously tried to do more article-facing work over the past two years by doing reviews when I can (that is summarised here). Article creations over the past two years (which for me is an approximation to mainspace contributions) can be seen here (the last 11 articles on the first list, from January 2011 onwards). One thing I don't keep tabs on enough, though I should, is my editing of other articles. I was going to say something about namespace percentages and whether it is better to analyse just the past two years or all of a candidate's editing history (probably both), but I've said more than enough already, and need to get back to answering the questions! Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about going off percentages alone, and that's a bit dangerous; I've gone on several WikiProject tagging sprees with AWB consisting of thousands of talk page edits, and I know that would skew my numbers an awful lot. --Rschen7754 22:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't judge just on percentages - or otherwise I'd never have supported Elen of the Roads. It's a factor, like most. And sometimes, I just go with my "gut" ... still waiting on lots of folks doing their questions, so it'll be a bit before things finalize. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are replying to me or Rschen7754 there. My bit above was less about percentages (I should have changed the header, actually) and more about how wikibreaks and userspace draft edits need to be factored in when using this 'last 50 mainspace edits' metric. I'm using my own case as an example because I know my last 50 edits include a wikibreak and edits done on a userspace draft (I prefer not to move the edit history as that gives a misleading impression that edits were done 'live' in mainspace when they were in fact done in userspace, sometimes for good reason if the draft is very messy), but I'm sure other candidates may have wikibreaks affecting that metric as well. OK, not going to say any more here as those questions are still waiting... Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)