User talk:Ealdgyth/2018 Arb Election votes

Isarra

She won't win regardless because The Community hates anyone they don't feel is treating the elections with sufficient pomposity, but the "disengaged from the community because of edit count" is unfair in Isarra's case. In recent months she's been engaged in re-skinning MediaWiki itself, in an effort to create a redesigned interface that loses the clutter without screwing up formatting and forcing everyone to check every article for how the images are displaying (something that's increasingly necessary, as the next generation of editors will be using small touchscreens to edit rather than mice and full-size monitors). Consequently, 99% of what she's been doing recently either doesn't show up in edit logs (the actual scripting), or shows up at Meta rather than here (discussion of the scripting); she isn't another "I want to tell other people how to improve Wikipedia but I don't want to expend any effort improving it myself" candidate. ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification, Iri. ceranthor 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Thanks for mentioning this. I wasn’t aware of it at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: No reason you should. I've been keeping a half-eye on meta:Timeless as I find the rise and fall of the WMF's grandiose Winter scheme and Isarra's attempts to rescue those few bits of the WMF's notions that were actually worth saving quite an interesting insight into the disconnect between "what the WMF thinks readers want", "what the editors think the readers want" and "what the readers want" that took place under Sue and Lila (as you presumably know from the megathread on my talk, I have a particular interest in which parts of Wikipedia the readers actually find useful and why), but I doubt many others find it interesting—the sound and fury around VisualEditor and MediaViewer have kind of eclipsed anyone really looking into the Winter fiasco. And a shame I'm posting this; it would be far more apt were my final edit before arbcom declared me Not of the Body to have been about training walruses to play the saxophone. ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Vote to topic-ban editors who weren't parties to the case"

A minor correction. In a couple of places you indicate that an arbitrator "voted to topic-ban editors who weren't parties to the case" (or voted against doing that), referring to a proposed remedy in the Michael Hardy case. You link to a finding of fact involving some non-party editors, and there was also a failed proposal to put those editors on "probation" for one month. I was critical of those proposals at the time (I wasn't on the Committee, but there was discussion on my talkpage and on the proposed decision talkpage), but none of these votes were to topic-ban anyone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

How fair are your edit stats?

I noticed you have Kelapstick with 'only' 500 edits in 8 months, which then somehow changes to 13 months and gets described as a dealbreaker. Apart from WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, particularly in relation to taking occasional breaks, there's also the matter that Kelapstick's stats show their average edit is 524.1 bytes compared to 14.4 bytes for your average edit according to your stats. I don't know whether this is really correct, but it at least arguably suggests that on average each of Kelapstick's edits may be worth more than 35 of yours, and that simple multiplication of number of edits times average length suggests that 500 of Kelapstick's edits (let alone the 1847 they have so far in 2018) may be worth more than your highly commendable 13913 so far in 2018, and that Kelapstick's 46134 since 2007 may be worth many times more than your highly commendable 117258 since 2007. Kelapstick has certainly been far more productive than me by almost any measure. I haven't checked the edit stats for other candidates that you criticize as being insufficiently productive, but it is at least possible that there are similar issues in their cases. I'm not really all that interested in whether the problem is real or illusory, but I thought it might be worth bringing it to your attention, just in case you might want to amend your guide as a result. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

it may be a typo on the 13, I’m not at my computer so checking is difficult on mobile and it can just wait. I do the stats as quickly as possible after someone declares their candidacy because they will be distorted a bit by answering candidate questions. And, yes, people edit with different methods. @Iridescent: points this out every year. And every year I point out that the edit stats are the least important part of the equation..for me they are just a part of the whole. No, no one has to edit..but if you’re going to run as a candidate for ArbCom, I kinda think you should be engaged with the project. Most of the candidates I’m supporting have less activity than some I’m opposing...several I opposed have their last 500 edits going back only a week...while one I’m supporting has their last 500 going back 2.5 months. And I’m supporting AGK who did take a long break but engaged with the project before declaring his candidacy. It’s the totality of their edits, answers to questions, and behavior on the project that goes towards my decision. I’m sorry if you think I’ve slighted a candidate...but in the end, these are my opinions. I try to show my reasoning, but in the end, it’s my choice. And I’ve never said or implied that I thought my own stats make me better qualified for ArbCom..frankly, I’m not suited to it and would not ever consider it, so my own edit stats are immaterial to my decisions on who to support. If I expected candidates to have a editing stats like mine, I’d not ever support anyone. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tlhslobus and Ealdgyth: Also, I don't think it's fair to say that bytes of text can measure whether someone's edits are "worth more" than someone else's... ceranthor 14:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ceranthor, of course the scale and type of edits is important. It's not something that should be the sole criterion, but 10,000 edits search-and-replacing of it's → of its doesn't suffice to demonstrate engagement with the project, whereas someone who's only made a dozen mainspace edits in the past year but each of which was a major root-and-branch article rewrite or creation, does. ‑ Iridescent 15:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent - Fair enough; agreed on the sole criterion point. Just wanted to caution against measuring just by bytes. ceranthor 16:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)