User talk:Ealdgyth/2011 Arb Election votes

Hi, please see User:AGK/Drafts for my mainspace contributions. Regards, AGK [•] 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Hi Ealdgyth, hope you don't mind if I jump in). AGK, as I have mentioned before, I have strong concerns related to your claims of article writing. For example, at User:AGK/Drafts, you list the GA London Paddington station under "stubs rewrote", but in actually looking at the history of the page, it appears that your contributions there were fairly trivial. You made three minor edits and then promoted the article to Good article status. It would be better if you only listed articles where you were a substantial contributor, rather than listing every article where you made even minor edits. I have brought up this exact issue to you before, so it is concerning that you are continuing to make the same claims that you did years ago. --El on ka 15:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I thought I removed London Paddington at the end of our last conversation, but I didn't. Are there any other articles there that you do not think should be removed? Frankly, I don't pay much attention to the list, which is why it's tucked away on a subpage - and why Ealdgyth missed it. Let's get this sorted before the horse dies. AGK [•] 15:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's your job to ensure the list is accurate, not mine. --El on ka 16:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens' stats

I only claim 9 articles started.
I have a FT claimed which you don't discuss. Which is OK if you're not talking about them for anyone, of course.
I've done substantial editing (WP:DELSORT and random BLP cleanup) with User:Jclemens-public, which I wouldn't mind if you included here.

Not sure how much (if any) these will affect your ratings. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Shoot first" blocks?

Hi Ealdgyth, I note your concerns about my "recent blocks", but I'd like to get a better idea of which ones you mean. This is my block log. Aside from the block to Dreadstar, I'm not sure which blocks you're talking about; in the last couple of months, the remainder of the blocks are of sockpuppeters, spam accounts and (in one case) a user who logged out to make personal attacks against a WMF staff member. Dreadstar and I have discussed his block, and his biggest concern was that I should be making more blocks along those lines, not that his block was incorrect; but I understand that some people felt it was fairly harsh. Could you please let me know which others you find concerning? Risker (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing jumps out"

Just picking up on your "Nothing jumps out". As your guide is content-oriented, wouldn't my content work be a factor? For example, I lead the field of incumbent candidates in article edits this year with 1002. (For camparison, the others are JClemens, 680; Risker, 192; Kirill, 128 and Coren, 17.) I have also created nine articles this year: none of the other incumbent arbitrators have created any. For example, the articles on Rue de l'Odéon Jean Vieuchange and Société Parisienne d'Édition: they are not massive but they are neat and tidy, with reasonable sourcing. Otherwise, I have done a great deal of behind-the-scenes work to improve committee efficiency and on the new Arbitration policy. I've outlined some of this in my statement and in the questions. As this isn't obvious to non-arbitrators, it's easily overlooked. Is there anything else troubling you that I could prefer clarify? I mention this as you say that "All notes are preliminary at the moment". Roger Davies ^talk 13:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your oppositions

Hi Ealdgyth!

My confidence in my guide increased when I read yours, and noted our agreement on most candidates. You oppose candidates WTT and Pandyd on good grounds, but specific details would be more insightful. I discuss WTT's articles and Pandyd & WTT's RfC behavior for example.

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]