In regards to the question I asked of the candidate, I specifically to asked "for their interpretation", and they provided me with a summary of the history and opinions of others without stating their own. I expect members of the Arbitration Committee to be direct and articulate their opinions in the first person and clearly when asked. I do assume that by leaving out certain parts of the discussion they indirectly stated their support for a position but by leaving things open to loose interpretations and guessing, it isn't a strong quality for a candidate. Lastly, I do acknowledge that I have personal reasons for opposing. The accusations by the candidate, stated indirectly by giving it weight in their statement and choosing to outline their answer in the third person, that voting stacking was committed by the party that brought up the concern is unsubstantiated. I expect Arbitrators to carefully weight both sides and work in good faith which is seemingly lacking and absent in the very least in assessing that conversation. I understand their allegiances to their group but I would further expect them to otherwise recuse themselves as they were involved if they did not want to explain their personal opinions. I have the upmost respect for this candidates tenure as a seasoned and skilled writer and organizer, so I still wish them well in the election, but I fundamentally do not think they have the experience to arbitrate cases. Mkdwtalk 04:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your second example is an A class review, not a GA. This is a process of review by the MilHist Project, so all the reviewers are part of the project. On checking however, I find that its GA was reviewed by a MilHist Project member. Normally when a GA is listed under "military", it is likely that it will be reviewed by someone with an interest in military history. Similarly, the articles on scientists will usually attract someone with an interest in science and so on. This does not mean that the reviews were not conducted impartially or correctly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GA requires an impartial reviewer to assess a nomination.
Current Military History Coordinators: Hawkeye7, Sturmvogel 66, AustralianRupert, Anotherclown, and Peacemaker67
William Sterling Parsons was nominated by Hawkeye7 and reviewed and promoted to GA by Sturmvogel 66
Sydney Rowell was nominated for A class by Hawkeye7 and reviewed and promoted to A class by Sturmvogel 66. The article was seemingly nominated by no one and then reviewed and promoted by Sturmvogel 66.
Leslie Morshead was nominated by Hawkeye7 and treviewed and promoted to GA by Sturmvogel 66
Norris Bradbury was nominated by Hawkeye7 and reviewed and promoted to GA by Sturmvogel 66
George Kistiakowsky was nominated by Hawkeye7 and reviewed and promoted to GA by Peacemaker67
Ennis Whitehead was nominated by Hawkeye7 and reviewed and promoted to GA by Abraham, B.S.
I pulled these articles off a section of your user page and did not go further into this culture of behaviour. Perhaps you're right and there's no impropriety but you can understand my concerns when WikiProjects are specifically not allowed to internally review GA unlike A quality articles because of the need to be impartial, and then a small close group at the same project review and promote articles from the same group. I noticed in going through some of the entries, you had reviewers that were not coordinators whereby the GA reviews were consistently more extensive and required more work to achieve GA. In fact most of the above reviews required no additional work and received straight check marks. It stuck out as odd to me that the GA nomination went by so swimmingly compared to others when they were exclusively reviewed internally. Nonetheless, concerns I had. Mkdwtalk 20:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your concerns. I note that all of the articles listed also went through the more stringent A-class or FAC. At one point I sent a set of A-class articles to GA for the purpose of construction a Good Topic (which is now a Featured Topic); Sydney Rowell was one of those. My recollection is that the issue has been discussed before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
key success factors of the linux community, what to take for wikipedia[edit]
linus torvalds created a community of programmers working on the linux kernel 1991. the community grew since then to nowadays 5'000 commits a month, 5 times more than 10 years ago. alone the linux kernel mailing list receives more than 20'000 messages a month, 3 times more than 10 years ago. innovative technologies are added to the kernel first from universities, individuals, companies, bearing the GPL. what do you see as the key success factors of that development, and what can you take off that into your work at wikipedia? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happened is that once Linux was adopted and became part of corporate platforms, developers working for those companies began contributing. That's one possible way forward for Wikipedia: to have GLAMs assume stewardship of the articles. It appears that this is still some distance off. HOPAU has been very successful as a APC-UQ-WMAU partnership, but we are still short of convincing the APC or UQ that it is vital to their organisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In your statement you claim to have made a huge number of edits in about 1 year. This over 150 edits per day, obviously due to some automation. How many non-trivial edits have you performed? neffk (talk)
No, I said I have been a Wikipedia editor for over ten years, with over 62,000 edits. So it's over ten years, not one, which amounts to 62,000 / 3,650 ≈ 17 edits per diem on average. If you look at my contributions page, you'll see the pattern: large edits with a number of smaller ones between. I periodically save my work to prevent loss or logout, then tweak the words and punctuation. The Bot scripts don't do mass edits; they run each day and perform a long series of complicated steps to handle A-class, FAC, FAR and FLC administration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
