375:- although i supported last year, am unimpressed by the attempts to deflect blame from Rlverse to others besides the one who did the copyright violations. It's one thing to have an occasional sentence that comes too close to the source, it's another to blanket copy things and then try to hide it. While certainly other steps can and should be taken to try to find similar problems in the future, it ultimately comes down to the person doing the copyright problems being the main problem. On the other hand, was impressed with her willingness to dig into the Climate Change problems. 33K edits, only 39% to article space, 8% to article talk, 24% to user talk. Not opted into the other options. I'm genuinely torn here. I like some of what SK does, but really really disliked the whole exchange about FAC and stuff, and not just because I'm involved with FAC but because it struck me as unbecoming of an arb to throw mud in that manner. Also, there is a concern that the statements have moving goal posts of what is being said. Probably will stay neutral.
283:
fact, NOT being an admin should be a requirement for at least one of the seats, quite honestly. I'm also looking for folks who don't get so wrapped up in enforcing civility or rules that they forget that first goal above, the writing of the encyclopedia. I don't want to have my work interrupted by idiots who don't know the first thing about subject matter but who seem to think that their opinion on some tangental matter should trump the folks in the trenches writing the content and dealing with the vandals.
488:- 13K edits total, 26% to main article space, 8% to article talk, 34% to user talk. Has not opted in to other options. No articles with over 100 edits to them. 140 non-redirect articles started. Doesn't claim any GANs or FACs on their talk page. On the plus side, is very level headed and not inclined to get into huge drama screaming matches. On the other hand, entirely too inclined to worry about civility at the cost of article content. The "civility police" issues combined with make me oppose,
387:- 38% edits to article space, 8% to article talk, 23% to user talk. 27K total edits. 5 articles with over 100 edits to them, but 430 edits to ANI. Plus - active in GAN and reviewing GANs. Minus, seems a bit too concerned with process and not enough with building content himself. The RfC that I missed over the summer is a might concerning also, although I don't necessarily agree with the editor bring the RfC either. Leaning neutral.
400:- 55% edits to article space, 26K total edits, only 3% edits to article talk space, but 25% edits to user talk space. Very erratic editing history, has peaks and valleys, probably due to the military. No article with over 100 edits to it. Does not claim any FAC or GANs on their pages. The errantic editing history and the issue of possibly being out of touch for parts of the term make me oppose.
31:
381:- 12K edits, only 42% to article space, 5% to article talk and 13% to user talk. No article with over 100 edits. Does not claim any FACs or GANs on their talk page. I think, I lean neutral. I would be more likely to lean support if I thought that some of the cases he helped decide had actually resolved things (I note the EEML and the WMC stuff managed to come back).
341:- 63% article space edits, 6% to article talk, 23% to user talk, some insane number of edits (156K!!!), and has a clue about content. Never forgets the idea is to ... write an enyclopedia, not make Facebook2. Only one article with over 100 edits, but she prepares her articles in user space before moving them into mainspace, which accounts for some of this.
308:- 52% article space contributions, 76K+ contributions so more than me, 14% of edits to article talk pages, 10% to user talk pages, no concerns about dedication to content production here, but the only niggle is that they resigned under stress before, would hope they have learned and would not do so again. Also, (kidding here) they are higher than I am on
469:- 19 articles with over 100 edits to them, with 1 being over 500. 476 edits to AN, 373 to ANI. 43K edits, 30% to main space. 9% to article talk, 9% to user talk. Has not opted in to other options. 91 non-redirect articles started. Claims GAs ("I'm currently on a GA binge") on the user page, but doesn't list them. Has now updated user page ...
445:- entirely too process and rules driven. 35% edits to article space, but only 5% to article talk. 46K edits, but only one article with over 100 edits to it. 1100 edits to ANI, 700 to ArbEnforcement. He may have lost sight of the concept that we're creating an encyclopedia, not enforcing rules here. Shows two GANs on their talk page, however.
463:- late entrant. 49K total edits. 44% to main space, 7% to article talk, 13% to user talk. No articles with over 100 edits to them, over 100 non-redirect articles started. I need to investigate the situation with his resignation, but I think it's making me lean oppose as there is nothing spectacular to balance out the resignation
329:- concerns would be only 20% article edits, only 8K edits, and a LOT of time at ANI. Balancing that, the time at ANI is generally in support of content creators, doesn't go seeking drama there, actively tries to calm down drama and has a clue. No article edits over 100. One page created, a disambiguation page. 945 edits to ANI.
397:
282:
Note that I'm looking for folks who have their eye on the main point of this whole enterprise - writing an encyclopedia. With that in mind, I want content contributions, or at least the concept that they support content contributors. If you're an admin or not really doesn't matter to me at all. In
413:- very unimpressed with blocking Sarek of Vulcan just because of technicalities. SoV's behavior was NOT what folks mean when they talk about admin double standards. 31% edits to article space, only active since March 2009, with 31% of edits to user talk. On the plus side, one successful FAC -
485:
347:- although I feel kinda bad to condemn him to another round of this. I don't need to guess how he'd work on ArbCom, I can see, and it's pretty much perfect ... if he'd just occasionally crack down harder and quicker on some of the SPAs and tenditious editors, it'd be perfect.
326:
460:
332:
439:- still needs some investigation, but my impression is of someone not suited by temprament to be an arb. 30% edits to article space, 29% to user talk, 21% to article talk. 46K edits total, but 1300 of them are to ANI! No sign of a GAN or FAC in any of their archives.
378:
372:
410:
344:
316:
454:
436:
350:
338:
442:
356:
422:
384:
305:
457:- late entrant. 23K total edits. 23% edits to main space. 8% to article talk, 20% to user talk. A concern is that they haven't been active much lately. 3 articles with over 100 edits, one with over 500. Lack of recent contributions makes me oppose.
429:
481:
is a good start to the concerns. While I don't think this makes FT2 an problem editor, I do have concerns enough to make it seem unlikely he'd make a good arbiter. (And now I note this is the longest of my oppose rationales, I guess he's rubbing
403:
448:
466:
353:- 71K edits, 45% edits to article space, only 5% to article talk, 23% to user talk. Doesn't claim any FAs or GANs on their user pages. I think I'll investigate further, but tenative support based on the lack of drama surrounding him so far.
286:
To that end - I expect folks to have at least 45-50% of their contributions to article space, unless they show a LOT of clue in supporting content creation. Stupid ruleslawyering or spending ages at ANI will not get you much support here.
406:- only 23% edits to article space, 16% to article talk, 13% to user talk. 17K total edits. Only one article with over 100 edits to it. Seems somewhat inexperienced and not very content oriented. Nothing showing to make up for that lack.
116:
319:- 50% article space contributions, only 28K contributions, but a decent amount, 9% to article talk pages, 10% to user talk pages, no concerns about dedication to content production. Also, (kidding here) they are higher than I am on
473:, there are four. While his article contributions are nice enough, he's always struck me as a bit to process driven and too much interested in talking to hear himself talk. Maybe in a year after some more content work. Added note -
417:
and some GANs that succeeded. But, was not the primary editor for the Pitt FAC, but copyedited. Not sure has engaged in enough content creation that he cares about to counteract the feeling that he's entirely too bound up by
101:
312:
so it's all a plot to eliminate the competition! 516 articles created (no redirects in that total), 52 articles with over 100 edits, including 4 with over 500. Highest
Knowledge space edits are to GAN, with ANI very
501:
106:
111:
323:
so it's all a plot to eliminate the competition! 23 article pages created (no redirects in that total), 33 articles with over 100 edits, 1 of those with over 500 edits, 178 edits to GAN, 176 to ANI.
71:
359:- like it when he does decide, but has a tendency to recuse too much. Only 9K edits, and only 18% article edits. 37% user talk. Only one article over 100 edits. I'm leaning support here.
87:
451:- only 21% edits to article space, 9% to article talk, 30% to user talk. 86K total edits. Does not claim any FACs or GANs on their user pages. Does not seem content focused.
425:- only 8K edits, not opted into any of the breakdowns. 58% edits to article space, 18% to article talk, 6% to user talk. Just seems entirely too inexperienced.
432:- only active since April, only 6K edits, 38% edits to article space, 4% to article talk, but 42% to user talk. 230+ edits to ANI though. Too inexperienced.
233:
477:
doesn't do much to address the concerns about "talking to hear himself talk" ... wows. And I knew there was something niggling at the back of my brain,
335:- time for him to put up or shut up. Not going to do statistics here as it'd be hard to do with all the different accounts he's had over the years.
148:
134:
These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion.
292:
Whether I think someone is suited for ArbCom has nothing to do with whether I think they are good contributors to the project in other means.
290:
Also note that I do not consider myself suited for ArbCom, I do not deal well with high stress situations nor do I have the tact required.
474:
478:
55:
208:
238:
470:
243:
223:
213:
258:
228:
188:
263:
193:
183:
218:
203:
138:
248:
168:
81:
76:
178:
48:
143:
198:
163:
296:
As a side note, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you wish to discuss any of these.
66:
173:
41:
320:
309:
153:
30:
495:
17:
368:
As a note, I will probably not be voting neutral in this election very often.
414:
25:
502:
Knowledge
Arbitration Committee Elections 2010 voter guides
49:
8:
123:
56:
42:
279:All notes are preliminary at the moment.
126:
7:
67:2010 Arbitration Committee Elections
475:User:FT2/ACE2010 extended statement
479:Knowledge:Requests for comment/FT2
24:
398:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
29:
471:User:FT2/Article contributions
1:
234:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
112:Questions for the candidates
518:
77:Contact the coordinators
117:Discuss the candidates
82:Discuss the elections
486:Georgewilliamherbert
107:Candidate statements
239:Vyvyan Ade Basterd
327:Elen of the Roads
277:
276:
272:
271:
244:WereSpielChequers
509:
124:
58:
51:
44:
33:
26:
517:
516:
512:
511:
510:
508:
507:
506:
492:
491:
461:John Vandenberg
394:
366:
333:GiacomoReturned
321:Knowledge:WBFAN
310:Knowledge:WBFAN
302:
273:
268:
259:Volunteer Marek
129:
121:
102:Candidate guide
94:
93:
63:
62:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
515:
513:
505:
504:
494:
493:
490:
489:
483:
464:
458:
452:
446:
440:
434:
426:
420:
407:
401:
393:
390:
389:
388:
382:
376:
365:
362:
361:
360:
354:
348:
342:
336:
330:
324:
314:
301:
298:
275:
274:
270:
269:
267:
266:
261:
256:
252:
251:
246:
241:
236:
231:
226:
221:
216:
211:
209:Privatemusings
206:
201:
196:
191:
189:NuclearWarfare
186:
181:
176:
171:
166:
161:
156:
151:
146:
141:
135:
131:
130:
127:
122:
120:
119:
114:
109:
104:
99:
95:
92:
91:
84:
79:
74:
69:
61:
60:
53:
46:
38:
37:
36:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
514:
503:
500:
499:
497:
487:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
462:
459:
456:
453:
450:
447:
444:
441:
438:
435:
433:
431:
427:
424:
421:
419:
416:
412:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
395:
391:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
371:
370:
369:
363:
358:
355:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
337:
334:
331:
328:
325:
322:
318:
315:
311:
307:
304:
303:
299:
297:
294:
293:
288:
284:
280:
265:
262:
260:
257:
254:
253:
250:
247:
245:
242:
240:
237:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
205:
202:
200:
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
170:
167:
165:
162:
160:
157:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:
137:
136:
133:
132:
125:
118:
115:
113:
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
97:
96:
90:
89:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
64:
59:
54:
52:
47:
45:
40:
39:
35:
32:
28:
27:
19:
18:User:Ealdgyth
428:
409:
379:Stephen Bain
373:Shell Kinney
367:
295:
291:
289:
285:
281:
278:
264:Geometry guy
224:SandyGeorgia
158:
128:Voter guides
86:
411:HJ Mitchell
345:Newyorkbrad
317:David Fuchs
214:RegentsPark
184:Ncmvocalist
455:Balloonman
437:Off2riorob
351:PhilKnight
339:Iridescent
219:Rschen7754
139:Aiken drum
98:Candidates
443:Sandstein
415:Brad Pitt
357:SirFozzie
249:Wizardman
169:Heimstern
149:CT Cooper
72:Voter log
496:Category
423:Loosmark
385:Jclemens
306:Casliber
204:Polargeo
194:Offliner
179:MastCell
159:Ealdgyth
364:Neutral
300:Support
255:Satires
199:Piotrus
88:Results
482:off??)
430:N419BH
418:rules.
392:Oppose
229:Secret
164:Elonka
404:Harej
16:<
449:Xeno
313:low.
467:FT2
174:Lar
144:AGK
498::
154:DC
57:e
50:t
43:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
