Criteria edit
No time, unfortunately, to do in-depth research so all you're going to get is choices based on vague impressions. Buyer beware, use with care. If you're looking for a real in-depth guide, click here. I guess the minimalist in me says that less than 15,000 edits and/or less than 30% edits in article space (talk + article) isn't asking for too much. If I may add, please don't vote for any of those people with less than 5000 edits down there. Are they here to build an encyclopedia or are they here to add arbcom to their resumes?
Rating edit
- Support: Yup. Vote for them.
- Neutral: Doesn't mean much. Don't really know the candidate
- Oppose: Please don't vote for them. Really. The very fact that they've chosen to run means they have lousy decision making skills!
| Candidate | Bottom line | Thoughts |
|---|---|---|
| Timtrent (talk · contribs) | Support | Don't hesitate. One of my top choices. Tim trent is that rare person who can cut through the crap (and there is clearly a lot of that icky stuff) and get to the heart of the matter. |
| Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) | Oppose | Hit the oppose button. The recent poor judgement in coming out of a couple of years of not using the tools was bad enough but then to accuse the entire admin corps of not being as courageous as Kirill Lokshin - that's way to smug for me. Throw the bum out! |
| Drmies (talk · contribs) | Support | No brainer. Another cut-through-the-crap person. If nothing else, they'll inject some humor into the sombre proceedings that characterize what arbcom does. |
| Keilana (talk · contribs) | Support | Though she says she's running because of a shortage of women, that's not the reason to vote for her. Vote for her because she is a collaborative content editor with a great deal of common sense and because she will make an excellent arb. |
| Callanecc (talk · contribs) | Neutral | Could be wrong but I have this impression of Callanecc being rather rule bound. Arbs, imo, should be out of the box thinkers and not sure if that fits this editor. But, not sure. So neutral. |
| Mahensingha (talk · contribs) | Oppose | Too few edits. We've seen what happens when someone becomes an arb too quickly (naming no names) so anyone with less than 15,000 edits should wait a bit. |
| Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs) | Support | I know. Way less than 15,000 edits. But, trawling through the responses to questions, I found this gem. Basically I would like people to do more nothing when they find the opportunity. Doing nothing is a valuable skill. Exactly right so here's the exception to the minimum edits rule. |
| Samtar (talk · contribs) | Oppose | 4,000 odd edits. What exactly are we thinking here? |
| MarkBernstein (talk · contribs) | Oppose | Fuggedaboutit! What's with these low edit people applying? MarkBernstein has all of 3329 edits but the bloke still feels he can opine about the current committee being Infamous, Thoughtless, Careless and Reckless and wax eloquent on Campaigns of harassment and extortion. Obviously, if all you've done on Wikipedia is hang around arbcom, you're going to have a rather jaundiced view of things. Best if they went and actually edited the encyclopedia for a bit. With 3400 edits in 9 years why you do you even care what goes on here? |
| Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) | Neutral | The BotMan! This could be interesting and I might just switch to support. Clearly cares about the encyclopedia but the run in with arbs leaves me wondering if they're not too set in their ways. Need to think about this one. |
| Kudpung (talk · contribs) | Support | Wasn't sure about this one initially - vague impression of pugnaciousness (or is it the 'pung' in the name?) but I've just finished reading Kudpung's answers to the questions (yes, including those of the 'soapbox masquerading as questions' variety) and me like. This person has their head screwed on the right way. |
| NE Ent (talk · contribs) | Support | Don't know a whole lot but, from what I've seen, I think NE Ent will work out. |
| Gorilla Warfare (talk · contribs) | Oppose | Kind of icky being an arbcom member with an agenda and then pushing that agenda off-wiki. And icky not good. |
| Kelapstick (talk · contribs) | Support | Definitely. Thoughtful admin. No question but say yes! |
| Casliber (talk · contribs) | Support | I mildly supported Casliber back in my 2010 guide because I liked their responses to the questions and, reading the current set of answers, I see the same thoughtful approach ot thorny issues. Happy to support again. |
| Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs) | Oppose | I don't know much about Kevin Gorman but if their reading of the situation in this thread is any indication, then I doubt if they'll do a halfway adequate job reading and weighing evidence on arbcom cases. Not worth the risk. |
| Gamaliel (talk · contribs) | Neutral | |
| LFaraone (talk · contribs) | Oppose | Not sure about this one cause I can't pin anything down. But the Yngvadottir desysop shows lack of ability (aka inability) to think out of the rule box. |
| Thryduulf (talk · contribs) | Oppose | Present arb member and I'm not impressed by the long procedural comments. Also the quick yay to the desysopping of Yngvadottir was not salubrious. Plenty of other thoughful people to do the job so follow the sage advice of Nancy Reagan. |
| Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) | Neutral | Hmm. Interesting monicker. Not at all pompous and boring like being named after a royal park. That's a big plus. And perhaps hullaballoo is what arbcom needs to shake things up. But, there is a wolf possibly baring its fangs on the minus side so this needs some more research. Neutral for now. |
| Wildthing61476 (talk · contribs) | Neutral | |
| Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) | Neutral |