 |
|
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 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.
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.
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. 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.
As a side note, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you wish to discuss any of these.
As another side note - I'd like to address User:John Vandenberg/ACE/2011 guides - where I'm taken to task for not supporting 8 candidates. No law/rule/policy says I have to support 8 (and I believe we're filling just 7 anyway). If I don't find 8 candidates that meet my standards, I don't have to settle for less than what I consider acceptable. I'm also taken to task for "guide says it puts weight on content edits, but the actual votes dont appear to follow that approach, and vary from it without any decent explanation." - well, see those numbers that say %% to article space? That's the content metric I start from. Above, I point out I'm looking for 45=50% contributions to article space. Yes, two of the opposes fit that category, but I believe i've set out my reasoning for each of those. None of the neutrals reach that status, which is the main reason for the neutral votes. It's not the only metric, but if my main decision is made from that, I generally don't bother to explain, figuring that the numbers and lack of other content edits would be enough explanation.