User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2010

Criteria
I'm taking the simplistic approach and analyzing candidates according to three criteria:
 * 1) How closely he/she adheres to what I think are sound encyclopedia building principles (too much drama - bad; lots of reasoned content additions - good)
 * 2) Whether he/she is willing to think 'out of the box' (too much adherence to the letter of the policy - bad)
 * 3) Whether he/she will add incremental value to the process (gotta have a diversity of personality styles - productive personality styles - on arbcom).

Rating
Totally unscientific. I evaluate each candidate per the three criteria above and plonk them into three buckets:
 * 1) Support: A rating of 6 to 10. 10 = fantastic candidate, 6=support with a few reservations
 * 2) Neutral: A rating of 5. Mostly, because I don't know enough about the candidate to decide so I'll just let others decide
 * 3) Oppose: A rating of 1 to 4. 1 = bad idea seeing the candidate on arbcom, 4 = marginal oppose