User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2011

Criteria
Well, mostly random musings. I looked at my ratings from (my 2010 guide) and I would probably have rated the candidates differently this year. That includes supporting some of my opposes and, unfortunately, opposing some of my supports. So, I'm going to try to read what these ladies and gentlemen write, think about what I've seen of them and where, give everyone a little benefit of the doubt here and there, and rate them accordingly. In particular, I'm going to look at contributions to article talk pages. In my opinion, the biggest problem facing wikipedia is the presence of polite and persistent agenda editors and I don't see how a person can figure out how to deal with them (or even recognize them) if they haven't had an extensive involvement with article talk pages. Not much science here but reasons for sure. --regentspark (comment) 22:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rating

 * 1) Support: A rating of 6 to 9. 9 = 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