Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.
Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities).
Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.
Anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.
Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it.
— Statement by User:Hans Adler from one of Giano's many Arbitration Committee hearings.
My current user name, Eric Corbett, is my real name, but like everyone else here I had to choose a username that was unique, so I initially chose Malleus Fatuorum. I make this statement because I don't want to hide behind a pretend shield of anonymity.
I made my first edit to Wikipedia on 6 June2006, a minor copy edit to the Delian League, but I didn't begin to contribute regularly until February 2007. One of the first articles I contributed significantly to was Sale, Greater Manchester, which achieved GA probably despite my efforts.
When Chat Moss was promoted to FA on New Year's Eve 2007, I felt that maybe I was beginning to understand what was expected of a Wikipedia article, and since then I've helped to get a few more articles to GA and FA. I've also created more than 160 new articles, three of which are now FAs and three are GAs.
For those who're interested, I've had two unsuccessful RFAs, one in 2007 and the other in 2008
I believe that the good article process is potentially one of the best initiatives in Wikipedia – a lightweight, although to some controversial, process that generates a significant improvement in article quality. So I decided it was only fair to try and help out by taking on some of the reviews. This is a list of the GA nominations I've reviewed: