User:Boing! said Zebedee/ACE2018
I had decided that there are reasons why I should not offer a guide this year, but I think I can offer one in an ethical manner by restricting it to only those I support.
11:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC): I'd decided on the first four below, and I said "For the remaining two seats, I think I see four candidates as suitable. It's hard to work out a clear preference, and I'll probably only vote for the four above." But I've been re-examining the candidates, and I've changed my mind and I'm now going to support an additional two to make up the six seats - and they're not from my original "any two from four" combo.
|GorillaWarfare||I was pleased to see GorillaWarfare showing her hand at the last minute, as I think she has consistently been one of our best arbs. I do think she's mad to come back for another term, mind, but if she's willing to devote more time then, well, you have to be mad to want to be on ArbCom anyway. I've heard of some of the vile abuse to which GW has been subjected and it appalls me, but she appears to handle it with aplomb and I see that as a key strength. (I must also point out that it's too late to be the first to unicycle round the world, but the speed record is up for grabs.)||Support|
|Robert McClenon||I've had mixed feelings about Robert McClenon since I saw his candidacy, and my early reasons for possible opposition included my personal disagreement with his opinion that ArbCom should be seeking to take on more cases and my feeling that he prefers to see more levels of bureaucracy and process than fewer (where the latter is my preference). But I don't just want people who agree with me, and I think RM's enthusiasm and fresh perspective would be beneficial. I don't see his non-admin status as an impediment.||Support|
|SilkTork||SilkTork's take in his candidate statement mirrors my opinions pretty much 100% - especially the part where he describes ArbCom as "part of our community - it is not above or separate from it". Providing service rather than authority should be its focus. I also remember SilkTork as being among the most insightful during his 2012-13 spell, a period when I think we were seeing a bit of an improvement in openness (and I'd like to see more of that please).||Support|
|Drmies||I like Drmies' ability to talk straight without bureaucratic speak, and I've always valued his input in disputes. He can bring a sense of humour without any of the inflated sense of self worth that seems to be one of Wikipedia's bugbears. I wonder if the challenge of managing unruly mobs of students has transferred well to Wikipedia dispute resolution? I think maybe it has. A definite positive in his previous stint on the committee.||Support|
|Isarra||I confess I'd initially not taken Isarra's candidacy too seriously - but that was a mistake I've now rectified. She's a very smart contributor to the project, and her answers to questions show insight and clarity expressed in a way that doesn't fit the common "Here's what the rules suggest I should say here" mold. Overall, I see her as simply being herself rather than trying to sell herself, and I reckon the real herself would make a very good Arb.||Support|
|Joe Roe||Re-examining Joe's candidate statement, answers to questions, and his track record, I'm seeing someone with an eye for analytical detail, an ability to clearly express sound judgment in discussion, a serious lack of drama, and no personal agenda to push. Joe had also done a lot of great content work, and hopefully he'll help remind the committee that that's what it's all about.||Support|