NOppose. Doesn't think that attracting new editors is a problem, doesn't think that we have a problem with vested contributors, thinks being "forthright and blunt" is an excuse to edit war rather than discuss politely, doesn't react well to Elonka's content objections.
Abstain. So many of the other guides oppose him, and I'm not sure why. So he doesn't edit; that can be an issue if that means he's forgotten what it's like, but as a sitting arb, surely there should have been proof of that that an opposer could point to? I do like his answers to questions. I like the CorenSearchBot (though that's not really an arb function). My own interaction with him was minimal; it could have been better, but it was trivial [1] (I pointed out an easily fixed problem with a point in a proposed decision; he waved it off; it arguably sunk the point). So, abstain.
NOppose. Incoherent answer to NWs question on BLPs, and others. Seems to want to be on both sides of all the questions? Acknowledges that there are problems but has no solutions? In any case, one thing an arbcom member needs to be able to do is to write clearly.
YSupport. No objections; he explained that this isn't the first he's heard of any issue with vested contributors on the talk page; nice to know someone is reading. :-).
NOppose. I strongly respect his persistence (most people who have had as many problems with admins would have left Wikipedia years ago), but he doesn't write very persuasively, and, well, seems to have had numerous problems getting along with other admins.
YSupport. Workhorse of the arbcom. No, I didn't like the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development either, oversteps the ArbCom's power, smacks of the Star Chamber... but the work he's done overcomes that.
YSupport. Originally per this, which shows a great deal of courage, and, dare I say it, sanity. But courage isn't enough, I also liked her answers: general question 3, NW's question 8, etc: Emphasis about the importance of keeping this a civil project that's actually enjoyable to participate in. Very good.
YSupport. Strong support from many guides that seem to know her well, no issues with question answers; fine work with the Sophie situation; the main objection (from William M. Connolley) seems to be personal.
Abstain. I liked his statement about ArbCom and GovCom, and he seems to have done real work. But this proposal pointed out by Sven Manguard worries me - restricting people from giving evidence seems actively harmful. Finally, he hasn't answered several of the rather important questions about current arbcom actions he supports/opposes, and it has been a while.
NOppose. He didn't answer Nuclear Warfare's question 1 about BLPs and flagged revisions, essentially saying it wasn't in Arbcom's remit. Well, that would be great, except that Arbcom has had very important cases on BLPs and flagged revisions, and will continue to, the horse is out of the barn, the question needs answering.
Oppose.
Support..
