As I am in favor of open voting, and because changing my vote would require re-inputing all my votes, I have created this page in order to record my thoughts/ voting decisions regarding ArbCom candidates.

• Kmweber: Oppose
• Fred Bauder: his term as arb was highly controversial, including involvement in the BADSITES drama. Bad (or rather, not good) calls Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano (specifically this); Oppose
• AKG: solid experience, answers to questions are okay, and some of his responses on the WP:EEML talk pages seem a bit excessive (e.g. this and that); also in favor of flagged revision (which i'm against). Neutral
• Shell Kinney: like AKG, Shell has solid experience (including participation in solving the Macedonia naming dispute), okay answers (but nothing brilliant), and is in favor of flagged revisions. Neutral
• Fritzpoll: in his favor is solid experience (including participation in solving the Macedonia naming dispute); but like previous condidates, he suffers from BLP moral panic. Neutral
• Jehochman: pros: willing to make tough calls, no bullshit approach. cons: too willing to make tough unpopular calls, to the point of escalating disputes. Not sure how much of problem that is in a committee of 18. Also a bit of a BLP panicist. Neutral
• Wehwalt: in his statement he promises professionalism, but his answers are not very professional at all; some are out right hostile. I was of mind to support him as the most interesting candidate I've seen so far. However, his unblock of Die4Dixie pushes me over to oppose. Reconsidering this, the unblocked of D4D was not completely out of line. Also, AFAIK, Wehwalt is the only candidate to have understood the subtext of Piotrus's first question (not that there's really a correct answer for that one; still understanding the question is better than not). Neutral
• Seddon: hasn't answered most of questions, and those that he has are less than impressive. He states that this is because he is busy w/ a degree. I can relate to that. Neutral for now (leaning oppose). Will review towards elections end. Elections end is around the corner, and he still hasn't answered the questions. Oppose
• Steve Smith: He's definitely not an idiot, and has some interesting ideas. However, his approach seems at times too authoritarian (in the sense of imposing a rigid structure over the dynamic consensus/IAR traditional structure of wikipedia) and ironically not in line w/ NOTDEMOCRACY (having an elected body making binding decisions by simple vote). That said, having arbcom "filling policy gaps" (his words) is needed. I do want there to be an arb like him, but I don't want arbcom to be primary composed of individuals similar to him. Neutral for now.
• Kirill Lokshin: has reasonable answers, and clearly not an idiot. He, like Steve, desires more structure in wikipedia, but some how, unlike Steve, "his structure" doesn't seem overtly imposing. In other words, while Steve seems the revolutionist, Kirill seems the reformist. Unfortunately for Kirill, he does have one major gaff: ACPD. This has been a major problem with the current arbcom: actions taken w/o thinking them through (I'm thinking about the recent RevDel scandal). In this sense, I'm not sure if having Kirill or Steve as arbs is desirable. Kirill does seem to have the capacity for learning from his mistakes though, and his replies regarding ACPD are reasonable. The fact that he resigned works in his favor: he takes responsibility for his actions. Also appears to have otherwise done good work as an arb. Support
• SirFozzie: answer to the Jennavecia/Jayron32 question was not answered w/ sufficient care. Yet another "consensus is broken" candidate. Neutral
• Coren: unapologetic about arbcom's failures (ACPD, appointment of MBisanz to ASC*), but obviously no fool. Neutral
• Ruslik0: short, to the point statement; short not-so-to-the-point answers. He understood the subtext of Piotrus first question (a strangely rare feat) and is the only candidate I've seen that isn't a BLP moral panicist. Support

These are the candidates I've had time to review. So far, I have not seen a candidate really worthy of support, and may end up not supporting anyone; As such, I may decide to not participate in these elections at all. Or alternatively, I may support those I currently regard w/ neutrality. As I have decided to support Kirill, the striked part doesn't really apply. I may still decide to support (some of) those whom I'm neutral on, or perhaps oppose.

If you have any comments, feel free to do so at my talk page. Rami R

• Support: Jehochman, Fritzpoll, Shell Kinney, Kirill Lokshin, Ruslik0.
• Oppose: SirFozzie, Kmweber, Fred Bauder.
• Neutral: everyone else.

Yes, this slightly deviates from why initial thoughts. This deviation was based mostly on gut-feeling.

* Not that there is anything wrong about MBisanz, but it wasn't due process. NOTBURO, I know; However if there's one body of wikipedia that should stick to process more than others, its arbcom.