I’ve run in the distant past and know it is hard to stand for an election. Thank you to all the candidates for offering your services. After another decade of experience, I realize I would not be a good fit for the job. Please don’t feel discouraged if I don’t support you.

This guide format was copied from another editor who is skilled at making guides.


  • Yes. Thank you for running. We need more people like this in leadership roles. Excellent statement.


  • Good statement because they have experience and correct priorities and they already have OS right that’s normally given to arbitrators. I would support.


  • Worm has been responsive to questions and attempted to do thorough analysis of difficult cases. This year the Committee has demonstrated poor judgement. I do not blame Worm for this, and am thinking whether it's more important to have healthy turnover (which suggests opposing all the incumbents running for re-election) or better to have the known quantity (an above average arbitrator).

I would support.

  • Great editor. I’m not sure the arbitrator role is the right fit.


  • I have a favorable impression of Casliber. Having served in the past, we know what to expect from him. On the other hand, we need some turnover, so I will have to see how many other candidates I'm supporting and prioritize.


  • Experienced user. I have no memory of them ever showing less than good judgement, so I have no reason not to support. Great answer to my question.


  • Has served as an arbitration clerk and seems to have good judgment. On the other hand, I have not been that fond of most arbitration clerks who then run for the Committee (NYB being the main exception) because it shows a desire for power, which I dislike. However, that's not a strong enough reason to oppose.


  • Thank you for offering to serve. I think you are qualified but may have less experience than other candidates. My evaluation is “on the bubble”.


  • Read their statement. First choice.


  • Generally I have had a positive view of KrakatoaKatie. As I suggested in Worm's section above, I am unsure whether to vote for the known quantity or to vote for change, because ArbCom has performed poorly during the last year. I will vote for her.


  • Unsure. Leaning against on my theory that Arbs and Crats should be disjoint sets of people. But, I think I'll make an exception because the user gave a strong answer to my question and seems qualified, and adds geographic diversity.


  • A professional lawyer and a legendary arbitrator. Just who we need to set things right. I especially like his empathy and desire to see the good in people.


  • A wise and empathetic user who would be excellent on the Committee again.


  • I like TRM but his demeanor is not ideal for serving as arbitrator. I think it shows bad judgement to run in an election and at the same time publish a voter guide, User:The Rambling Man/Arbcom voting guide. Please choose one or the other, or else I must oppose.


  • A past arbitrator who has not left a negative impression. I may need to refresh my memory.


  • Sound judgment and past arbitrator, as far as I remember.


  • Newcoming to ArbCom. I need to check their views to see if I would support. Yes, I would.


  • I disliked when bureaucrats run for ArbCom. It seems like hat collecting. We need to distribute power in as many different people as we can.


  • This editor has left no impression on me. This turns out to be a good thing. They've been around a very long time. I would support.


  • Smart editor with lots of life experience. Also provides geographic diversity. I think they would resist groupthink and they have not been an arbitrator before, and show no signs of unhealthy desire for power. I would probably support.


  • I'm of the opinion that anybody elected to ArbCom who isn't an administrator would easily pass RfA and should thus be given sysop rights upon election. I am not sure this candidate has sufficient clue. I'll have to review their record.


  • I don't remember them at all. Seems like I would at least remain neutral if not support.