User:GlassCobra/ACE2008

As I place votes for the various candidates this year, I note that I do not hold myself to seven votes, as others do. I feel that expressing support or opposition for each candidate above and beyond the seven seats that will be filled is important; if the seven candidates that I find most suitable do not end up being the ones chosen, is my vote then completely disregarded? As an extension of this, users that support only their seven and then actually oppose all the others is even more inappropriate, as it actually damages the chances of other worthy candidates. I would also like to take this time to opine on various other criteria that I have seen in use by other editors: Elements of this page were stolen from the voter guides authored by east718, MBisanz and Lar, though this table was done manually. All statistics are accurate as of December 3, 2008. I reserve the right to revisit and change my votes as necessary until the end of the voting period. I am also open to questions about any of my opinions or votes, and am very much open to being convinced. I welcome any and all discussion.
 * 1) An imagined requisite of adminship. While it is certainly preferable to have a proven measure of trust from the community, being an admin in and of itself is not and should not be a requirement for running for ArbCom. We have exemplary users (this year, namely, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back) who have simply chosen not to run for the mop, and to penalize them so, especially with haughty and condescending statements like "user is not even an admin," is insulting and unnecessary. However, this is not to say that several failed RfAs should not count against a candidate, as proven lack of trust is obviously a negative factor.
 * 2) Opposing other running candidates. Hopefully we're all above pettiness, especially in important elections like this. If a candidate has a serious concern about another candidate, they should be free to voice it, as long as other candidates are free to do the same if they feel it is necessary. Potential Arbs absolutely should care who they serve with.
 * 3) The "too many hats" school of thought espoused by some users. The thought of a "career mandarin" on Wikipedia is all but ridiculous; while power hunger is a somewhat legitimate concern when running for adminship, people who are already admins and bureaucrats know that this is a tireless, thankless job. The fact that they are willing to stand up and volunteer to shoulder extra responsibility for this community should be lauded, not punished or ridiculed. One of our current Arbitrators, Deskana, holds just about every flag there is, and does a fantastic job with all his responsibilities, while still managing to contribute to the encyclopedia occasionally as well. I see absolutely no reason why this could not be the case with other candidates.