User:RegentsPark/ArbVotes2017

Criteria
I use this guide mainly to clarify things for myself so don't expect more than a few vaguely stated impressions. My general expectations are that an arbc should have been around for a while and should have a reasonable amount of content edits under their belt. Helpful, though not necessary, if they're also an admin. I do read all the candidate answers (except for the obvious trolls) but beyond this my judgements are entirely subjective. Hopefully, User:Bishonen will unveil a much better guide at an opportune moment!

I've added an "Edit record" column that rates the candidate on their contributions to Wikipedia, trading off mainspace and wikispace edits. Fuzzily speaking, if an editor doesn't have a decent content space track record, then they are less likely to focus on the core of wikipedia (content!) and more likely to focus on a bureaucratic model of arbitration. Not always true of course. Just another piece of information to put into your pipe and smoke while you figure out who to vote for.

Also, note that if you're looking for a guide that predicts who or who will not be elected, you've come to the wrong place. A quick look at my past recommendations should convince you that my preferences don't necessarily align with those of the community (except that both I as well as the community will not support obvious trolls!). Think of this as an orthogonal take on the process and try to draw your own conclusions.

Rating

 * 1) Support: Yup. Vote for them.
 * 2) Neutral: Doesn't mean much. Don't really know the candidate
 * 3) Oppose: Please don't vote for them. Really. The very fact that they've chosen to run means they have lousy decision making skills!

Guides for past elections

 * 2016
 * 2015
 * 2011
 * 2010