== My ArbCom election endorsements: AGK, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Roger Davies == 

 As an election coordinator I should probably shut up. But one editor whose judgment I trust has made the point that my role is rather functional this year. In any case my time-budget for WP is regrettably small at the moment, so I'm not heavily involved. I'm voting "oppose" for most of the candidates not mentioned here, but I don't want to focus on this.  

 Here are the editors I believe we're lucky to have as candidates, and I strongly recommend that voters support them: 

 AGK 
 *Knows the go from his experience as a clerk, a CU, an OS, an AE admin, and member of BASC.  
 *Cluey about conflict of interest.  
 *Experienced and interested in mediation—always a good thing in an arb. 
 *Has the type of writing skills necessary to draft judgments. Not much of a content editor, but I don't care in his case. 
 *He's keen to rationalise the text bloat in arb judgments, particularly the ridiculous segmented no-brainer restatements of long-standing policy (a particular issue for me—see his responses to my queries on his talk page). 
 *I sense he's likely to be on the "keep the cases short in duration" side on the committee—this is a top priority, IMO. 

 This guy is on the mark. I don't mind a technocrat on board. -)   

  
 Courcelles 
 *Admin, CU, OS, BASC, and OTRS service—all trustworthy service. 
 *Level-headed, with good social judgement. I'm happy with his responses to the questions. 
 *Has content experience, and may be suitable for induction into case drafting, first as a co-drafter. 
 *Good interwiki affiliations, including adminships on Commons and Meta. This will inject new skills and knowledge into the committee. 

 Ideal new blood on the committee.   
 

 Hersfold 
 *Has the right skill-base to be a very effective arb. Good social and policy judgment. 
 *Pretty good answers (but a lame candidate statement—memo to Hersfold ...). 
 *Could tighten up his prose when he contributes to case drafting; not bad, though. 
 *Only just scrapes across the line for endorsement. I was put off by his early resignation last time. I do hope it doesn't happen again ("I'm away from my computer for this week", last Friday, was not a good sign. Will he have the time to be an arb?) 

 I will vote Support for him, giving him the benefit of the doubt.   

  
 Kirill Lokshin 
 *An old hand; knows the process very well, which is important for continuity and inducting the new arbs. 
 *Trustworthy. Very bright guy. Doesn't play games.  
 *Good understanding of CoI. 
 *Good writer/drafter. 
 *Overstepped the mark with that GovCom thing in 2009, and admirably resigned, which was more than he had to do, IMO. Has come back shining. 

 Solid arb, still fresh: a big tick.   

  
 Roger Davies 
 *Shows a fine sense of justice and balance. 
 *Well-developed sense of CoI, particularly in separating his personal views from his judgments; plays it by the book. 
 *Has kept the whole thing running by doing a lot of the hard yards, from what I've been told. 
 *Excellent writer/drafter, and has a strong track-record of MilHist and FAC involvement. 
 *Good commitments in his candidate statement; I like his policy of "small government". 
 *Has a reputation for being highly skilled at managing the stream of sociopaths ArbCom saves the community from having to deal with. 
 *Don't see eye to eye with him on the size of judgement texts, but what the heck. If he's been one of the arbs pushing for the shortening of case-times, I like it. 

 A stand-out for his professionalism, pragmatism, and intelligence.