Having been repeatedly burned by voting for bad candidates in the past, my support votes this year will be based strictly on clear pledges made by the candidates. Candidates can receive my support by making pledges on one of two issues: they can pledge to conduct all or nearly all of their arbitration-related deliberations on-wiki and to promote ArbCom transparency in general, or they can pledge to help me get my own case reviewed and my restrictions lifted. AGK made a transparently-related pledge, so I'm planning to vote for him. As far as I know, no other candidate has made a pledge on either of the issues, so I will vote for none of them unless they do.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 1st December 2009, 2:35am)
I'd vote for Steve Smith (WR's Sarcasticidealist.) He's pro-Wikipedian but he thinks better than rest of this rabble. Someday he'll flip sides and become a critic. I've noticed that being on ArbCom has had an effect One too. Mostly in tone and mostly taking form of impatience. He could eventually get things right too. I'll bet half of PETA once worked in meat packing.
One/CHL is one of the saddest cases I've seen. He was a promising candidate, but as an arbitrator, he's ceased to represent any sort of critical or reformist perspective. Do you suppose being on the secret mailing list has done that to him? Special privileges can have that effect on people...when you get special privileges, it's easy to start thinking that things really aren't so bad after all, and people need to stop whining.