This is just a place to organize my thoughts about 2017's Arbitration Committee election.
Candidates and votes edit
A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver - Oppose - A edit warring block is not very good, because it shows that the candidate fails to even stop themselves from edit warring, much less stop others. Another item of concern is this, which shows the candidate going against consensus after being told not to. Just no.
BU Rob13 - Support - Is calm at all times; not sure about dispute resolution though, but they have the skills. Also, they understand that Arbcom is a last resort (see the response to Gerda Arendt's question).
Alex Shih - Support - Diplomatic, which is a key characteristic that arbs should have. Also, has experience dealing with editors who don't have very much experience. Finally, they have experience with implementing community consensus, including bans, which shows that they are okay to ban those who have been disruptive.
Sir Joseph - Oppose - Can't seem to resolve their own disputes. Also, they seem to take things a bit too personally. For example, they characterized an editors comments as antisemitic in a combative manner, when they weren't really ([1]).
Opabinia regalis - Support - Understands how Arbcom is supposed to be a last resort, in addition to being on the committee for 2 years already. Also, they know that disruption, even if not intended, can be damaging to the project and, if the disruptor cannot change behaviour, should be met with sanctions (see Wikicology case).
RickinBaltimore - Support - Basically the same as BU Rob13.