Plan to get to the candidates in the next few days.
Note that I'm looking for folks who have their eye on the main point of this whole enterprise - writing an encyclopedia. With that in mind, I want content contributions, or at least the concept that they support content contributors. If you're an admin or not really doesn't matter to me at all. In fact, NOT being an admin should be a requirement for at least one of the seats, quite honestly. I'm also looking for folks who don't get so wrapped up in enforcing civility or rules that they forget that first goal above, the writing of the encyclopedia. I don't want to have my work interrupted by idiots who don't know the first thing about subject matter but who seem to think that their opinion on some tangental matter should trump the folks in the trenches writing the content and dealing with the vandals.
To that end - I expect folks to have at least 45-50% of their contributions to article space, unless they show a LOT of clue in supporting content creation. Stupid ruleslawyering or spending ages at ANI will not get you much support here. Well, that's a great goal, but no way can I just judge candidates on that ... because very few candidates meet that standard. And a few of the ones that do, are not otherwise qualified, at least in my eyes.
In line with the last few years, I'm much less likely to approve of folks who are hardline on civility, for example. This years ArbCom has been ... atrocious. I'd say it can't get worse but... As evidence this diff is submitted as well as diff.
Also note that I do not consider myself suited for ArbCom, I do not deal well with high stress situations nor do I have the tact required. Whether I think someone is suited for ArbCom has nothing to do with whether I think they are good contributors to the project in other means.
As a side note, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page if you wish to discuss any of these.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision - on this case - I note that the topic ban from gender gap items for EC was originally conceived as just the actual task force pages, which probably would have eliminated a lot of dramah this year if it hadn't been amended in early 2015.
9 slots. Ugh. 9 slots. How the heck can I possibly find 9 folks to vote for???