User:SB Johnny/ACE2015

I thought I'd weigh in on this one because of the strange direction that the arbitration committee has been moving in, especially over the past term. There's very much been a trend towards social engineering, as opposed to arbitrating disputes that arise from disagreements about the content of Wikipedia's articles, which is purportedly "why we're here".

If you're looking for guidance about how to make a difference, the first thing to know is that you should not vote neutral, but always oppose any candidate that doesn't impress you. Arbitrators have an enormous amount of power (ever more so, in fact, since the God-King has long abandoned any pretense of being willing to overrule them), so only those candidates that genuinely impress the voters should get in, as opposed to the unknowns who could end up clearing the hurdle because too many people are uncomfortable opposing the unknowns. Wikipedia will be much better off with a smaller but well-vetted committee than with a large committee with a large contingent of less-than-capable or un-level-headed members, much less staffed by members who clearly have a Machiavellian bent.

I'm not going to explain why I'm opposing everyone else, as there's been enough said about that on the other voter guides (there's also an active thread on Wikipediocracy about it if you want TMI). I am supporting three of them:

Cas Liber: He's always come across as even-handed, isn't afraid of the critics, and seems to have a great sense of fairness.
Opabinia regalis: Hadn't really come across her in the past (which is sometimes a good sign), but she seems a low-drama, level-headed, and refreshingly rational sort with a sense of humor to boot. I suppose I can overlook early edits with the account on Ayn Rand topics ;-).
Gorilla Warfare: While I'm somewhat torn about her because she's been on the committee during the recent madness, she seems to have her eyes open about it, and I hope she'll provide some "institutional memory" to help the next committees avoid some of the worst of this.

And that's all, folks. I really feel that the other candidates simple lack the experience, neutrality, level-headedness, and/or demeanor for the gig, and a some of them I see as harmful to Wikipedia even without the super-dooper powers they're asking for. Just say no, and remember, voting neutral can be worse than not voting at all.