User:William M. Connolley/ACE2011

Criteria

 * personal experience: I'll be judging people by how they behaved in cases I've been in.
 * availability: Iridescent may have been a nice chap but he failed in his duty to be there; he is hardly alone in this.
 * clue: arbcomm is broken, badly. Anyone who thinks all is well, or needs minor tweaks, is a No.
 * limits: arbcomm is an arbitration committee suffering badly from feature creep.
 * old guard: too many timeservers; sitting arbs will need to have been good.

Stuff I'd like to see in people' statements

 * I'd like arbcomm to think more about content and less about conduct.
 * Arbcomm is lazy. To force them to be less so, and for the good of cases, only behaviour predating the opening of a case should be considered.

Generally I tend to like NW's views (User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011), except on BLP where he is badly wrong; read WP:BLPZEALOT instead.

User:Monty845/ACE2011 is worth a look.