Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2011 election/Nominations and voting

Meh, I might as well stand. Seems like a good job, little work, no pay, nothing ever gets sent to arbcom anyhow :) BarkingFish (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * ArbCom duty isn't completely zero (it wasn't this past year for me, e.g.), despite the rarity of requests for arbitration. Also, you're agreeing to put in significant time if it comes to it.  ("Be aware that arbitration duty can still be rather time-intensive in complex cases".)  --Pi zero (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pi zero. I should really have noted that I wasn't intending that to be a complete statement of my intention to run for the ArbCom - it was more a placeholder until I thought of something better.  I am aware that there is work to do, even if it's not a great deal, and I am prepared to put the effort into my time on the commission should I be elected. BarkingFish (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) --Gryllida 03:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my longstanding policy on Arbcom elections Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) — μchip08 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) --アンパロ Io ti odio! 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) --  Peter.C  •  play  21:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) --Pi zero (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Tyrol5 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) a user who can take hard decisions. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

So, apparently, there's nobody else running up for it. Might be a chance to actually do something for this project. As Barking pointed out, there's almost never anything sent to arbcom. I believe I can handle situations well; I'll leave the decision up to you. :) アンパロ Io ti odio! 05:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Per my longstanding policy on Arbcom elections Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) BarkingFish (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been around for almost three years now (and on enWP for a while before that), and an admin for about two and a half. In that time, I've managed to avoid upsetting anyone too much, and have played a part in the resolution of a couple of disputes. I'm standing mainly because I think the most important thing in an election is variety of choice (and with so few active users, variety is hard to come by), and I would be willing to serve on the Arbitration Committee if the community decides it wants me to. If not, that's fine too, but I think I'd do a decent job of it. DEN DODGE  George Watson  10:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Per my longstanding policy on Arbcom elections Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) --アンパロ Io ti odio! 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) BarkingFish (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Bencherlite (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) C628 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) the wub  "?!"  00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Tyrol5 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) having some new blood on the ArbCom; user also has made prior attempts at dispute resolution. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've willing to serve another year on ArbCom. --Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) --Gryllida 03:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) --William S. Saturn (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my longstanding policy on Arbcom elections Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) — μchip08 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) --アンパロ Io ti odio! 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) BarkingFish (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) PiZ to continue on ArbCom. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Bencherlite (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Huluvu42 14:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck. User is ineligible to vote. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  14:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -  Amgine | t  00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Gopher65talk 12:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Tyrol5 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would love to do another year. Have been on arbcom since ages ago. Not much is ever needed from arbcom (which is good), but it is always good to have it as a 'just in case'. More than happy to serve another term. Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 06:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Tempodivalse  [talk]  21:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) --アンパロ Io ti odio! 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) BarkingFish (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Gopher65talk 23:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) --Pi zero (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  as every committee needs a Brian. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Bencherlite (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) the wub  "?!"  00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support -  Amgine | t  00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Tyrol5 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to stand this time around due to the fact that I haven't been very active on the Wiki for the past three months (due to work), but since there are only 5 people standing for election right now I suppose I will.

Even when I'm not posting I still check the Wiki daily, so just because you don't see me doesn't mean I'm not around... at least for a few minutes a day;). Gopher65talk 23:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) --Gryllida 03:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my longstanding policy on Arbcom elections Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) --アンパロ Io ti odio! 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) --Pi zero (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) the wub  "?!"  00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -  Amgine | t  00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Tempodivalse  [talk]  14:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased to nominate Skenmy, one of my colleagues on the current ArbCom. I asked Skenmy whether xe would accept nomination, and made this nomination when xe indicated xe would. --Pi zero (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Tempodivalse  [talk]  21:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) --Gryllida 03:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my longstanding policy on Arbcom elections Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) --Pi zero (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Paul in this role. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Bencherlite (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Support -  Amgine | t  00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Tyrol5 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have written a few things for Wikinews and support the concept of the site, and am a reviewer. One of my articles has been promoted to FA. I like to think I'm a reasonable, sane and drama-free editor and user, and am willing to help resolve any cases needing arbitration. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Tempodivalse  [talk]  21:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my longstanding policy on Arbcom elections Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) — μchip08 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) BarkingFish (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) the wub  "?!"  00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -  Amgine | t  00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm a quite recent contributor, and I've done some decision-making recently, including:
 * Turn away the Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Diego Grez (sysop) event, being the first to oppose and generally showing that the reason is somewhat one-sided, although 100% of votes before me were support.
 * Take some efforts to resolve a debate by asking each side some questions (1, 2) which helped each of them to clarify their own position and possibly had pacifying effect.
 * Take some softening action at this section to prevent a possible misunderstanding.
 * Suggest to use a more detailed template for the DR process at the May 8 Workshop to have it possible that one isn't opened until needed (the template includes questions about previous steps undertaken).
 * Generally take positive, catalysing role in conflicts that I happen to see, especially if the sides are both worthwile contributors.

Although I may easily expect a failure due to the relative shortness of the time I've spent with the community (which doesn't exceed a couple of years), I think I may be ready to competently facilitate and resolve large problems case accepted here.

--Gryllida 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Tempodivalse  [talk]  21:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per my longstanding policy on Arbcom elections Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) --アンパロ Io ti odio! 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -  Amgine | t  00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash; Gopher65talk 12:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm nominating Bawolff in absentia. Gopher65 me Bawolff is away for nearly a month, and thus we don't expect xem to be in a position to accept the nomination within the nomination period.

Bawolff is a member of the current ArbCom. --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I second this nom:). Gopher65talk 14:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept the nomination btw. I'm quite flattered by being nominated while not even here, not to mention by all the vote I got. Thanks everyone. Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * - Since you are nominating this currently sitting Arbitrator in absentia, and you state that you don't expect them to be able to accept the nomination within the alloted period, could you clarify the rules should this person be elected, and subsequently refuse the seat? Would the election be recounted to see who out of the remaining candidates took the next highest vote amount, or would the vote have to be recast? BarkingFish (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The best way to settle that is to simply take the next highest vote count, of course following the procedure for ties if needed. — Mike moral  ♪♫  19:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I recall, last year we had a two-way tie for sixth place, and were all set up to have a runoff, when one of the top five withdrew. That was taken to mean we didn't need a runoff after all.  Which (if I've got it right) is a precedent for re-applying the original counts when someone withdraws after the election.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, last year we decided to just promote the next highest person in vote count. Didn't 2 people end up withdrawing last year, meaning that number 7 and number 8 actually ended up being seated in the 5th and 6th slots? I could be mistaken about that though. Gopher65talk 00:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops. This has just made me realize, we've overlooked something crucial to answering BarkingFish's question.  There are two entirely different cases here.
 * If someone pulls out while the election process is still ongoing, the election committee decides how to apply votes of the community to the situation.
 * If a member of ArbCom declines to serve after the election process has ended (including certification of the results by the election committee), then the ArbCom has one less sitting member. Until an election changes that &mdash; and realistically, that means next year's regular election, because the community isn't going to go to the bother of a special election to fill one empty seat on a committee whose size is already chosen to be robust against recusals.
 * Last year, a candidate withdrew while regular voting was still open, and then an elected member of ArbCom pulled a Sarah Palin a few days after being elected &mdash; while a runoff for the sixth seat was just getting underway. So that filling two seats, instead of one, was well within the purview of the election committee.  But after the election process is complete, those not elected are simply non-members of ArbCom, and trying to claim otherwise would have a serious legitimacy problem.  (One could see the question going all the way to... well, we don't want to go there.)  --Pi zero (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse  <font face="Georgia">[talk]  21:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) --Gryllida 03:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per my longstanding policy on Arbcom elections Brian | (Talk) &#124; New Zealand Portal 01:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) — μchip08 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) --アンパロ Io ti odio! 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) BarkingFish (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash; Gopher65talk 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) --Pi zero (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  as Bawolff is rarely drawn into any dispute which may escalate to ArbCom. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Bencherlite (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) C628 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) the wub  "?!"  00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t  00:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Tyrol5 (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)