Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2014 election/Nominations and voting

Votes

 * 1) Gryllida 04:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Microchip08 (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash; Gopher65talk 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions
*oppose Consistently shows poor judgement. Banned me from writing for Wikinews as part of a personal-political vendetta although he knew I had done nothing wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What you've just said is not an accusation of merely poor judgement, but of blatantly dishonest conduct. I don't know you did nothing wrong; I've always had only indirect evidence either way.  I've always given you (as I hope to give everyone) as much benefit of doubt as circumstances allow.  Whatever you did or didn't do, though, evidence suggests that your desire to believe you did nothing wrong is making you vulnerable to manipulation by others whose political agendas you're not, for whatever reason, seeing.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please remember, as per the how to vote section of the election rules, oppose votes are not allowed. If you don't like a candidate, you can either choose not to vote for them, or you can comment (as was done here) on why you don't like them. Thanks:). &mdash; Gopher65talk 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) --RockerballAustralia contribs 22:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Gryllida 04:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Gopher65talk 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * I'm pleased to nominate William S. Saturn, a current member of ArbCom, who has agreed to stand for reelection. --Pi zero (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Gryllida 04:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Microchip08 (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Gopher65talk 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * I'm pleased to nominate Gopher65, a past member of ArbCom who has agreed to stand. --Pi zero (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomination accepted. &mdash; Gopher65talk 22:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Gryllida 04:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Microchip08 (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Gryllida 04:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Microchip08 (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Gopher65talk 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions
"Commemt No edits since 2012. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to nominate Skenmy, a past member of ArbCom who has agreed to stand. --Pi zero (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Gryllida 04:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) &mdash; Gopher65talk 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions
*oppose. Much (all?) of recent drama resolves around Brian McNeil (e.g. User talk:Rvplpr). I disagree with the way that issue was handled (sarcasm, in-house paralegals, "I could ban you you know"): sentiment aside, the wording was inflammatory, and I don't want that in an Arbcom case: there are much "safer" candidates for Arbcom. Microchip08 (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to nominate Brian McNeil, a current member of ArbCom who has agreed to stand for reelection. --Pi zero (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a matter of clarity, I suggest it may be misleading to suppose controversy has been 'around' brianmc. He's often been in the midst of it, but that's not at all the same thing.  For example, the Rvplpr matter was about someone with a clear COI who appeared to be truly unable to comprehend the principles of Wikinews neutrality; it's unsurprising Rvplpr would try to make it about somebody else, but it was about Rvplpr.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My issue isn't that there's controversy; that's to be expected, because he takes (is baited by?) the "hard" issues. My problem is that the way he deals with it (this time: taking the bait, strong adjectives, adding off-wiki accusations that didn't help matters, not being catalytic) is perhaps not the best. Arbcom doesn't need a "scary" user. Microchip08 (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'd note an ArbCom is a committee for a reason, so that it can draw strength from the diversity of styles and insights of its members.  Frankly, a committee of six clones of brianmc, or of me, or of any one person, probably wouldn't work so well; but imho a diverse ArbCom can be stronger for brianmc's contributions to the group.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please remember, as per the how to vote section of the election rules, oppose votes are not allowed. If you don't like a candidate, you can either choose not to vote for them, or you can comment (as was done here too) on why you don't like them. Thanks:). &mdash; Gopher65talk 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) --RockerballAustralia contribs 22:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Gryllida 04:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Can be a scary editor, but at least he is an editor. Never had a problem with him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash; Gopher65talk 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments and questions

 * I'm pleased to nominate Brian, a past member of ArbCom who has agreed to stand. --Pi zero (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Gryllida 04:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Microchip08 (talk) 09:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Gopher65talk 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)