Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee/2020 election/Nominations and voting

Global sysop?
flag Am I correct that a user being a global sysop does not, in itself, make them eligible to vote? (As I recall, the rule allowing admins to move non-votes to the comments section has been construed, in the past, to include cases where the user isn't eligible to vote.) --Pi zero (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * this is one of the tricky things I have no idea how to deal with. Global sysops are known to be trusted individuals.  But do they know local users for running in the ArbCom?  Come to think about it, I know  for years, now.  They are trusted editor on ptwn.  They  voted in favour of only two users, you (pi zero), who is the most active en.wikinewsie; and Green Giant, who is a steward and are known across the projects, especially for their diplomacy.  These two are familiar names.  Personally I trust them.  But it is not about whom I trust.  I need to follow the rules, and interpret them.  The rules exist to make sure trusted Wikinewsies, who understand the project, and know the nominees will cast a vote.  The situation feels like: "Everyone is equal before law.  Homosexuality is not recognised under the law."  Something somewhere went wrong, in doing so.  However, this situation calls for a modification, at least a discussion on whether we should let fellow admins on Wikinews to vote or not.  As far as it is concerned for this year, I will move their vote to comment, but in case of a tie, I might be under an odd situation if I should consider their vote or not.  So, I am flagging this discussion.  Also pinging all the nominees for some discussion about it:  •–•  08:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I voted for two editors I know and interacted with them before but if it is not possible to consider my opinion, please cancel it. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * those rules exist to let trusted Wikimedians vote. You are trusted individual, and I don't want other users to ever feel trapped under such circumstances.  Your vote has been moved to comment section.  Hopefully, in the next election, this problem won't arise.  I am sorry about all of this. •–•  10:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Voter eligibility seems due for reevaluation. --SVTCobra 01:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The concern on the conservative side of this, to my understanding, is that we need Arbs who understand the local culture, and (in this as well as other policy-related votes) we need to be proof against hostile ideological intrusion. (Iirc at least one language's Wikinews was effectively terminated by an anti-Wikinews group from that language's Wikipedia.)  I've been thinking that, going forward, we may want to replace the "WMF employees" clause (which gives undue voice to the Foundation) while adding something instead.  The question is what to add instead.  I'd hope to do some investigation, and some thinking, before suggesting a suitable alternative. --Pi zero (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)