Wikinews

Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2009 elections

< Wikinews:Arbitration Committee

Voting has now closed

Voting has now closed

The terms of all Arbitration Committee members have now expired and as such, an election for the committee's 6 members is necessary. Any member of the English Wikinews community can be elected to the Committee for a 1 year term. In the course of this election, the community's consensus will be gathered in order to find people to fill these roles.

Current arbitrators who remain active in this community (made 10 or more edits in 90 days) have automatically been nominated for re-election. These are Brianmc (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs) and Cspurrier (talk · contribs). Other members or current arbitrators may nominate themselves, or be nominated by another member and accept the nomination, and optionally make a statement.

The election will be administered by:

The deadline for nominations is Sunday, August 9, 2009 at 23:59 UTC. Elections will commence on Monday, August 10, 2009 and close on Monday, August 17, 2009 at 23:59 UTC. The new Committee will be appointed on Tuesday, August 18, 2009. Election information is below.

Election information

Suffrage

  • You must have at least 250 edits in the Main namespace before July 1, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC) in order to vote.
  • Your first edit must have been made before June 1, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC) in order to vote.
  • All Wikimedia Foundation board members, full-time staff, and paid developers will be eligible to vote, provided they have edited a Wikimedia project before June 1, 2009 in that capacity.
  • Administrators on the Wikinews project, even if they don't meet the requirements above, are still eligible to vote.

How to vote

  • All those eligible to vote per the above suffrage can indicate their vote for a candidate through putting the {{support}} template in the 'discussion' section.
  • Comments about the candidate can also be made in the 'discussion' section

Nominations

Brian McNeil (talk · contribs)

Automatic renomination. Computerjoe's talk 12:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I am happy to stand again, I just hope things continue as they have and the ArbCom isn't needed. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Discussion

To respond to this, I am going to admit that Brian has a certain cavalier attitude (most of us do, but no-one notices because Brian outdoes us all combined). Nonetheless, I do value his decision making, which is generally very sound even if he has a tendancy to be a little... unorthodox. My view is that Brian would treat an ArbCom case with the seriousness it entails, and produce a properly considered opinion. When he is trying to explain various concepts he tends to do a good job of it, and this insight is of a kind that I think would be valuable on ArbCom. The concerns are valid, but after weighing things up I still feel his opinions tend to be well thought-out and that his benefits outweigh his faults as an ArbCom member. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have to read beyond the first sentence to know the criticism was from Adambro, it certainly has some merit, but it would be more credible to be saying I shouldn't be on the ArbCom because something couldn't get to that dispute level without me having nailed someone to the ground and taken a stand on an issue. That would be a better reason not to vote for me than the reasons Adambro has outlined. The probability of people becoming embroiled in an issue before it is brought to ArbCom has had an influence on how I have voted - depending how you look at things that might be a reason not to vote for me.
Some of Adambro's criticism is, I feel, based on a young man's efforts to be earnest. The 'job' - furthering the wiki - is serious, earnest efforts towards that are to be admired and something that garners respect. The old adage is, "Take the job seriously, but never take yourself seriously". I'm 40, but I feel no different from when I was 14 and electrocuted a few school bullies for a laugh. I was on the Internet before the September that never ended, so I've seen what works and what doesn't. I can recognise the clue-resistant, and I've read my Marx and my Machiavelli. I know what I'm doing, and I refuse to waste weeks beating someone with scented bootlaces when they just need told they're a clueless idiot. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1.   Support confirm worthy auto-nom. --SVTCobra 00:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support --Skenmy talk 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support No objections. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Who doesn't love Brianmc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShakataGaNai (talk • contribs)
      Support You really do have to love him ^_^ Keep up the good work --James Pain (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Vote withdrawn, see talk page. --James Pain (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support —Calebrw (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support strongly supported Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support -- Shyam (T/C) 18:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt (talk · contribs)

Automatic renomination. Computerjoe's talk 12:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I would be honored to continue serving on the Arbitration Committee. Wikinews is a wonderful project and I enjoy contributing to it and representing its values in this capacity. In the last year I helped to push through changes to increase visibility of Wikinews articles at the Current events portal on the English Wikipedia, which is one click away from the Main Page. This could not have happened without the positive changes to our project's article-reviewing system. I am pleased with the way the article-writing process has evolved over the last year. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Discussion

Votes

  1.   Support confirm worthy auto-nom. --SVTCobra 00:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Tempodivalse [talk] 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support No objections. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Adambro (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Smells like teen spirit --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support —Calebrw (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13.   Support -- Shyam (T/C) 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cspurrier (talk · contribs)

Automatic renomination. Computerjoe's talk 12:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I have been a Wikinewsie for over four years and an arbcom member for a long time. I would be glad to continue on arbcom if the community wants me too :). I do not think we will have any need for arbcom in the near future, but if we ever do need it again, it is best to have it.

Questions

  •   Question You don't appear to have been very active in the last several months. If, in the unlikely event that a long, complex arbitration case comes up, will you be able to devote enough time to it? Tempodivalse [talk] 01:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I started work on an MA last year and have been very busy planning and conducting my research. I recently completed the bulk of my research, so I should be reasonable active after I get back from Wikimania. --Cspurrier (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Votes

  1.   Support confirm worthy auto-nom. --SVTCobra 00:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support --Skenmy talk 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support No objections. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Adambro (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Tempodivalse [talk] 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Cirt (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support —Calebrw (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Without questionBrian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12.   Support -- Shyam (T/C) 18:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skenmy (talk · contribs)

I am renominating myself as I still feel I would be able to serve effectively should the ArbCom ever be called upon! While my activity has dropped somewhat since my original appointment, I do not feel that this would impact upon my work should I be re-elected. --Skenmy talk 14:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

As a long time member of the Wikinews community, Administrator, Bureaucrat, Accredited Reporter, Reviewer, CheckUser, and IRC operator, I feel that, although my activity has decreased somewhat over the past few months, I still maintain a good overall view of the community and state of the site. I beleive I would serve well as a member of ArbCom because of this well-rounded view of the community. I also believe I am able to maintain a cool head and judge based on the facts, not on my personal feelings - a quality that I feel is critical to the operation of an ArbCom. --Skenmy talk 21:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

  •   Question You don't appear to have been very active in the last several months. If, in the unlikely event that a long, complex arbitration case comes up, will you be able to devote enough time to it? Tempodivalse [talk] 01:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. While my general activity has decreased, I am more than ever involved in the backend of Wikimedia as Volunteers Director of Wikimedia UK. I still devote a significant portion of my time to Wikimedia, and some of this could certainly go to Wikinews should a case come up. --Skenmy talk 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Votes

  1.   Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Adambro (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support We need a soon-to-be-policeman. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support —Calebrw (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Strong SupportBrian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs)

Nominating myself Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I've been around a couple of years now and know my way round WN like the back of my hand. There is no way I'm leaving, either! I like to keep away from abvious disputes although if I do get involved I am always looking to find some common ground and reach an agreement between everyone. A good example of this would be this article where the DR resulted in much rabble from both sides of more or less the same thing; the main problem was understanding each other. At the end of the day, disputes like that which escalate further into huge messes are what ArbCom is for and are what I can deal with. Although I don't always edit I log into Wikinews almost every day and always check the water cooler and recent changes to keep abreast of life on the wiki. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Discussion

Votes

  1.   Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support --Skenmy talk 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support No objections. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Adambro (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Support Very worthy and, in my opinion, perfect for ArbCom --James Pain (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Vote withdrawn, see talk page. --James Pain (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Cirt (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Tempodivalse [talk] 00:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support —Calebrw (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10.   Support Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11.   Support -- Shyam (T/C) 18:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian (talk · contribs)

Nearly automatic renomination. Brian is one of our Bureaucrats and narrowly missed the 90 day activity requirement. Do you accept, Brian? --SVTCobra 22:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

Thanks SVT for the nom. I have being around wikinews for nearly 4 years now (gosh time flies!) I am not as active as I once was; I blame that on uni life. However, I do check in on wikinews most days, and I am active in answering Wikinews OTRS emails. I am easily contacted and have served on the arbcom since Jan 2007. Like Brianmc, I just hope things continue as they have and the ArbCom is not needed Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Discussion

Votes

  1.   Support Brian has my full trust. --SVTCobra 00:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support --Skenmy talk 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support No objections. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Adambro (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Cirt (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support —Calebrw (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVTCobra (talk · contribs)

Self-nomination. --SVTCobra 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I have been with Wikinews for 3 years now and an administrator for over 2 years. I am almost always around, even when I am too busy to write. I like to think that I can fairly evaluate any dispute. I have run for ArbCom before and narrowly missed the cut. --SVTCobra 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Discussion

Votes

  1.   Support --Skenmy talk 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support No objections. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Adambro (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Neutral —Calebrw (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Support I don't know how that neutral slipped in, but I meant support. —Calebrw (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Van der Hoorn (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs)

Self-nom. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I'd like to put myself up for arbcom. I like to think that during my time here, I've generally demonstrated good judgment and being able to keep cool in disputes, two traits which I think are necessary for an arbcom member to have. I don't expect that the committee will be used anytime in the near future, but it is always a good thing to have some place to go when all other methods of dispute resolution fail.

For the most part, I'm quite active here, usually logging in at least a few times a day, so I keep on top of community discussions and should be quickly available to hear a case.

Thank you for your time, Tempodivalse [talk] 23:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

  •   Question You've only been an admin on WN for a few months...what other experience do you bring that makes you ready for ArbCom at this time? --Killing Vector (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from being a bureaucrat here, I'm also a 'crat at the Simple English Wikiquote, am a rollbacker at numerous other projects, and have been actively involved with WMF projects for over a year now. I know that I haven't been at Wikinews as long as the other candidates, but I don't think that too much weight should be given to that, as some of the candidates have been inactive for long stretches of time, while I've logged in and edited Wikinews just about every day since signing up last November, so for all practical purposes I've participated in Wikinews activities almost, if not as much, as the others. I believe I have the necessary experience to serve on the ArbCom. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Votes

  1.   Support Mainly on the back of the fact that you appear very good at interacting with other users, which makes me support you despite being a relative newcomer Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support on the basis the user is rarely drawn into disputes and likely to be available to serve in ArbCom deliberations. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Cirt (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support —Calebrw (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support --Killing Vector (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Blood Red Sandman sums it up nicely. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support --Jcart1534 (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9.   Support -- Shyam (T/C) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Run-off election

A tie has occured between SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and Brian (talk · contribs); both users received 8 supports from eligible users. As such, a run-off election will occur between the two users.

Users, who are eligible and who had not voted for either candidate in the original election, are encouraged to vote below. This run-off election will close at 23:59 UTC on Friday, August 21 2009. Computerjoe's talk 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC), with the support of Tristan Thomas.[reply]

Brian (talk · contribs) run-off

Original nomination.

  1.   Support --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support Durova (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Shyam (T/C) 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVTCobra (talk · contribs) run-off

Original nomination.

  1.   Support This is a tough choice, I'd vote for both candidates if I could and I've nothing against Brian. However, I feel that it's better for the Arbcom to consist of more active users. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Support for the same reasons Tempodivalse said. Although I suppose that makes me a bit of a hypocrite... --Thunderhead 01:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results

I declare Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs), Brian (talk · contribs), Brian McNeil (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs), Cspurrier (talk · contribs), and Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) to be Arbitrators until July 31, 2010. Waiting for User:Tristan Thomas to second. Computerjoe's talk 00:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Would like to say thank you to Joe for doing pretty much the whole thing by himself! Well done. Good luck everybody; hopefully you won't be needed.    Tris   10:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee/2009_elections&oldid=4503899"