Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2015/July

ArbCom elections

I propose the same dates, rules, procedures as in 2013 (last year things were a bit off kilter). (See WN:Water cooler/policy/archives/2013/July#ArbCom elections, Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2013 election.)

The community must agree on all election procedures by July 1, and election committee members by July 10.
The deadline for nominations is 2000 UTC July 17.
Voting will take place from 2000 UTC July 18 to 2000 UTC July 30. Questions and comments may be made during that time period.
Since the incumbent members' seats expire on August 3, the election committee will declare the winners on about July 31, and the new term begins after declaration. Should any case be before the ArbCom at election time, the current committee continues to sit after turnover on cases that started under the current committee. Any new case after turnover is for the new committee.

As worked well for the past several years, I strongly recommend the committee not create a page for "questions for all candidates"; questions for each candidate should be located under that candidate. This is the way things have been done in all but two previous elections; once there was no place for questions at all (the undesirability of this is obvious, I hope), and once, five years ago, we had a page for questions for all candidates, and it turned into a political circus and an ordeal for the nominees (en.wn ArbCom is a judicial body, so should be scrupulously apolitical). I'm not the only one who experienced the circus five years ago and came away from it with a powerful conviction it should not be allowed to happen again.

We need at least two people for the election committee. Volunteers? --Pi zero (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't volunteer for the election committee as I won't be available for most of the election period (I'll be a few thousand miles away with little to no internet access). I do think that given the present state of English Wikinews that having an ArbCom is bordering on unnecessary. If we must have an ArbCom, the rules outlined above seem reasonable though. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. (How did internet get so important to our lives so quickly?)
(Myself, I'm looking at good things for the future of Wikinews, and see ArbCom as important to that future.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposed rules are fine by me. As far as needing an ArbCom, I've always thought we have one so someone else doesn't impose theirs on us, rightly or wrongly. --RockerballAustralia contribs 22:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pages created.

Note section Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2015 election#Election committee members. --Pi zero (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The election committee certifies the results. This is ordinarily a very light duty, as it is usually very clear which votes are valid and therefore who got how many. Any admin is allowed to remove an invalid vote (usually it's simply moved from the "votes" section to the "comments" section), and that tends to happen promptly; I've never seen a case where the election committee had reason to override such a decision. If we should ever have a tie vote, which iirc happened five years ago, the election committee would be responsible for setting the dates for the run-off election; and the election committee would also arbitrate obscure cases of qualification (that also happened five years ago, I think, with someone asking whether they could vote "in advance" and the committee deciding not to allow it). Btw, that run-off election? Never happened, because one of the elected Arbs resigned just after the election but before the run-off, so the election committee simply let in everyone in the tie as that made six Arbs.
  • ArbCom usually has very light duties as well. I believe it's been (wait for it) five years since we've had a formal case before ArbCom. When a case does get that far, ArbCom hears it, carefully and seriously, serving as our judicial body of last resort.
--Pi zero (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I couldn't parse where to add myself and whether I should just edit here or someone has to approve it, but I would be willing to check the validity of votes and to count them, which I understood the elections committee does. --Gryllida 22:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my time here there's never been controversy over volunteers for the election committee. If a seconding-the-motion has merit, I do so. I've seen folks add their names directly there, or volunteer here and be added there; I've added your name there with an edit description providing the diff of your edit here. --Pi zero (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Bddpaux has volunteered for the election committee. So we have two. --Pi zero (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The election has closed. The results are available here. Congratulations to the successful candidates. Gryllida 01:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For clarity, all candidates were successful. They are, in alphabetical order:
--Gryllida 01:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]