Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2010 election/Nominations and voting

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This election is concluded.

This election is concluded.

C628 (talk · contribs)

I'd like to nominate C628 as another arbitrator candidate. He's not been around here for that long - since February - but has, in my opinion, demonstrated overall excellent judgment and has many of the traits I want to see in an arb. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination: I accept. C628 (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Votes

  1. Support as nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Pi zero (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support on the condition ArbCom does not stop this contributor getting into OR, and writing Feature Articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -- the wub "?!" 19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After considerable thought, I've decided to withdraw my candidacy due to personal issues and overall disenchantment with the project. I know this is rather inconvenient, but in some sense it's better that I did it now, than resign if reelected and force a snap election. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs)

I'd like to restand for another term on the ArbCom. Luckily, last year has been a pretty uneventful one for the committee and I hope it stays that way, but we never know when it might be needed again. I realise I've had my share of controversy lately, but still feel I can make a decent arb and am able to judge disputes fairly. I'd be honoured to serve for another year if the community has trust in me :)

Thanks for your time, Tempodivalse [talk] 22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support this nom. Temp, has F**ked up lately, that I will not deny.However, he is a good user, I have trust in him, and the arbcom would be lost with out his presence. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination: self-nom

Comments and questions

  • Question Regarding the following comment you posted in response to BNZ:

I see the future of Wikinews as being where we have hundreds of editors from across the globe contributing both synthesis reports and OR, so we become a free-use, neutral alternative to the deteriorating-quality mainstream media.

Do you feel that the ArbCom can somehow become involved in the direction the community is headed? Furthermore, it is my belief that contributors in high standing, such as ArbCom members, bureaucrats, etc, have an obligation to serve as unofficial leaders of the community. Would you agree with that statement? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can imagine the ArbCom possibly affecting that, for instance if it implements and enforces a new, wide-reaching policy in response to a problem - although, depending on the circumstances, I would probably prefer that the community have some say in such a large change.
  • To your second question, I guess I could say yes and no. I don't think arbs, 'crats, and the like should use their position to try and throw their weight around or consider themselves "above" other editors, but at the same time I feel it's important for them to set a good example to the rest of the community for how to act properly. Hope this answers your question sufficiently. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Given recent events, do you believe you will be able to participate in any future ArbCom deliberations? Or, are you more likely to have taken a stance on any given dispute and, be involved, or have a conflict of interest? --Brian McNeil / talk 02:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would depend on what the dispute is. If it's between two users (similar to the MrM vs. Neutralizer case) that doesn't really affect anyone else, then no, probably not, because there would not have been much incentive for me to get involved in the first place. For things on a larger scale that draw in most of the community (such as the Matthew Edwards affair or Saqib), then maybe yes, if I expressed strong feelings into the matter. If I'd just provided a few comments and wasn't strongly advocating a particular side, though, I don't think that would make me "involved" enough to warrant a recusal. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a followup (and an answer to my own general question posted below), I don't think an arbitrator necessarily has to recuse himself just for casually providing an opinion on a matter. Usually you're going to have some sort of opinion on an issue anyway, and there's little difference whether you actually say it or not - that opinion will still be present when you make decisions in a case. I forsee having to recuse myself if my feelings are "worked up" to a point where I'm upset and/or can't be completely certain I'll look at all sides of a dispute fairly (plus the obvious, of course, like if I'm a subject of the case and/or have an obvious COI). But I don't think it's impossible to be neutral just because you've expressed a POV per se - we do it in our articles, after all. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dispute between MrMiscellaneous and Neutralizer had, by the time ArbCom was formed, drawn in virtually every single contributor on the project. So, you've somewhat mischaracterised that I think. The issue I wished to highlight was related to my own reasoning for standing down from ArbCom; namely, that those who take a day-to-day, close, interest in the project are highly likely to in some way or other have taken a side on a dispute. Plus, given the fiasco around Matthew Edwards, I felt it was perhaps inappropriate for me to continue in the role where the community may trust me less through the outcome of that debacle. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm probably mistaken - I wasn't around back then, I'm not familiar with the details. The question, as I see it, is whether can I remain uninvolved enough in disputes (in the sense of: not take sides to the extent that I become a participant in the actual conflict, or provide anything more than an outsider's opinion) and still be objective. (Does that make sense?) I feel I can do so most of the time. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────────┘
 Behave yourself! Yes, Diego needs to grow up a bit about that. At-issue is the requirement that, for ArbCom, you need to identify if you are granted, or require access to, Checkuser results or oversighted edits. Should review of a case require access to such privileged information, any non-identified ArbCom members would have to go through the process, or avoid participating in any such cases. Given the sort of things ArbCom could be asked to consider, that may make such members lesS-than-useful. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, I take it, that any members who would recuse themselves rather than identify to WMF would be less-than-useful. I don't recall Tempo (or any other candidate, but perhaps I've just forgotten) saying anything one way or another about willingness to identify to WMF if such a case were to come up. --Pi zero (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. no, they haven't. Nobody has asked, but something similar effectively operates; to whit, in relation to access to Wikinewsie.org through accreditation. Perhaps not relevant in ArbCom elections. But, I did not pose a question. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia, To The Likes of You, Diego Grez =P...I was commending you btw...You're Like a Caped Crusader - Who Goes Around Beating Clowns Up BKCW8 talk 06:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Point of the matter is, the rules for the operation of the ArbCom election disallows voters to "Oppose" a candidate - Everyone here (I assume) read the crtieria and was well aware of it... nice try Diego Grez, but bad luck BKCW8 talk 06:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, Mr. Archduke of Krakow. Diego Grez return fire 03:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to remain on-topic here. This should, at the least, be in the "Comments" section. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1. Support per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Pi zero (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Turtlestack (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Non-identification is an issue, but not as big an issue as it is on other projects. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Skenmy (talk · contribs)

This is one of the few Wikinewsies I've actually met. I take it as a given he would deal with any submission to ArbCom with the required seriousness. Additionally, alongside Cirt, I feel it is important that the CheckUser privilege is available to the ArbCom should they be required to deal with a complex or messy case that requires such checks. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I have full faith in Skenmy. If I was to be unsuccessful in my nom in Arbcom below, Skenmy is the user I would like to replace me. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination: Thank you for this nomination. While I appreciate I am not the most active editor on the site, I check in most every day, am reachable on IRC and via e-mail, and keep abreast of current community issues. I accept. --Skenmy talk 06:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Votes

  1. Support per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Brian McNeil / talk 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Pi zero (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support — Gopher65talk 02:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, experienced, level-headed. - Amgine | t 16:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gopher65 (talk · contribs)

I feel this user has been around long enough to know what works on Wikinews, and what does not. I would, provided xe accepts, be happy to see them take on the responsibility associated with a position on the ArbCom. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 17:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination:

Comments and questions

Noone expected you to be nominated...I Joke, I Joke - good luck BKCW8 talk 07:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1. Support Gopher65 is a dedicated editor, reviewer and administrator. He'll do well and he has gained my trust. Diego Grez return fire 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Brian McNeil / talk 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Pi zero (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - in addition to demonstrating the required competence is one of the two candidates who has bothered to take the time to answer virtually all of the questions --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Pmlineditor discuss 10:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, experienced, knowledgeable (including precedence), level-headed. - Amgine | t 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pi zero (talk · contribs)

Pi zero has popped up regularly during recent debates and always spoken wisdom. I believe xe would make an excellent arb. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination:

I am willing to serve if the community so chooses, so I accept the nomination. One limitation to my breadth of experience is that I have never stood for admin here, which I will next head over to RFP to rectify; the community should have an opportunity to consider me for that ahead of this. --Pi zero (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Votes

  1. Support responsible user. Diego Grez return fire 00:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Brian McNeil / talk 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Me being a very inexperienced user and just barely eligible for voting, not a reviewer etc, I will support Pi zero alone, as he has demonstrated a good knowledge of ArbCom-related matters when I proposed rejecting the ArbCom proposal at wikibooks. Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support — Gopher65talk 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Tempodivalse [talk] 14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support -- the wub "?!" 20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs)

I trust Tris to take the responsibility seriously, and believe he qualifies as the new blood some people would prefer to see. He has also demonstrated a commitment to the project through becoming accredited and working on Original Reporting. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination: I accept this nomination and hope, if chosen, I wouldn't be needed, but will be there if I am.    Tris   14:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Votes

  1. Support per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Brian McNeil / talk 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support — Gopher65talk 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt (talk · contribs)

Cirt has, in my opinion, proven himself a valuable member of the community who can be trusted to handle difficult issues that might end up in front of the arbitration committee. Thus, pending acceptance, I am nominating him as a candidate. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be allowed to, I would like to second Cirt nom. Cirt is one of those new generation of users who has come in after us oldies have started to go to seed,and shown a energy to wikinews that I admire. I would have no second thoughts for Cirt serving on the committee Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination: Thank you very much for the kind words. I accept. -- Cirt (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Votes

  1. Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 04:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Brian McNeil / talk 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - in addition to demonstrating the required competence is one of the two candidates who has bothered to take the time to answer virtually all of the questions --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --Trustworthy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per nom, some knowledge of precedence. - Amgine | t 16:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian (talk · contribs)

Although real-life tends to see Brian not here as often as I'd like, I trust him to take ArbCom duties seriously, and, unless major issues conflict, be able to make himself available to hear any case put before the committee. Thus, I'm putting in this nomination, pending acceptance. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination:

Brian has highlighted my key failings with myself on Wikinews. I do not edit as I would like to be. However, I do check in with wikinews most days, I handle checkuser requests, and the odd bcrat action (which I am often beat to!). I continue to answer Wikinews OTRS emails. So while I am not editing as much as I once was, I am still involved, and would be honoured to have the trust of the community for another 12 months. Thanks for the nom Brian Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Votes

  1. Support Bawolff ☺☻ 04:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Brian McNeil / talk 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Pi zero (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support — Gopher65talk 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Skenmy talk 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, experienced, level-headed, hands-down the best response regarding precedence. - Amgine | t 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support BarkingFish (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bawolff (talk · contribs)

I'd like to nominate Bawolff. He's a long-term contributor to the project, a bureaucrat, and an oversighter. I think he's quite level-headed, fair, and would overall make a good ArbCom member. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination: Whee! I accept. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

I Third (=P) This Nomination and Endorse This Candidate BKCW8 talk 07:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  1. Support Trustworthy individual. Diego Grez return fire 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Tempodivalse [talk] 01:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Brian McNeil / talk 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Pi zero (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as thirded -- BKCW8 talk 06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Voter is ineligible. No mainspace contrib before June 1. Benny the mascot (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, I just assumed I was eligible...Oh well, Next Year =D BKCW8 talk 06:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol epic fail, Cardinal of the Mapuche kingdom. Nice try.Diego Grez return fire 03:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — Gopher65talk 02:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Turtlestack (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No issues here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -- the wub "?!" 20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Skenmy talk 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, experienced, level-headed, techy, some knowledge of precedence. - Amgine | t 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support BarkingFish (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cspurrier (talk · contribs)

I have been an arbcom member for a long time (the arbcom page says I have been serving since August 1, 2007) and would like to remain a member. I hope the arbcom remains a little used feature, but we should have it when we need it. --Cspurrier (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Votes

  1. Support per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Pi zero (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — Gopher65talk 02:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Skenmy talk 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, experienced, level-headed, some concept of precedence. - Amgine | t 15:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support BarkingFish (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


InfantGorilla (talk · contribs)

I'd like to nominate InfantGorilla and am quite frankly surprised it/he/she hasn't been nominated already. In my short time at Wikinews, I have encountered it/her/him mainly through inspiring and constructive advice given towards developing articles and it/he/she seemingly has a firm grasp of what Wikinews requires. BKCW8 talk 06:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of nomination Declined (diff) Benny the mascot (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee/2010_election/Nominations_and_voting&oldid=4502420"