Code of Conduct/Commission/Election/2019/Vote

Result is as follows:
 * Reception123: 11 Support, 1 Oppose: 91.7% support.
 * Zppix: 6 Support, 4 Oppose: 60% support.
 * Void: 13 Support, no oppose: 100% support.
 * John: 9 Support, 2 Oppose: 81.8% support.
 * CnocBride: Withdrawn.
 * The Pioneer: 11 Support, no oppose: 100% Support.

Therefore, Reception123, Void, John, and The Pioneer has been chosen as the commissioner for 2019-2020 starting 2019-11-17. Zppix is not elected because he failed the election rule 3: In order to be elected, a nominee must have at least 80% support. &mdash; revi  16:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the community vote for the election of the 2019-2020 Code of Conduct Commission. Listed below are the 6 nominees from the community. There are 5 seats on the commission for the community nominees. This page will be used for voting for a members seat. For more information on the election please visit here.

Reception123

 * 1)  trusted, good Question answers.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Trusted, Quickly solve problems. Alireza Ivaz (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  GasMask0217 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Respetuoso, amable cuando se le pregunta. Hispano76 (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Intelligent and reasonable person. He could bring something to the table.MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Vague answers and concerns in recent RFCs. Also another reason for opposing is not directly banning a user if something really concerns the sysadmins work (such as Examknow). You could have directly revoked his wikicreator rights. OwenFung87 09:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "vague answers in recent RfCs" but nonetheless why should that be a criteria for being a member of the CoCC? Second, it would not be appropriate to take action on Examknow as a sysadmin and I believe it is up to the community to take what action they want, not sysadmins. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 06:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It would have been inappropriate for Reception123 to randomly ban a user or revoke their wiki creator rights (unless Reception123 personally felt that they were causing technical issues by having the rights). There are two reasons for revocation, neither of which has been met. Your entire comment is a "vague answer" -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) --DeeM28 (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) don't see too many concerns here --EK ● contribs 00:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) -  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 08:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) A Intelligent and reasonable person.  11:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Zppix

 * 1)  good question answers, helpful, could bring some new ideas.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Hispano76 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Meh, he resorts too much on agreeing with someone else instead of adding his input. Wasn't he the guy that literally kept repeating "per [random Miraheze user]" or simply chooses his option (in general Support) and leaves without making any input at all? His opinions are either not well developped or he just simply does not care enough, basically being lazy. I do not want to elect him.MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How am I lazy? The last few weeks, i've deployed multiple extensions, taken care of multiple custom domain requests, create numerous wikis, have handled several cases of Vandalism/Spam/LTAs. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 23:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's how you simply choose an option without leaving any input which I find really lazy. One thing a good moderator should always do is talk to people, that's something you really didn't show. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Per above. OwenFung87 09:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Wolf (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) After the incident with the RfC, I am not sure I can trust Zppix with handling things such as code of conduct issues where mature arbitrary action may need to be taken. --EK ● contribs 00:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I see this vote having clear bias because of the closed RfC against this user. It appears the user can't trust me because I had an issue with his conduct on IRC. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 05:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the followup RfC after you got consensus from the community --EK ● contribs 16:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All votes are, by definition, biased. If anything, EK has more direct experience of you then most of the other people voting. I too must state my doubts about the way you, Reception123 and most of all RhinosF1 handled the original and the follow up RfC. It is beginning to seem to be little more than a badly timed and badly executed witch hunt where all evidence but the fact the defendent is a little ugly is hidden from the cheering, or by now booing, crowd. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 23:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Appears to have some struggle with impartiality. To be clear, this is a WP:NOTYET, not a flat "no". Dross (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) -  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 09:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Void

 * 1)  never seen better RfC closes, reasoned user.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Void is a reliable pillar of this community, and one which I believe we can all depend on to represent and protect our interests. I foresee many new procedural and philosophical ideas coming from this user in the near future. Dross (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4)  Best vandal warrior, ever. GasMask0217 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) de confianza Hispano76 (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7)  Southparkfan (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Another intelligent and reasonable person and some of his points are quite agreeable. He definitely deserves my support.MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) --DeeM28 (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) One of the greatest contributors in many ways, including but not limited to anti-vandal/spam, wiki creation and tons of other works. The answers to the questions are also reasonable and trustworthy.-- 20:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 12) Voidwalker is one of the best there is --EK ● contribs 00:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 13) -  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 09:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

John

 * 1)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain your reasoning for this? The reasons are more important than the votes themselves. Thanks --EK ● contribs 16:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it funny that my vote is the only vote you’ve commented this on considering my vote isnt the only vote without any reasoning provided. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are also the only one who is running for the Code of Conduct Commission which requires you to attribute reason to your actions. I am not trying to be a pest, I am merely asking for your reasoning. --EK ● contribs 22:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Tengo confianza en sus acciones. Hispano76 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  based on EK closure and his attitude at times. Not what the CoCC needs.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  20:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide more basis. You’re opposing me for an RfC closure which doesn’t change policy but wants to enact something against policy? John (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1)  Southparkfan (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) I actually do not know who that person is, but the consensus is that he is not that great apparently (The consensus is far more positive than before when I originally made that comment). I think this speaks for itself although I prefer to abstain since as I said I do not know who that person is.MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I just but in here, I think it is quite imprudent to presume that their is consensus that somebody is 'trash'. I am not here to start an argument, but I feel members should not attempt to promote opinions as something of community consensus, especially on such a subjective issue. All I'm asking is for a more reasonable and tactful opposition to a candidate who currently is winning in terms of his support votes. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  01:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * May I remind you that this election is within Code of Conduct hierarchy. Telling someone "sucks" is neither nice nor respectful. &mdash; revi  01:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that saying someone "suck" @ other area is acceptable: It's not acceptable anywhere on Miraheze. &mdash; revi  01:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh really? I will edit my answer then, but regardless of how I would've worded it whether it'd be "sucks", "bad", "horrible", "trash" or any other term could be considered offensive, I hope that "Not that great" is good enough for the CoC. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is always a way to say something without offending someone, unless your intention is to offend them. Using offensive words are pretty obviously not acceptable, but using 'good words' with the intention of offending someone is also something that is frowned upon. &mdash; revi  17:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Mario, after disclosing that you have no independent facts for your disparaging opinion of the nominee, what is it that compels you to give us your opinion? 02:41 8-Nov-2019
 * I did this with Cnoc too, I simply abstained since I didn't know what to answer, I always give my input even if I don't know how the nominee act nor who the nominee is. It's better than not reply at all which is something everyone did to Cnoc. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again to interject, I had no issue with the abstention, it was more so the comment. I don't understand the 'consensus' argument as it is already exemplified here on this commission, as of the the 10th November, that John has 2/3 support, indicative of consensus that he is a GOOD thing for the server. I won't get too deep into the matter, just felt it was a bit unfair to pass judgement so quickly despite community support being contrary to said judgement. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  00:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There were 3 supports and 2 opposes by the time I made the comment, everyone else had far FAR more popularity than John. I could say this could apply to you too, you had 2 supports, if you add all the support John receives, then substract by all the opposition he receives, then that adds up to 1 (3-2=1), you had more support than him on that regard. Either way, I still see Void or The Pioneer winning. PS: There were 4 supports by the time I click the save changes button, but there were only 3 supports when I clicked on the edit button to make this comment regarding his consensus. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I suppose. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  11:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) John is definitly what CoCC needs. Paladox (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) --DeeM28 (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3) Great contributor, and the answers are clear and reasonable.-- 20:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) I see no reason why not --EK ● contribs 00:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) - Since he's one of the co-founders of Miraheze, I will support.  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 09:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

CnocBride (Withdrew)

 * 1)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Previous experience, polite, reasoned.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  20:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  I don't know who that person is, either. EDIT: What I mean by that is that I have no prior knowledge of how that person may think, I know he commented on this election. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been around for quite some time, I do have previous experience on the Code of Conduct Commission as I was on the first commission elected, along with Alvaro from the community representatives. I've simply not been active prior to last month on the Meta wiki, however, I've been consistently editing on my own private wiki for years. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  01:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)  Hi! I'm withdrawing from the race. Clearly the community consensus is in favor of the other candidates, so I won't bother continuing to contest! I will build up my community presence again and hopefully win a CoCC election in the future. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  00:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

開拓者 (The Pioneer)

 * 1)  Contributions span far beyond procedural work. Humility, respect, and care for the Miraheze community is expressed in all of the work this user does. Dross (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 2)  Reception123  (talk) ('C' ) 17:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  GasMask0217 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 18:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 5)  good user, acts well.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  20:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  21:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 7) Very reasonable person with very agreeable opinions. Furthermore, he explains very well why he supports/opposes a certain rule. One among of the best picks here.MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) R C Peña
 * 9) --DeeM28 (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 10) very fair and reasonable user active member of the community. --EK ● contribs 00:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 11) -  Sapphire Williams  (talk page • contributions) 09:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

General comments
Evidently some votes are being cast based on the recent RfCs, one on removing Examknow's privileges, the other on removing Examknow's privileges. Specifically, some voters disfavor candidates who did not support them.

I wonder in what world you think this doesn't happen. If you are soliciting one-vote-per-username (and I see no better way to select individuals for a commission) then you are acknowledging that each brings his own value system to the vote, which might not be the same as yours. Will you require that they justify their votes? Will you require that they do so honestly? Will you require that they change their votes if you can rebut the charges you make? This is not a trial, this is an election. 01:14 12-Nov-2019
 * I just wanted to know the reason so that it might guide other users in making their decisions. --EK ● contribs 03:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)