CheckUser and Oversight elections Options

[Rick]

The next CU and OS elections are coming up!

[Kelly Martin]

The next CU and OS elections are coming up!

Has the Cabal announced yet who is supposed to win them?

[Malleus]

The next CU and OS elections are coming up!

Has the Cabal announced yet who is supposed to win them?

No doubt if there are any winners who weren't supposed to win they'll be dealt with appropriately.

[Gruntled]

The next CU and OS elections are coming up!

Has the Cabal announced yet who is supposed to win them?

No doubt if there are any winners who weren't supposed to win they'll be dealt with appropriately.

Surely it's not a simple vote such that if you get x% you're in and if you get any less you're not. The closers have to determine whether there is a consensus to appoint. As anyone who follows RfA and RfB (presumably most people here) will know, consensus means whatever you want it to mean.

[taiwopanfob]

Surely it's not a simple vote such that if you get x% you're in and if you get any less you're not. The closers have to determine whether there is a consensus to appoint. As anyone who follows RfA and RfB (presumably most people here) will know, consensus means whatever you want it to mean.

Why vote in an election when, once the polls close, some agency is going to step in and make sure you voted for the right guy?

What is the point of using "secure" voting techniques in such an election?

[SB_Johnny]

Surely it's not a simple vote such that if you get x% you're in and if you get any less you're not. The closers have to determine whether there is a consensus to appoint. As anyone who follows RfA and RfB (presumably most people here) will know, consensus means whatever you want it to mean.

Why vote in an election when, once the polls close, some agency is going to step in and make sure you voted for the right guy?

What is the point of using "secure" voting techniques in such an election?

Simple:

1. The people who vote know who's in good standing with the cabal.
2. The people who vote tend to either support the cabal or are "trolls"
3. Aside from cabal supporters and trolls, nobody else is interested in the elections.
4. After the troll votes are discounted, the vote shows the world how wonderfully consensus-driven Wikipedia is.

Not all that mysterious, after all (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Eva Destruction]

Simple:

1. The people who vote know who's in good standing with the cabal.
2. The people who vote tend to either support the cabal or are "trolls"
3. Aside from cabal supporters and trolls, nobody else is interested in the elections.
4. After the troll votes are discounted, the vote shows the world how wonderfully consensus-driven Wikipedia is.

Not all that mysterious, after all (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Even simpler, in this case; only "pre-approved" candidates are allowed to stand in the first place. No prizes for guessing who dishes out permission to stand. I can see a good-intention reason for that—it stops the pedo-clique from being able to game their members into being the ones who make the decisions on kiddy-porn, for instance.

[taiwopanfob]

Even simpler, in this case; only "pre-approved" candidates are allowed to stand in the first place.

What is the purpose of the five day post-election "review of results" by the ArbCommies?