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?

[NuclearWarfare]

The next CU and OS elections are coming up!

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

Timeline:
# May 1–8 – Preparation for election, including offers of nomination to selected candidates
# May 9–22 – Voting using the SecurePoll extension for a secret ballot
# May 22–27 – Arbitration Committee review of results
# May 28 – Announcement of results

[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

[Moulton]

So, it's coming down to the Central Consensual Cabal vs the Terrible Taunting Trobal.

[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

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?

[Eva Destruction]

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?

I think that's a clumsy wording for "verifying the winner's identities and checking with Godwin that there's no legal objection to the appointment". I don't know if they conduct any kind of background check, but I assume they do something, given that they insist on proof of identity before they enable any of these "ability to view sensitive material" powers. That's one Wikipedia policy I've no argument with at all, however much the information-wants-to-be-free hardliners whine about it.

[Jon Awbrey]

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?

That's how long it takes to incubate an embryonic Goa'uld Wiki-Parasite.

Jon

[Kelly Martin]

I don't know if they conduct any kind of background check, but I assume they do something, given that they insist on proof of identity before they enable any of these "ability to view sensitive material" powers. That's one Wikipedia policy I've no argument with at all, however much the information-wants-to-be-free hardliners whine about it.

The "background check" consists of asking around the Cabal to see if anyone objects.

That window is also used to deal with the relatively unlikely situation in which a candidate which the Cabal wanted elected somehow failed to get the requisite votes. In this case the votes cast against that candidate will be scrutinized to identify what malcontents are opposing the will of the Cabal so they can be deal with appropriately.

[Eva Destruction]

I don't know if they conduct any kind of background check, but I assume they do something, given that they insist on proof of identity before they enable any of these "ability to view sensitive material" powers. That's one Wikipedia policy I've no argument with at all, however much the information-wants-to-be-free hardliners whine about it.

The "background check" consists of asking around the Cabal to see if anyone objects.

That window is also used to deal with the relatively unlikely situation in which a candidate which the Cabal wanted elected somehow failed to get the requisite votes. In this case the votes cast against that candidate will be scrutinized to identify what malcontents are opposing the will of the Cabal so they can be deal with appropriately.

Pretty much. But I'd like to think that in the current climate, they at least carry out some kind of cursory check, even if it's just googling the name to see if the first hit is "recently convicted sex offender whose hobby is editing Wikipedia from his cell".

[taiwopanfob]

But I'd like to think that in the current climate, they at least carry out some kind of cursory check, even if it's just googling the name to see if the first hit is "recently convicted sex offender whose hobby is editing Wikipedia from his cell".

Considering the jobs the winners of these elections will be doing, this strikes me as the sort of thing that should be known to the electorate.

Before the polls open.

Maybe I missed something, but doesn't the WMF at least verify, in advance of the election, that all candidates meet the necessary conditions to stand as candidates?

[NuclearWarfare]

Maybe I missed something, but doesn't the WMF at least verify, in advance of the election, that all candidates meet the necessary conditions to stand as candidates?

Depends on the election. Stewards and Board candidates have to verify their identities beforehand, but enwiki checkuser and oversight candidates do it after their election. Both receive access to the tools only after Cary confirms their identity though. How detailed of a process Cary uses to check identities, I have no idea.

[Theanima]

Well, the candidates are up!

For checkuser, we have Amalthea (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Jamesofur (T-C-L-K-R-D) , MuZemike (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

For oversight, we have Arbitrarily0 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Beeblebrox (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Closedmouth (T-C-L-K-R-D) , LessHeard vanU (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Valley2city (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

[Eva Destruction]

Well, the candidates are up!

For checkuser, we have Amalthea (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Jamesofur (T-C-L-K-R-D) , MuZemike (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

For oversight, we have Arbitrarily0 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Beeblebrox (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Closedmouth (T-C-L-K-R-D) , LessHeard vanU (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Valley2city (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

I can barely contain my excitement.

[Theanima]

Well, the candidates are up!

For checkuser, we have Amalthea (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Jamesofur (T-C-L-K-R-D) , MuZemike (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

For oversight, we have Arbitrarily0 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Beeblebrox (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Closedmouth (T-C-L-K-R-D) , LessHeard vanU (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Valley2city (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

I can barely contain my excitement.

Yes, it should be entertaining. The candidates aren't really surprising - none appear to be editors who spend their time writing and improving encyclopedia entries.

This post has been edited by Theanima: Fri 7th May 2010, 4:36pm

[Apathetic]

Well, the candidates are up!

For checkuser, we have Amalthea (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Jamesofur (T-C-L-K-R-D) , MuZemike (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Tiptoety (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

For oversight, we have Arbitrarily0 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Beeblebrox (T-C-L-K-R-D) , Closedmouth (T-C-L-K-R-D) , LessHeard vanU (T-C-L-K-R-D) and Valley2city (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

I expect we will also see these three (Ryan Postlethwaite (T-C-L-K-R-D) ; Lankiveil (T-C-L-K-R-D) ; Someguy1221 (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) stand for oversight.

(edit: removed Closedmouth, already noted)

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Fri 7th May 2010, 5:17pm