Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election

How?

Well when I was viewing my watchlist then it said: "The August 2009 CheckUser and Oversight elections are open for questions. Voting begins 00:01 July 28 (UTC)." I took a look but I don't really know what to do. AlienX2009 (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can ask questions of the candidates. You'll be able to vote in 21 hours time. Daniel (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just have a read of the project page, think of a question you would like to ask a candidate, click the "edit" link by the "comments and questions for X" header, and ask away! Happy‑melon 09:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Intended votes

I have posted my intended votes at User talk:Jehochman. If any of the candidates would like to discuss things with me, I am listening. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-elections ^connect

For anyone who wants to watch the elections in realtime, check voting and election statistics, or otherwise has nothing better to do, there are several bots in #wikipedia-en-elections on freenode reporting votes and results. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of new oversighters / checkusers

What's the number of open positions to be filled with this election? I.e., barring any exceptional circumstances and assuming that all candidates pass the threshold from WP:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections#Election (support/total ≥ 70%, support-oppose ≥ 25), how many will be recommended to the WMF?
Sorry if that's noted somewhere, but I can't find it, and I assume you already have a number of positions to fill in mind. For transparency I think this number should be public knowledge.
Amalthea 13:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We actually haven't settled on specific numbers, as far as I recall. There isn't a fixed number of seats to fill, after all, and a few more of either would not be problematic. I expect that, possibly barring very marginal cases, we'll appoint all the candidates that pass. — Coren ^(talk) 13:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Amalthea 13:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of current concerns, particularly with Oversight. One is geographic/timezone distribution and hours of availability (particularly daytime hours Europe/North America, and 0300 to 0900 UTC, when we have historically had poor coverage); another is the paucity of female oversighters, who will often get requests directly from female editors with concerns. We will see how things all work out. Risker (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So gender is actually being considered as a factor? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well policy says we must be nondiscriminatory and equal opportunity, but I'm not sure it requires affirmative action. Given the voters know all the genders of the candidates (I think) and I haven't seen any blatantly discriminatory vote comments on a protected characteristic, I think we are ok. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether or not sex and/or gender is being considered as a significant factor, but a good rationale for it is that a non trivial portion of suppression needs are related to sexual harassment or similar things. Women tend to feel much more comfortable speaking to other women about it - whether or not this should be true, the end goal of the oversight permission is to eliminate the problems, so having more female oversights could help that.--Tznkai (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai hits the nail on the head, though that idea was pretty heavily implied by Risker in her original comment. No offense to David Fuchs or MBisanz, but I think their responses (being that they are "fellers" and that they kind of missed the boat here) indicate why having more female oversighters is a very good, common sense idea. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My own experience is that well over half of editors who come to me asking for oversight of something related to them are female; that is massively disproportionate to the number of female editors onsite. I can't speak for FloNight, the other female oversighter, but I recall Alison mentioning something similar at one point. Nonetheless, I don't think there should be different criteria for female candidates (or those from different timezones), but I do hope that the community recognizes the benefits of diversity in the ranks. Risker (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, the number of female editors is unfortunately not very high. As such, the number of potential female oversighters who need to emerge from those ranks is not very high as well. So while I think the community does recognize the benefits of diversity in such cases, they simply do not have the choice in candidates to implement this recognition. Only two candidates (if I see it correctly) in this election are female and one of them is controversial, not because they are female but because of what they did so far. Benefits of diversity usually do not make people vote for people who they see unfit no matter which gender they have, so we can safely assume that Lara's opposition is not based on the fact that she is female. This leaves us with a deeper problem, i.e. that we need to recruit much more women to work as editors on Wikipedia and to fill the admin ranks. Only then will we have the necessary number of candidacies in such elections for the community to really be able to elect more women. Regards SoWhy 08:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that on the internet it's often hard to tell what gender a person is. And even if they identify with a gender, you can't always tell if it's the correct one. They may just be role-playing as another gender. There are also people who are transgendered and for this, how would it impact the whole issue of a woman searching for another woman to oversight something for them???? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ineligible to vote

"Ineligible" might be kinder language than "not allowed to vote." Thatcher 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How can we check if we have the right number of edits in the right places, before the right date, in order to be allowed to vote? --Ks0stm ^(T•C) 04:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ks0stm - this page will give you an edit count and break it down into mainspace and other edits. The tool is currently down but a check every now and then will in short time give you a break down of your edits and whether you can vote. Best wishes --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 07:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just look at your 150 earliest contributions, which span from 29 May 2007 to 23 October 2007, so you're eligible. Amalthea 08:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry to say, but he isn't. Voters need to have 150 mainspace contributions before 15 June 2009 and he hasn't. Regards SoWhy 08:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, you're right of course, sorry. Amalthea 08:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone be so kind as to show me where "mainspace" (I am presuming edits to articles) is defined please? Thank you in advance. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Main namespace. And yes, it's aka the article namespace. It doesn't have a canonical name – or rather, its canonical name is the empty string. Amalthea 16:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Amalthea. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Some basic queries about voting

1. How do I become eligible to vote? What are the voting requirements?
2. Do I have to vote for only one person or can I cast multiple votes?
3. Can I change my vote once I have cast it?

Sorry if these sound elementary, but I'm somewhat new to the system and not quite sure as to how it works - also, if there's an FAQ that I've missed somewhere, could someone please direct me to it? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You must have at least 150 mainspace edits prior to June 15, 2009 to be an eligible voter.
2. Cast as many votes as you want; some people give some kind of vote (support or oppose) for each candidate.
3. Yes.

The eligibility requirements are mentioned in the box at the top of the August 2009 elections page. The other facts are mentioned elsewhere, probably at the main CheckUser/OverSight elections info page. By the way, you certainly meet the edit/experience requirements, so feel free to look over the candidates and cast your vote(s). Best, JamieS93 16:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You can use this link to make sure that you are eligible. It shows your first 150 mainspace contributions. Regards SoWhy 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Results

Hi, I hope I didn't overstep my bounds on a protected page, but I took the liberty of updating the timeline to point to the archive with the results from August 16. My apologies if I should have requested permission from a clerk to do this, but it seemed a fairly uncontroversial update. --Elonka 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)