Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007

Change for next year

Overall last year's elections went smoothly. However, one thing I believe we should be stricter in next year is moving voter's comments to the talk page. It's probably best to move all such comments, but especially comments that are rather lengthy or contain diffs should be moved. The reason is that some opposers tend to use these to cast the candidate in bad light by give a one-sided view of a situation he was involved in, in a manner that the candidate cannot really respond to on the voting page. Voters that feel the need to write a long story about the candidate tend to be people with an axe to grind, anyway. It would be easy to construct a bot to do the moving. >Radiant< 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While I do think there needs to be some change in format to make it easier for voters to get through all of the material, I don't think it is fair to focus on comments by "oppose" voters. Candidates and their supporters also tend to have a "one-sided view" and may also have an "axe to grind". It's ok to have a "one-sided view" in elections, because if you support (or oppose) someone, you want them to get elected (or not) and you say why. The difference between a well-reasoned, thought-out, factually based opinion, and "axe-grinding", often comes down to whether one agrees with the opinion or not. Lengthy essays and comments that go "over the line" are a different story, as they pose issues of readability and disruption, respectively, and those are valid issues. 6SJ7 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's why I said all comments should be moved, not just the opposing ones. The point is that vote comments can be (and are) used to give lopsided views of the situation that cannot practically be responded to. >Radiant< 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

1. I would like to see a bot alert editors to potential problems, such as lack of sufferage or overlong responses. Editors seemed good at catching sufferage problems, but it would also be good work for bot.
2. I tend to agree with Radiant! that long criticisms and/or endorsements should go to the talk page, or maybe an all new "discussion" page. Maybe we could have a rule that the !votes have to be limited to 30 words or something, and may include a link to a longer statement on the talk and/or discussion page.

Thanks, TheronJ 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That has been the defacto situation in the past although the limit was probably less than 30 words.Geni 20:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• (2) has never been the de facto situation to my knowledge, although it is a good idea for the future. I should add that any criticism or endorsement containing a link or diff should automatically be moved as well. That way the candidate can explain himself on the talk page if necessary. >Radiant< 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see the value of the word limit but I'm not sure why there should be an outright ban on brief explanations for why someone is supporting or opposing. Maybe some with more experience of ArbCom elections could explain what prob these caused in the past - old voting pages don't look unduly long... Also, why the objections to diffs/links. Surely "Oppose. Due to [diff]... " isn't a disruptive comment? WjBscribe 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, because if the candidate (or his supporters) disagree with that rationale, they can't question it, since threaded discussion is (from my knowledge) prohibited on the voting page itself. At RFA, rationales may be questioned and threaded discussion is allowed, since it is not a vote but a discussion. The ArbCom elections are a vote, and allowing opposers to give a detailed rationale but disallowing supporters to question that rationale creates a one-sided view of the candidate. I agree with Radiant! here. Melsaran (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hard-line view on commentary

I agree totally with Radiant! here, and suggest limiting it to signatures and timestamp only. One candidate, who was eventually successful, almost was not appointed after his vote went from >95% to <85% in the space of six hours, due to a user posting a patently false comment on the voting page which led to a pile-on in opposes before it was removed. The candidate couldn't reply, and it led to a very bad situation. Daniel 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just let the candidate respond to opposes as they see fit? If the opposer wants to make a further comment in response to the reply, it can be moved to the talk page. Picaroon (t) 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought voting was evil? 86.29.44.23 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope.... Daniel 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So voting is fine for elections, but not for RfAs? Weird, 86.29.44.23 01:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess it'd be too controversial to have discussions, where there's 30+ candidates trying to get 5 or 6 spots. And I don't think Jimbo would appreciate the whinging etc. that would come with having to decide. Daniel 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither the Arbcom elections nor RFA is a "vote" in the sense that the outcome is binding. RFA is a means to help the bureaucrats determine community consensus to promote; the ArbCom elections are the means by which Jimbo assesses community views about candidates (since he can't possibly know them all). Jimbo is not bound by the results and can appoint anyone he wants no matter what the vote count is. Thatcher131 04:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I am pretty sure that last year, Jimbo chose to appoint those who had the highest percentages in favor, without exception. (I realize that the year before, he skipped one or two.) It is therefore clear that he is inclined to go with the results of the election unless he sees a good reason to the contrary. And it therefore follows that the votes DO mean something, if only because Jimbo has decided that they do. It is not simply a discussion. 6SJ7 06:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to the process of ArbCom elections but I'm finding the opposition to a comment/diff being added to a vote puzzling. I agree we shouldn't be allowing vast diatribes but it doesn't seem unreasonable for people to add a sentence explaining why they support or oppose the candidate. WjBscribe 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with WJBscribe, in that someone may have a serious reason for opposition that they wish to bring to the communities attention, allowing a small sentance to clarify a vote would allow them to do that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember this being a serious problem on several pages last year. Some of the context for the worst case, and my preferred solution, can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote#Edit war on a vote page. Strict limitation to a signature and a timestamp is also acceptable. However, the ad-hoc practice last year of moving comments only when someone arbitrarily decided they were too long, or only moving rebuttals with no indication that a rebuttal had been made, was disastrous. This is something we very badly need to hammer out beforehand. —Cryptic 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic brings up an excellent point. As I review previous ArbCom elections, they appear very contentious, and I can see clearly that people would resort to edit warring over theirs or others comments. We either need a maximum characters limit or a limitation to only one's timestamp and user name. --Iamunknown 05:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of a username and timestamp only system, with comments moved elsewhere, for the reasons outlined above by Radiant, Daniel and Cryptic. If it means we have to forbid probably harmless comments like WJB's "oppose due to [diff]" to avoid big fights and arguments, so be it. – Steel 15:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WHile I realise it would result in duplication, how about we split the difference, and have the "main page" list ID and timestamp, and the talkpage list comments? In other words, instruct every "voter" that they need to vote at both places, but that adding comments, while optional on the talk page, isn't allowed on the main page.

Else, I'm opposed to not allowing at least "some" comments in the process.

Also, I don't see any reason to disallow cantidates responding to comments, though that would obviously be smarter to have on the talk page, though similar to an RfC or an RfAr:

== response to so-n-so ==

or something similar. - jc37 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This would be difficult, to say the least, to keep in sync. Many users will vote only on the main page no matter what the instructions say; should we then paste their sig/timestamp onto the talk page? (Obvious answer: Sure, why not?) And when they vote only on the main page but with a comment, should we then remove the comment, and past the comment/sig/timestamp onto talk? (Obvious answer: Of course!) But, how does is this final result superior to just having all comments on talk? There are obvious drawbacks: for instance, we need to deal with people who only vote on the talk page, or worse, change their vote only on talk or on main, but not both. This will absolutely result in errors and almost certainly in frayed tempers.

Now, the reality is that no matter what the instructions say, people are going to comment on the main voting pages, just as they do on other polls throughout Wikipedia, and other people are going to reply to them. Our options are:

1. Do nothing - allow threaded comments to form. This has the advantage of needing the least maintenance, but will be hard to edit and distracting to view.
2. Allow comment, move replies to talk. Previous arbcom elections, especially last year's, show that this is a recipe for disaster.
3. Allow comment, move replies to talk, leave an indented comment saying there are rebuttals on talk. Midway between #1 and #2 in all respects. Still has the problem of deciding where the cutoff between "oppose due to this edit [diff]" and "oppose due to [four paragraphs of ranting]".
4. Limit comment to N words or characters, move replies to talk, leaving notice of rebuttals: More impartial than #3, but requires more work to maintain, and will still spawn complaints about how the other guy's comments were left in place.
5. Allow only a sig and timestamp. Totally impartial, but will require extensive maintenance, as most everyone will try to leave a comment anyway. (Trolls who try to say stuff like "He eats babies!" is part of their sig can of course be stomped normally.)
6. Use the old Special:Boardvote software (not the current version which just redirects to an external site). All the advantage of #5, except it doesn't allow folks to see how other people voted. (Whether this is truly an advantage is a totally different question.) Plus, there's no maintenance to speak of.

Of these all, I only find #2 to be totally unacceptable. Sadly, it's exactly the situation we're looking at right now. —Cryptic 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 3 combined with 4 would be fine, and likely non-controversial. - jc37 03:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. 3 + 4. I find 5 and 6 unacceptable, as they would tend to reduce discussion within the community. And no to 2, per Cryptic. Jd2718 07:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Option three became essentially the de facto best practice last year, if memory serves me correctly. A number of people did this and it seemed to work pretty well. --bainer (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a standard simple explanation: Oppose, see my comments at the talk page. The candidate would only place an indented comment in the vote page saying: Replied on the talk page. I think that would promote discussion where it belongs, in the talk page. Users would then create their own section in the talk page for direct discussion with the candidate, allowing for steady threads and providing enough space to provide evidence and comments as they wish. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 10:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Questions

Are there any qualifications (other than editor in good standing) to be an arbcomm candidate? And what are the sufferage requirements (generally)? --Rocksanddirt 22:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

to run is generaly 1000+ edits. To vote is normaly a bit over 100.Geni 23:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're not an admin and have less than 5000 edits, you can forget it, I think. There's not really a high requirement to apply, but there is a high requirement to pass (about 85% support last year). Melsaran (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nominations

Last year we started accepting nominations on October 1, 2006. Presumably it's the same thing this year, unless Jimbo or the committee says otherwise. I'll create the nominations page, copying last years format (I have no intentions to run). Picaroon (t) 02:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back to Nov 1; while last year's page said Oct 1, the first statements only came in Nov 1. Might as well reflect this trend Picaroon (t) 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

The page says the elected arbitrators will join Tranche Alpha - is that just naming and the terms expire in 2010, or does it imply something different? Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, purely naming - they're not like Alpha Dogs or anything :) Daniel 11:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Six or five?

There's six strings in Alpha, as opposed to five for Beta and Gamma. The sixth was occupied briefly by Essjay. Any ideas of it'll be six electees or five from this election? Daniel 11:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's six, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't think Essjay's seat is going to be completely "abolished". Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 11:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on if any seats in other strings are taken. (Will flcelloguy's seat be treated as filiocht's last year? Maybe, maybe not) Wizardman 15:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And it also depends on Jimbo's decisions to appoint. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 15:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

2007's case workload - reference for potential candidates

If any one is considering running and is wondering what the workload would be like, see User:Picaroon/Stats for case statistics in 2007. I'm not trying to scare anyone, but if you are appointed, it is hoped you will participate actively, and that means reading over and voting in most of the ~8 cases a month. If you fail to do so, the clerks break out the cattle prods - and that's never pretty. Picaroon (t) 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Things to do

Well the time is coming soon, should we start getting some pages organised for candidate statements to go on and the process for which users can enter the election? E.g. start gathering nomination templates, instructions for entry and eligability for voting? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is basically how it worked last year:

• Nominations start Nov 1. You have to 1000 edits or more on enwiki by this day to run. Blocked/banned users may not run.
• Candidates place a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote. 400 words or less. Link to a longer statement in your userspace if you want.
• Candidates create their own subpage at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Username and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Username. Copy&paste statements to top of both of these pages.
• People ask questions, using level 2 headers, at that page, and candidate responds (or doesn't) as they feel best.

• On Dec 1, nominations are no longer accepted.
• Voting begins same day at the /Vote/Username pages. Supports and opposes only, no neutrals. Keep reasoning brief, link to longer comment on talk page if you must.
• You must have 150 mainspace edits before Dec 1 to vote. You may only vote once per candidate, and not for yourself. Possible sockpuppet votes should be listed on this page for investigation. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite and explain why their vote has been indented. If you want to withdraw your candidacy, place archive templates on your voting page and move your section on /Vote to #Withdrawn candidates.
• Voting ends on Dec 15. Jimbo comes along and decides the result. Everybody lives happily ever after. The end.

How's that? Picaroon (t) 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not just a pretty face Picaroon! :-) I'll get on with it tomorrow! Ryan Postlethwaite 01:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 150 mainspace edits before Dec 1 to be able to vote. That raises both the sock and high inexperience problem. I really think it should be 150 before Oct 1 (or at least Nov 1)... WjBscribe 01:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

candidates do not place their statements on the vote page that is done by whoever volenteers to run the thing.Geni 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and voteing begins on the third so we have the weekend free to make sure all the voteing pages are in place and people can ask last minute questions and the like.Geni 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Threshold to vote

Last year the requirement was 150 edits to vote and accounts created before Oct 1. Those seem generally sensible, but I was wondering if we should exclude the sandbox and User:/User talk: namespaces from that? Anyone have thoughts on changes to the standing requirements for voters? WjBscribe 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me, all users participating should have an understanding of what they are participating in. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Way to complicated to run edit counts on. Let's just make it 150 mainspace. Picaroon (t) 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

the requirment is there simply to make it hard to use socks. Beyond that pretty much anyone can vote.Geni 02:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of moving the threshold up to 500 or something, since people with edit counts below that (newbies) usually don't have any idea of what's going on in Wikipedia politics, so users with less than 500 edits who vote for ArbCom candidates are usually either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I'm not that comfortable looking at the edits per mainspace, though, because that would take a lot of time to check. Melsaran (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

rather less trouble than it used to be and in the past we have had people with a legit interest with less than 150 edits.Geni 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but things like AWB can make 150 edits seem trivial. I'm not sure that even 1000 may be enough for that. But that said, I vaguely remember that the board vote requirement was 400 edits? That would seem to be a good number. - jc37 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also support moving the threshold up to 400 or 500, on the principle that people need to understand what they're voting on, and we want to keep the various types of puppets out. While I don't like the idea of keeping out someone who understands, but has a low edit count, I just have a hard time believing someone with a low edit count has really participated on WP enough to understand much about policies. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the sounds of this. I'm a lurker that has been here for over 2 years and I read discussions on the wiki every day, but don't participate that often. I probably have less than 200 edits, but I probably know more about things around here than people with 10,000 edits. I have a boring job and I tend to read AN, AN/I and ARBCom cases (and everything that goes along with that), but I just don't have the "want-to" to participate that much. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions and I think I know what's best for the project. I could easily run a script to get 500 edits, but why should I have to? --SGT Tex 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gap?

Any reason why there's a 4 day gap between the nominations closing, and the voting starting? – Aillema 02:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I was just about to ask that :) I think that preparations for it need to be done, not too sure though. Majorly (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see Geni answered above. Nevermind :) – Aillema 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be 2 days close dec 1st open on third but someone fiddled with the dates.Geni 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote

We are three days away before candidacies start, and the Vote page has a message reading Rules are still being worked out[1]. I think we should go ahead and draft the instructions to follow now, so that when users start accessing the candidacies they'll also see that the whole election process has been duly designed and ready for implementation. I just don't want users questioning the integrity of the process by alleging it's incomplete. Thoughts? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You (or anyone) can write something up now. Take a look at last year's procedure for guidelines. Majorly (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. I was posting here so everyone would know. I don't have much time right now, but I'll give it a shot later tonight. Anyone who wants to give it a shot is welcome. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

I think a simple template to navigate through the sub-pages and sub-talk pages could help. Anyone interested in the task? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I created the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Election status template which links the most important pages. Users can navigate using this template. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchlists

Is this going to advertised on watchlists, like last year? First calling users to stand, then to vote. Majorly (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is; it just appeared in mine. Acalamari 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just bugged an admin to :) Majorly (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're fast. (:-) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting :) Majorly (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate presuming questions

Jbeach56 (talk · contribs) copied and pasted questions from another candidate's page.[2] This is disclosed, but I think it's a misrepresentation because we have no way of knowing if those people wanted to ask Jbeach56 those questions. Jbeach56, whether intentionally or not, has prevented others from placing tough questions near the top of the page where more people would see them. I am objecting and suggest that the page be deleted, and everyone listed be notified so they can repost their own question. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting seems unnecessary. I am, however, requiring the removal of the questions he copied until the users who made them give permission. He/she would then post them at the bottom, since the questions you and other users asked directly to him were posted first. I believe his actions were made in good faith, following the RfA trend of self-asking the most common questions, but since these are included with the authors' names (and their signatures), we need their permission first. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds perfect. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is total process wonkery, at least with my questions. It's obvious every candidate was going to be asked them, and to suggest removing them so as to not "prevent others from placing tough questions at the top of the page where more people will see them" is ridiculous. Only a fool wouldn't bother reading the whole page before voting, so it doesn't matter. I haven't checked the page, but if my questions were removed, I'd like them added back. Majorly (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it too late, or unwise, to make a "questions for all candidates" page that could be subst'd in as new subpages are made? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I copied the questions that was asked to everyone, I'll remove them if you like. Jbeach ^sup 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be unwise to do so unless you want to end up with candidates faceing an insane number of questions. The effort to ask every candidate a question should be enough to make sure that such questions are kept under control.Geni 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the questions. Sorry about that. Jbeach ^sup 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone, candidate or not, can copy mine to any other candidate's question area, and I do not care about the ordering chosen, or about my signature timestamp, in this particular case. If the candidate themselves wants to reorder mine after that happens, that's also OK by me. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Joke noms

Endlessdan nomination seems like a joke, what's the best way to deal with these, as it is a very serious matter. Jbeach ^sup 18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Leave them alone and assume good faith. It doesn't look like a joke to me anyway, more short and sweet. Majorly (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel like my nomination is a joke, don't vote for me. Provided any nominee is civil and not disruptive, I feel any user can throw their hat into the ring. Do I expect to win? Not likely. But I'd like to be involved in the process. :) --EndlessDan 18:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should have a better statement, as that helps a lot in running, I'm for non-admins running for arbcom, but no one would take your statement seriously. Jbeach ^sup 18:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, but I don't feel like I need to sell myself as being something I'm not. I'm more interested in the process of garnering votes and what-not. Do you have any idea of how many people actually nominate themselves? --EndlessDan 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with over 1000 edits may run in whatever way they chose.Geni 19:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Will there be a vote count? As in, will I be able to see how many votes I garnered? --EndlessDan 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Votes are public so you will be able to see how many support or oppose you.Geni 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. --EndlessDan 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with their statement, as long as they answer the questions well. If only everyone politicked as little as this... east.718 at 19:45, 11/1/2007

If anyone nominates me, I'll block them for 4.5 seconds. :-) I'd rather have bamboo shoots stuck up my toenails than run for arbcom. Bearian 21:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A very serious matter? Are you kidding me?--Burzum 10:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you can relax, Jbeach. After all, the U.S. has somehow survived the presidential candidacies of Pat Paulsen, Bill the Cat and Lester Maddox, though not necessarily in that order. (It's still an open question as to Stephen Colbert, of course.) I think Wikipedia can probably survive a joke candidacy or two. If people don't think a candidate is serious, they can vote for someone else. 6SJ7 04:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems like he admitted in one of the questions that he is running just because he is bored in work, now I'm 100% sure it's a joke and should be withdrawn. This is a Secret ^account 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New IRC channel

There is a new IRC channel for the arbcom elections at #arbcomelections Thanks Jbeach ^sup 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What would that be used for? IRC isn't Wikipedia (cliche: as we all know) and any meaningful discussion about the elections better be done here...RxS (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It was very active for the first week with most of the candidates who has IRC talking about the election process etc, but it's mostly dead now. This is a Secret ^account 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine it will begin to get busy again after the voting begins. Anthøny 07:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A note to the community

I will not stand for reelection to the Arbitration Committee next month, because of increasing obligations and opportunities in my life outside Wikipedia. I enjoyed my time on the committee, and will continue to be an active editor and administrator here and on the sister projects. I hope to use some of my time to work on new and innovative ideas for Arbitration, and will also probably be endorsing some candidates.

Good luck to all the contenders!

Warmest regards,

Neutrality^talk 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations and best of luck on the opportunities. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of "me too," I am also not standing for election. Like Neutrality, my off-wiki responsibilities have multiplied. Arbitration requires time and energy that I simply cannot devote any longer. I wish the current crop of candidates the best of luck; you cannot imagine what you're getting yourselves into. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck to you as well Mackensen. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sock candidate?

I know all candidates must have had at least 1000 edits by November 1. I'm a long-time user with lots of edits. But I have an idea that I might like to stand for ArbCom under an acknowledged alternative account, which only has some 200—300 edits. Haven't quite made up my mind ... but I might. This is not because I want to perform some sort of breaching experiment, but simply because the alternative account in question has a personality of its own, and is reasonably well-known on the wiki. In fact lots of people have been asking "it" to run. I would make the status of the account clear, of course. Would this be possible? These are my arguments for thinking it might/should be:

1. that I—me— the individual behind both accounts—have some 20,000 edits, amassed as "Bishonen". I'm an experienced administrator, and that's a personal profile that stays with me when I use my sock (though the actual admin buttons don't).
2. that everybody knows it's me anyway.

It goes without saying that the "Bishonen" account wouldn't run for ArbCom—not that very many people have been begging me to—snort. Bishonen | talk 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC).

I personally think there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think it's a great idea, and I'd be proud to serve with Bishzilla. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Appointment to the Committee—just like a ban by the Committee—applies to an individual, not a particular account. Are you willing and able to serve on the Committee—via whatever account—should you be appointed following the election? If you are, then the semantics of accounts shouldn't matter too much. If you're not, however, then please don't waste everyone's time with a frivolous candidacy. Kirill 00:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about it for a day or two. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Exactly. It's the same person behind Zilla and Shonen. Should it really matter which name runs? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The only reason to run under the non-primary account would be as a joke, for which there is no good reason to make any allowances or to alter, bend, or deliberate over rules. —Centrx→talk • 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying there is a difference between Bishzilla and Bishonen? Even though it is the person, not the account, that is being elected to arbitrator? How would it be different if Bishonen ran instead of Bishzilla? Would Bishonen too be a joke, then? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If the candidacy is not a joke, then the person can run under the primary account. People asking whether a joke account would run is a joke, Bishonen asking for clarification or bending of the rules is a joke, running under a joke account at the request of jokesters would be a joke, and presumably you were joking when you said you would be proud to serve alongside a joke. —Centrx→talk • 19:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't jokng. Look at it this way. I would be proud to serve alongside Bishonen. I view Bishonen and Bishzilla as the same person. Logically, it follows that I would be proud to serve alongside Bishzilla, because once again, they're the same person.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Bishzilla is some sort of stupid monster. Are you saying Bishonen is a stupid monster? —Centrx→talk • 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Bishonen is a japanese boy. I'm some sort of police clown, and you're an energy products company. Do we really need to make ridiculous strawmen here?⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes; and I am "double dog's cock" (thank you User:Yomangani of blessed memory). -- !! ?? 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just spit Fresca out my nose. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Bishzilla (talk · contribs) has a good deal less tolerance for bullshit than the average arbitration candidate, and at this stage most supplicants need a damn good kicking more than dispute resolution anyways. An acknowledged alternative account running for arbcom is a novel proposal, but can think of no reasonable objection. If Bishzilla can gain the votes, then give the community what it wants. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"If Bishzilla can gain the votes, then give the community what it wants. " - I just had to say that I loved that statement : ) - jc37 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• [With dignity ] [Edit conflict] Little Mackensen wrong end stick. Bishzilla kindly and helpful! Protect little edit warriors! No mesozoic remedies! But 'Zilla consider new responsibility carefully. Never been on mailing list before, not learn much about e-mail in admin school. Difficult. Plus, already possess some unofficial influence. ['Zilla checks pocket, is pleased.] Little arbcom still shooting craps in there! Cute! bishzilla [still thinking about it] _ROARR!! 12:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

Run under tha account with 1000 edits. Doesn't have to be the account you arbcom with.Geni 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forget it. No, Centrx, Bishonen may be stupid, but not stupid enough to run for ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 10:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC).

What does that say about the rest of us? No, don't answer that.... Newyorkbrad 22:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Bishonen is a highly respected editor and admin and 'Zilla is just the no-nonsense, light-hearted, fire breathing side of her personality. The thinking behind 'Zilla is still the same, no matter how many verbs are omitted from the dialogue. The ArbCom would be lucky to have her (er, it?). It's the person we're voting for, not the screen name. --SGT Tex 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that Bishonen serving on Arbcom would be the best thing to happen to Wikipedia since...well ever. Regardless of the account...though 'zilla would be good. Those pages could do with a little more cyan. RxS 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw

I withdraw from the race, I'm going to start working soon, and all they need are more inactive candidates, I also didn't have much shot of winning. Thanks This is a Secret ^account 02:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, though; it's good to see many users apply for the available positions. Hope everything goes well in your new job. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you had more support than you think, but I'm very glad to see that you want what's best for the committee. Best of luck to you in your work.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bleh I would have gotten no more than 30-40% support, solely because of Mzoli Meats. Work and college = lack of time :P. Thanks anyways This is a Secret ^account 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not running

I'd just like to announce that I won't be running for reelection this election. While I still enjoy the work, and find it interesting, it's been several weeks since I have been able to be active. I haven't recently even found much time for simply editing Wikipedia, much less the commitment necessary to be an effective arbitrator. - SimonP 17:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck to you, ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, best wishes and thanks for your years of thankless service! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thankless, lonely, and unrecognized. Except for that little Time Magazine Person of the Year thing. :-) But more seriously, thanks for all your work. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Age limit?

Should there be an 18 year old age minimum on arbitrators due to the sensitive information arbitrators have access to, as well as the potential access to the checkuser tool? Currently there is not, however given the gravity of the position I believe that it is sensible to include one. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already argued this point once with somebody involved with the enforcement of the resolution (with the same argument - they have access to sensitive private information when dealing with experienced user sockpuppet cases, eg. User:Runcorn, even if they don't have access to the tool themselves), and I was told that it was fine. Why? I have no idea. Daniel 05:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That should really be up to the community as we express our preferences. I note that you just interacted with NHRHS2010 who is a high school sophomore. Of far more interest is Messedrocker, 15, but with more experience and sharper answers than some of the others on this board. Last time out I voted no on every candidate under 18. But a) I don't know about this time, and b) I am not sure where to draw the line, if we draw the line. 18? Why not 17? 16? 21? If there were a legal issue, obviously that would trump all. But is there? Jd2718 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is foundation:Resolution:Access to nonpublic data. Daniel 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And v1.1 of this resolution, m:Access to nonpublic data policy (see resolution updating/changing it). Daniel 05:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They seem to make it fuzzy, twice (and fuzzier as the revisions go on). "which may include," and then the Board can waive any requirement anyhow. So unless/until someone powerful says "No" I will assume that all the candidates may be considered. This may be more of an issue, as I mentioned above, for Messedrocker. What next? Someone contacts the foundation? Jd2718 06:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the elections are a way for the community to give their opinion to Jimbo, who as I understand it makes the final decision, why not leave out any age limit and let the community make recommendations based on merit? Then, if there are legal (or even practical) reasons for an age limit, they can be dealt with at the Jimbo/Foundation level. --barneca (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What worries me is this statement: user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside.[3] But there are many underage users who have shown an incredible amount of maturity and knowledge within the project, they should at least be given the opportunity. I believe Jimbo and the Foundation will be aware of this situation (since, it is now documented here), and they'll make the proper determination. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there shouldn't. Arbcom is a position that demands maturity, which is not the same thing as age. If someone acts mature, they are qualified if they are 15. If someone acts immaturely, they are unqualified if they are 45. This has been a long accepted principle, and a perfectly fine "right answer" to "how old are you?" a question that is often asked at RFA, for example, is always "old enough". Frankly, this proposal makes me worry about your understanding of some key Wikipedia principles. Let's take that at your candidacy Q&A page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. User:Swatjester pointed to a good faith concern, which is also shared by several users and the Wikimedia Foundation. Although it allows for differences of opinion in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation's stance on generally not allowing minors to have access to private and sensitive information is quite serious. We are just discussing the effects this may have on the ArbCom elections. You may express your opinion on this matter as much as you like, but don't question another user's integrity just because they share different viewpoints. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't question his integrity. I'm not about to offer him some cash, I didn't block him, I didn't bring him up for RFC or RFAR. :-) But SwatJester is, however, a candidate for arbcom, and I believe it is appropriate to ask how his views on this will affect his actions as an arbitrator. I asked on that page. For what it's worth, I also believe that maturity is important, and there are plenty of immature young people. I was a strong supporter of WP:CHILD (back when it was controversial). But there is a way to say that, and the few sentences he started this section with aren't them. Let's see what he has to say on his candidacy page, where he can hopefully expound in more detail. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does everyone associate checkuser with arbcom? It's oversight that is given out, not checkuser. If the candidate is not old enough, they don't get it. If they are they do. Simple as that. 82.19.15.225 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oversight is also governed by the access to non-public data policy, and all oversights must be identified to the foundation and 18 years of age or older, exactly the same as checkuser. --Deskana (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I just said. Someone can function as an arbitrator without having access. 82.19.15.225 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators may still have access to non-public data though, just not of the sort that is goverened by the access to non-public data policy. Given Jimbo appoints the members, someone should ask him. --Deskana (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, you don't seem to understand the reasoning behind my argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with maturity, and everything to do with being of the legal age of majority. A person under 18 years old should not be given access to sensitive information that may involve legal action by the foundation. Checkuser is one of those things. So is ArbCom email list content. See Access to nonpublic data policy, which states that users must be personally identified to the foundation, including proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside. For indemnification purposes, we need our arbitrators to be 18. It's got nothing to do with their maturity level; immature candidates simply aren't going to be elected. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I did not know MessedRocker fit into this category as well, but that does not change anything. It applies just as equally to him. I singled out NHRHS2010 because his username rather plainly implies that he is under 18 years old. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If Arbcom were covered by the Wikimedia policy you link to, there wouldn't be a need to ask the question. It's not. Many Arbcom members neither have or want Checkuser permission. As for legal action, it's certainly true that the Arbcom list may discuss information that may have to do with legal action, but so can, say, an article talk page. Arbcom decisions absolutely do not bind Wikimedia to take any legal action. It's true that the Arbcom does its best to protect the Wikipedia, but then so do we all. Thanks for your answer, it clarifies your understanding. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom is indeed covered by the policy I link to, under the oversight section, and the fact that arbitrators are the ones that approve requests for oversight and checkuser. And I disagree with your argument about talk pages: Talk pages absolutely should not have anything to do with anything related to legal action, per WP:NLT. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

18 sounds like a good minimum age requirement, 30 would be a good voluntary minimum age requirement, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The confusion here seems to stem from the following confusion: arbitrators need not have access to the tool, but they will have access to the data. This is because notable sockpuppetry cases (eg. Runcorn) and the checkuser information associated is discussed on arbcom-l, and the checkusers must agree on the strength on the checkuser evidence (which requires access to the private data). Following the letter of the Foundation resolution (which can't be overriden by any form of "community consensus", but rather by the Board as a whole on individual cases), minors should not have access to any of the data associated with checkuser results, as they will if a case comes up.

The same applies for oversight, as there have been cases privately discussed by the Arbitration Committee which have involved oversighted edits as primary evidence (eg. TREYwiki). I think this is a very valid argument to be making, as the combination of a Foundation resolution specifically about this issue and private information (and its ramifications with the law therein) is one of importance and should not be "ignored" (to the extent that it can be by anyone not on the Board, per the Resolution). Daniel 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As a candidate in the election myself, I am reluctant to say too much on this page, but I suppose I can comment here briefly. I see no need or reason to impose a minimum age criterion for arbitrators. The Foundation policy restricting checkuser and oversight (and previously, steward) positions to those aged 18 or over is understandable, but still it represents a derogation from our guiding principle that all editors have equal rights and opportunities, and its application should not be expanded further. I believe the difference between an editor who is legally a minor exercising sole discretion over whether to access non-public checkuser data, and his or her participating in group decision-making as part of a committee of 15, is sufficient to distinguish the two positions. I would also strongly urge that unless it were somehow found to be absolutely legally necessary, which it should not be, the rules should not be substantially changed in the middle of the election. Newyorkbrad 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Insightful as always, Newyorkbrad. This makes a lot of sense. Ultimately the decision is Jimbo's but hopefully he will read this. I think I'll leave him a note. --Deskana (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in leaving him a note, but by all means let's attempt to arrive at a community decision about the best course of action, in at least the first instance. If we're going to take JW at his not-a-God-King word (assuming we can work out what the distinction to that effect is actually supposed to mean in practice), we should be attempting to extrapolate from past practice (or consciously improve on it), not await input from on high. (Which further implies to me that it should ideally have a fully defined procedure set out in advance, and explicitly be an election in every sense, but that might be a tad radical at present.) On the material question, I agree with NYB: if people have concerns in this regard, they can factor it into their questioning of the candidates, and their decision as to which to approve. Alai 04:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on current practice: the Committee currently operates with the understanding that all members are eligible for access to restricted data under the Foundation policy, and such data is therefore openly shared. Kirill 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this require substantial "screening" of information if one or more arbitrators <18y were elected/appointed, then? If a change in AC procedures would be required, or if it would palpably impede the ability of such arbitrators to do the job they were supposed to be doing, then it might be prudent to ask all candidates about their eligiblity on a more formal basis, to avoid any appearance of an unintended result. Alai 04:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We're currently discussing the various options; it would be premature for me to say, at this point, what the ultimate decision regarding eligibility will be. Kirill 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Decision on what, exactly? On who's eligible, or procedures for dealing with the non-eligible? I'm not asking about either of those, just for a stream-of-consciousness indication of how "big" an issue it'd be, if it did indeed arise. Alai 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not entirely sure exactly how big of an issue it is (hence the ongoing discussion ;-), but suffice it to say that any need to significantly change the current practice would almost certainly have a substantial impact. Kirill 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, when you say we're currently discussing the various options, does this mean that the Committee is actively discussing this particular issue (both the age limit for the elections and the impact of having a minor serving in ArbCom)? As you can see from my timestamp, we're already halfway through the nomination process. I'd really like to see this issue resolved before the voting phase begins to avoid confusion. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. We'll do our best to provide a more concrete answer before voting starts. Kirill 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it doesn't at all suffice to say. :) Would I be correct in guessing that such data doesn't arise in the majority of cases? Or am I being hopelessly optimisatic? While I'd personally have strong reservations about voting for anyone under 18, for these reasons and otherwise, I think it'd be undesirable to start "striking out" candidates at this fairly late stage; even more so for the AC to drop a bombshell midway through the voting, as MtM says; and worst of all if this arises afterwards, in the "Jimmy Wales cherry-picks, vetoes, or changes the groundrules of the election after the fact" phase of the operation. A detailed resolution of any change in process can wait (and the need may of course not actually arise in any case), but the community should really have some clarity from the AC as to the nature of the potential problem, before it starts picking pigs out of pokes. Alai 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Our own faults then, mine included, for not thinking of this sooner. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopelessly, hopelessly optimistic. While it's true that a large portion of the formal RFAR cases don't involve such data, much of the other business the Committee deals with does. Kirill 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If imposing an age restriction is being seriously considered, then I would like to provide a great deal more input. Is this the appropriate place to do so? Newyorkbrad 11:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As good as any to start with. The problem: although we have had good arbitrators under 18 (Sam Korn did fine at age 16), the Foundation's recent data access policy would quite definitely cover quite a lot of the material that is routinely discussed by the arbcom in the course of its duties, even if individual arbitrators don't have personal access to checkuser. - David Gerard 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I could say quite a lot about this matter, and probably shall, but before I do so, I would like to understand more specifically what is the concern about having an arbitrator who is a minor exposed to this particular information. I understand there is a Foundation resolution and policy, but I have never been quite clear on exactly what the age-restriction aspect of the resolution was supposed to accomplish. I can intuit the purpose, particularly as applied to checkusers, but it's really never been spelled out with any clarity, and therefore I concede that I may be missing something. (And I can actually think or at least one rationale on my own that is stronger than I have seen articulated by anyone else, even though it is not dispositive.)

So I will ask it directly: From the point of view of either the Foundation or the Arbitration Committee, what specifically is the concern raised by the prospect of an arbitrator who is a minor having access to the information in question (especially, not even in the context of deciding whether to run a checkuser himself or herself, but in the context of having the information from the mailing list to consider in decision-making). Please note that "conformity with the Foundation resolution" is not an answer to this question, because the issue now presented is whether this community chooses to construe the resolution broadly or narrowly, a decision that must be informed by understanding the purposes the Foundation policy is intended to serve. If it were my decision, I would require a very powerful showing of reasons to believe that that having a minor as one member of the 15-member Arbitration Committee could raise problems for the Foundation or the encyclopedia, before I would be prepared to narrow the spectrum of the community from whom arbitrators can be drawn, or overrule the strong policy of this community in support of recognizing equal rights, obligations, and opportunities for every Wikipedian. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the reasoning for that aspect of the policy was, not being privy to the Foundation-level discussion of it; but I would hazard a guess that the intent is primarily related to the legal aspects of the WMF privacy policy. Requiring that users who can potentially violate that policy be over the age of consent presumably gives the Foundation better legal recourse should that policy be breached, as well as encouraging the victims of any such breach to take action against the party responsible rather than against the WMF itself. (But you're the legal expert here, so you're probably in a better position to judge whether this seems reasonable.)

As far as the Committee is concerned, I'm not aware of any issues with having a minor as an Arbitrator except for the matter of compliance with the Foundation policy (and the resulting impact on the rest of the Committee if we are forced to comply by filtering discussion). Kirill 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Will allow a few hours to see if any other concerns or background is added here before sharing some thoughts. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• "AGE OF MAJORITY" is a good thing: There are significant time tested reasons why minors are, in fact, protected by the laws of the country that this discussion is indeed taking place. There are securities laws for minors and laws for voting rights. There are also laws which protect the people from the actions of minors, (e.g., age limits when running for public office.) We could discuss this topic, ad infinitum, but to say that minors should ever be given access to private and detailed personal information about anyone in the U.S. is quite frankly, patently absurd. Wisdom comes from experience and without same, it hardly could be argued that being smart is even a close second to the above. No doubt there are plenty of smart young people here, albeit each of us, with patience and understanding, can wait until our time has come. Songgarden 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No matter if there is an age limit or not, I withdrew myself from Arbitration Committee elections. I would be better off doing this when I'm 18. NHRHS2010 talk 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• The question isn't so much whether it's a good idea to disclose private information to minors (or is that only in part, at least) as to what degree such non-disclosure would make it unworkable to have (or to be) an arbitatator in that situation. Alai (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the Foundation's "Access to nonpublic data policy", would prohibit sharing any such restricted data with an underage arbiter (Newyorkbrad are you suggesting that this interpretation is incorrect?) An arbiter would be unable to do their job responsibly under such a restriction. Paul August ☎ 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The resolution can be construed broadly or narrowly. I would have favored a narrow construction, particularly in the absence of an articulated reason supporting a broader one. There remains a major difference between a minor's being designated as a checkuser operator with sole authority to access the information, and a minor's serving as one member of a committee of 15, presumptively elected with overwhelming community support and then appointed by Jimbo Wales, who happens to receive it after the decision to pass it along is made by another specifically entrusted with the latter role. No reason for imposing such restriction has been suggested that strikes me as outweighing the infringement of the equality of editors implied by a policy limiting the community's choice of arbitrators. In saying this, I am mindful of the various ramifications of this decision, and understand what could have impelled it, but remain in disagreement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion

Resolved

Just a heads up. I made a completeness check by reviewing Special:Prefix index page of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements. My check produced one user who had made a candidate statement but forgot to post it at the main candidates page, which I then properly included it (I left a message at his talk page, just to make sure he didn't just change his mind before posting it.) Anyone is welcome to make these types of checks, especially in the final week of nominations. We want to give the community ample opportunity to study the candidate and ask questions before the voting phase begins. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add other peoples candidate statements to the page. It's someones choice when and if they want to run, so it's upto them whether or not to transclude. By all means leave them a note, but please don't enter them in without input. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems fair. I've removed his subpage until he responds. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's for the best if I'm being honest, I'm just not sure that AGK's decided to run or not. I agree it's a good idea to do a prefix search and give people a prod that haven't transcluded yet. Thanks for sorting it. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on disclosure of identity, and permissions

Related to that above discussion on age, you need to apparently be "legal age" to have Checkuser or get an exemption, but I'm curious if the arbiters have to disclose their identities (to Wikipedia's community, to Jimmy Wales, or to the ArbCom overall)? Or, are they anonymous as well? I assume if they are anonymous it just means that they wouldn't have access to the extra tools like Checkuser or Oversight, but could still serve as arbiters. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there is no restriction on the age of Arbitrators, although obviously those who choose to take on the Oversight and/or CheckUser permissions must be 18+. They also choose how little or much of their identities they disclose post-appointment, and the variation in this between that which they disclose to the ArbCom privately, and to the Community. At the bare minimum, they don't have to be 18 and they don't have to disclose any personal information. Anthøny 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Transparency. --bainer (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Edidcount to vote

Last year, one had to have 150 total edits to vote; this year, that has been changed to 150 mainspace edits. Why was this changed?--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 12:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ruling on age limit

It is the considered consensus of the Arbitration Committee that our working practices are incompatible with having a minor as a member of the Committee, and that any changes to facilitate this would be impractical and severely damage the effectiveness of the Arbitrators.

Specifically, a minor could not take part in discussion of or even be shown privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools, without violating the confines of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices. This is a significant part of the work of the Committee, and would result in, at best, a two-tier Arbitration Committee with some members unable to participate in, or even be aware of, most of the activity.

We understand that this will be a disappointment to several widely-respected members of the English Wikipedia community who would otherwise run, and accept that we have spent too long confirming 'officially' that this is the case.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

It will be a disappointment. I believe the next appropriate step is to notify those users of this decision and withdraw their nominations with appreciation for their effort after obtaining their feedback. I'm changing the wording of the election instructions to include this decision, so all users are aware. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just informed the two users I am aware are under 18 (Cbrown1023 and Messedrocker), plus some others I knew were considering a run at this; I'm afraid I don't know if there are any other users who are affected by this rule, and would greatly appreciate it if they could be informed if anyone is aware of someone I've missed.

James F. (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the decision before the elections, and for (in my opinion, as I suggested above) making the right one.

A question: say someone who will be turning 18 (the age of legal majority) in January or February. Would their nomination be allowed to slip through (no, not me - enough badgering!) given being "off the mailing list" for a couple of months right at the start of their tenure isn't as disruptive as someone who could spend two or even all three years in the situation of not being able to digest private information? Daniel 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine a slight staggering to the entry for an Arbitrator could be acceptable. New Arbitrators will have to get vetted which may take some time over the Christmas period (for obvious reasons), and a few weeks' delay before one or two were added to the list would not be impossible.

James F. (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait. This encyclopedia receives international participation and there may be conflicting views on the definition of a minor. What exactly is the official threshold? Is it 18 or 21 years of age? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's 18 or the legal age of majority at the place of ones' residence, whichever is higher. Daniel 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The exact language in the policy is "at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside." Paul August ☎ 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was just copying that here. From my reading, both our comments mean (in practice) the exact same thing :) Daniel 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe they will honor the same age as outlined at wikimedia:Access to non-public data policy. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the greater of 18 and the age of majority local to the individual concerned, as set out in the CheckUser policy. Sorry I didn't make this clear.

James F. (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'll include this in the instructions. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is good that we have a clarification on this issue, but my personal view is that this change is not necessary or desirable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not clear on the necessity or desirability, but the need for prior clarity outweighs any reservation I might have on that, speaking personally. If the community is unhappy with this determination, it can be revisited for next year, hopefully in a more timely way with respect to the "electoral cycle". Alai (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Arbitration Committee members were appointed by Jimbo (based, at his discretion, on the "election" results.) Shouldn't it be he who decides what the qualifications are? Of course, the committee can make a recommendation to Jimbo, but that does not appear to be what is happening here. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is, from what I understand, active on the Committee's private mailing list. I would be surprised if he had no input into this decision. Daniel 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to make sense, given the growing number of arbitration cases that have involved private checkuser results, oversight information, etc. Another question: Will ArbCom members have to identify themselves to Bastique/the Foundation prior to or after the election, to confirm their age? Ral315 » 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Section break

• Hi James F. I am a little concerned by the way this came about. This decision seems to hinge on a reading of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms, a task many of us are capable of doing. What was the need to make this decision in secret? Also, please provide a link to the "Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices" the specifically prohibit a minor's participatin in discussions of or viewing of privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools. Tahnks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • From the WMF Access to nonpublic data policy:

    2. Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside.

    (emphasis mine). An Arbitrator that does not meet these requirements cannot have access to such data (including, in particular, any internal discussion where such data is shared). Kirill 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks Kirill. I see that minors access to non-public data foundation policy has been in place since April 2007.[4] It was not a kind thing to wait until the eve of election to spring this on Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 when this could have been settled months ago. I still see no reason for announcing this as a secret decision made through the private Arbitration Committee's mailing list. I hope those involved in making this secret decision at least had the decency to apologize officially to Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 for luring them into revealing personal information about themselves in an effort to gain a position for which they had no hope of obtaining. -- Jreferee t/c 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes we all owe Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 an apology. I personally offer my apologies. As a community of volunteers we are not the most organized of organizations. Paul August ☎ 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see that this policy serves any necessary purpose as applied to membership on an arbitration committee, and other than pointing to the words of the resolution (which so far as I can tell was not adopted with this issue in mind one way or the other), no one has publicly identified one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, there is the question of whether the Wikipedia community would accept "a two-tier Arbitration Committee with some members unable to participate in, or even be aware of, most of the activity." Personally, I would be fine with Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 having limited access to non-public information as I think their decisions would be just as valid. If the Arbitration Committee's practices are dictated by the Arbitration Committee and those up the food chain, I would be happy to accept this. However, as far as I am aware, Wikipedia always has operated off open consensus and the decision to permit minors on the Arbitration Committee seems to be one for which an open consensus would have been more appropriate approach. -- Jreferee t/c 16:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would not agree to be an arbiter unless I had access to all the relevant information necessary to make responsible decisions. I would not approve of other arbiters who made decisions without the benefit of all relevant information. Thus aside from the considerable logistical problems such a two-tier system would present, I would oppose such a system on the grounds that such a system could not perform its duties responsibly. Paul August ☎ 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Paul August's thinking. From my interpretation of the Foundation's Access to non-public information policy, minors can not have access to this information. Many of our cases involve discussion of information covered by the privacy policy. I don't see any way that a Committee member could make a good independent assessment of the case with out looking at all the evidence. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• From what little I know (and I will certain defer to current or former arbitrators on this), establishing a formal "two-tiered" process would indeed be problematic. What I have been questioning is whether it would have been necessary, or why. In this regard, I accept that there are certain issues on which arbitrators who are minors would not have been expected to take the lead, just as I have told administrators who are minors that while age is irrelevant to 99% of administrator actions, there are occasional legal-threat and harassment situations that they would be well-advised to leave for others to handle. I have no doubts that a younger editor enjoying sufficient maturity, experience, and standing in the community to have been elected to the Arbitration Committee would have been fully capable of recognizing such matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Here is some background on the Foundation's implementation of the Access to nonpublic data policy. The Wikimedia Foundation non_discrimination_policy prohibits discrimination against age in its context of age being a legally protected characteristic. Those under 18 are treated differently under the law, including areas of access to nonpublic data.[5] Foundation Meetings/June 1-3, 2007 leading to Access to nonpublic data policy Resolution. June 6, 2007 Resolution:Access to nonpublic data policy update. As for the necessity of a formal "two-tiered" process, the only ones who can answer that are the arbitrators. They apparently agree that it would be necessary. -- Jreferee t/c 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Apparently, this issue was raised in the second 2006 elections for Stewards, and apply to users with checkuser or oversight access in May 2007[6]. Here is the foundation discussion thread and here is a May 2007 Wikizine announcement. -- Jreferee t/c 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• In reply to Newyorkbrad's request above to locate the purposes the Foundation policy is intended to serve, I have not been able to locate the Foundation's reasoning for the change. It looks like they discussed it at Foundation Meetings/June 1-3, 2007, but I was not able to find out what they said. -- Jreferee t/c 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How does this relate to my question about disclosure of identity? Without that, how would you verify age? Or would those arbiters that can't/don't simply not have access to run their own Checkusers and Oversight, but serve otherwise? Or does this mean that all arbiters have to disclose identities after all? Sorry I am confused. • Lawrence Cohen 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know any other way to do it, either. So we can assume that newly elected arbitrators will be required to disclose their identities before they get assess to our confidential discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what I assumed, too. I was just curious for the elections. Does that mean that all the current ones have also disclosed to have access to that data? Is it recorded anywhere publically that they have? Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge they have not disclosed their identity to the Foundation yet. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought every Arbitrator had confirmed their identity, as everyone has oversight? I recall Cary removing Theresa Knott's oversight access because she did not identify within the period given by the resolution on access to non-public data. I figured this meant that every current oversighter has identified, and the Arbitration Committee is a subset of the set of all oversighters. --Deskana (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the question related to current candidates not current Committee members. To my knowledge all current committee members have. Cary Bass is the person to ask as he handles this task for the Foundation.--FloNight♥♥♥ 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. As far as I'm aware, the only people who are running who are currently identified are me and Raul654, as we are both oversight/checkuser. Possibly Danny too, but given he used to work in the office, I wouldn't have thought any sort of verification would be necessary. --Deskana (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure several others noms have also based on the other work they've done for the Foundation. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not just that, but some of the other candidates are known to foundation staff via wikimeetups, as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Per this foundation thread, arbitrators need to send their info to Cary Bass, who I asked to respond in this thread. I would assume that existing Arbitration Committee members who are not of age are no longer Arbitration Committee members and the remaining ones need to prove their age. -- Jreferee t/c 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Er...not as far as I've been told. This is a different process, not related to the privacy policy on Wikipedia or anything outlined by that. I'm unaware that Arbcom falls under that policy. Cary Bass ^demandez 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is not clear whether the existing policy applies to arbitrators was precisely one of the points I was making above. In any event, requiring proof of identification is a separate and distinct issue from imposing a minimum age on committee members. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy does not say that arbiters must identify, or be of age. However it does say that arbs who have not identified or are underage can not have access to non-public data. The Foundation could make an exception for arbs, but until they do I would feel constrained to not pass along such data to such arbs — in my opinion that would be an untenable situation. Paul August ☎ 21:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it goes to enforcement. Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Transparency does not require age disclosure, but you can't be under 18 and be on Arbcom. The effect seems to be that only the honest candidates under 18 will drop out or not enter the election. -- Jreferee t/c 20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not quite the point I was making. What I meant to say was that it is possible to require identification validation without imposing an age requirement. (As a practical matter, that might require that would-be arbitrators who were minors speak with their parents/guardians about the role they were taking on, but I doubt that this would be a problem.) At present, I believe that most, though not quite all, of the arbitrators are publicly identified by real name and/or at least known to Foundation officials in any event, although not all of this year's candidates are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing your posts and Cary Bass's post, I think I see the distinction you made. The right to decide and the ability to mine data for non-public information (checkuser) vs. receiving that mined data after another has decided to compile it (arbcom). Looking at the language of the foundation policy, the foundation policy addresses "granted access rights to restricted data."[7] The arbcom minor might receive restricted data but they in fact are not granted access rights to that restricted data. The arbcom minor's receipt of restricted data is conditioned on another's right to access that data. The foundation policy addresses who can push buttons to get restricted data from Wikipedia's database. It does not address the decision by those with access to that data to pass on that data. In fact, they pass on portions of that non-public data all the time at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser and post it in a location where minors can see it. I do not agree that "a minor could not take part in discussion of or even be shown privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools, without violating the confines of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices."[8] I think the reading of the Foundation's privacy policy is incorrect and Cbrown1023 and Messedrocker should be allowed to run for arbcom. -- Jreferee t/c 21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I do not think ArbCom can have it both ways. If the information received by ArbCom falls under the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution, then all ArbCom member are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution to provide identification to the Foundation just as checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS do.[9] If the information received by ArbCom does not fall under the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution, then there is no Wikimedia Foundation basis for the above ArbCom decision. -- Jreferee t/c 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cary, in this thread the Committee announced that we do not think that Committee members can carry out our job without access to non-public information. This is a new decision that we made after discussion among ourselves. The election prompted our discussion and decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Wouldn't a valid local I.D. be the only way demonstrate age, beside a birth certificate, though? • Lawrence Cohen 20:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy doesn't seem to address Arbcom's control over the Arbcom election. It lists it as an unresolved issue. A Wikipedia:Election policy would have helped. -- Jreferee t/c 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Jreferee has established valid points based on his interpretations. I still believe that the ArbCom made the correct determination, however, we won't find a resolution unless either the Foundation, through one of its members or representatives, Cary, or Jimbo address this. Otherwise, we risk having serious confusion and disagreements in the election process, or worse: disenfranchisement. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidacy

I would like for my candidacy (That is, User:Phil Sandifer's) to be restored. Phil's Sockpuppet (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are returning to Wikipedia, which I surely hope you are, then the best procedure would be to get a password reset through your old account's e-mail (or through a developer if needed) and resume using your old account. My apologies if you are one step ahead of me and already doing this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not committing to returning to Wikipedia at this point. I am committing to being a candidate for the arbcom, and winning election would necessitate returning. But absent that or some other sign that gives me hope that the areas I like most to contribute to and feel like I am good at contributing to (policy and meta-discussions) are areas that I am able to be useful in, I do not intend to return at present. Though if it would make you feel better if I restore access to my main account and conduct business relating to the election from it, I will. Phil's Sockpuppet (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow candidate I'm not really in a position to say that what makes me comfortable is relevant, but for what it is worth, I venture to say that some editors might feel an awkwardness in voting for someone without access to his primary account. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• On what procedural grounds was Phil's candidacy removed? Hiding T 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The grounds that I left Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't see where in the rules it states you are delisted if you leave in a hissy fit. ;) Hiding T 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

slight formatting problem

Right now, on the candidate statements page, there is a note referring to Phil Sandifer that says: "This user has left wikipedia." The problem is that it is right above Phil's section, and it kind of makes it look like Newyorkbrad is the person who has left. Could someone please make it a little more clear? Or maybe delete it altogether, since Phil seems to be back, sort of? Thanks. MookieZ (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Sandstein removed it. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 12:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For better or for worse, I'm not going anywhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost coverage

The Wikipedia Signpost recently compiled a candidates profile page, with certain standard questions asked to each candidate. I believe this should be linked at the top candidate statements page and voting pages ( within the instructions, sort of like a see also link.) In last year's elections, the Signpost used a template for major stories about the elections. I have already contacted Ral, who wouldn't mind as long as it discussed here first. Thoughts? - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My nominations

Withdraw Please After recieving some questions and also reading through other users replies to their own questions I have come to the conclusion that I am not yet ready for ArbCom. I have read the policies and paid attention to some of the cases but I think I'm not immersed enough within the dispute resolution process as a whole. Over the coming months I will spend more time watching the process and commenting where possible. I think I would be a good member of the committee and I know I would respond to the challenges. Ultimately though, after further deliberation and some questions (of which I thank those who asked them) I am not ready. Could somebody please therefore remove my nomination to the withdrawn candidates section. I will be back to vote when the elections start as there are some great candidates here and thank you all for the chance to nominate myself. Good Luck to everyone. Best regards, LordHarris (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)