Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates

"Legal age"

"Legal age" can mean many things. Care to clarify? Marcus Qwertyus 03:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside". Skomorokh 03:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And the clear meaning of "capable" is "legally capable". This is sometimes referred to as the age of majority. The ability to enter into a contract with, say, an insurer, without parental/guardian consent, is a good indication. Tony (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In your case, the answer is that assuming that the information contained on your userpage (born August 29, 1993) is accurate, you are not old enough to run this year, but will be old enough to run next year. Sorry, Sven Manguard _Talk 04:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Had no intention of running this year but will think about running next year. Marcus Qwertyus 04:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Vanishing

I have a question for all the candidates. "Given that many people have been elected to arbcom and then vanished unannounced -- which despite being their right, is very inconvenient -- can you assure us that, should circumstances compel you to remove yourself from Wikipedia for an extended interval, you will let us know? (Yes, I realize this assumes you'll be physically capable of letting us know)"

So, where should I put that so that it goes to all the candidates rather than being spammed? DS (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess if they break their word on this one, you won't support them for reelection? I think that if a person is inconsiderate enough to do what you mention, an election pledge won't matter a hill of beans to him.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that you cannot post the same question to all the question pages. You may post to the question to talk pages, and the candidates may answer if they choose. Jehochman ^Talk 03:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Advertising

I assume there's no objection to candidates putting the {{ACE2010}} template on their userpage to advertise the election. Is there a more suitable one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Elen, I've done so myself and then asked Skomorokh whether it was ok. He said it can be freely used on talk pages. Tony (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding the bling is okay, IMO. That's a good idea, actually. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

11 for 11

as we stand, this could be an amusing election ;-) - No doubt this is being discussed elsewhere, and to be honest, no doubt we're going to see many more folk bung their hat in the ring at the last minute.... couple days to go, right? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

With only 9 viable candidates, I would definitely expect some opportunistic candidacies over the next couple of days (or just ordinary candidacies from those who preferred to wait). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you and I define viable differently. Two are not admins, yes, but I only count 7 viable candidates (candidates that I think have a chance of winning.) That, however, is for the voters to decide. Numbers, however, are useless. 40 candidates for 11 spots of 4 candidates for 11 spots, all that matters is the vote, in the end. We could get a shocker and only have one person get 50% of the vote, who knows. Either way, this whole counting thing seems counterproductive. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a chance of getting more candidates then we should consider delaying the election.   Will Beback  talk  11:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? We will run this election and get some electees. If more are needed, another election can be scheduled. Maybe some of the guide writers can be coaxed to run. Jehochman ^Talk 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a snowball's shot in hell. DC T•C 17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer my torture retail rather than wholesale. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have if I had a chance, but I don't Secret ^account 20:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

< It seems likely I'll be approached essjay style to sit on the committee without the inconvenience of an election. I'll have to think about it, but I've heard the coffee is truly appalling. Privatemusings (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to acquire a taste for robusta, I suppose. Personally, I prefer to avail myself of the excellent selection of fine teas which is much more adequate. — Coren ^(talk) 20:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you nominate someone else to be elected for arbitration?

I know a user who I think fits the bill for being an arbitrator. Is it possible to do so? Because I see all the candidates nominate themselves for their own good and I thought, like an RfA, there is a chance to pick someone else rather than me. Minimac (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't nominate someone else though you can of course ask them to stand.  Roger ^talk 09:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

General questions

Forgive me if I am ignoring some painfully-obvious instructions, but I can't seem to find an answer to this on the election information pages so I'll ask here: I have a question that I want to post to every candidate's question page. Do I just post under everybody's "general questions" section (as I understand that posting questions 'en masse' to every candidate's "individual questions" section is prohibited)? AGK 13:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Most candidates have offered the talkpage to the question page as a place to answer mass questions. So, Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/FT2/Questions would be the place for such a question to FT2, for example. Skomorokh 13:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I understand; thanks. On another note, is it just me, or are the questions pages this year much less fluid and more ugly than previous years? Has there been a format change in order to discourage excessive questioning? AGK 14:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking if they were made intentionally ugly in order to disincentivise questioning, then no! The suggested formatting is pretty basic, similar to RfA:

1. Question:

A:

It looks like section headings for each questioners were used in previous years, which on reflection might be better from a navigational point of view, although perhaps more cluttered. If you could be more specific I might be able to be more forthcoming... Skomorokh 14:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Many candidates tweaked the format themselves for readability. I know I did. I can't think of a reason why this year's candidates wouldn't be allowed to. — Coren ^(talk) 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Right; PhilKnight and Giacomo's pages utilise section headings for instance. Consistency is a virtue, but shouldn't be an impediment to improvement. Skomorokh 15:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just for clarify, I created section headings because my eyesight is not particularly great, and I find looking down long pages of small text for the place to insert my answer extremely hard, and I was constantly pasting the answer into in the wrong place. Lar's questions are a particular nightmare with their formatting and numbering. I would imagine I am not alone. So long as the questions are clearly answered, I don't see a problem with any format of the candidate's choice.  Giacomo  16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm open to other formattings. And where candidates had trouble I've went in and fixed things up to correct numbering or indenting or whatever. Sorry you had trouble. ++Lar: t/c 21:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Socks

When one puts there cursor over the grey tag for socks for Loosmark however there are confirmed socks as one sees by the tag beside it. Is there a way to resolve this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010#Irregularities with candidate Loosmark. Carcharoth (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Identification requirement for arbitrators

The attached page, which User:Jimbo Wales has cited as policy determining how he will appoint winning candidates, says that candidates much identify to WMF before taking their seats. Before the results are posted, could we please confirm or clarify this policy for the avoidance of any potential disputes over who can be appointed. If somebody does not want to identify, can they serve on the committee without having access to the confidential mailing list, as well as Checkuser and Oversight privileges often conferred to arbitrators, or does the community consider having such access a necessary part of being an arbitrator? Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• If somebody does not want to identify, they should not have even stood for elections, leave alone attempting to serve on the committee (irrespective of having/not having access to confidential material). It's about transparency, adherence to policy and not re-creating the wheel at a moment when the elections are actually taking place. If a candidate at this moment mentions his/her intentions to not identify oneself, that would be akin to taking the community for granted. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• If a candidate openly states that if elected they would not be identifying, surely that's leaving it to the community, not taking it for granted? If the community elects such a candidate, their support for that candidate's openly-stated stance is implicit. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• But as stated by Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs), this is policy, not a "case by case basis" type of issue. -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with everything said in the above comment by Wifione (talk · contribs). Candidates for the Arbitration Committee should identify to WMF, and if they have not done so or refuse to do so, they should not serve on the committee. Identification to WMF in this fashion hopefully helps to mitigate the possibility of socking disruption on the committee itself, for example see this case study [1]. User:Jimbo Wales stated, "I will appoint candidates to ArbCom who are eligible for appointment only upon their identification to the Foundation." I agree that this is precisely what he should do. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Cirt, identification does not preclude socking. Philippe, the WMF employee responsible for the identification process, indicated here that they only check that the person is of legal age, and then they destroy all copies of the ID. Unless someone managed to get two accounts elected in the same election (and decided to send two copies of their own ID), identification to WMF would not do anything to mitigate the possibility of socking. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, well, it is certainly a mitigating factor. However, also agree that the candidate should be of legal age. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Jimbo's stance. This is not the way or the time to change the rules. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• I say let them serve no matter what they decide. I don't see identification as necessary to being an effective Arb. Indeed some people might avoid serving on ArbCom because they fear retribution... and some Arbs have been harassed in the past. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• That would mean a sitting member of the Arbitration Committee could be below legal age and still serve? -- Cirt (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• It was settled that CU and OS and the like require identification as a consequence of WMF insistence. The identification process has now been revealed to be only an unretained age verification, and one that is absurdly easy to game. The need for arbitrators to identify is predicated on their choice to request access to CU or OS and logically extends to other confidential areas (mailing list and arb-wiki, for example). A candidate who declares an intention to not request those tools and still recieves community support does have a mandate to serve, though clearly that service will not cover all the usual ArbCom responsibilities. To attempt to use the identification requirement for access to tools s/he will not access to prevent an elected arbitrator from taking his or her seat is to hide behind an absurd extension of an imposed requirement. If Giano is elected and Jimbo wants to prevent his appointment, he should be open with ihs objections and bring on the constitutional issues that follow; I believe that preventing the appointment citing a binding "policy" as forcing his hand will be seen as an illegitimate action. Short version: if Giano is elected, Jimbo can appoint him or deal with the community's reaction, because the invocation of policy as a pretext for refusing to appoint him will be hollow - and worse, I believe it will be seen as hollow. EdChem (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, can you explain why you think this? The policy has been in place for a long time now - this is the 3rd ArbCom election since this has been a requirement. It was openly stated as an eligibility requirement before the election began. I'm not free to simply disregard longstanding policy and make up the rules as I go along, nor do I suspect anyone would seriously ask me to do so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• This comment seems to be in favor of making the identification requirements for CU and OS more stringent, rather than the reverse. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think everybody knows who Giano is, without him identifying himself. He is a cross between Anthony Wedgewood Benn, Lord Clark and Lady Ottoline Morrell. Individuals like that scarcely need to identify themselves. They are icons. Mathsci (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Silliness and absurdity in the face of an ongoing Arbitration Committee election here is not helpful. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with voting in the election at this stage. But talking of silliness and absurdity ... [2] Mathsci (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• If you wished for your comment to be taken seriously, you should have phrased it differently to address the actual matter being discussed at the top of this subsection. -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• My comment was evidently not serious. However, I think in a few days time you will see why these WP:POINTY edits you just made were not a great idea. [3][4] Mathsci (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• For what my two cents is worth, I think it's quite clear: all Arbitrators must be identified to the Foundation. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That mirrors my understanding. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• What if an arb who did not identify refuse to recuse themself from cases (or parts of cases) which include private data? Sole Soul (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It is. If an arb is elected, refuses to identify him/herself and is still appointed to the committee (as I would favor), he should not be exposed to any private information. As for this RfC, I'm not clear where the policy on this is stated. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think people need to identify - it's too hard to find a way to selectively shield an Arb from exposure to private information, and our standard has been that people need to identify to access such information. This may deprive us of some otherwise decent candidates (and some mediocre ones - for instance, the requirement is a big reason I'm not interested in running), but in the long run it seems best for the project. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Can no-one remember back to the days of Bernadette Devlin. A major plank of Giano's campaign is that access to secret files is not required to be an arbitrator. If the community elects him, the community supports that viewpoint. It doesn't alter the WMF policy that CUs must identify to the foundation. If Jimbo decides that an arb cannot take their seat if they do not identify, then we will have a constitutional crisis, because way more people vote in the election than ever took part in any other community process on this subject. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Elen of the Roads, I think the only way we would have a constitutional crisis here is if I decided to ignore the policy that has been in place for the past 3 years with very broad support from me, ArbCom, and the community, and decide that based on a simple majority vote in a complex election process that I am free to change policy and make an appointment in direct violation of the very clear rules of the election as stated. If I did that, I would fully hope and expect to be admonished by both the ArbCom and the community. Fortunately, I won't do that. And there will therefore be no constitutional crisis.

I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that policy changes of this magnitude should be changed by me at a whim based on reading the tea leaves of an election campaign. If you want to start a campaign to get consensus to remove the requirement, you are welcome to do so. There's a process for doing that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• • I agree with Elen. CU's, and other privacy controllers need to identify to the foundation, and I would have no problem with a more in depth identification than what goes on now. I don't think folks who are on the arbitration commitee need that. In the past, it made sense because those on the committee were also the most involved with trying to control disruptive sock behavior. now we have a whole separate program of community supported users to do that, lets focus the AC back on abritrating disputes that are otherwise unresolvable. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Wait - I support Giano's election to the Committee this year because I think on balance he would be a positive presence, but that doesn't mean I support every opinion he's ever expressed. The fact is that some situations are best handled, at least in part, off-wiki. I've certainly had such matters come up, and I've contacted ArbCom about them with the expectation that the information I disclosed in private was not intended for public consumption. I trust Giano in particular to respect such privacy - or I wouldn't support his election - but as a more general matter of policy, Arbs will be exposed to such material, even if they don't apply for checkuser or oversight permissions. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Winning in the election is theoretically possible with 51% support, while change of policy requires consensus. Sole Soul (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• The question asked in this RfC was to clarify current practice, and to me that seems clear. Arbitrators must identify prior to taking their seat, and that is what should happen with this election. If there is significant desire that this should change (albeit always subject to the foundation's policy on private information) a new site-wide discussion must take place after these elections. -- Avi (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Avi, specifically, on the point that significant policy and procedure changes should be discussed after an ongoing election, not in the midst of it. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree that rules (or policies or whatever) should not change midway through an election. --maclean (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• The focus of this election should be on the candidates. It seems unfortunate that attention has shifted somewhat to one candidate and an issue that should not be dealt with in the middle of an election. Candidates came in to the election with a set of requirements in place. Do we change the rules in the middle of a game?(olive (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC))