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. Nevertheless, for a UK editor, it might sum up the Giano conundrum. 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)

With the greatest respect, you already have that "constitutional crisis", because Giano is running on a ticket that he won't take the loyal oath, and up to this point, no-one has said that he can't do that. While I offer no opinion as to whether his viewpoint is right, or even sensible, he has put you in the position that you personally are going to be the person who chucked him off the slate. Also, as someone who spends their life looking at rules, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a rule that says that. A personal fiat of yours, yes, but not a consensus rule. Also, I can't think that raising Sam Blacketer was wise, for two reasons. Firstly, the Foundation has assured us that they only use the information to ensure legal age - and they don't release the information to anyone, even you. So they wouldn't have given it any regard that the chap was a UK politician, and you wouldn't have known. Secondly, where is the rule that says that a UK politician cannot stand for office as an arbitrator? It begs the question, what other categories of persons would you reject. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:54, 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)
      • Oh, I don't think every bit of arb material needs to be on wiki, but the focus of the committee I think would be better served to lean from handling privacy related tasks and problems (CU's etc.) more towards arbitrating the disputes that come up. And while I also support Giano, I don't agree with him on everything either. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Elen. If the community elects Giano, they did so knowing his stance on this. The WMF policy is about access to restricted data, and does not apply to arbitration discussions, nor does it apply to being an arbitrator. Either he doesn't gain access to the arbitration committee mailing lists and CU/OS, or the arbitration committee will need to split its main mailing list into two; one for 'discussion' and the other for 'private info'. It is doable, if that is what the community decides in this election. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:11, 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))

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• The criteria states:

  To stand as a candidate, an editor must have: be willing and able to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seat.

  It does not say that a candidate must actually identify themselves before taking their seat, just that they must be willing and able to do so. If the community had intended for arbitrators to identify themselves before taking their seat, then the statement would have been written to say that. Maybe in the future policy can be changed so state that candidates must actually identify themselves before taking their seat, but that would have to be a new policy for after this election. The footnote

  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.

  applies only to the access rights. And Giano is not requesting any access rights so that footnote does not apply. Uncle uncle uncle 18:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• • That is wikilawyering. Besides which Giano has said he is not willing. He seems to me to be running at a hurdle rather than jumping over it. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that we both wholeheartedly agree that hurdles are for jumping over! Uncle uncle uncle 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Can anybody link to the discussion where the community established a rule that every arbitrator must verify their identity? My understanding is that identity verification is needed to access the following tools which are coincidentally offered to most arbitrators: Checkuser, Oversight, ArbCom mailing list, ArbCom wiki. If somebody doesn't want access to those tools, presumably they don't need to verify age. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• You've made your bed, now lie in it. The wording of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates is ambiguous, because the apparently clear declaration of identification being an eligibility requirement is linked to a footnote citing WMF policy on access to private data. It is reasonable to expect a candidate to argue that if they publicly say they will do without that access, and are elected on that basis, then the community has endorsed an interpretation of that ambiguous statement compatible with that. Since a candidacy of this type has now been accepted by the election coordinators and permitted to go forward to the voting stage, the only honourable thing to do is to respect the community's wishes as manifested in the election itself. It may be proposed that future elections may be worded unambiguously, such that election coordinators will have no doubts about what to do with such candidacies; but for this election, anyone elected on that basis must be permitted to serve on that basis. Rd232 ^talk 19:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. If Giano is elected after he has unambiguously stated that he will not identify himself, he should be able to serve. Ucucha 19:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that this all comes down to trust. We trust arbitrators to do the right thing, and to be among Wikipedia's most honest, trusted, and forthright users. That is why they are automatically granted access to a powerful privacy-breaching toolset as part of their job. If they are unwilling to return that trust and send a scan of their ID to the Foundation to simply verify their age then they should not be serving on the committee as they would be useless in any case involving a single piece of CU or OS data. As I've said before, trust is a two way street, don't ask for it if you are unwilling to return it. It says something about a candidate that they would continue to even edit Wikipedia while being so paranoid about the motives of the Foundation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, rightly or wrongly, the Foundation only requires that someone with access to the tools - particularly the checkuser tool - is over 18. That's not the same as access to the data. information that identifies an individual arising from CU, oversight or OTRS. Even access to identifying information via RevDel does not require age verification. Giving checkuser to arbs is quite recent I believe. Before that, they relied on a checkuser to tell them what they needed to know. It's really nothing to do with trust at all - it's to do with the foundation covering its arse vis a vis the checkuser tool. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You're incorrect, Elen of Roads; in fact, it is only recently that non-arbitrators have been granted checkuser and oversight permissions. All of the original checkusers and oversighters were arbitrators. Prior to that, the only access to the relevant information was by a WMF-employed developer with shell access. Risker (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Risker. I will stand corrected on that point. I think this nicely illustrates my point from yesterday's dustup though - an organisation needs sufficient rules to be able to govern itself. That this has only become a concern today (and people asked several times before, but were always reassured that there was no problem with Giano running) is an indication (and I know its anathama to some) that we don't have enough organization yet.

It is a good argument to say, "If you don't trust us, why should we trust you?" Fair enough. But if the candidate isn't asking for any access to confidential info, WMF has no need to trust them. If the community deems the person to be suitable for arbitrating disputes, then the community can have them as an arbitrator. Jehochman ^Talk 19:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Jehochman, do you think it's appropriate to start an RfC in the middle of an election wherein a running candidate has stated they shall not WMF-identify to ask if someone can take up the post in that circumstance? –Whitehorse1 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is appropriate. As you can see, we have experienced editors coming down on both sides of the issue. Wikipedia policies are not set in stone and can be changed or clarified at any time. Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. They can, yep. I was wondering if it might prejudice the outcome of the election. –Whitehorse1 19:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Has it been officially/conclusively determined whether the Foundation and/or Jimbo has to "know" one's real life identity? I've read that a WMF employee just looks at one's ID and then destroys it. There's a big difference between age verification and knowledge of one's identity. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[ https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy]1. Only persons whose identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation shall be permitted to have access to any nonpublic data or other nonpublic information produced, collected, or otherwise held by the Wikimedia Foundation, where that data or other information is restricted from public disclosure by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. The important thing to note is that this only relates to "personally identifiable information" (from the privacy policy itself). It does not include info that someone wants to keep private because it is embarassing, or because it says rude things about other people. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I note that there is no specific mention of arbcom, and it reads a bit ambiguous to me. If an arbcom candidate voluntarily eschews seeing nonpublic information, what then? ScottyBerg (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Scotty, that's the $64,000 question. It would be very difficult to arbitrate a COI case, because the real identity of the individual would be a big part of the case. But where the only issue is that an email header might contain personal data, there is the electronic equivalent of the permanent marker pen we use to prevent breaches of confidentiality on occasion, when the only available info also contains other info that the requester has no right to see.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the statement put out by Phillipe Baudoit for the foundation (which I can't find) confirmed that not only does the foundation not retain the info, it doesn't show it to Jimbo either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

We should put this Rfc on hold, until the Arb elections are over & the results are announced. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be a way to maximize drama. No. Let's decide the question now before we know the results. It would have been better yet to decide before the election started, but nobody knew that it would be an issue then. Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Access to nonpublic data policy is a policy decided by the Board of Trustees. If some believe it's ambiguous to any extent, the policy would be changed pertinently by the Board itself to ensure that such a situation that some foresee does not arise. In other words, in the improbable scenario that the editor in question gets elected as an arbitrator, whether or not he/she decides to exercise the access right to non public data, if he/she doesn't comply with the identification rules within 60 days, the editor's access rights will be removed immediately. In the case of arbitrators, the post gives that access right - hence, the editor will be removed from the post. The community here neither has the power to discuss changes to the policy on "Access to nonpublic data", nor has the power to circumvent the same through flank interpretations. In summary, however much we may discuss this here, the fact is that the Board of Trustees will not allow an arbitrator to remain an arbitrator until the identification requirement is met. And I completely agree with their point of view on this. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (interject) First, some may not believe it's ambiguous; your interpretation may merely be wrong. Second, you give a subjective judgement, in my view, by describing the editor in question being elected as "improbable". I think your comment on power of the community is an example of this. –Whitehorse1 19:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • FAIL. The missing link here is that there is no requirement for someone elected to the arbitration committee to have access to non-public data. If the community is willing to elect someone who declares they won't have that access, I don't see how that's any business of the Foundation. Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sadly, it's not that easy. The foundation is specific that personally identifying data which is identified by the foundation (oversight), kept by the foundation (oversight) or revealed to the foundation (OTRS and other private contacts) will only be revealed by the foundation to those who have verified they are over 18. There is no reason to give CU/oversight to arbs, other than convenience. They could rely on a CU to tell them who the socks are, and an oversighter to tell them it was a bad, bad edit. The only cases it would make impossible are COI cases where an editor has emailed in personally identifying data. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. An editor that is unwilling to identify him/herself, is not automatically a user that is going to abuse his/her position. Yes, being an arbcom member is a task that requires a user to be trusted by the community and the foundation, but I believe that most users who know about the arbcom and its election processes, at least thinking about running for election, are trustable users. MikeNicho231 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Like Loosmark? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Was that a response to Wifione? I too would like to keep the 'trust' thing out of it. The foundation has that policy to cover it's own backside - foundation oversees the use of checkuser tool gives users the ability to discover private, personally identifying data, and OTRS invites users and the public to provide private, personally identifying info to the foundation (eg owner releasing copyright, BLP subject requesting removal of potentially libelous statements). It's concern is information that can be regarded as having passed through the foundation's hands. It's not a trust thing at all. Someone could be trusted to arbitrate a case involving say off wiki email correspondence, even if the copies they had came with the real-life identification data blanked out with electronic tippex. WMF makes no statement about info that is private because the individuals want to keep it hushed up, because its embarassing, because they were rude about other editors etc etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Need a policy

From the above discussion it is clear that we need more discussion. I think we need to create a policy stating to what level arbitrators (and functionaries) need to identify (a lot, a little, not at all), and we need to create a process that provides strong security for any confidential information. If people identify, the identities need to be verified, and the info needs to be retained securely. This will enhance accountability. For the moment we have an election to resolve, but there is no reason we cannot work out this issue and set a date when every arbitrator, candidate or functionary needs to comply. At that point, people will either comply, or they'll be excluded.

Why don't we set up a page somewhere to create the needed policy? What should it be called? Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think my comment at 19:27 (UTC) bears on this. –Whitehorse1 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Being "...I was wondering if it might prejudice the outcome of the election...". Yes, I agree it should wait til voting is over. It's only a few days. Rd232 ^talk 20:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As it appears people feel the WMF practice based on the WMFpolicy is deficient, the correct place to discuss this would be at Meta with WMF staff and board members. I do not think it appropriate to have differing practices depending on which WMF project one holds advanced permissions. Is there a reason why people are so hesitant to discuss this at the WMF level? Risker (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not obvious what business it is of the WMF if English Wikipedia wants an arbitrator on ArbCom without access to non-public data. Rd232 ^talk 21:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I think in part Elen of the Roads's point "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." in the manner of discussing it there being premature. Local projects cannot override the WMF policies' clauses (at least certainly those we're (probably) talking about), as you know, of course. –Whitehorse1 21:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Unfortunately, both Elen and Giano are sadly misinformed about the amount of information covered by the privacy policy comes to the attention of, or is used, by arbitrators in the performance of their duties. Checkuser evidence in particular is required in many cases, both arbitration actions and unblock/unban requests, as well as Arbcom-level bans. Oversighted edits are reviewed in many cases; remember, we're dealing with cases of behavioural problems, and highly inappropriate edits can be very significant evidence. Case evidence that links a pseudonymous user to a real-world identity is covered by the privacy policy and is submitted privately. Blocks that are made because of non-public information about a user are either made by Arbcom or referred to the Committee (with the reason for the block) because it is an enduring institution that is cleared to retain such information. All in all, I'd say that privacy-related issues will have a bearing on a good 50-60% of the work. Risker (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think I am. The WMF policy only relates to information that is personally identifying - name, address, job, and the electronic fingerprint of the checkuser. It does not cover information that someone would rather was kept private because it is embarassing and they don't want the other person to find out that they said it. I for one am not trying to override the WMF requirement that those with access to CU, OTRS and other means by which private, personally identifying information might become available to them, must provide proof of age to the Foundation. That is an entirely separate matter. My consideration is that it is not necessary for an Arbitrator to have cu/oversight access. Much of the 'private' information in an arb case does not relate to identifying the individuals involved. Even where it does, the foundation policy provides that:

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations:

1. In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement,
2. With permission of the affected user,
3. When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints,
4. Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues,
5. Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service provider, carrier, or other third-party entity to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers,
6. Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

I would have thought that last catchall covered most concerns.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thoughts:

1. I have already put a bug in WMF's ear about establishing proper security. Yes, their procedures are deficient, but I'm confident they will soon make improvements.
2. The English Wikipedia needs to define the requirements for its arbitrators, not WMF. If the arbitrators want confidential info, they are going to have to satisfy WMF requirements, but I think the two statuses: being an arbitrator, and having access to confidential info, are independent of one another. There may be very good reasons to ask En ArbCom members to identify. If so, it should be no problem to get the community to back that policy. Good reasons for arbitrators to identify might include:
   1. We don't want arbitrators fraudulently claiming to be something they are not. The resulting scandal could damage Wikipedia's reputation.
   2. We don't want arbitrators to violate the law. Identification does wonders for accountability.
   3. We don't want COI infecting the highest level of dispute resolution. If an arbitrator works for Organization X, somebody needs to know that in case the Organization X article comes to arbitration.
   4. We want arbitrators who can look at all aspects of cases, including confidential evidence. It would help for ArbCom members to quantify how often then need confidential access to arbitrate a case.

With Photoshop, I could be anybody

As of now, I am not aware of any community discussion that established the need for arbitrators to identify. Somehow this step seems to have been overlooked. At present we have an identification process that is so weak, it is the equivalent of nothing. If a candidate refuses to go along with our "security theatre", they should not be excluded, because the people who "identify" aren't doing anything more than faxing a copy of some arbitrary identity papers, and this unreliable info isn't being retained. Whether somebody goes through this process or not makes no practical difference. Risker, do you concede the point, or should I explain in even more detail how easy it would be to defeat the existing security? Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just to be clear (because I fear I'm probably gettin' a reputation as a troublemaker), I think it's quite reasonable to ask that Arbitrators make some kind of confirmation, because one can be anyone on the net. My concern is that what we have at the moment doesn't cover that, and I've never been happy covering up cracks with paintings, or kludging together answers. And while WP:BEANS is in full force here, even I could easily "prove" I'm more than one person in the current level of checking.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) As an aside…Philippe, the WMF employee responsible for identification, indicated, if I understand him correctly, with "Once we verify that the identification is for someone who is of legal age …" that, "identification" is in practice somewhat of a misnomer as it's more "age verification". –Whitehorse1 21:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is very much my area of expertise (i.e. my RL job) so to throw a hat into the ring; Elen and Jehochman raise pretty much the critical point. The internet is a very poor trust network; establishing identity in this way is non-trivial, easily gamed and entirely dependant on the honesty of the person. Unless the process is very different from what is implied then there is no way that WMF can outright claim to know the identity (or age) of anyone via this method (although I am sure almost entirely this occurs). So, the question is - do we reject the security theatre for arbs and pressure the WMF to adopt different procedures. Or do we demand a higher standard of identification here on en.wiki for functionary positions? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If we do, we are saying that existing and past functionaries fulfilment of identification requirements was and is below adequate level. All existing functionaries would need to re-identify in the subsequently devised manner as well as all subsequent functionaries thereafter. The extent to which it would impact past 'cases' of any description is just one item of consideration. –Whitehorse1 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The point of such regulations is not to make it foolproof anyways; the point is to be able to hold one accountable when shit hits the fan - or do you think anyone answers "yes" on the form they hand you at the border: "Are you trying to smuggle illegal drugs into the United States? Are you planning to engage in terrorism?..." So no matter what kind of policy you write, anyone who wants to beat it, will. And you won't even prevent any member of ArbComm or anyone else with CU-access to email or snailmail the information obtained to Jon Doe next door. The guy who fed wikileaks was fully known, they even had his photo and birth-certificate. Didn't help, either. Trying to make this more secure is a good idea, but don't dream yourself into thinking you can make it God's door to Heaven. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The point of security is to deter, to make attacks costly, and to encourage the bad guys not to choose you as their target. Jehochman ^Talk 22:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the last one could cover arbitrators, and no. 3 could also do the trick, however using those would institutionalise the practise of WMF private information being given to pseudonymous people who are not known to anyone. I don't think we should contemplate going in that direction even if Giano is elected. Rather we would need to find a way for him to be an arbitrator without having access, until such time as he does identify. Maybe the identification can be outsourced to someone who the WMF and Giano both consider acceptable? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We are getting a number of different things tangled up here.

• The question relevant for the Arbitration function is - does the english wikipedia require that those assigned/elected to investigate and resolve contentious disputes provide a proof of identity. If yes, then 'how is this to be achieved' becomes relevant.
• The question relevant to WMF is - is your procedure for determining identity/age sufficiently effective. If no, then further thought is required.
• The question for this RFC is - was it a requirement that candidates agree to disclose identity. If yes - Giano should not have been allowed to stand, should be removed from the poll (as with Loosmark) and support votes discarded. If no, then it is clearly possible that this candidate may receive sufficent popular support to be considered elected, in which case the prospect of a "constitutional crisis" described much higher up comes into play. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerning #3: In the real world, people have elected dead candidates in the past. People have elected cats running for mayor; obviously that doesn't mean they were then allowed to serve. So just because somebody (or something) gets the vote, doesn't follow that they will be mayor. In our case, it's even clearer: we had a rule from the beginning that was akin to "candidates must be alive and of the species homo sapiens." If a zombie or a dog is put unto the ballot anyways, that might be an indication that - in the future - people want the rules to be changed and allow the undead to govern the town, but that cannot be retroactive.

So I'd just leave him on the ballot and interpret any votes received as a request to discuss changes to current plicy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, we're back to inferring that arbitrators must publicly reveal their personal details in order to be considered for what is, let's face it, a volunteer role on a website that is quite limited in scope. Yes, it keeps us busy, but we do not control content, we don't make policy, we have no fiscal responsibilities, and our only fiduciary responsibility is related to upholding the WMF privacy policy vis-a-vis appointment and removal of checkuser and oversight permissions - in other words, our fiduciary responsibility is to the Foundation, not the project, so their requirements prevail. The most onerous penalty we can apply to any user is banning from the website, and administrators do the same thing every day.

If I'm misreading, and the above proposal does not imply that arbitrators must publicly put their lives on display for the edification of the world, then I have to wonder who exactly you think should be holding on to all this personal information about selected Wikipedians. Is this going back to the "get a lawyer to verify your identity" stuff from before? Sorry, but to me that is the equivalent of telling people they have to pay for the "privilege" of volunteering. Take a look, folks. We had 21 (or was it 22) candidates for 12 seats this year; several have already dropped out and, by the time we count the votes, it would not surprise me to see 17-18 at the final tally. It's already not a very appealing role, highly capable candidates are looking at the demands being placed on arbitrators, and the abuse that they get, and they're saying "no thanks."

Many arbitrators throughout the years have been fully identified to the community at large; there's no evidence that those who were fully identified were any better or worse at the job than those who remained pseudonymous to the community throughout their tenure - or that they were any more or less accountable to the community. Risker (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's rather an arrogant view that displays a deep lack of understanding of what's been said here, not to say disrespectful of the candidate and those who have voted for him. There are several inter-related issues here, none of which you have touched on in your patronising commentary. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that this is the point being made. The point being made is that WMF cannot claim to be certain of the identity/age of a functionary. I don't think anyone is talking about holding onto personal identity; but employing actual age verification checks rather than ones that are, essentially, security theatre. Definitely I would resist the idea of anyone having their personal identity made public, or even retained at WMF. Risker, I am certain that you and the others provided real information - but WMF would be inaccurate if they claimed to have verified your age. Because it depends on trust in yourselves. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, Errant, that is a discussion to have with the WMF, and to ask them to fit that into their spending priorities. Formal age verification checks of all of those individuals currently holding advanced permissions will cost a few hundred thousand dollars, and it will have to remain a budgetary line item in the future. What happens if a project elects more checkusers but the budget for age verification is already expended? When this goes to the WMF, then this will be an important point to address. Risker (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite. I've legitimately got valid identity documents for four adult females and one adult male in my house. If I hadn't insisted on telling everyone I'm a woman with grown up kids, I might have been tempted to send in in a scan of one of the other passports (assuming I were ever elected) because the photos are a sight less embarrassing than the one on mine (I genuinely look like I've been reanimated by a voodoo practitioner). So as a security practice, what they do sucks chunky goat vomit. But that's not the relevant issue for this RfC, and MHO we haven't quite managed to answer that question yet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that (although there is no need to go to such lengths). The point of raising this is simply to point out the absurdity of requiring arbitrators to go through fake checks. WMF requires those checks before handing out access to specific things, fine. But as pointed out this is only in relation to a small subset of data (personally identifiable information) and I am sure this could be overcome with little effort. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it could too. I've had to supply data with personal identifying information obliterated with a marker pen before now many times. The only time it would be a total block is if as part of a case editor x insists that editor y is really Professor Plum, and the foundation has information on the subject from an OTRS ticket say, or a cu confirming that the edits come from Plum's university (although that;s not a cracking lot of proof of identity!). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And I am of the opinion even in these cases that getout 6 above - Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. would do perfectly well as grounds to hand the information that editor y really is Plum over.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Possibly relevant fact: Information that is covered under the privacy policy was received and/or gathered in 8 of the 12 cases closed so far in 2010. That is just the cases, and does not include any of the unban/unblock requests or other matters that the Committee has addressed. Risker (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think that's very helpful. Personally identifying information sent to individuals is not covered by the foundation policy, so I assume this is all info sent/gathered through 'official wmf channels'. I suppose the question is - was it essential/desirable/relevant/not relevant in making a decision in those 8 cases. It would be interesting if most cases did hinge on the personal identification of the individuals involved - I wonder if it would make people more wary of going into arbitration. If on the other hand, the disclosure was primarily people emailing from a work account, or declaiming that of course they are right because they are Professor Foo, then it's more marginal (particularly the second, as arbcom should be considering on-wiki behaviour, not who one is IRL) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Some involved detailed checkuser reviews relating to allegations of sockpuppetry or other inappropriate use of alternate accounts, others involved submission of private correspondence (including evidence of off-wiki harassment), still others involved evidence that linked one or more parties to real life identities. At least one involved suppressed edits. Some involved two or more of these. Last year, the EEML case entirely revolved around private information - correspondence that revealed personally identifying information about a large number of editors. Risker (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Who could forget that one. I am surprised - its often not immediately obvious from the cases that it spills over that far into real life. I see much more now your point about the need to be able to see this stuff. It may also explain why these are such intractable disputes - because there is a real-life element that's not coming out in on wiki exchanges. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Risker. Would it be possible for an arbitrator to provide a table that describes which type of private data was involved in these cases? It could be aggregated if linking the name of the case and type of private data is too revealing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note that in the past I have been a strong critic of Jimbo and when he does or does not have the right to take actions within the community. But in this matter, I support the idea that Jimbo has the final decision on arbitrators. If the community banded together and made a silly decision, like saying that a banned user, a child, a felon, Britney Spears, or someone who's never been an editor should be on ArbCom, I don't care if that person got the majority of the votes or not, Jimbo or someone else from the WMF has the right to step in with a sanity check and say, "Um, no." This quibbling about identification is just a side issue: The core element here is whether someone who is grossly unsuitable for the committee could be forced into a position of authority through some bizarre wiki-politicking. The fact that we have someone at the WMF to make the final decision is one of the checks and balances for the entire process. Now, if Jimbo does reject someone who received a majority vote, I would expect Jimbo (or whoever) to clearly explain their reasoning. As for this specific issue regarding identification, it's a valid concern as to the sensitive information that arbitrators have access to, and I support the idea that arbitrators should be required to identify themselves to the WMF. But even if identification were not the issue here, I would still support Jimbo's right to reject a candidate, even if that candidate had received a majority of the votes. --Elonka 23:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. IF the candidate were grossly unsuitable and it was somehow clear that the community had made a horrible mistake. However given that this candidate (Giano) ran before, and got a lot of support, if this candidate passes this time I think it would be hard to argue that the community doesn't know what it's doing. You're right, Jimbo retains the ability to reject Giano's win. I just don't think it would be wise, if he did win, to reject it. Because the other side of this coin is that while I don't personally think it's efficient, it's doable to have an arb who only votes on what they can see publicly. They would be autorecused from anything that the rest of the committee dealt with and would have to take the word of the rest of them that yes, there was something private that required special handling. So they wouldn't be participating in a lot of the scutwork that other arbs do which really is kind of unfair to the other arbs. But take the CC case for example. I don't see a lot of need for private testimony in cases like that one. We need to unconflate the issues here. Policy is what we do, not what is written. If the voters vote him in, seat him. Then deal with making it work. Then get policy to catch up. ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, a banned user account by nature is withdrawn much as happened during this election, it seems uncontested that a child (i.e. under 18) can't be on ArbCom, and someone who's never been an editor couldn't have made the requisite 1,000 mainspace edits. Oh, and Leave Britney Alone! ;) –Whitehorse1 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oy vey. This whole thing is a mess. While, as a coord, I cannot publicly endorse or oppose any candidates, it is rather clear what my opinion on GiacomoReturned is. That being said, I have no problem with him writing proposals and voting in cases, assuming he gets elected. I would have a big problem if he had access to any of the mailing lists, including the Arbcom list, or CU, or OS, or OTRS, or even admin powers, unless he identified. The policy seems clear to me. Identify thyself, period. Giacomo knew the policy when he signed up, he knew that this whole debate above would happen, and he has succeeded in forcing us to tackle the issue. Congratulations are in order, it was well played, and maybe good will come of this debate. That's irrelevant however, to his status. Again, one must identify themself, period. This is not the time to be changing this policy. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what your opinion is. If it IS clear to many (even if I missed it) then you may not be doing your best coordinating... ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you mention "admin" in that list of permissions. I am pretty sure I recall a non-admin on another language wiki's arbitration committee who was given the admin bit while on arbcom, to see deleted revisions among other things. I don't see why the same wouldn't work here, should a non-admin get elected to arbcom. And it might actually be better to resolve some of these possibilities while they are still just possibilities; arguing about them after the election, if they became actualities, would be different. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to policy, the proposed new ArbCom policy explicitly requires sitting Arbitrators to be able to receive nonpublic data - that is, to identify. That sentence could perhaps be tightened, but it would unquestionably be wikilawyering to claim that it does not require, in spirit, candidates to identify. Happy‑melon 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The absurdity here is that we all have access to "nonpublic data", arbitrators or not. Have none of us ever had an email from another editor? The dishonesty here therefore ought to be self evident. Arbitrators are apparently relying on a secret subset of available evidence. How can that possibly be justified? Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Answer me this

• A. WMF policy is that access to non-public data requires age verification using a not terribly reliable method
• A1. we might discuss strengthening the method
• B. Arbcom members are normally given access to non-public data
• C. Someone elected to Arbcom on the public premise of not following B. (i.e. having no access to non-public data) should still be subject to A.

Why C? Rd232 ^talk 00:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple, and quite predictable. Because Jimmy Wales has decided that no matter what Giano will never be an arbitrator. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, that's not true and you know it, cut the dramamongering, we have enough drama already. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what I may or may not know. I suggest that in lieu of being able to read my mind you consider checking your facts. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose he check your claim? Rd232 ^talk 01:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

By looking at the comments made by Mr Wales on his talk page. I'm no more a mind reader than Sven is, I just go by what people say. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Because it's impractical to enforce (note: I didn't say impossible). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know about that. Risker makes some points above that suggests C is not as easy an option to implement in practice as one might think; it might involve a lot of recusal. And certainly an entire Arbcom unable to access non-public data wouldn't work! But one or two - if that's what the community wants, it should be tried. If it's seen in practice that it doesn't work, then the person can still decide then to identify or to resign, with the next person in the election in terms of votes being the obvious one to ask to step in if they resign. Rd232 ^talk 00:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I support A1, the trick is to do it in a secure way and not to scare people off. As to C, a large part of the reason is that people who serve on ArbCom need to be at an age where legally they can act without having to seek the consensus of an adult guardian. (i.e. the age that they can sign contracts etc.) This is partially for the protection of the project in the event of a lawsuit, partially to comply with various laws that govern children and the internet, and partially out of a desire for capable and mature individuals. At the very least, assuming people don't forge IDs, this satisfies the first two of those objectives. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"capable and mature" should be taken care of by the election process. The points about legal responsibility seem merely to open a particular nasty can of worms. Are Arbs legally responsible for Arbcom decisions? If not, what difference does it make if they're a wise 17 vs a dumb 19? Rd232 ^talk 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

^anchorEarlier reluctance over having this discussion (wondering if it might prejudice the outcome of the election), seems moot since it has continued; that ship has sailed. Below is in response to Elen of the Roads's 3 bullets.

First bulletpoint: The contention that it does, among those who contend that, is predicated on the statement of Jimbo Wales. Placing that to one side for the moment, it would need to be determined a) does the Foundation mandate requirement(s) applicable to this matter from which local projects cannot deviate. b) if the Foundation does not, do any local requirements de facto or de jure exist that bind the English Wikipedia to require "identification."

Second bulletpoint: This is an important point, albeit independent of the present election.

Third bulletpoint: Agree with most; the last part, if the answer's no, would mean there is no "constitutional crisis", assuming of course the requirement isn't being implemented post-opening of the polls. ...

... Notwithstanding the comments here, which may in any case not apply in the specific case of ArbCom appointment cf. extent, if any, to which his role there is ceremonial only, James Wales junior has said the "policy" is can be seen here, that underpins his belief & understanding as to existence of a requirement.

In elections of 2009 - following close of polling appointments were announced "ceremonially" (though see rest of that comment). Also possibly helpful: Kylu's (a (comparitively new at the time) steward) interpretation for CU-access was "in accordance with the Board Resolution:Access to Non-Public Data, we require acknowledgment and proof of identity and evidence of age of majority"; by contrast, see Philippe's more recent statement.

The matter of identifying and its origin... The 2009 election included "Editors will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats" by link with "per this thread" to the 2008 opening of elections/nominations where the then position was "There is a good chance that any person wishing to sit for Arbcom may need to identify to WMF. Of course the majority of Arbitrators do, but at present it is not a requirement that a user will do so." I think it's...not unreasonable to describe that discussion as inconclusive and filled with "mays".

That discussion in turn was based out of a 2007 discussion, on age (I understand that can't be reasonably deemed to affect the candidate in question). The same 2 "requirements" were listed in the 2010 election page, but now they've come to be cited to the Foundation's Access to nonpublic data policy, last updated summer 2007.

So that's clear as mud then. –Whitehorse1 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Section break

• Four comments:

• The above is tl;dr. We're not getting anywhere reasonable as far as I can tell, or until I started getting bored by the useless banter and drama.
• The WMF is not changing its stance on identification/access to nonpublic data.
• Socking is irrelevant of identification. Didn't we have an issue with that a few years ago, where someone identified with two different IDs and it wasn't picked up until much later? (Was that Runcorn/Poetlister?)
• If you want to be an arb, but don't want to identify, you don't get to see the fun stuff. Is it bad that an arb won't be involved in a lot of internal discussion, then? Well, maybe, but just let the community vote. If the community thinks it's OK for an arb to only deal with material not requiring identification, that's consensus. If not, they don't elected. Simple as that.

Now can we please keep this discussion on track with a clear focus on the topic? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to be snotty, Fetchcomms. –Whitehorse1 03:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've not read most of the above discussion, so where was I snotty? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

1st sentence, 1st bullet. Maybe final sentence. –Whitehorse1 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How is "Four comments" snotty? I always like to keep things brief and to the point. It's much easier to read. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, did you mean the first indented bullet? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec/d) 1st sentence of the1st bullet I meant. (after e/c) Yep, indented. –Whitehorse1 03:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt that was snotty, but I just don't like tl;dr discussions in which half the people are here to cause drama instead of resolve the issue. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Before seeing this I was going to say, perhaps I was oversensitive, tend to see tl;dr in general as saying 'haven't read what's written; it's your fault; going to comment anyway', and strike the comment in the sense of either way and in the interests of collegiality doing so might promote progress. Having read that, I'm not sure I agree, but I'll go with my first instinct nonetheless. P.S. I thought we were making progress. For example, we established that in 2008, per a serving arb there wasn't a requirement arising from the access to nonpub. data policy to identify, yet in 2010 the elections page asserts there is, although the policy is unchanged since 2007. Oh well. –Whitehorse1 04:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is more visceral than that; non-administrators should not become arbitrators, as they haven't got the trust of the community, even though many administrators don't have the trust of the community either. The trust thing is a convenient fiction though. Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote on the same principle (if you don't know what it's like to be an admin, it's extremely unlikely that you should be an arbitrator ...) but I doubt any formal restriction would be passed as many people disagree. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me. I was being satirical. Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think you supported that view, but I have a crappy sarcasm-dar :/ Although I would support a very small number of non-admins (coincidentally, one being you) in an arbcom election, obviously not every random non-admin would be elected in the end. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It may seem to you like I'm being contrarion just for the sake of it, but I do understand the argument that all arbitrators should be administrators. Who knows, if RfA ever cleaned up its act I may even agree with that view. Malleus Fatuorum 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I see no reason an arbitrator needs to be an admin, if he or she exhibits the significant amount of "clue". One does not need to be an admin to have good judgment (I can think of many non-admins whose judgment I trust more than other admins). In any of these elections/RfX's, the character of the person is key, at least IMO. Now, certain roles do require access to privileged information, which is separate and distinct from having any wiki maintenance toolkits. -- Avi (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

One very obvious problem is that we plebs can't see deleted content, so following some discusions is impossible. Malleus Fatuorum 04:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but deleted content <> private, so the non-admin can be informed of what the content is. -- Avi (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

One point, Fetch, and that it has certainly been de facto, if not de jure policy for Jimbo not to appoint people to ArbCom without prior identification. There is no indication that policy has changed. The fact the Giano is running now, under the current guidelines, just means that should he be elected in this round, Jimbo will only appoint him an arb after he identifies to the foundation. The fact that people vote for him, and want him to be an arb sans identification indicates that we should address the issue after these elections--certainly not during them. It is similar to Loosmark, even if he gets the most votes of anyone, policy and accepted practice does not allow him to be elected. Same with Giano; accepted practice requires prior identification. One cannot take an election for arbitration and mid-stream change it to a referendum on identification. That requires its own discussion/vote. I think we do need to have that discussion, if not outright referendum, but that should happen after this election. Wikipedia is not Nomic. -- Avi (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I agree. We shouldn't change the policy, written or not, mid-election, and we should have a discussion on this. Now, I think it's OK to have the discussion now, but it'll only affect next years' election and beyond, not this year's. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no rule that prevented Giano from standing, and there is no rule that prevents him from being appointed if elected. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no written rule, but there is Jimbo's objection, and he'll probably win, whether I voted for Giano or not. But there's no guarantee he'll actually win. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Malleus. There is no reason Giano cannot be appointed if elected if he follows the accepted practice of the last number of years which is that Jimbo waits until the identification comes in. It is completely up to Giano. Now, if we want to change the practice/policy/consensus which has been in place for years, we can, but that requires its own process/discussion/vote. -- Avi (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "accepted practice" to follow in the case of a candidate who doesn't want and won't be given the secret powers that require identification. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. The fact that it has never hit the radar screen before doesn't mean it did not exist. -- Avi (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on this, Jimbo Wales' opinion is rather simplistic, and self-serving. Because it has become the custom that all arbitrators have access to confidential information that some of them ought not to have access to then it's assumed that they all want access to the same trough. Why assume that they're all equally corrupt? Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It clearly says that people must identify themselves. If you don't like that, you should've started this discussion, I don't know, maybe, before the election started? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(x2 e/c) You seem to be ignoring much of which was said in the discussion above (Avi), before this subsection. Maybe that's not the case, but it's an impression I can't help inferring from your comment. –Whitehorse1 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps; I've been involved in this conversation over three pages is it now? So maybe I'm not keeping track of every comment. I'm fallible, no question :). However, that does not change the fact that an election for arbitrators cannot morph into a referendum on identification. The latter needs its own discussion. -- Avi (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh of course, I'm fallible myself! I was thinking of just this RfC though? As to your last points, be that as it may, it, well, seems like more of begging the question / proof by assertion or whatever it is, about mandatory identification. –Whitehorse1 05:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather any RfC-discussion about this be placed on hold until after the elections. It's sort-of moot as the elections will be over before the RfC, but something of this magnitude should have a build-up and perhaps a site notice, and certainly not be run concurrently with an election--in my opinion :) -- Avi (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's similar to what I said ten hours ago (19:12/19:27 UTC), but per my comment five hours ago (00:56 UTC) that ship's probably sailed now. Still, it's good we're thinking along some similar lines. :) –Whitehorse1 05:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

GMTA ;) -- Avi (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Avi. We've required identification for ArbCom for the last few elections. If we want to change that, the time to do it is not during an election on a page people might not be watching. We can hold a wiki-wide RfC in the New Year to clarify things for the next election. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@Malleus; actually there is a written rule - it's on the candidates page under "elegibility": To stand as a candidate, an editor must... ...be willing and able to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seat Giano openly failed this criteria and should have been disqualified. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) Per Slim; but I see no way out of indentification. It is essential that the Committee as a whole be able to discuss matters that are best kept private for a whole host of reasons—legality, fairness to individuals, protection of the project, are just three. Giano, if he were elected, should have no problem on principle in identifying, just as have other successful candidates over the years. I'm sorry, but the notion that Giano has been around for years and is "obviously" an adult holds no water. We need to be tight about this, otherwise we'll nxt be faced with a case close to the boundary and an argument based on precedence. Tony (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If age verification is the the basis for "identification", then could someone not produce a notarized statement that "on this date, the person in control of account X is older than age Y". Notarized statements are frequently used in government processes concerning non-residents (and sometimes residents, when a language translation is involved). Gimmetoo (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@Errant; the page cites that rule to the nonpub. data policy though, which in 2008, per a serving arb imposed no requirement arbs identify; for the 2010 elections page to assert it does now, when the policy sits unchanged since 2007, is remarkable. additionally, it may be worth examining who inserted the criteria and on precisely what basis. –Whitehorse1 10:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal position

I'm suddenly seeing a lot of talk about legal liability of individual arbitrators coming in here. The only law I know any thing about is UK law, particularly the UK data protection act. As neither the Wikimedia nor Wikipedia servers are in the UK, this isn't a great deal of help, because our data security laws (we don't have privacy laws per se) don't apply. Can anyone who knows more outline the legal position re personal data for the WMF and Wikipedia.

Since neither "wikipedia" nor "arbcom" exists as a legal entity, individual arbs would be legally responsible in civil law for the foreseeable consequences of any decison, as they are the only legal entities around to sue. What decisions they might make that would have sueable consequences, was I think indicated by an event where the public notification of a decision was contested by the subject of the decision, who argued that as he was known by his RL identity, and the decision impugned his trustworthiness with confidential information, it was a libel. There is certainly a perception around the world that in the US you can sue anyone for anything, but I have no idea if a lawsuit would have succeeded. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

US online privacy law is very vague. By comparison our (UK) data protection laws are quite strict (and some, like in Germany, are insane). THe simplest way to put it is this; as long as they publish a privacy policy outlining what private data may be collected and how it is handled that is fine. I don't think this is a massive issue now. The only reason I really joined the legal-position bandwagon was to show that there was no real security in it and so we shouldn't put a strong stock in "identification" of our arbs EDIT: although I should point out that the access to non-public data policy has wording that sufficiently vagueifys the act of identification to make it ok :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but any risk of legal action should be tempered by the fact that, in practice, it is almost impossible to sue an individual editor. It sounds funny to see it this way, but such improbability is one benefit of the unstable legal situation WRT the Internet and its multi-jurisdictional reach. A movie star with a gazillion dollars to waste on lawyers, plus a willingness to wait for years and years, might just have a chance if they have a very very solid case in pursuing an editor. My reading of the situation is that pigs with wings are more likely.

However, the issue of identifying to the Foundation is quite different. Tony (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, for practical purposes suing an individual editor is not going to happen - and, anyway, identifying to the foundation does not affect that at all. It's, I'd suggest, an unrelated issue. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the two are not related - after all, the site could quite legally insist on a credit card number before allowing people to join. What I was trying to ascertain on the privacy side was this. In the UK, an employee of a company which is a data holder can be found guilty of a criminal offence if they misuse personal data collected by their employer. This does not apply to a volunteer worker - the data holder can be prosecuted but the volunteer cannot. I was interested in whether there was a legal position with regard to data - there won't be AFAIK for Wikipedia, because US law doesn't have a criminal offense that might apply, but I couldn't recall where WMF servers are located, and as someone said, german data/privacy laws are insane, and might well encompass prosecuting a volunteer. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions

Here's what I take away from this discussion:

1. There was no community discussion establishing the age verification for arbitration committee candidates. The requirement appears to have been produced by fiat of WMF. They own Wikipedia, and ultimately can make whatever rules they want. (I'd like to see a policy document formally presented by them for the sake of precision and to end all doubts about the origin of this requirement.)
2. Once the age/identity requirement is verified by WMF, we the election coordinators need to enforce it in the future. There is no point in allowing somebody to run who will not comply with policy as established by the site owners.
3. The way WMF has been handling age verification has been weak. Taking a fax copy of ID, and then throwing it out, does nothing to stop a bad actor. This process merely inconveniences those who are honest. The identifications should involve the candidates presenting original IDs to somebody, such as a local notary, WMF staff, or an already-verified functionary. One of these trusted agents can certify a copy that is then mailed. (Cost where I live would be $5 for notarization and postage. Notaries here require proper identification, and can certify "This is a true copy" of a document.)
4. If the community does not want to have ID verification, there should be a discussion after the election. If the community's wishes and WMF dictates are in conflict, there should be a discussion between representatives of both sides to reach an agreement.
5. One candidate has run on a platform that he will not identify. WMF has every right to reject this candidate if he wins, but doing so would probably be very damaging to the community, and I hope that some sort of compromise can be reached that avoids such a result. On this go around, the rules were not at all clear, as evidenced by the number of experienced editors coming down on both sides of the issue, and the fact that none of the election coordinators suggested disqualifying the candidate.
6. If identification requirements are tightened, it would be expected that all functionaries would comply, or else lose their position.

Thank you for your input. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a requirement that ArbCom members identify for at least two years. This was the result of numerous discussions, and my memory is the only sticking point was whether they should identify before standing, or only before taking up a place. To shift the goalposts mid-election would be inappropriate for many reasons, including that it would be unfair to other editors who decided not to stand based on the current criteria.

I think it's fairly clear that a wiki-wide discussion would require that Arbs identify, and not only to show they're over 18, which is a bit of a red herring. We do need to have an RfC about the issue of the Foundation not retaining the ID, which arguably makes the process pointless, and which I don't think the community is aware of. So let's have that RfC in 2011 in time for next year's election. But let's at least nod in the direction of good governance by not changing the election criteria halfway through the voting. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Given the discussions above, it's unclear where #1 sentence 2 comes from. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 13:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It emerged from discussions in numerous places, and a growing understanding, a meme, that having Arbs known only as User:X and User:Y, and otherwise entirely unidentified, was an odd thing for a top-ten website to be doing. But no matter how the meme was born, it exists. The election was structured around it, and people are voting in accordance with it as we speak. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of people are voting on the basis that it's a piece of nonsense and of course Giano should be elected, a lot of other people are voting on the basis that they wouldn't touch the chap with a bargepole even if he turns out to be Prince Charles, a lot of people are voting on the basis that they haven't a clue what this identification thing is about anyway. It's about as clear as mud, which is the problem. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. –Whitehorse1 13:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c with Elen!) So very vague. A belief that something is or repeating something a certain number of times does not make it so. Nor vice versa, of course! The above-linked staff member revelation that identification amounts to age verification with no subsequent record retained suggests oddity prevails. When the statements are looked at on closer inspection, they've often turned out to be circular; 'per this' leading to a contradictory statement that claims no requirement exists, asserting the basis is per x, where previous positions were x says something else, etc. A house of cards? –Whitehorse1 13:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what all the best WP policies are: widespread community understanding, sometimes explicit, sometimes not, where it's hard to trace the exact origin of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Discloure, now that you have all finished. contrary to speulation above, I am not Prince Charles, although, like him, I do have very large ears - which is why I hear so much. I don't want acess to CU or OS (I'm not good with gadgets) and I'm not that bothered about the Arb's list as I have great faith in my own judjement and perception and furhtermore I don't like secrets, allthough I am very good at keeping them. However, I gave up playing James Bond when I was 11, which was sadly a lot longer then seven years ago. Finally, if its so important for an arb to identify, why does one of the most respected Arbs, NewYorkbrad say it's not necessary in his opinion? Tempted as I am to solve this quandary for you all, and send in a doctored passport or photo of Silvio Berlusconi (as I could simply do to solve this) I'm not even goint to pretend to identify. people can vote, or not vote, for me on what they know of me. Besides which, I Have no great expectations of polling enough votes anyway.  Giacomo  14:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin. Exactly. A house of cards. I know some people think it's clever, but really, honestly, all it does is make the organisation look like a zoo. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(Responding only to Jehochman's summary above): Whatever the precise historical roots of the policy, I can say with very high confidence that it was not imposed by fiat by the Wikimedia Foundation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but then where is the discussion or genesis of this? It would really help if everything were linked. By the way, I think there is nothing wrong with fiat. Ownership has it's privileges. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We risk confusing several different things here. If the sole purpose of identity verification is to ensure that our arbs are adult then there is no need to retain any info, other than that a trusted party has certified that the individual controlling an arb account is of legal age. I don't see that we gain much by this, but then I'm less worried that a teenager might sneak onto Arbcom than some might be. If the identity is going to be retained by the office then we open up several extra cans of worms, in particular we risk external lawsuits seeking the identity of individual Arbs - at the moment the office can decline such requests because it doesn't have the data (I believe that's why checkusers only have access to 3 months data). We also gain the possibility of checking whether the Arb has done something that would bring Wikipedia into disrepute should it be revealed who they were; Imagine the press response if we said "yes we knew they were an an Arb as the Prison Governor countersigned the proof of ID, but being in open prison is no barrier to Arbcom provided you have Internet access". I agree it would make sense to have an RFC on this after the election, but I'd prefer that we start from the angle of deciding what we want to use this identity information for, and then decide whether we need to retain it and how sure we want to be that it is legit. ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think tossing the info does little to discourage a well-funded plaintiff. They will subpoena the server logs, get the IP, subpoena the ISP who owns that IP, and get the user's identity. Pseudonyms provide a very false sense of security. If you want protection from lawsuits, buy insurance. Perhaps our arbitrators should ask WMF for such protection. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

@Werespielchequers - Yes, because the editor above has expressed recently the view that the current process would have prevented the issue with Sam Blacketer, and I can see absolutely no way that flashing a passport at Phillipe would have achieved that end. I don't think we are 100% clear whether what we are asking for is that arbs should provide evidence to WMF employee that they are of full age (which is all that is done at the moment), whether the WMF should record the identity of arbs, or whether Mr Wales himself should know the identity of arbs.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fully conversant with the Sam Blacketer saga, but I don't see how providing his real life identity would expose his prior admin identity. Yes it would prevent a disgraced arb returning to Arbcom under a new identity, but I'm not convinced that is a likely scenario. ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There were two aspects - that he had a previous account, and that he turned out to be a UK politician. The current setup would address neither issue. Indeed, only the policy on socking would address the first issue, as it is claiming onwiki ownership of an account, rather than the RL identity of the account holder, that is the issue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The current trend towards identification of some sort may have come from user:essjay/RFC, who had access to all the WMF private data available behind Oversight and Checkuser tools from April 2006 until march 2007.[5] Age verification may have prevented that, but again fake identification is still a possibility. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

All this would be so much easier if someone, anyone, would link us to the discussion that produced this so-called "policy" that mandates all arbcom members must identify. Jimbo keeps saying that it's policy and Slim waves her hand at some vague "discussions" but no one has actually linked to any of these discussions. If the Foundation made it clear that you have to identify, that's fine and dandy, but someone please link us to the statement. All I want to be able to do is to read the discussion or statement for myself. Having Jimbo run around saying something is so does not make it so. Just tell us who made the decision and let us see how that decision was made. Tex (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be worst: Giacomo may decide (if elected) to present his birth-certificate & then suddenly the birthers show up to dispute it. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tex, many wikipedia "practices" are the result of an evolution of how things have been done for the past x-number of years. As Jimbo is the only person who appoints arbitrators, I think his explanations are sufficient. If the project wishes to have a referendum to change practice, that's great. The day after the new arbs are appointed, someone should set up a discussion page and a site notice; the discussion should run for about 30 days, and then we can have an RfC to determine if there is consensus to allow a non-identified arb, who perforce, must be excluded from any and every discussion which includes private information (that is foundation policy, and cannot be changed on any project by itself). -- Avi (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

SV clearly said that the policy "emerged from discussions in numerous places", yet as Tex says, no links to any discussion have been produced. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a written policy. There is, of course, Jimbo's own statement on his talk page, and apparently that's law for this year. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Jimbo and Slim are using the wrong word when they say "policy". Since no one can show where/when/how this practice came into being, it's kind of hard to determine whether the practice should be continued. When I first asked to be pointed to the policy, we had lots of people jump in with links to the foundation's access to private data policy. Is that the reason all arbs now have to identify? Since Giano doesn't want access to private data, that policy doesn't apply to him. I would honestly like to know why the decision was made to have all arbs identify. Unless and until someone links to where the decision was made, we are just doing something because that's the way it's always been done. Now I'm just an old country boy that puts a lot of stock in tradition, but even I know that progress doesn't happen by continuing to do the same thing just because that's the way it's always been done. Why not let Giano serve if he is elected and we see how it works? The only reason I can see is that Jimbo and lots of other vocal people don't like Giano. If it were Slim or someone of that ilk, would we be having this conversation? Tex (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if Slim were running for Arbitrator and saying that she would refuse to identify, I would be equally as firm about it. This is not about Giano, this is about doing things the right way. I am not free to change the rules on a whim in the middle of an election, and I won't.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly about "Giano". [...] Do correct me if I'm wrong.  Giacomo  21:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've copied some of the discussions I've seen about this to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Identification in case it helps to see the evolution of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Slim, that was very helpful. Reading all of that, it apparently was decided on by arbcom after discussion on their private mailing list. I was under the impression that arbcom did not make policy, but if they want to decide who can join their private club, I guess I can't complain too loudly. And Jimbo, please stop with all the rhetoric about "changing the rules on a whim". If you look at the discussion linked by Slim, you will see that the arbcom did just that in the middle of the 2007 election. I finally have what I was looking for (thanks again, Slim) so I will shut up about it. Tex (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite right Tex. Making policy is not within the Arbitratiom committeee's remit. In that diff, James Forrester has confused which hat it is he is wearing - for him, an easy mistake - very easy...... So it's completely null and void.  Giacomo  21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And I should note that their "mandate" was about underage arbs, not adult arbs that refuse to indentify. Apparently that just got thrown in there during all the discussions. Tex (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Read everything over (atleast what I could understand). If an elected Arb candidate refuses to provide 'any' personal info to the Foundation, they can't be seated. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right Tex, the access to nonpublic data policy is the reason why arbitrators now have to identify. The policy does not necessarily apply to arbitrators, of course, just to any arbitrator subscribing to arbcom-l (where the vast majority of communication and coordination occurs) or functionaries-l, or having an account at the Committee wiki, or participating in the Audit Subcommittee, or participating in any case where nonpublic data was involved (which is surprisingly often). The issue of what to do with an arbitrator who doesn't want to identify has never come up, because as we well know, all arbitrators are power-thirsty megalomaniacs who would not want to exclude themselves from 90% of the Committee's business :) --bainer (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Age and liability

Out of curiosity, does it really matter if a sitting arb is underage? I'm reading a lot of talk about sensitive information and legal issues but can't really think of a situation where WMF would be forced to indemnify someone because a sitting arb happened to be underage. Even ignoring age, are there liability issues associated with arbcom's actions? --RegentsPark (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Most is probably explored here. Long convo, but can't think of a particular part that stands out as a link target. –Whitehorse1 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really answer my question about some circumstance where WMF could be sued because there was an underage arbitrator. Assuming a situation does arise, can WMF say 'we asked everyone for an id so we're free and clear'. Seems simplistic to me, especially considering that a 4 year old kid is considered to have enough responsibility to be sued anyway ([6]). The questions are: what sort of arbcom action would open WMF to some sort of liability; what protection does age-identification (a weak one at that) provide WMF; and, if WMF is protecting itself, then who will be liable instead? --RegentsPark (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. There's a difference between someone being able to be sued for negligence or having a duty of care, and being able to enter into a contract oral or written. (IANAL.) Incidentally, it's pretty much uncontested as far as I'm aware that <18 yr olds are ineligible. See Risker's ArbCom candidates FAQ for more on being sued. –Whitehorse1 17:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really hard for a specific editor to be sued, and it's unlikely the WMF will be sued for an underage arbitrator. We have to realize that just because one is underage doesn't restrict them from opening up their own wiki, checkusering every account registered, etc. Of course, arbcom deals with much more than just CUing people, but why would an underage person even want to get involved with this? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't sue an underage abritrator, as it is not a legal entity. Arbitrators are just specially trusted Wikipedia users given a task by the foundation. In addition, WMF has got lawyers who take care of such matters. MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Other way round. You can't sue wikipedia because it's not a legal entity. You could sue a 17 yo arb (if you could find a tort to sue him in) - being underage doesn't prevent you being sued (or indeed convicted of a criminal offence of course). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the big deal with underage arbitrators?

I wonder, what's the big deal with underage arbitrators? It's what you do in the role that matters, not if you are "old" enough. A 16-17 year old can be just as mature, possibly even more mature than a 20 year-old. COPPA does not apply for over-13s. I can't see any big reason that anybody will post a legal claim against the WMF. Why can't under 18s be arbitrators? MikeNicho231 (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It may not satisfy the normative questions, but causally speaking, this is why. Skomorokh 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be comfortable, knowing a minor was an Arbitrator; no matter how precocious the minor was. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The question that needs to be asked of the project…

…after these elections is not whether or not arbitrators need to identify. The need for identification depends, almost exclusively I believe, on the foundation's policy that has been referenced here umpteen and seven times. The question that we, as a community, need to answer is whether or not we are comfortable with two classes of arbitrator:

1. Arbitrators who have access to private data and can discuss, debate, and deliver rulings on all requests placed in front of them.
2. Arbitrators who must be excluded from a significant portion, if not most (in 2010 it was around 2/3), of the requests placed in front of them.

To say that we will have arbitrators who are not subject to the foundation's policy is unacceptable, obviously. Also, to redefine the arbitrator role completely is similarly impossible, as most of the discussions do include the need to access private information. The question is, is there a desire for an "arbitrator-lite", as it were, with a limited scope of cases in which to partake, but given full weight within that scope.

There are pros and cons to both methods, with most of the pros for single-class being the con for dual-class and vice-versa. Here are a few:

• Single-Pro/Dual-Con:
  • All arbitrators are equally available to rule on every case
  • Current infrastructure is adequate
  • No need to segregate cases, e-mail lists, wikis, and other information streams
  • Less concern about accidental release of data about those being discussed
• Single-Con/Dual-Pro:
  • General atmosphere that too much "secret" dealings occur and that having someone not privy to such information on the panel may alleviate that concern
  • Less chance of arbitrator personal data being released by the foundation

These are the questions we need to discuss, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This simple answer is that if Giano is elected on a platform of not-identifying or hearing evidence in private, than the community accepts it. DC T•C 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, DC, you cannot pick-and-choose what Giano stands or falls on. The community's votes on Giano will be based on his history, personality, skillset, and platform—not the one issue you select. -maclean (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We have this problem a lot in business: somebody comes up with an interesting question and there's no way to know the right answer in advance. The best strategy is to run a careful test, check the results, and then make a decision. In the present election, the community might elect a "2nd class" arbitrator. If that happens we will see how that affects the process. Fear of the unknown should not prevent progress. If the experiment is voted for, and if it fails, it should be ended swiftly. Jehochman ^Talk 23:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that means you feel if Giano wins a seat through the vote, he should be allowed onto the committee. We probably need to focus an RfC that specifically and clearly, absent that, I believe Jimbo will simply refuse to 'appoint' (a mistake in my view) Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)what the hey, I've given it a go below;

This whole issue is disruptive. Voting ends in three days on Sunday and this discussion is crystal ball gazing at least until then. Off2riorob (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. How did Avi's post, which strikes me as eminently sensible, devolve into this ad-hoc poll mid-election? Please, close it now! We cannot have a poll about whether to overturn the results of an election that is currently ongoing! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well with the threat of Giano not being appointed if elected, it isn't ludicrous to clarify the community's view of that possibility. More broadly, Avi's question can't really be answered particularly well by anyone who hasn't been an arbitrator. FWIW, I'd say "suck it and see"; in the case of 1 or 2 arbs in this position, the potential damage is limited, and if it works out really badly, we'd expect them to do the honourable thing and deal with that through choosing to identify or resigning. Rd232 ^talk 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That reflects my thinking in replying to the "straw poll". At the end of the day this boils down to two issues. Mainly the whole issue of identification for Arbcom and, specifically, what to do if Giano is elected. If the latter happens I think it is best ot sort it out now that fuck around to weeks figuring it out --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

To change such a condition will take community discussion and a RFC lasting I think at least ten days, attempting to qualify such an issue as this here, now, is impossible. I will say this though, any user would imo be in his rights to reject an Arb-lite from judging at his case on the grounds that Arb was not party to all the evidence presented to the committee. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That only makes sense if those being judged are equally aware of any secret evidence being considered by the arbitrators, and can equally demand that those arbitrators aware of it equally disqualify themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbiters are privy to deleted material and other details pertinent to cases, that is what this is all about, an arb-lite would not have that and as such could be rejected by any one who wanted. Off2riorob (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It is totally contrary to any idea of justice that the accused is not allowed access to the evidence against them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In a court of law, but this is an online encyclopedia. The accused may, like the arb-lite, not have the website authority to see deleted edits and other such restricted content. A new template would be needed .. You are reported for Arbitration, please indicate if you are willing to accept Arb-lite judgment from committee members without access to all the content related to your case. Off2riorob (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So your contention is that it's therefore OK for the arbitration process to be unfair? Bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, the guy may not get elected, this poll is premature. Besides, let's AGF, if elected Giacomo may change his mind & comply with the Foundations requirements for a seating. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, how can ya proove that everybody who voted for Giacomo, did so for the same reason & visa versa? GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If Giano wins a seat through the vote, should he be able to serve on the committee despite refusing to identify?

chit chat above, register your conclusion below if you'd like;

[Note from Jimbo: The following poll is of no practical consequence because the rules for ArbCom appointment are clear and I will not ignore them. You aren't an ArbCom member unless you identify.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)]

Yes

1. Privatemusings (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes, but I want to clarify my position. I have not voted (i.e. abstained) for Giano (no specific reason, he just did not spring out & I did not vote for most candidates). However if he is elected I strongly support his appointment to the committee. Not because "the community voted for him so they have opined on this issue" but because there is no rational reason we can't let him sit. This, I think, is an ideal application of WP:IAR. To be clear; I entirely support Giano not having access to the tools that WMF asks for age verification needs - but I think it will be refreshingly "disruptive" to ARBCOM to have a member with no access to the tools, forcing them to address the role and approach to the committee. I see not definitive reason why steps cannot be taken to avoid passing non-pubic (i.e. personal) data to Giano. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Absolutely. He has clearly stated he intends not to identify, and if the community elects him despite this it can be seen as an endorsement of not identifying. Also, in Jimbo's announcement on last year's appointments he made it clear that the committee only deems identifying as needed for obtaining CU,OS and list privileges. DC T•C 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes. No good argument has been presented for preventing Giano attempting to serve on the basis on which he is elected (if he gets in). Rd232 ^talk 00:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Not sure I see the point of this poll, but yes anyway. Come Sunday either Giano will have enough votes or he won't, and if he does then everyone who voted for him will have voted "yes" to this question. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Basically what Malleus said. Dana boomer (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Although most of the arguments above given so far are incredibly dumb (see my question below) (come on, Malleus!), he should if it is decided right here and now that we're cool with it. I'm voting "yes" right here (basically based on IAR - and this is in fact exactly the kind of situation that non-rule was made for). But if enough people vote "no", right here and now, then too bad. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
8. The discussions to date show no policy requirement forcing identification except for the WMF one for CU and OS which Giano will not be using. I understand why there are people (including Jimbo) who personally oppose Giano being an Arbitrator, and they are free to vote their view. However, refusing to appoint Giano in the face of a community mandate is neither legitimate nor acceptable. Either Wikipedia's governance is in the hands of the community or it remains an effective dictatorship where only the chosen of Jimbo may serve on ArbCom. I hope it is the former, and I would strongly advocate and support Giano's appointment if elected. EdChem (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No

1. Next year, not this year. It's simply not fair to change the rules mid-election, as someone else who may not have wished to identify could also have ended up winning, but never stood for this election. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   The rules were previously ambiguous. Clarifying them one way or the other would have been best done sooner, but it wasn't. Rd232 ^talk 01:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   I know, and I don't mind Giano being appointed, but it's just not fair to everyone else if we change the rules now. I may very well have stood as a candidate myself if I didn't have to identify (although my chances of winning are a whole other story!). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   My point is, it's not changing the rules. Rd232 ^talk 01:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

2. I think that it would be impractical. If you can't see mailing lists, you can't communicate with the other Arbs, and you can't have mailing list access without identifing, because people send the sensitive information directly to ArbCom mail. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
3. If you think red traffic lights are dumb, then get rid of them first. Don't get enough people to stampede over the intersection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
4. I've hesitated expressing my opinion here, given that I currently sit on the committee. Then again, it may be important that I mention it given that I currently sit on the committee. It's entirely possible that Giano's unique perspective could be a net positive to the committee if he gets elected. I am, however, very much aware that an arbitrator who would not be on the mailing list, the arbitrators' wiki, the checkuser and functionnary lists, and who would be unable to verify or oversee (let alone veto) checkusers and oversighters— or even look at deleted revisions and pages(!) would be very much a lame duck and unable to do almost any of the committee's work.

   In effect, Giano would become dead weight that could only participate in the one area where arbitrator's participation is basically never an issue: voting on public motions and cases — and then again only if there isn't even a single deleted page at issue. That he is under the misconception that it's possible to do the job without getting any access to private information simply demonstrates that he does not understand what the job actually entails, that he does so despite every arbitrator and Jimmy telling him it cannot be done is harder to fathom. — Coren ^(talk) 03:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

5. The requirement for identification has been in place for the past two elections and clearly stated as a requirement for eligibility before this election started. Giano was aware of the rules and chose to disregard them. In my opinion, this is simply another attempt to game the system. No, thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
6. No. Arbs must identify. There is a lot that arbitrators must do that requires access to privileged information. It would not make sense to have an arbitrator who was expected to make decisions on evidence that they couldn't see. --Elonka 05:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Change gears for a second. Suppose Loosmark gets elected (I know it probably won't happen but we're dealing with hypotheticals here already). Does that mean that that implies the community's cool with sock puppetry? Come Sunday either Giano will have enough votes or he won't, and if he does then everyone who voted for him will have voted "yes" to this question. Come Sunday either Loosmark will have enough votes or he won't, and if he does then everyone who voted for him will have voted "it's fine to sock puppet"??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice one young Marek!--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Volunteer Marek, it doesn't. Jimbo would be respecting community consensus in not appointing Loosmark irrespective of the election results, because Loosmark has subsequently been indefinitely community-banned. The community has already stepped in to correct the problem of Loosmark's deception and sock puppetry, just as we would have if the issue had arisen after the election had ended.

In Giano's case, there is a strong argument to be made that Jimbo refusing to make the appointment would be in direct contradiction to the community's clearly expressed will. Either Jimbo is a constitutional monarch, bound by the decisions of the community, or he remains (in effect) a mostly benevolent dictator. If Giano is elected, I see few alternatives: (1) Jimbo can make the appointment in line with Giano's elected mandate; (2) Giano can be persuaded to decline the position, or persuaded to agree to "identify" by the existing farce of a process; (3) the WMF can abandon the identifying process in light of it being a pointless waste of time because it is ludicrously easily gamed; (4) Jimbo / ArbCom / whoever can succeed in demonstrating there is a policy requirement that Giano is violating (for the record, the arguments made in this direction to date are pretty unimpressive, IMO); and (5) Jimbo can refuse to acquiese to the will of the community and accept the constitutional crisis that consequently arises, gambling that enough people won't care enough about the issue to make the resulting storm an exercise in damage control. I come back to my earlier comment, that Jimbo must be hoping to avoid the problem by Giano not receiving sufficient electoral support. EdChem (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ed, maybe. But if the community votes for Loosmark then obviously the community supports him in some way, or at the very least is ridiculously schizophrenic. Same thing with Giano (to be honest, I'm a bit schizophrenic about his candidacy myself). Anyway - In Giano's case, there is a strong argument to be made that Jimbo refusing to make the appointment would be in direct contradiction to the community's clearly expressed will - that is an unfounded statement. It's in fact what this poll is about. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll bet he is. All this could have been avoided with some proper rules, not vague armwaving statements that people think are policies rather than mere mission statements. Please, it's doing my 'ead in. Can I write for next year some nice clear rules - whatever the community wants, but explicit, so for example "any user who is community banned during the election period will be disqualified and their votes discarded. Users who are blocked during ditto may not take up their seat until they are unblocked. Users who are blocked indefinitely, and where requests for unblock have not been accepted by the time to take their seat will be disqualified" Or whatever....Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that holding a discussion to establish basic principles of elections is a necessity going forward, you can write rule after rule and still not preclude the possibility of difficult questions such as this to answer. This is why we are not a bureaucracy (or at least do not aspire to being). All the lawyering in the world won't lead to sensible, principled solutions. Skomorokh 03:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Similar to as Marek pointed out above, this is moot. One cannot change the tenor of an election midstream from voting for a candidate to voting on a policy. To borrow an analogy from Giano, that would be like having a Viscount run for the House of Commons, and then turn the election into a referendum on whether or not nobles should be allowed to serve in the House of Commons. If the prerequisite for serving in the House of Commons is to not be a member of the peerage, it is selbstverstandlich that the noble, if elected, either has to abdicate all rights to the nobility or not assume the seat. It would require a separate and distinct constitutional convention to remove the necessity to be a commoner in the house of commons. Similarly here. Giano put himself forward as a candidate for abitrator, and that currently requires pre-identification. Giano, if elected, would be a welcome member of the committee once he identifies to the foundation. If the EnWiki project wishes to create a new class of arbitrator, one that does not exist now, and one that will only deal with cases that do not fall under the rubric of the foundation's privacy rules, it can—but not during an election for the currently defined role of arbitrator. And it certainly is both improper and inappropriate to suggest that an election for a candidate for a clrealy defined role somehow, midstream, morphs into a referendum on policy. -- Avi (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

An argument is only as strong as the foundations on which it is built. The Viscount / House of Commons example is (in itself) strong because it is built on an existing an absolute prohibition on nobles serving in the Commons. But, as an analogy, it is flawed because there is no existing absolute prohibition on an unidentified arbitrator - if there was such a prohibition, a link or diff would have been posted and this discussion ended long ago. What there was an assumption that identification was required as a consequence of the WMF policy relating to CU and OS, etc, but that assumption is falsified in the present circumstance. No matter how often a current requirement for pre-identification is claimed, it will become no more true. Perhaps there should be such a requirement, but that is a discussion for the next electoral cycle. The analogy you are drawing invites us to equate two situations which appear superficially similar but which are built on different premises, in that the absolute prohibition on unidentified arbitrators that you claim exists only in unsupported assertion and assumption; it does not exist in fact.

As for the argument that we are speaking of a new class of arbitrator that does not presently exist, that argument is also falsifiable. Suppose an arbitrator identifies but declines access to OS and CU - nothing unusual there, there is well established precedent. Now, that arbitrator has access to the mailing list and arb wiki, but no obligation to use them. If the arbitrator chooses to only read the on-wiki evidence, how would that be any different from Giano's proposed approach? In fact, the only difference would be that Giano is openly and honestly declaring what he is reading. The suggestion that existing or past arbitrators have been acting without reading all the evidence is hardly a new one, after all. Now, I doubt that there has been an arbitrator who eschewed all non-public evidence, but neither of us can know for sure. EdChem (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, there is an absolute prohibition on serving as an ArbCom member without identifying. Full stop. This is policy with a capital P, and this is the 3rd year in a row in which it is policy. I don't know how to clarify this any more clearly. Anyone who does not identify to the Foundation will not be made an ArbCom member. Period.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Would you give someone the keys to a truck after the person promised not to drive it? The keys to your house after s/he promised not to enter? Your credit card PIN after assertions that s/he doesn't know about ATMs? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There has never been any need to question the assumption you identify because there has never before been a candidate who would want to disqualify themselves from such a large proportion of the Committee's work. That's just an observation, I don't mean to criticise Giano's decision by saying that. Note that a non-identifying arbitrator would not get access to the mailing list, nor the wiki, because nonpublic data is discussed in those places. --bainer (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the value added of this statement? Does it tell us anything we already didn't know? Yes there's never been a candidate like Giano (sort of) and this is an unprecedented situation. That's probably why we're having this discussion now rather than in the past. A non-identifying arbitrator of course would not have access to the mailing list - and anyway, Giano promised as much. Nobody's discussing, challenging or wondering about that. And yes, it's because nonpublic data is discussed in "those places". And while it's good to offer "just an observation" while at the same time not meaning to "criticize" Giano or anyone else, that's sort of a statement that goes without saying. I'm lost as to what exactly you're saying. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, the answer to your first point is that not every practice has a formal page or mention. As the dicussions Slim posted elsewhere show, over the years from 2005–2008 the process evolved into demanding identification prior to sitting. That is the current consensus. Consensus may change, of course, but not in the haphazard, back-door method of ex-post-facto redefinition of an election that is being suggested here. The answer to your second point is that the identification is of course still necessary since he or she has access to the information on the mailing list and the wiki. To circumvent the foundation's requirement, they would have to be locked out of both, and the role has never been defined to work under such restricted parameters. If the community wants to create an arb-lite, that would require a project-wide referendum of its own, not the hijacking and redefinition of a previously clearly defined election. -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that JW has clarified things, can we archive this whole stuff? GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

probably the best thing would be for someone to put one of those 'this discussion is over' type boxes around everything - it's not helpful for people to think for themselves, or comment on this issue - particularly if they might be misguided enough to disagree ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That would even be better, closing. GoodDay (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

hang on... I've had another idea - hows about we just let those minded to record their thoughts and conclusions in this matter register them without strange little notes, or archive boxes, or other wiki ritual.... it might just work! Privatemusings (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah! it should be closed down, as the discussions have now become moot concerning the 2010 Arbcom elections. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

are you sure they're moot? Last time I remember Jimbo clearing something up it was over at commons.... now how did that go again..... Privatemusings (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What is arb-light?

Continuing from my question above, for those who are interested in creating the class of "arb-lite" (Less Filling, Tastes Great 8-) ), how is that person functionally different than someone on MedCom, for example? -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, if Giacomo doesn't get elected as a Arbitrator, perhaps he can run for Mediator. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Answer: MedCom is not binding/can be ignored. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And it doesn't get you as much attention. It might also be sort of hard, unappreciated work. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if Giano could act as a peacemaker, someone who would de-escalate disputes. --Elonka 05:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)