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

{{rfctag|policy}} 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)

This is quite enlightening for anyone who's interested. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:52, 3 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)

Forgive the delayed response - due to having spent most of the week ill in bed (or, ahem, the person who pushes the keys for me was). The second aspect was nothingness to anyone on Wikipedia; it only mattered to some organs of the press and made it a slightly more interesting story. My good friend who helps me contribute to Wikipedia holds a full time job in addition to being a councillor. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:33, 4 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)

The first issue was a breach of policy, but not a particularly relevant one as identification of the real life identity of the Arb would have no effect unless we also knew the real identity of the person behind the previous account. Checkusering Arb candidates would give you a better chance of identifying sockpupeteers, but suggestions of pre-emptively screening people have been resisted in the past. The second is more interesting as it is relevant to our policy on Arbs identifying to the office. Should the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit unless they misbehave onwiki have a list of unwelcome occupations, or was the concern that this was an editor who was actively editing in an area where they had a COI? I think that if we decide certain real life occupations are incompatible with being on Arbcom then we need to think very carefully as to which these are and what instructions we give the person doing the identity verification, and publish them in advance. I suspect that any attempt to create a list of banned but legal occupations would be difficult. Alternatively we could set up a process whereby the person to whom the real life identity is revealed checks to see if the Arb has breached COI guidelines, but what would you do if the foundation employee doing the verification considered there was a COI breach and the Arb disagreed? Conflict of interest checking might be doable, but I think you'd need to set up some sort of trusted mechanism to decide on this, and then work out what they do if a case is minor or borderline. In either event you risk a confrontation between the elected new Arb saying they don't consider it to be an issue and whoever you get to check saying otherwise - I think this could get messy. The Academic qualification issue is possibly more straightforward, you would need a process or guidelines to decide what facts the office should verify, and again we would need the community to decide the principle otherwise you could get shopping lists created of things about an arb that somebody would like to see verified. ϢereSpielChequers 15:39, 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)

Giano, if you are the only candidate running on the basis that if elected you won't identify, then at first glance this might seem to be about you. The issue about whether some sort of identification is required either to be on Arbcom or to have access to Arbcom only information has certainly been highlighted by your candidacy. The issues of what checks if any should be done with this data, what would be done if anything untoward was found by those checks, whether the data should be retained and if so for how long are all interesting ones that I feel deserve resolution, even if in a dew days you have either been elected and decided to identify, or failed to be elected. ϢereSpielChequers 17:20, 3 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)

Delightfully non sequitous response there, bainer. :) Interesting statistic--"90%"? A serving arb said earlier nearer half that; varies with different tasks people do, and such things. Anyway. I like your contribs tool by the way; thank you for re enabling your toolserver account. –Whitehorse1 23:56, 4 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)

Really? Does one instantly gain maturity and adult insight when their age reaches exactly eighteen years? Let's not be ageist here. Age and ability are not necessarily related, and when they are, there are exceptions. For example, User:Ilyanep became a 'crat when he was thirteen years old (although I must admit, it was easier then). In the end, it comes down to this: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Guoguo12--Talk--  22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Children shouldn't be given adult responsibilities, period. It would be hypocritical for us to be ever-so-scrupulous about BLP material written on a website, but then expose real children to repeated, expected, direct contact with defamatory content, obscene material, and the like. Children should never be given administrative tools, for that matter. All the arguments for giving children tools ("they're mature enough", etc.) would equally apply as arguments against the criminality of statutory rape. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't believe that editors under the age of eighteen should even be allowed to attempt an RfA? To quote Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner:

"It used to be that unusually smart kids were typically kind of isolated and lonely, until they met others as smart as them, either in university or later. I think that one of the unsung benefits of the internet, and Wikipedia in particular, is that it makes it possible for smart kids to connect with other people who are equally curious, who share their intellectual interests, and take them seriously, in a way that would’ve been completely unavailable to them 10 years earlier."

I concede that a majority of vandalism comes from teenage editors who are so unprivileged as to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. However, what of the editors that realize the Wikipedia is not a game, not a social network, not a blog? What of the editors who realize the potential of Wikipedia, who realize that Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", who realize that Wikipedia is a project created by responsible and hard-working users like them that wish to help preserve the knowledge of mankind? Teenagers are not stereotypes. They have just as much right to help protect Wikipedia as you and I. That's what adminship is right? A janitorial post? And yet teenagers are to be excluded from a group that Jimbo Wales calls "not a big deal"? Okay, don't take my words to heart; I'm not suggesting handing out adminship like car wash flyers. However, teenagers who exceed their peers in intelligence, maturity, and experience should at least be allowed to try. It's not easy as it is, seeing as even adult editors usually attempt several RfAs before success. In conclusion, I can only reiterate my previous closing line, taken directly from WP:PA: "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Guoguo12--Talk--  00:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with maturity. A child is a child, legally, and there's no getting around that. See my further comments here. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No compromise, it's gotta be atleast 18yrs. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 6 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)]

[Note from Giano: Mr Wales has no authority over this poll or the selection of Arbs. His role is ceremonial only. The arbitration committee is appointed by the community, by whose decision I will abide.  Giacomo  15:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)]

( I had a note removed - check history if you're curious, but regardless, please don't presume to curtail discussion - it's probably not a good idea. Privatemusings (talk) 06:07, 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)

   Comment - Let me see if I understand you, EdChem. If the community creates a page reflecting longstanding policy, declaring openly and clearly that in order to be an ArbCom member you have to be willing and able to identify, and I say that based on that, I will follow the rules of the election, that makes me a dictator? That's a very funny sort of dictatorship, I must say. Let me be clear: "an effective dictatorship where only the chosen of Jimbo may serve on ArbCom" is insulting and over the top - absolutely uncalled for. If Giano is elected, and meet the requirements to be seated as an ArbCom member, as specified in the election, I will appoint him. What I won't do is overturn policy on a whim to respond to insults like yours.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   Jimbo, saying it is policy does not make it policy. If there were a discussion supporting this asertion, someone would have posted it by now. As for "dictatorship", yeah, maybe it is somewhat hyperbolic, but since I find the "evidence" for this so-called policy to be unconvincing and am still reeling from learning that the WMF's identification requirement is so absurdly gameable, perhaps some exaggeration is understandable. I should have kept the mostly benevolent caveat from below, a pity I didn't. I would like to believe that you would appoint Giano if he would identify, but frankly, I don't... no one could seriously be suggesting he is under age, which is the supposed reason for the WMF practice, and he could game it with minimal effort. So, what is the legitimate barrier to his appointment? EdChem (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   I understand your argument and I think it's perfectly sound. Per both strict and common sense reading of the policy, as formulated by the community (not Jimbo) if a candidate refuses to self-identify they cannot be appointed to the committee (just like someone caught using sock puppets cannot be appointed to the committee no matter how many votes they receive). So far so good. However, we do have WP:IAR and this strikes me as exactly the kind of situation for which that anti-rule was made in the first place (and I'm supporting Giano's-if-elected appointment based on IAR alone). Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

9. I shall be abiding by the decision of that Larger RFC, the Arbcom Election, rather than a couple of dozen of the regulars here. I have seen no policy that is clear let alone cast in stone.  Giacomo  09:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   Do tell me if I am being naive here, but the argument that "Giano would become a 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" somehow reveals a disconnect between the community's perception of arbcom and arbcom's self-perception. The one area where arbitrator's participation is basically never an issue? I am sorry, arbitration cases are the main issue the community cares about! Arbitrators' expected reasoning, proposals and behaviour in public cases is what the community bases its decisions and preferences on, because the community only observes public cases, and it elects candidates on the expectation that they will see a certain kind of behaviour in such public cases. It could not be otherwise -- as the committee's non-public activities are by definition not transparent to the community (except perhaps former arbcom members and functionaries), none of that can factor into any editor's reasoning to vote for or against a candidate. Perhaps it would help if the committee revealed a little more about their behind-the-scenes work, i.e. what kind of non-public evidence they regularly consult, and how they handle it. Having said that, I wouldn't mind if Giano were to identify after all, if only to Jimbo personally. Hell, a telephone call would probably do. I don't believe anybody thinks Giano is 14. Beyond that, I am perfectly happy to have an arbitrator who simply works on public cases. --JN466 12:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   Switching to No, noting that the eligibility requirements for candidates clearly stated that candidates must be willing and able to identify to WMF. --JN466 13:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

   In the discussion above it's detailed that's cited to a document that doesn't support the claim. –Whitehorse1 23:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

10. Mo ainm~Talk 19:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
11. The identification requirement is irrational because it relies 100% on trusting the candidate to submit true and proper identification, not a fake or somebody else's. If we trust candidates to this extent, why not simply ask them to state their age and jurisdiction and trust them to respond honestly? I would prefer to have a strong identification requirement for all functionaries, but until that process exists, it is silly to disqualify somebody for failing to comply with one that is useless. Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    If passing in a fake ID is un-detectable, what's the problem? Giacomo, if elected, could use a fake ID & nobody will know. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Not only that, any such ID would be shredded immediately anyway, once Philippe was happy Giacomo was of age. So I agree in spirit; by next year we really should have a more sensible system in place. --JN466 20:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    Mm hm. From everything I've seen everyone else is happy that he is. I agree; measures should be effective. –Whitehorse1 23:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

12. I see no good reason not to. Privacy is important. Anonymity is important. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Yes. While I don't see the value in this poll either, I've seen a lot that was very unappealing during this election. There can be a tendency to believe if something's repeated often enough it becomes the truth, but it isn't so. Also per several above. –Whitehorse1 23:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Per WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
15. (With caveats.) Regarding "policy", there has been too much "truth by assertion" taking place here. Yes, policy can emerge without community discussion to reflect practice. In this case pre-existing practice suggests that arbitrators need to identify because they will have access to private information via checkuser/oversight and the arbcom mailing list. In the situation where a candidate refuses all access to such data, there is neither pre-existing practice, nor community discussion of policy to determine whether identification should be required to become an arbitrator. If Giano is elected and refuses to identify, then the outcome involves taking a position.

    Jimbo clearly has a position on what the policy should be (he favours strong identification requirements), but it is unfortunate that he has been articulating this view during the election. In my opinion, if Giano is elected and refuses to identify, then Jimbo should ask the community if they want him nevertheless to appoint an arbitrator who will not have access to crucial information in 90% of cases. Then after that is settled, the community needs to discuss what our policy on identification should be in the future, and why.

    Finally, this is not a matter of "changing the rules in the middle of the election" as the meaning/purpose of the rules was unclear, so much so that a candidate with a clear intention *not* to identify was accepted. Subsequent events have further demonstrated the confusion, as has the need for rhetorical responses. In contrast, and to my disappointment, scarcely an eyelid batted when the number of vacant seats was increased from 11 to 12 after nominations had closed. Geometry guy 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

16. To describe an unneccessary restriction that seems to have been slipped in during the last couple of years with no community input as "long-standing policy" is bizarre: it does not meet my understanding of either of those two words. --RexxS (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
17. Conditional "yes". If a candidate announces ahead of time that, if appointed, they will not participate in any of the ArbCom's off-Wiki deliberations, such as are conducted on the mailing list, and will simply vote depending on the evidence presented in cases, and if the community thinks that would be a good thing, then I don't see a problem from a governance and policies point of view. I would not vote for such a person since they may very well be making uninformed votes. Nor do I think that it's appropriate to make that declaration after an election has begun, since voters would assume they are voting for someone who will participate fully in the committee's work (which involves more than on-Wiki voting). It is acceptable for a candidate to say they are running as a protest and will not participate at all. In that case, Jimmy Wales could acknowledge their protest as having served its purpose and not appoint them to the committee. WP:IAR cuts both ways.   Will Beback  talk  10:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
18. Yes. Should make it easier. All he needs to do is read the evidence page, then vote on the proposed decision. Done. Cla68 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
19. Yes. He can recuse from decisions requiring access to "secret information." Giano's running for Arbcom has begun a valuable debate over transparency. If debates on the mailing list present a problem of exposure to nonpublic information, he can simply not be on the mailing list, and base his decision on public evidence as suggested above. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
20. Yes. Given the fact that the current requirement is meaningless in implementation, I don't see why this should be a constraint on Giano's eligibility, should he be elected. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
21. Yes, he should be able to serve on the committee if he gets above 51% support. That would be a community mandate. I strongly support the concept of an arb who discusses all case evidence on-wiki. Some percentage of arb business would be outside his remit. Not 100% but I'd love to see extensive on-wiki discussions of the remainder. (Authority doesn't break down when it isn't a Seamless Web. Attempts to make it so actually undermine it when children grow up and unsophisticated WP editors wise up.) His potential absences would be no different from those of arbs who recuse or just aren't there on many cases. If he doesn't get that level of support, it's moot. If he does, but the seats are not all filled, we can revisit this as often as necessary. Only a few WP policies are cast in stone, like neutral point of view, verifiabilty and the other pillars - this isn't one of them. Novickas (talk) 00:20, 7 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)

   Comment - The rules were in absolutely no way ambiguous. The rules state clearly that candidates must "be willing and able to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seat." That is absolutely clear, and was stated before the election.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:44, 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)

   That depends on whose interpretation of the rules you're looking at. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:00, 4 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)

   Coren, I am afraid that the behaviour of the arbitration committee (behind the scenes - you know exactly to what I am referring) has been worse than that of the lowest of the low. That, if elected, I will be making decisions completely unhindered by their "secrets" fills me with immense joy and hope. Your personal attacks on me (still there despite the attepts to have then covered up) and that you now are comenting publicly shows us all quite how worried you all are.  Giacomo  09:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   Interesting, though, that identifying as required would actually allow you to look "behind the scenes" and determine how accurate your numerous claims about what happens there really are. I cannot help but notice your distinct lack of enthusiasm at that prospect. — Coren ^(talk) 20:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   Oh realy Coren, you must read the rubbish your own clerk is emailing me these days; I thought the Arbcom's very aptly named "B List" had already decided that accompanied by my evil apprentice, I had hacked and masterminded my way through their security, got behind the scenes and had already read all the notes and was presumably about to offer them for sale on hivemind and create a wikileaks II! And you call me paranoid! amazing.  Giacomo  23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   When someone admits to knocking on the door and checks reveal that others were knocking on the door at the same time, surely it is only prudent to ask whether these were related?  Roger ^talk 11:19, 6 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)
7. No. Arbs must identify. That is policy. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
8. No, Coren expresses the practical reasons why this is a really bad idea perfectly. On top of that, changing the rules (and/or changing the established interpretation of those rules) during an election is a non-starter. Also, I'm seeing claims that somehow the community is behind this effort. I see no sign of that. It's a perfectly acceptable discussion to have, but the time for it is between elections. RxS (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
9. I'm really, really sorry about this, and I'd love to check the 'yes' box, because I support the thoughts behind Giano's standing... but if we want a more open ArbCom, this is the best place to start. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry? Why are you sorry? Unlike all the other candidates during this election, your behaviour on and off-wiki (IRC) toward me has been deplorable. You clearly see me as a threat to your candidature. How sad. I had never heard of you before the election.  Giacomo  19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

   CMLITC, Whatever about the ethics of participating in this conversation as a candidate, I think it is really questionable behaviour to vote in a poll against the eligibility of a competitor. Skomorokh 17:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

10. No. It seems to me quite clear. Anyone wishing to be an arbitrator must win a seat through the vote AND identify (and have the requisite number of edits, etc). As an aside, my personal feeling is that all arbitrators should identify themselves to the community (several have done so); let's not have secrets here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
11. No. Agree with the statements on this issue by Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs), at this page and his user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
12. No; the eligibility requirements for candidates clearly stated that candidates must be willing and able to identify to WMF. --JN466 13:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

    the discussion above states cited to a document that doesn't support the claim –Whitehorse1 23:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

13. No Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Procedurally impossible; changing practice/policy mid-election is not allowed. It the project would like to create the "arb-lite" class, by all means, have the discussion on its own merits. -- Avi (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Suggesting that this is all about "secret evidence" is good melodramatic fun and so on, but it's not very accurate. To perform fully their duties, arbitrators need access to the committee's mailing list. This is used (i) by the committee for routine stuff (discussions of upcoming absences, sorting who'll draft what etc) and (ii) by the community to contact the committee about a vast number of things. These vary from simple requests for advice (like "how do I do xxx") to unblock requests, to serious matters concerning harassment, outing and sockpuppetry. Now much of this can be dealt with on-wiki as the subject matter is not confidential and indeed a great deal of it is handled by referring the correspondent to the right place to bring it up. However, as part of the geberal incoming email are significant numbers of messages which are confidential and do disclose information about real life identities. These can vary from disclosure of legitimate alternate accounts, to information about minors, to medical issues, to editing locations and names (usually vounteered as part of sock block appeals), to real life threats and real life stalking.  Roger ^talk 11:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
16. "Willing and able", while clearly indicating that they must be willing to identify and able to identify, does, I think at least theoretically, fall short of actually saying that they will identify, and I think it would probably be better if the policy removed this ambiguity. Having said that, if, as seems to be indicated, any winning candidate proves, at the time of certification, to be unwilling to identify themselves, then I think they would have clearly been demonstrated to not meet the "willing and able" provision, and thus not be considered eligible. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
17. No Giano was never a legitimate candidate--if he applied to be a candidate without meeting the criteria ("willing and able"), he wasn't ever a valid candidate, no matter what the community opined re: his suitability. We can fix it for next year if desired, but having a 10-20% effective Arb sounds to be a waste of a seat. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
18. No. Because. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
19. No It's policy, so that means it is "the law", to all intents and purposes. Sure, he can stand, and he may even get the necessary number of votes, but that does not mean he is "willing and able" to serve. We have seen politicians being elected on platforms of civil disobedience, but would still expect them to submit to the same legal processes should he be called before the justice system for breaches of same. I think this promise of disobedience would actually prevent him from doing the job, in that an arb-elect who does not have enough trust in the system does not deserve to have any trust placed in him. Without that mutual trust, he ought not to be given the full information that would allow him to do his job properly. At least some of those who voted for him did so only as a protest, but would fully expect that he would be disqualified for refusing to cross the finishing line for this refusal. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

    If it's true, as you surmise, that some of those who voted for Giano did so as some kind of a protest, then it would be well to consider what it might be that they were protesting against, instead of pretending that all's well with the world. Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

20. I don't think it would be fair to make special rules for one candidate. Jafeluv (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Closure

I thought JW closed that Poll. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 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)

Wasn't the example I gave—Anthony Wedgewood Benn—a viscount who did serve in the House of Commons? Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

After he renounced his title :) - Avi (talk) 06:55, 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)

Jimbo, you can repeat "it is policy" as often as you like, but that does not make it so... unless you have the power to create policy by fiat, or someone can show an actual discussion that actually relates to policy and is not predicated on the WMF's ridiculous faux-identification, the no, there isn't a policy. Now, maybe you can create policy on a whim, but that would cast you in what role? I'm not sure, maybe you can help... what would you call a leader who is not bound by election results and can create novel grounds to disqualify those elected? Hint: constitutional monarch is not the correct answer. EdChem (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, may I remind you of WP:BURO where it says (emphasis added is my own) "Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." Now, the accepted practice for years has been to require identification for being an arbitrator. This is already policy, unless you are willing to disregard WP:BURO, which is itself policy. -- Avi (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Avi, you certainly may. There are two problems: firstly, the consensus was that the faux-identification WMF policy must be followed for CU / OS access, and that was folded into the incoming Arbitrator induction process - that is a looooooong way from an en-wp consensus on a arbitrator identification policy. Secondly, that particular part of BURO is used to shield actions unsupported by policy, such as with arguments like "oh, policy does prohibit this, but I do it anyway so the policy is out-of-date / wrong". I recognise I have no power to change what will happen here, but please don't ask me to believe that refusing to seat Giano if he's elected is following policy. EdChem (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ed, if it has been required in some shape or form since 2005, and has been a hard stop since 2008, without any complaint, concern, or comment, that's pretty much consensus cum policy right there. To change years-old practice would require the demonstration of a new consensus to change the practice, at least in my opinion. Also, I am certain that if 1) Giano receives the requisite amount of votes and 2) he identifies to the foundation, Jimbo will appoint him. Perhaps I'm more naive, but I'm willing to AGF that Jimbo will not change policy--just as he should not appoint Giano if Giano refuses to identify. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 07:20, 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)

ow! - I guess it's more important than I thought to not think this one through...... srsly - removing comments, and popping 'don't talk about this' boxes around everything isn't really either a good look, or a good idea..... oh well.... Privatemusings (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No probs, you're free to play at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I replied to you at mine :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)you've probably replied already by now! - it's a fast moving wiki :-)

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)

They can vote on Arbcom cases and hence comment with the gravitas of such responsibility. Geometry guy 00:36, 7 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)

I'd support him for Mediator. GoodDay (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have already done quite a lot of mediating with editors who are unhappy about various things; and in many cases quite successfully too, and in some extremly tricky areas. For some odd reason quite a few unhappy editors talk to me when all else seems to fail, and I'm quite good at spotting them too - it's quite easy they are generally being piled on at ANI by people with lots of strong advice, but few solutions beyond the banhammer. Unfortunatly, some are more difficult to help than others and they one's who hit the headlines at ANI are the ones you hear of and remember; and no, I am not going to embarrass anybody by naming any names. The few secrets that should be upheld on Wikipedia are the secrets of the counsellor. What i don't understand about this whole debate here, is why people are so frightened of letting the comunity decide. I doubt very much I shall be voted in, but if I am, then as far as I'm concerned the commuity has spoken. What I find very wrong, is that some influential people here have chosen to make my candidature all out their interpretation of policy rather then the will of the community, that seems to me to be introducing a bias into the election; they are underestimating the intelligence of the community and they may find it badly backfires upon them.  Giacomo  08:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The community is more than welcome, nay encouraged, to make its will known about redefining the role or arbitrator--properly. That means it must have its own discussion and its own seeking of consensus. For someone to stand as a candidate in an election where the practice has been set for years, and then to, mid-stream, decide to commit to not following practice and re-cast the election as a referendum on said practice is either appropriate nor would be accepted, in my opinion, in any society where people require some form of consensus or majority opinions. That is tantamount to someone running for President of the United States, whose office cannot be held simultaneously with that of Senator, and then saying, mid-election, that if elected, s/he will not vacate the office of Senator, and the election should be considered a referendum on holding both offices. It may be possible to change the constitution, but that requires a constitutional convention on its own. Same here. This election is subject to the rules and practices that were in force at its inception. By all means, the project can make a determination if "arb-lite" should exist; but that is a separate and distinct conversation. -- Avi (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the rules are far from established because Mr Wales say black is white, it does not make it so. If he wishes to slap the community in the face that is his choice. If I poll sufficient votes then morally at least I will be an Arb, albeit one who rejects all the priviledges - things I have never sought. I cannot imagine the runner up who takes my place feeling very honourable or victorious can you - or even being respected. Giacomo  14:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Avi, please drop the "arb-lite/light" term. It may or may not not be derogatory but it is of a derisory quality. –Whitehorse1 14:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you think of a better term? "Restricted arbitrator" perhaps? It does get tiring to type "arbitrator who must, by foundation policy, be excluded from the mailing list, the wiki, and any other venue through which private information may be accessed", or words to that effect each and every time. Come up with a better description, please! -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please stop using the term. If you coin what, by ordinary understanding, is an unfortunate neologism, others do not bear obligation as a consequence. –Whitehorse1 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Whitehorse, I am sure you realize that it is a matter of opinion as to whether the term's connotations are derogatory or not. If you are so bothered by it, I invite you to supply a suitable alternative. -- Avi (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It's the term itself. Insistent invitation others play Roget's Thesaurus thru "If you won't supply an alternative word I can use to carry on what I'm doing then I'll carry on doing it." misses the point. An arbitrator is an arbitrator. Elected-appointed arbs are members of the Arb. Committee. It's axiomatic. Arbs bring particular skills and attributes which affect the contribution made in the cases before the committee. They may serve on subcommittees, ad-hoc or otherwise; they may choose to follow/participate in oversight requests, and they may choose not to. We don't refer to them by a special term or as "semi-arbitrator". Some, write more drafts or more of given drafts. Neologisms like "lawyer arbs", "sociologist arbs", "historian arbs", aren't routinely thrown around; oh, a given appointee may happen to be a sociologist, but is still an arb. I can certainly think of administrators that choose not to exercise their blocking ability or even ran on that basis. But I've not seen lightweight-sysops or similar terms applied to them. As for your 25-word sentence it gets "tiring to type...each and every time", neither the term "arbitrator-lite", "arbitrator light" nor "Restricted arbitrator" indicate what are the elements that make up that sentence. Therefore implying as you did that it functions as synonymous to it is, well. Adjectives don't necessarily suit circumstances. A better description perhaps is "arbitrator(s), who have not identified" or, "opted not to identify to the Foundation" to be used if and when it is necessary to distinguish. –Whitehorse1 20:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • However, there are denotations and there are connotations. Perhaps the denotation of "arbitrator" on wikipedia is solely "member of the arbitration committee" but the connotation for years has been someone with access to private information. As a matter of fact, originally, there were no CUs and OSs separate from ArbCom. Rather, ArbCom emeritus filled those roles. With the growth of the project, more help was needed, so the appointed and elected CU/OSs came to be. Also, it is an absolute hard stop that someone with access to private information requires to be identified to the foundation. Intelligent people may argue as to both the necessity and the efficacy of that requirement, but it is a foundation-level requirement that trumps anything EnWiki can do. Therefore, as I posted a few sections above, this question we are discussing cannot be solely about arbitrator identification. It must be about the existence of an arbitrator class which willfully prevents itself from access to private information, and thus the mailing list, the wiki, oversighted edits with personal information, etc. This has to be differentiated, in my opinion, from the "arbitarator" of the past few years to prevent people from confusing the issue and mentally believing that we can separate identification and information access. The point, at least my point, Whitehorse is to specifically highlight the difference in ability that will be required to allow EnWiki to have a class of "non-identified arbitrators," thus the change in nomenclature. -- Avi (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
        • That doesn't address what I said. –Whitehorse1 20:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly would we need an "arb-light"? Theoretically (very theoretically), every member of the arbcom is "trusted", correct? So why all the hubub? If there is "secrete" evidence, why can't one of the other arbs just tell Giano that whatever they are discussing is true? Giano wouldn't necessarily have to see said secrete evidence, he just has to know that it exists and all the other arbs agree that it's true? For example, we have a case concerning sockpuppetry, all Giano needs to know is that yes, in fact, that person was controlling 2 different accounts. He can then either support or oppose a ban on that person. He doesn't actually need to see the checkuser proof that this person is using socks, does he? I am genuinely confused about why an arb would need to see any secrete evidence when he can just take other arbs' word on it. Whether he can/does/should trust other arbs is a completely different matter, however. Tex (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds plausible to me, Tex. --JN466 15:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with what you suggest, Tex, is that the foundation requires that people with access to private information identify to it. No one on EnWiki, including Jimbo, can change that. It requires the board of the wikimedia foundation to do so. Therefore, Giano, if he is not identified to the foundation, may not take possession of any such information, regardless of how it is obtained (e-mail, checkuser, oversighted edit, etc.) It's not that Giano has to take their word that what is being discussed is true, he has to take their word that the finding is true without access to evidence or discussion. And from what I understand, that goes against Giano's entire platform regarding "secret" evidence. -- Avi (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a matter for Giano and those voting for him. In general, Tex's argument is very sound and highly relevant: an "arb-light" (for want of a better term) doesn't need to see the working, they can accept the answer given by others with access, same as every non-arb does. Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, rd232, since at current, the role of arbitrator is not defined as to disallow any access to private information and thus obviate the need for identification. The EnWiki project may choose to create such a class, but not by re-defining an election for the existing class. It needs its own discussion. For that matter, why can't we say that a vote for NewYorkBrad is actually a vote for me to assume founder privileges, and if NewYorkBrad gets elected, Jimbo has to appoint me as Global Founder? We don't change what the ballot is for in the middle of an election and this is no different. Once these elections are over, a site-wide discussion is encouraged to commence. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"the role of arbitrator is not defined as to disallow any access to private information and thus obviate the need for identification" - nor is it defined so as to require private access and hence identification. If it was, Giano's candidacy should have been rejected - QED. Rd232 ^talk 17:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, I believe, Rd232. The proper conclusion is that since Giano submitted his name for candidacy, he agreed to be bound by the rules. He cannot change his mind in the middle, any more than he can say that votes for him should be votes for me :) -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, the point is that his candidacy fell within the rules, whether that was the intention of those who drafted the rules or not. Essentially this is an argument about whether custom (arbs identify, and get access) is an inviolable rule. From this follows an argument about whether, in the event that Giano is elected, that would constitute a break with custom or a breach of rules. If the latter, Giano should have been asked to withdraw his candidacy. He wasn't. Therefore I conclude that it is the former. QED. Rd232 ^talk 01:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a discontinuity (not a loophole, but a definite disconnect) between Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and Access to and publication of this information is governed by the Access to nonpublic data policy, as well as specific policies covering some of the functions in question. Sharing information with other privileged users is not considered "distribution." ... Except as described above (exceptions for provision to law enforcement, distribution with permission of data owner etc), Wikimedia policy does not permit distribution of personally identifiable information under any circumstances What this says is in effect the Foundation will only give rights to get data from it to persons who have identified to it and are of full age, and such information must not be distributed, but providing information to certain groups of privileged persons does not count as distribution. The disconnect is that the list of privileged users in Privacy policy includes Arbitrators and others appointed by the community, but the list of users required to identify in the Access policy does not include Arbitrators (although I believe 'without limitation' was intended to suggest that they could add others if they wished, they never did). It is this disconnect that has led to the suggestion that an Arbitrator might not have to identify, as they would be able to receive the information 'second hand' from another Arb/cu etc. It's bad drafting more than anything else Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Interestingly, as you mention NewYorkBrad, he's been an Arb for years, so presumably know more about the role than you Avraham. Yet, he says arbs do not need to identify in his opinion. I find that very interesting. I would trust his views over Jimbo's and your's anyday.  Giacomo  17:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I may be wrong (actually, I'm likely wrong) but if I remember correctly, Brad was talking about what his opinion would be if we placed the question before the community as to whether we should create the restricted arbitrator class I describe above. I do not think that he meant that he would consider this current election as a referendum to changing what has been practice for years. Of course, as I said, I may be misremembering. Perhaps you or I can ask Brad to clarify here. -- Avi (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• You are wrong, the commuity was not mentioned. he merely said he did not beleive identifying was necessary [7] "isn't really necessary for either legal or policy reasons." He is a lawyer is he not? Jimbo is completely wrong, besides which I wonder how any people realy think I am 17 or under?  Giacomo  17:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, reading that seems to bolster my understanding:

As it happens, my personal opinion (which I think is contrary to that of a majority of my colleagues) is that the identification requirement isn't really necessary for either legal or policy reasons. But that is a different question, and in any event, not one that the committee has the ability to decide.

— User:Newyorkbrad, 21:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• • What Brad is saying, in my opinion, is that he does notthink that the current practice is necessary; not that it is not current practice. And yes, it is not something for the committee to decide, it is for the project to decide. But the project cannot piggyback this on the current elections which were started under the accepted practice. It needs its own discussion. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Except, it was not the accepted policy. It's seems to be something dreamt up by Jimbo. The accepted policy is for CU and OS to identify. You cannot change the rules just because you don't like the candidate. Jimbo must do as the community tells him with their votes.  Giacomo  17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've discussed with Ed above, practice that has been in place and unopposed for years is policy for all intents and purposes. Policy is just the "enshrinement" as it were of existing practice and consensus, and since the mid 2000s, the practice has been to require identification. The time to have resisted was in 2008; now it is accepted practice, and it needs to be overturned on its own merits. I have no issue with having that discussion, I just think it improper and inappropriate to re-define an election in midstream to make it that discussion. -- Avi (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Silence is not consent. It is opposed now, especially because the identification requirement is pure security theater of no practical benefit. Moreover, consensus can change. Avi, stop this circling the wagons nonsense and look at matters with the intelligence I know you possess. Why require something that is utterly pointless? Fax us any ID, yours, somebody else's, or something you made with Photoshop, and we'll give you the keys to the kingdom. What silliness. Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite. For all the use the identification process is, the Foundation might as well check the box "Giano has identified" without bothering to check it's inbox to see if he actually did. Rd232 ^talk 01:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, the silence has been ongoing for years now, which makes practice policy. Now there is opposition. So yes, consensus can change, and the community should discuss it. Re-defining an election midway through, however, is not the proper procedure, any more than if Brad were to say that a vote for him means that the community can view blocks as punitive and not preventative, or if Sir Fozzie were to say that a vote for him would mean that all sysops get 'crat bits. One cannot redefine an election in midstream. Our option now is to gauge whether there exists a consensus to change the future. -- Avi (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I think it's amazing that this discussion is still going on. Here's my own crystal ball gazing: This discussion will turn out to be moot because, sort of like the recent Checkuser and Oversighter election, the use of Secure Poll will result in more "opposes" than have typically occurred in the past, and no candidates will be elected, and the Committee will have twelve vacancies, identifications or not. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been tracking preliminary data from the voter guides (if anyone would like access to my Google Spreadsheet, just send me an email and I'll send you an invite). Based on my own crystal ball, there will indeed be plenty of opposes, but there should be several candidates who will have substantial support. So my prediction is that Jimbo will appoint perhaps the seven arbs who get the most support, but not a full 12. At the moment, the leaders (based on guide data) are: Newyorkbrad, Sirfozzie, Iridescent, Casliber, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, and David Fuchs.--Elonka 17:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but what if the election were voided because it had been so influenced by the interferance of the supposedly unbiased head of state? Do your spreadsheets allow for that?  Giacomo  17:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Elonka: I hope that you are basing that on the endorsements in the voter guides (which, in my opinion, may not necessarily predict anything), and not that you have some sort of illicit access to the actual vote tallies! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, this is based on voter guides, exactly as Elonka says (she's given this information in a couple other places as well). I don't think anyone has access to the poll data at the moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Elen, that is very much what I suspected. Just making sure that there isn't a cabal! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course there isn't a cabal. ++Lar: t/c 16:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, just to be clear, everything I said in this thread, I was saying tongue-in-cheek! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I read alot of stuff here 'today' & I gotta tell ya folks, thank goodness there's RL to fall back on - 'cuz a fellow could go bonkers around here. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The coordinators wanted to make sure you all got the authentic Wikipedia ArbCom election experience. It's also a good simulation for the candidates of what being on ArbCom is like. Jehochman ^Talk 22:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (to them) for that, much obliged. But are you a coordinator? There seems to be some confusion on that point. 16:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs)

I am, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Coordination, and you could be too. However, I don't think the coordinator job is compatible with writing a guide or opining on the candidates, so you ought to pick one or the other. Maybe next year? Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

So there's actually no process to vet for suitability? Check for bias? Determine whether you've the deft touch required to "Identify and stopping disruption" in a way that doesn't actually cause more disruption than it stops? That is, no one approved your assuming this mantle and wielding this stick? Seems rather loosey goosey to me. Still I might just sign on anyway... now that the election's over. I did do some work earlier, ask Sk. As for incompatibility with holding an opinion? I don't see it. We compartmentalize stuff all the time. ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Who would approve the approvers? I agree that the perception of impartiality is important. If a coordinator who was also an influential guide writer started making suggestions or warnings to candidates they had yet to publicly make their mind up on, that would surely be justly seen as intimidation. Skomorokh 16:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why, the approver-approvers, of course, don't be daft. :) Anyway my help has been more in the realm of editing templates, adding cats to things, and the like, should be pretty non controversial gnoming. Not that you meant me when you said "influential guide writer", of course. I'm more of a contrary indicator :) ++Lar: t/c 17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh not to worry, I was speaking in the abstract; I am genuinely of the belief that opinionating and coordinating are vital parts of the elections, but need be kept apart for hygiene reasons. On another note, I quite appreciated your chipping in to help with the technical drudgery, cheers for that :) Skomorokh 00:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a cheery sign to see you on the same wavelength as MastCell about some matters. :) Mathsci (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

But Lar is a quantum-editor. Count Iblis (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

He can be both, but as soon as somebody reads something he's typed, he becomes one or the other. Jehochman ^Talk 02:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to myself question the utility of an "arb-lite" class. There are any number of serious problems with them, like how much weight to give their comments, when they should and should not make weighty comments, etc. I can and do think that there might be some utility, in some cases, for something like "expert testimony" in some cases, but the ArbCom can ask for that at any time from such editors anyway, and fairly often some of our more "expert" editors will make comments on relevant cases on their own anyway. There might be some utility to creating a separate opinion page for non-involved editors, and maybe having some sort of deputy to report the comments from such pages to ArbCom might have some use, but even that probably wouldn't be required very often. There has been previous discussion regarding a "night court" form of arbcom-lite, and I myself could see how an entity like that might be useful in the less involved cases. But I can't see any way that policies and guidelines could be constructed to give two classes of arbitrators without, honestly, a hell of a lot more headache than would probably be justified by the results. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr

1. The only legally defensible argument around self-identification and privacy is that persons who are not of legal age should not have access to IP information. There is no other "private personally identifying information" on Wikipedia unless the person submits it themselves, either directly, or by leaving enough clues to their identity that someone figures it out.
2. It is very important that Arbitrators not disclose information that is requested to be kept private. This might include oversight requests or evidence of personal identity used in arbitration cases. But if a user voluntarily discloses private information to a committee of 15 people, plus associated hangers-on (Arbcom) or to a blind mailing list staffed by volunteers (the oversight list or OTRS), there is no legal duty of the Foundation to keep that information private. Imagine, contra, that anonymous news sources could legally compel the reporters they talk to not to disclose their names. The world and the law doesn't work that way. It is a courtesy and a Wikipedia social norm that people entrusted with private information will not disclose it. It is not a legal requirement.
3. The oversight list and oversight requests are not private because there is a legal requirement to do so, they are private because a non-zero number of editors have a childish and socially maladjusted attitude toward information that is false and potentially defamatory or information that is true but not suitable for public dissemination by a rational and humane organization.
4. The vast majority of Arbcom cases contain information that is private by social convention but is not protected by law.
5. The important question to ask is not, "Will Giano identify himself" but "Will Giano uphold the social conventions on private information."
6. Requiring Arbitrators to disclose their own identities is entirely unrelated to this question. The identity of every member of Arbcom-L was known to the Foundation and yet there were massive leaks a year ago. A user will either respect the social conventions and rules of his position, or he won't.
7. Are you trying to ensure that Giano will adhere to the social conventions about private information by demanding his own private information? That sounds like...well, it doesn't sound good.
8. I see no reason why a person whose identity is not known to the Foundation could not act as an arbitrator, as long as he agreed to respect the social norms and rules regarding information submitted to Arbcom in confidence. He would only be barred from viewing or discussing IP information, and would have to rely on the redacted analysis of others, or recuse, in cases involving IP information.
9. The policy that demands that all arbitrators identify themselves is a reaction to a small number of public cases where the Foundation found itself in embarrassed circumstances. If you want to have a policy requiring identification, be honest about the reason. "We don't want to appoint another Essjay or accidentally appoint Scibaby or Poetlister." It's not about privacy.
10. The Foundation is, of course, entitled to adopt rules regarding private information that are more strict than the law requires. They are also entitled to put ferrets down their pants and dance the hornpipe. Entitled does not mean sensible. Thatcher 19:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thoughtful logic; delightful reading. Thank you. Geometry guy 00:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Especially point 10. Is it too late to draft you for ArbCom 2010, Thatcher? :) ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think many editors would have answered the call "Vote Thatcher!" :) I was hoping he would run even if he had mothballed himself ... Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Alas, I have no ferrets. Thatcher 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This completely misses the point. Here it is; please listen up. ArbCom, sadly, has to protect the project—both internally and in terms of its external public image—by dealing privately with individuals whose agenda concerns such matters as promoting adult–child sex, breaching other widely accepted sexual protocols, and/or whose psychological make-up is extremely difficult to manage and could be a threat to the well-being of minors who are exposed to them as arbitrators. While there are editors below the age of 18 who I am personally convinced could handle such matters as an arbitrator in a perfectly mature way without threat to their own stability, and there are editors over the age of 18 who could not, this is irrelevant. Minors as arbitrators would either (i) expose the Foundation legally when they are put in the position of dealing with such people, whether directly or by reading IRC discussions on how to deal with them; or (ii) cramp the conduct of the Committee's business to an extent that would go beyond mere inconvenience, by requiring the segmentation of discourse among arbitrators of different "classes", as it were, and verifiable guarantees that this was managed satisfactorily. It is unacceptable as policy to have minors on ArbCom. Period. Tony (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony1: You telling Thatcher to "listen up" is, in my view, pretty amusing. To the best of my knowledge you have zero experience as an OV, a CU, or a functionary of any kind. Really, you should try to pontificate less. ++Lar: t/c 06:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

My remarks were directed at everyone in this thread and the ones above it. Could you try not to personalise the discussion? Tony (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you dropped the condescending tone, this discussion might go better, but there's nothing personal to this. ++Lar: t/c 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. You can't fight here, this is the War Room. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, you can't and I don't like seing people I like sniping at each other - Tony you were sounding just a touch patronising and Lar, don't be over sensitive. You should both try to be more lke me and then the world will be calm and peaceful.  Giacomo  19:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I just don't see it. For the Foundation to be liable for anything, first one of its volunteers must commit a crime or a tort offense. Then the victim would have to make the case that the Foundation shared responsibility for the crime or tort by putting a volunteer in a privileged position from which the offense was committed. I'm not seeing a crime or tort offense in your scenario at all, and I further don't see a legal argument that would make the Foundation liable for the actions of a 17 year-old volunteer but not a 19 year-old volunteer even if the volunteer commits an offense. Surely, if John Doe uses privileged information to commit a crime or tort, it does not matter how old John is (except to his parents, who could be held liable for intentional acts of wrongdoing if he is under age). And remember that all of this takes place under U.S. law. But, I didn't break the seal on my cryo tube to get into an extended argument. Good night. Thatcher 03:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it either. Administrators are subjected to much the same kind of rubbish and yet Newyorkbrad has been a prominent advocate for kiddie-admins. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Being an admin is child's play compared with some of the nasty cases ArbCom has to deal with, both above and below the public radar. Tony (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've never been either and never likely to be, so I'll just have to take your word for that. Which is the problem really, because we're continually told that secrecy is essential but never why it's essential, and I'm not the trusting type. I just can't see what could possibly be so "nasty" on a web site. Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a very vivid imagination and can imagine some of the things kept secret, however, if my imagination serves me correctly then those things should be in the hands of the police and not kept secret. I will keep anybody's confidences, but knowing of a crime (I'm not talking of editing wile in the workplace, socking or even being a vandal, but where people are a danger to others) is a secret that should be reported to the police not locked in a private wiki. The victims of these people should be gently encouraged to report it too. This is the problem with secrets, they feed vivid imaginations.  Giacomo  18:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I too can imagine some things best kept secret - these might include, for instance, knowledge of or very strong evidence to indicate someone's real identity which ArbCom might have which the individual themselves have, for whatever reason, chosen not to reveal. ArbCom can, reasonably, be seen to not necessarily have to "out" someone, particularly if the information is such that it might be considered peripherally important, so perhaps important enough to be mentioned in private proceedings, but not important enough to necessarily have to be specifically mentioned in the decision itself. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Kind of looks like the community has decided this one, at least for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Continious debate is pointless as far as the 2010 Arbcom elections are concerned. JW has stated that the Foundation demands IDs & that's how he'll choose among elected candidates. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how another Essjay scenario would be handled now. For newcomers, Essjay made a big deal out of his claim of being a middle-aged professor with multiple degrees. It turned out that he was only in his early 20s, and had no credentials. Let's say that an editor has a username like "MaryJane", has a picture on her userpage showing an attractive young woman, and takes offense when she's referred to as "he". She gets elected to the ArbCom and her identity shows that she's actually an old man. Or someone runs for ArbCom who identifies as a being an Ethiopian and says he would bring more ethnic and national diversity to the committee, but who turns out to be a white guy in Cleveland. It's my understanding that, if no actual policy violations had occured, these deceptions would not be revealed and the users would be seated. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently. But I think that Thatcher's points are good ones. Just because a person reveals his or her identity does not automatically make them trustworthy with confidential information. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Giano's Choice Doesn't Matter Now

As of earlier today, Giano has officially lost the election (see Results) and any further conversation is moot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

...until next year, possibly. Now is actually an excellent time to try to resolve this, rather than wait until Nov 2011. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was meaning the "Yes" or "No" vote above (which was still going on). The discussion on whether people should identify when being elected to ArbCom could be moved to another page (RFC?), just a simple cut and paste with hatnote sitenotice directing to it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah no probs, as there's 12-months to go 'til the next time. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Work backwards six weeks for the rules to be finalized prior to nominations and election, and then at least two weeks for a good RfC before that, and we're looking at no more than 10 months. Starting an RfC while this is fresh in everyone's minds strikes me as a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

EC - Yea, I think a RFC is needed to clear the communities position on this. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the new year, so we have time to ask the Foundation what they'd be willing to do. There's no point in asking an RfC whether we should request and store IDs, if the Foundation isn't willing to store them for legal reasons. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Plus links to it could be posted on ANI, AN and a couple other locations for better visibility of the RFC. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy did say that if the community supported the change that he would promote an unverified username, or to quote him specifically from this page, " 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.-" ... but I do agree that it would be correct to first ask the Foundation if it is an actual possibility. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

An RfC of this nature needs a sitenotice when it eventually goes live, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)