Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements

Age limit wording

"must be either 18 years of age or older, or of legal age in their place of residence, whichever is higher". Wouldn't it be much simpler, and logically equivalent, to say: "must be 18 years of age or older, and of legal age in their place of residence". If you must fulfill not just "either A or B" but "the higher" of A or B, it's not really an either-or, because fulfilling the higher one entails you are also fulfilling the other, so it's always "and". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it depend on what country they live in? I'm too lazy to go check myself, but I think there are a few where the legal age is higher or lower. Or am I mistaken? Master&Expert (Talk) 08:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you fulfil both the legal age and the 18+ rule they it doesn't matter which is higher. Hence the "and". Giggy (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't matter where they live - they would have to be both at least 18 and the local age of majority no matter what. I looked for a decree that says that it needs to be worded a certain way and didn't find any. I support the change. WODUP 08:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not reference it directly to the Wikimedia Foundation's policy on access to non-public data, since that's actually 1/ what's needed, 2/ will be a more static critierion than any fixed description enwiki may give, and 3/ covers 18+ and so on at the present time. If so, one possible wording would read as follows:

Editors appointed to the Committee must comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's policy on access to non-public data. At present this means they must be must be 18 years of age or older, of legal age in their place of residence, and will be required to formally identify to the Wikimedia Foundation, before taking their seats. A small amount of leeway may be allowed for editors who will meet the age criteria very soon after the election.

This would have the advantages that it remains relatively stable if the Foundation policy changes, and it's more clear why the age limit and other requirements exist. The last (optional) sentence is because it would be unnecessary to decline a candidate for the sake of 2-3 days on their date of birth; if they are that well trusted, they can be appointed on December 28th or January 3rd if needed. Much past January 4-6 it gets difficult, things will have been moving for almost 10-12 days by then. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah right. I had been looking for that policy text but couldn't locate it. I think the current wording is pretty close to this one, isn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the point; the thing is that as it stands, the requirement for candidates is "out of thin air", whereas in fact it's not random at all -- it's a direct result of foundation policy. Saying "Users have to comply with WMF policy, which presently means <age + identification>" makes a lot clearer what's going on, compared to the present wording, which is more like "Users have to meet apparently random criteria <age + identification>" that doesn't explain at all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't propose to reopen a pretty-much-settled issue here, but for the record, I continue to disagree with the conclusion that the current Foundation Policy requires a minimum age limit for arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NYB here. Thing is, even if some decisions can have real-world effects, any form of legal action would probably be handled by the Board. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

Can something be added to the instructions that appear when one tries to create a statement, explaining the need to add their candidacy alphabetically? I would, but I think it's in a MediaWiki page, and in any case, I can't find it. Cheers, – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Word limit

Resolved

 – Bish has withdrawn; moot issue. AGK 19:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishzilla's gif image contians 1,252 "words" or 30,089 characters (includeing spaces). Some trimming would appear to be in order.Geni 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think blatant campaigning even as humorous? as this is intended? to be should be shuffled off into the appropriate userspace.--Tznkai (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Trimmed. bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Word limit should be 600 words. -- Cat ^chi? 05:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Bish* has withdrawn her candidacy. Issue moot, I suppose. AGK 19:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Catherine's Candidacy

I revered User:Scott MacDonald, who removed Catherines candinatcy as a joke. Even if it's a joke or not, Catherine should be the one who should withdraw the candinatcy, not anyone else. Secret ^account 12:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you missed the last 24 hours or something Secret? Take a look here and here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Note I didn't know Giano was Catherine, missed yesterdays drama by mere hours, but again, see my comment below about joke canditates. Consensus should be formed first about these canditates. Secret ^account 14:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Grow up. Wikilawyering to justify keeping a now stale joke on a (supposedly) serious election page is disruptive.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• As the chief and seemingly only mourner, I feel we should leave Her Late Ladyship until after the lying in state and final descent into the vaults of Scrotum Mausoleum. Has Wikipedia ever had a state funeral? Giano (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Telling someone to grow up is a equally stale and inappropriate rejoinder.--Tznkai (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we keep a modicum of decorum here, she is after all only lying in the next room you know. Giano (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Lots and lots of serious elections have joke-candidates, and I don't really see a problem with that. --Conti|✉ 14:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Where's the harm in leaving it up? It's not like the account is going to be granted status, even if the result were 90% support. This seems much ado about nothing. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Remember User:Endlessdan last year. I don't see consensus for removing joke candinatcies. Secret ^account 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Catherine passed away last night (GMT). Probably better to keep removed. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh FFS Secret - you want to form a consensus before we remove jokes from serious processes???? Have we got nothing better to do that wonk and wail? We can exercise common sense without need for a policy thank you very much. I've nothing against jokes and light hearted humour - but this joke is over. Drop it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • While joke candidatcies should be discouranged, they shouldn't be removed without some discussion in talk. Giano even admitted that he doesn't want the account here anymore, so discussion is over. Next time please be a little more civil and assume good faith, I'm not a process wonk. Secret ^account 15:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Demanding reasoning for doing the obvious is wonkery. Using demands for consensus to defend stale jokes is process wanking and a real waste of time. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

      You failed to answer the question regarding what harm is caused by leaving an obvious non-serious candidate. Your current reasoning doesn't seem adequate to me. Others see the humor in it, and continue to find humor in it. In fact, I find the current response to the late Ms. de Burgh's candidacy quite amusing (and telling), and as such, think since it's doing no harm, it should be left up. What's a smile given during an otherwise humorless process worth anyway? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Does it bother you that not everyone participates in the inner circle and may not know Catherine's Candidacy is a joke candidate? I, for one, did not know that joke candidates were allowed. I also did not know until now that "joke sock puppets" were allowed. That is very useful information and good to know. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this discussion here end. This matter is receiving quite enough attention—and is precipitating quite enough drama—as it stands. AGK 22:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Untill the unlawful checkuser Gerard is fired we are takig this no-where! Giano (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)