Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Identification

2007: Age limit?

(copied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007)

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

Extended content

I have already argued this point once with somebody involved with the enforcement of the resolution (with the same argument - they have access to sensitive private information when dealing with experienced user sockpuppet cases, eg. User:Runcorn, even if they don't have access to the tool themselves), and I was told that it was fine. Why? I have no idea. Daniel 05:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC) That should really be up to the community as we express our preferences. I note that you just interacted with NHRHS2010 who is a high school sophomore. Of far more interest is Messedrocker, 15, but with more experience and sharper answers than some of the others on this board. Last time out I voted no on every candidate under 18. But a) I don't know about this time, and b) I am not sure where to draw the line, if we draw the line. 18? Why not 17? 16? 21? If there were a legal issue, obviously that would trump all. But is there? Jd2718 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC) The issue is foundation:Resolution:Access to nonpublic data. Daniel 05:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC) And v1.1 of this resolution, m:Access to nonpublic data policy (see resolution updating/changing it). Daniel 05:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC) They seem to make it fuzzy, twice (and fuzzier as the revisions go on). "which may include," and then the Board can waive any requirement anyhow. So unless/until someone powerful says "No" I will assume that all the candidates may be considered. This may be more of an issue, as I mentioned above, for Messedrocker. What next? Someone contacts the foundation? Jd2718 06:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Since the elections are a way for the community to give their opinion to Jimbo, who as I understand it makes the final decision, why not leave out any age limit and let the community make recommendations based on merit? Then, if there are legal (or even practical) reasons for an age limit, they can be dealt with at the Jimbo/Foundation level. --barneca (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC) What worries me is this statement: user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside.[1] But there are many underage users who have shown an incredible amount of maturity and knowledge within the project, they should at least be given the opportunity. I believe Jimbo and the Foundation will be aware of this situation (since, it is now documented here), and they'll make the proper determination. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) No, there shouldn't. Arbcom is a position that demands maturity, which is not the same thing as age. If someone acts mature, they are qualified if they are 15. If someone acts immaturely, they are unqualified if they are 45. This has been a long accepted principle, and a perfectly fine "right answer" to "how old are you?" a question that is often asked at RFA, for example, is always "old enough". Frankly, this proposal makes me worry about your understanding of some key Wikipedia principles. Let's take that at your candidacy Q&A page. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Hold on. User:Swatjester pointed to a good faith concern, which is also shared by several users and the Wikimedia Foundation. Although it allows for differences of opinion in Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation's stance on generally not allowing minors to have access to private and sensitive information is quite serious. We are just discussing the effects this may have on the ArbCom elections. You may express your opinion on this matter as much as you like, but don't question another user's integrity just because they share different viewpoints. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, I don't question his integrity. I'm not about to offer him some cash, I didn't block him, I didn't bring him up for RFC or RFAR. :-) But SwatJester is, however, a candidate for arbcom, and I believe it is appropriate to ask how his views on this will affect his actions as an arbitrator. I asked on that page. For what it's worth, I also believe that maturity is important, and there are plenty of immature young people. I was a strong supporter of WP:CHILD (back when it was controversial). But there is a way to say that, and the few sentences he started this section with aren't them. Let's see what he has to say on his candidacy page, where he can hopefully expound in more detail. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Why does everyone associate checkuser with arbcom? It's oversight that is given out, not checkuser. If the candidate is not old enough, they don't get it. If they are they do. Simple as that. 82.19.15.225 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Oversight is also governed by the access to non-public data policy, and all oversights must be identified to the foundation and 18 years of age or older, exactly the same as checkuser. --Deskana (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC) As I just said. Someone can function as an arbitrator without having access. 82.19.15.225 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Arbitrators may still have access to non-public data though, just not of the sort that is goverened by the access to non-public data policy. Given Jimbo appoints the members, someone should ask him. --Deskana (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC) AnonEMouse, you don't seem to understand the reasoning behind my argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with maturity, and everything to do with being of the legal age of majority. A person under 18 years old should not be given access to sensitive information that may involve legal action by the foundation. Checkuser is one of those things. So is ArbCom email list content. See Access to nonpublic data policy, which states that users must be personally identified to the foundation, including proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside. For indemnification purposes, we need our arbitrators to be 18. It's got nothing to do with their maturity level; immature candidates simply aren't going to be elected. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC) For the record, I did not know MessedRocker fit into this category as well, but that does not change anything. It applies just as equally to him. I singled out NHRHS2010 because his username rather plainly implies that he is under 18 years old. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC) If Arbcom were covered by the Wikimedia policy you link to, there wouldn't be a need to ask the question. It's not. Many Arbcom members neither have or want Checkuser permission. As for legal action, it's certainly true that the Arbcom list may discuss information that may have to do with legal action, but so can, say, an article talk page. Arbcom decisions absolutely do not bind Wikimedia to take any legal action. It's true that the Arbcom does its best to protect the Wikipedia, but then so do we all. Thanks for your answer, it clarifies your understanding. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Arbcom is indeed covered by the policy I link to, under the oversight section, and the fact that arbitrators are the ones that approve requests for oversight and checkuser. And I disagree with your argument about talk pages: Talk pages absolutely should not have anything to do with anything related to legal action, per WP:NLT. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 18 sounds like a good minimum age requirement, 30 would be a good voluntary minimum age requirement, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC) The confusion here seems to stem from the following confusion: arbitrators need not have access to the tool, but they will have access to the data. This is because notable sockpuppetry cases (eg. Runcorn) and the checkuser information associated is discussed on arbcom-l, and the checkusers must agree on the strength on the checkuser evidence (which requires access to the private data). Following the letter of the Foundation resolution (which can't be overriden by any form of "community consensus", but rather by the Board as a whole on individual cases), minors should not have access to any of the data associated with checkuser results, as they will if a case comes up. The same applies for oversight, as there have been cases privately discussed by the Arbitration Committee which have involved oversighted edits as primary evidence (eg. TREYwiki). I think this is a very valid argument to be making, as the combination of a Foundation resolution specifically about this issue and private information (and its ramifications with the law therein) is one of importance and should not be "ignored" (to the extent that it can be by anyone not on the Board, per the Resolution). Daniel 04:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC) As a candidate in the election myself, I am reluctant to say too much on this page, but I suppose I can comment here briefly. I see no need or reason to impose a minimum age criterion for arbitrators. The Foundation policy restricting checkuser and oversight (and previously, steward) positions to those aged 18 or over is understandable, but still it represents a derogation from our guiding principle that all editors have equal rights and opportunities, and its application should not be expanded further. I believe the difference between an editor who is legally a minor exercising sole discretion over whether to access non-public checkuser data, and his or her participating in group decision-making as part of a committee of 15, is sufficient to distinguish the two positions. I would also strongly urge that unless it were somehow found to be absolutely legally necessary, which it should not be, the rules should not be substantially changed in the middle of the election. Newyorkbrad 11:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Insightful as always, Newyorkbrad. This makes a lot of sense. Ultimately the decision is Jimbo's but hopefully he will read this. I think I'll leave him a note. --Deskana (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC) I see no harm in leaving him a note, but by all means let's attempt to arrive at a community decision about the best course of action, in at least the first instance. If we're going to take JW at his not-a-God-King word (assuming we can work out what the distinction to that effect is actually supposed to mean in practice), we should be attempting to extrapolate from past practice (or consciously improve on it), not await input from on high. (Which further implies to me that it should ideally have a fully defined procedure set out in advance, and explicitly be an election in every sense, but that might be a tad radical at present.) On the material question, I agree with NYB: if people have concerns in this regard, they can factor it into their questioning of the candidates, and their decision as to which to approve. Alai 04:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Just a note on current practice: the Committee currently operates with the understanding that all members are eligible for access to restricted data under the Foundation policy, and such data is therefore openly shared. Kirill 04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Would this require substantial "screening" of information if one or more arbitrators <18y were elected/appointed, then? If a change in AC procedures would be required, or if it would palpably impede the ability of such arbitrators to do the job they were supposed to be doing, then it might be prudent to ask all candidates about their eligiblity on a more formal basis, to avoid any appearance of an unintended result. Alai 04:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC) We're currently discussing the various options; it would be premature for me to say, at this point, what the ultimate decision regarding eligibility will be. Kirill 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Decision on what, exactly? On who's eligible, or procedures for dealing with the non-eligible? I'm not asking about either of those, just for a stream-of-consciousness indication of how "big" an issue it'd be, if it did indeed arise. Alai 04:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) We're not entirely sure exactly how big of an issue it is (hence the ongoing discussion ;-), but suffice it to say that any need to significantly change the current practice would almost certainly have a substantial impact. Kirill 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Kirill, when you say we're currently discussing the various options, does this mean that the Committee is actively discussing this particular issue (both the age limit for the elections and the impact of having a minor serving in ArbCom)? As you can see from my timestamp, we're already halfway through the nomination process. I'd really like to see this issue resolved before the voting phase begins to avoid confusion. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, it does. We'll do our best to provide a more concrete answer before voting starts. Kirill 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I think it doesn't at all suffice to say. :) Would I be correct in guessing that such data doesn't arise in the majority of cases? Or am I being hopelessly optimisatic? While I'd personally have strong reservations about voting for anyone under 18, for these reasons and otherwise, I think it'd be undesirable to start "striking out" candidates at this fairly late stage; even more so for the AC to drop a bombshell midway through the voting, as MtM says; and worst of all if this arises afterwards, in the "Jimmy Wales cherry-picks, vetoes, or changes the groundrules of the election after the fact" phase of the operation. A detailed resolution of any change in process can wait (and the need may of course not actually arise in any case), but the community should really have some clarity from the AC as to the nature of the potential problem, before it starts picking pigs out of pokes. Alai 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Our own faults then, mine included, for not thinking of this sooner. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Hopelessly, hopelessly optimistic. While it's true that a large portion of the formal RFAR cases don't involve such data, much of the other business the Committee deals with does. Kirill 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC) If imposing an age restriction is being seriously considered, then I would like to provide a great deal more input. Is this the appropriate place to do so? Newyorkbrad 11:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC) As good as any to start with. The problem: although we have had good arbitrators under 18 (Sam Korn did fine at age 16), the Foundation's recent data access policy would quite definitely cover quite a lot of the material that is routinely discussed by the arbcom in the course of its duties, even if individual arbitrators don't have personal access to checkuser. - David Gerard 13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Actually, I could say quite a lot about this matter, and probably shall, but before I do so, I would like to understand more specifically what is the concern about having an arbitrator who is a minor exposed to this particular information. I understand there is a Foundation resolution and policy, but I have never been quite clear on exactly what the age-restriction aspect of the resolution was supposed to accomplish. I can intuit the purpose, particularly as applied to checkusers, but it's really never been spelled out with any clarity, and therefore I concede that I may be missing something. (And I can actually think or at least one rationale on my own that is stronger than I have seen articulated by anyone else, even though it is not dispositive.) So I will ask it directly: From the point of view of either the Foundation or the Arbitration Committee, what specifically is the concern raised by the prospect of an arbitrator who is a minor having access to the information in question (especially, not even in the context of deciding whether to run a checkuser himself or herself, but in the context of having the information from the mailing list to consider in decision-making). Please note that "conformity with the Foundation resolution" is not an answer to this question, because the issue now presented is whether this community chooses to construe the resolution broadly or narrowly, a decision that must be informed by understanding the purposes the Foundation policy is intended to serve. If it were my decision, I would require a very powerful showing of reasons to believe that that having a minor as one member of the 15-member Arbitration Committee could raise problems for the Foundation or the encyclopedia, before I would be prepared to narrow the spectrum of the community from whom arbitrators can be drawn, or overrule the strong policy of this community in support of recognizing equal rights, obligations, and opportunities for every Wikipedian. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what the reasoning for that aspect of the policy was, not being privy to the Foundation-level discussion of it; but I would hazard a guess that the intent is primarily related to the legal aspects of the WMF privacy policy. Requiring that users who can potentially violate that policy be over the age of consent presumably gives the Foundation better legal recourse should that policy be breached, as well as encouraging the victims of any such breach to take action against the party responsible rather than against the WMF itself. (But you're the legal expert here, so you're probably in a better position to judge whether this seems reasonable.) As far as the Committee is concerned, I'm not aware of any issues with having a minor as an Arbitrator except for the matter of compliance with the Foundation policy (and the resulting impact on the rest of the Committee if we are forced to comply by filtering discussion). Kirill 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the quick response. Will allow a few hours to see if any other concerns or background is added here before sharing some thoughts. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC) "AGE OF MAJORITY" is a good thing: There are significant time tested reasons why minors are, in fact, protected by the laws of the country that this discussion is indeed taking place. There are securities laws for minors and laws for voting rights. There are also laws which protect the people from the actions of minors, (e.g., age limits when running for public office.) We could discuss this topic, ad infinitum, but to say that minors should ever be given access to private and detailed personal information about anyone in the U.S. is quite frankly, patently absurd. Wisdom comes from experience and without same, it hardly could be argued that being smart is even a close second to the above. No doubt there are plenty of smart young people here, albeit each of us, with patience and understanding, can wait until our time has come. Songgarden 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC) No matter if there is an age limit or not, I withdrew myself from Arbitration Committee elections. I would be better off doing this when I'm 18. NHRHS2010 talk 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC) The question isn't so much whether it's a good idea to disclose private information to minors (or is that only in part, at least) as to what degree such non-disclosure would make it unworkable to have (or to be) an arbitatator in that situation. Alai (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC) My interpretation of the Foundation's "Access to nonpublic data policy", would prohibit sharing any such restricted data with an underage arbiter (Newyorkbrad are you suggesting that this interpretation is incorrect?) An arbiter would be unable to do their job responsibly under such a restriction. Paul August ☎ 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC) The resolution can be construed broadly or narrowly. I would have favored a narrow construction, particularly in the absence of an articulated reason supporting a broader one. There remains a major difference between a minor's being designated as a checkuser operator with sole authority to access the information, and a minor's serving as one member of a committee of 15, presumptively elected with overwhelming community support and then appointed by Jimbo Wales, who happens to receive it after the decision to pass it along is made by another specifically entrusted with the latter role. No reason for imposing such restriction has been suggested that strikes me as outweighing the infringement of the equality of editors implied by a policy limiting the community's choice of arbitrators. In saying this, I am mindful of the various ramifications of this decision, and understand what could have impelled it, but remain in disagreement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Question on disclosure of identity, and permissions (copied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007) Related to that above discussion on age, you need to apparently be "legal age" to have Checkuser or get an exemption, but I'm curious if the arbiters have to disclose their identities (to Wikipedia's community, to Jimmy Wales, or to the ArbCom overall)? Or, are they anonymous as well? I assume if they are anonymous it just means that they wouldn't have access to the extra tools like Checkuser or Oversight, but could still serve as arbiters. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Currently, there is no restriction on the age of Arbitrators, although obviously those who choose to take on the Oversight and/or CheckUser permissions must be 18+. They also choose how little or much of their identities they disclose post-appointment, and the variation in this between that which they disclose to the ArbCom privately, and to the Community. At the bare minimum, they don't have to be 18 and they don't have to disclose any personal information. Anthøny 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Transparency. --bainer (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2007: Ruling on age limit

(copied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007)

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

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

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

Yours,

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

Extended content

Comments It will be a disappointment. I believe the next appropriate step is to notify those users of this decision and withdraw their nominations with appreciation for their effort after obtaining their feedback. I'm changing the wording of the election instructions to include this decision, so all users are aware. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I have just informed the two users I am aware are under 18 (Cbrown1023 and Messedrocker), plus some others I knew were considering a run at this; I'm afraid I don't know if there are any other users who are affected by this rule, and would greatly appreciate it if they could be informed if anyone is aware of someone I've missed. James F. (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for making the decision before the elections, and for (in my opinion, as I suggested above) making the right one. A question: say someone who will be turning 18 (the age of legal majority) in January or February. Would their nomination be allowed to slip through (no, not me - enough badgering!) given being "off the mailing list" for a couple of months right at the start of their tenure isn't as disruptive as someone who could spend two or even all three years in the situation of not being able to digest private information? Daniel 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I imagine a slight staggering to the entry for an Arbitrator could be acceptable. New Arbitrators will have to get vetted which may take some time over the Christmas period (for obvious reasons), and a few weeks' delay before one or two were added to the list would not be impossible. James F. (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Wait. This encyclopedia receives international participation and there may be conflicting views on the definition of a minor. What exactly is the official threshold? Is it 18 or 21 years of age? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC) It's 18 or the legal age of majority at the place of ones' residence, whichever is higher. Daniel 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC) The exact language in the policy is "at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside." Paul August ☎ 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Indeed, I was just copying that here. From my reading, both our comments mean (in practice) the exact same thing :) Daniel 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I believe they will honor the same age as outlined at wikimedia:Access to non-public data policy. Cbrown1023 talk 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) It's the greater of 18 and the age of majority local to the individual concerned, as set out in the CheckUser policy. Sorry I didn't make this clear. James F. (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Thank you all. I'll include this in the instructions. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC) It is good that we have a clarification on this issue, but my personal view is that this change is not necessary or desirable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I'm not clear on the necessity or desirability, but the need for prior clarity outweighs any reservation I might have on that, speaking personally. If the community is unhappy with this determination, it can be revisited for next year, hopefully in a more timely way with respect to the "electoral cycle". Alai (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I was under the impression that the Arbitration Committee members were appointed by Jimbo (based, at his discretion, on the "election" results.) Shouldn't it be he who decides what the qualifications are? Of course, the committee can make a recommendation to Jimbo, but that does not appear to be what is happening here. 6SJ7 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Jimbo is, from what I understand, active on the Committee's private mailing list. I would be surprised if he had no input into this decision. Daniel 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC) This does seem to make sense, given the growing number of arbitration cases that have involved private checkuser results, oversight information, etc. Another question: Will ArbCom members have to identify themselves to Bastique/the Foundation prior to or after the election, to confirm their age? Ral315 » 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Section break Hi James F. I am a little concerned by the way this came about. This decision seems to hinge on a reading of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms, a task many of us are capable of doing. What was the need to make this decision in secret? Also, please provide a link to the "Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices" the specifically prohibit a minor's participatin in discussions of or viewing of privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools. Tahnks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC) From the WMF Access to nonpublic data policy: 2. Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside. (emphasis mine). An Arbitrator that does not meet these requirements cannot have access to such data (including, in particular, any internal discussion where such data is shared). Kirill 16:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks Kirill. I see that minors access to non-public data foundation policy has been in place since April 2007.[2] It was not a kind thing to wait until the eve of election to spring this on Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 when this could have been settled months ago. I still see no reason for announcing this as a secret decision made through the private Arbitration Committee's mailing list. I hope those involved in making this secret decision at least had the decency to apologize officially to Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 for luring them into revealing personal information about themselves in an effort to gain a position for which they had no hope of obtaining. -- Jreferee t/c 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Yes we all owe Messedrocker and Cbrown1023 an apology. I personally offer my apologies. As a community of volunteers we are not the most organized of organizations. Paul August ☎ 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I still do not see that this policy serves any necessary purpose as applied to membership on an arbitration committee, and other than pointing to the words of the resolution (which so far as I can tell was not adopted with this issue in mind one way or the other), no one has publicly identified one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2007: Two-tier Arbitration Committee

(copied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007)

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

Extended content

I would not agree to be an arbiter unless I had access to all the relevant information necessary to make responsible decisions. I would not approve of other arbiters who made decisions without the benefit of all relevant information. Thus aside from the considerable logistical problems such a two-tier system would present, I would oppose such a system on the grounds that such a system could not perform its duties responsibly. Paul August ☎ 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Agree with Paul August's thinking. From my interpretation of the Foundation's Access to non-public information policy, minors can not have access to this information. Many of our cases involve discussion of information covered by the privacy policy. I don't see any way that a Committee member could make a good independent assessment of the case with out looking at all the evidence. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC) From what little I know (and I will certain defer to current or former arbitrators on this), establishing a formal "two-tiered" process would indeed be problematic. What I have been questioning is whether it would have been necessary, or why. In this regard, I accept that there are certain issues on which arbitrators who are minors would not have been expected to take the lead, just as I have told administrators who are minors that while age is irrelevant to 99% of administrator actions, there are occasional legal-threat and harassment situations that they would be well-advised to leave for others to handle. I have no doubts that a younger editor enjoying sufficient maturity, experience, and standing in the community to have been elected to the Arbitration Committee would have been fully capable of recognizing such matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Here is some background on the Foundation's implementation of the Access to nonpublic data policy. The Wikimedia Foundation non_discrimination_policy prohibits discrimination against age in its context of age being a legally protected characteristic. Those under 18 are treated differently under the law, including areas of access to nonpublic data.[3] Foundation Meetings/June 1-3, 2007 leading to Access to nonpublic data policy Resolution. June 6, 2007 Resolution:Access to nonpublic data policy update. As for the necessity of a formal "two-tiered" process, the only ones who can answer that are the arbitrators. They apparently agree that it would be necessary. -- Jreferee t/c 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Apparently, this issue was raised in the second 2006 elections for Stewards, and apply to users with checkuser or oversight access in May 2007[4]. Here is the foundation discussion thread and here is a May 2007 Wikizine announcement. -- Jreferee t/c 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC) In reply to Newyorkbrad's request above to locate the purposes the Foundation policy is intended to serve, I have not been able to locate the Foundation's reasoning for the change. It looks like they discussed it at Foundation Meetings/June 1-3, 2007, but I was not able to find out what they said. -- Jreferee t/c 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC) How does this relate to my question about disclosure of identity? Without that, how would you verify age? Or would those arbiters that can't/don't simply not have access to run their own Checkusers and Oversight, but serve otherwise? Or does this mean that all arbiters have to disclose identities after all? Sorry I am confused. • Lawrence Cohen 17:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I do not know any other way to do it, either. So we can assume that newly elected arbitrators will be required to disclose their identities before they get assess to our confidential discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC) That is what I assumed, too. I was just curious for the elections. Does that mean that all the current ones have also disclosed to have access to that data? Is it recorded anywhere publically that they have? Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC) To my knowledge they have not disclosed their identity to the Foundation yet. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I thought every Arbitrator had confirmed their identity, as everyone has oversight? I recall Cary removing Theresa Knott's oversight access because she did not identify within the period given by the resolution on access to non-public data. I figured this meant that every current oversighter has identified, and the Arbitration Committee is a subset of the set of all oversighters. --Deskana (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I thought that the question related to current candidates not current Committee members. To my knowledge all current committee members have. Cary Bass is the person to ask as he handles this task for the Foundation.--FloNight♥♥♥ 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Oh, I see. As far as I'm aware, the only people who are running who are currently identified are me and Raul654, as we are both oversight/checkuser. Possibly Danny too, but given he used to work in the office, I wouldn't have thought any sort of verification would be necessary. --Deskana (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I'm pretty sure several others noms have also based on the other work they've done for the Foundation. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Not just that, but some of the other candidates are known to foundation staff via wikimeetups, as well. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Per this foundation thread, arbitrators need to send their info to Cary Bass, who I asked to respond in this thread. I would assume that existing Arbitration Committee members who are not of age are no longer Arbitration Committee members and the remaining ones need to prove their age. -- Jreferee t/c 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Er...not as far as I've been told. This is a different process, not related to the privacy policy on Wikipedia or anything outlined by that. I'm unaware that Arbcom falls under that policy. Cary Bass demandez 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC) The fact that it is not clear whether the existing policy applies to arbitrators was precisely one of the points I was making above. In any event, requiring proof of identification is a separate and distinct issue from imposing a minimum age on committee members. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC) The policy does not say that arbiters must identify, or be of age. However it does say that arbs who have not identified or are underage can not have access to non-public data. The Foundation could make an exception for arbs, but until they do I would feel constrained to not pass along such data to such arbs — in my opinion that would be an untenable situation. Paul August ☎ 21:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I think it goes to enforcement. Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Transparency does not require age disclosure, but you can't be under 18 and be on Arbcom. The effect seems to be that only the honest candidates under 18 will drop out or not enter the election. -- Jreferee t/c 20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC) That is not quite the point I was making. What I meant to say was that it is possible to require identification validation without imposing an age requirement. (As a practical matter, that might require that would-be arbitrators who were minors speak with their parents/guardians about the role they were taking on, but I doubt that this would be a problem.) At present, I believe that most, though not quite all, of the arbitrators are publicly identified by real name and/or at least known to Foundation officials in any event, although not all of this year's candidates are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC) After reviewing your posts and Cary Bass's post, I think I see the distinction you made. The right to decide and the ability to mine data for non-public information (checkuser) vs. receiving that mined data after another has decided to compile it (arbcom). Looking at the language of the foundation policy, the foundation policy addresses "granted access rights to restricted data."[5] The arbcom minor might receive restricted data but they in fact are not granted access rights to that restricted data. The arbcom minor's receipt of restricted data is conditioned on another's right to access that data. The foundation policy addresses who can push buttons to get restricted data from Wikipedia's database. It does not address the decision by those with access to that data to pass on that data. In fact, they pass on portions of that non-public data all the time at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser and post it in a location where minors can see it. I do not agree that "a minor could not take part in discussion of or even be shown privileged information, including that sourced from the CheckUser and OverSight tools, without violating the confines of the Foundation's privacy policy and related terms which govern our practices."[6] I think the reading of the Foundation's privacy policy is incorrect and Cbrown1023 and Messedrocker should be allowed to run for arbcom. -- Jreferee t/c 21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC) In addition, I do not think ArbCom can have it both ways. If the information received by ArbCom falls under the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution, then all ArbCom member are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution to provide identification to the Foundation just as checkusers, oversights, stewards, and volunteers on OTRS do.[7] If the information received by ArbCom does not fall under the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution, then there is no Wikimedia Foundation basis for the above ArbCom decision. -- Jreferee t/c 22:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Cary, in this thread the Committee announced that we do not think that Committee members can carry out our job without access to non-public information. This is a new decision that we made after discussion among ourselves. The election prompted our discussion and decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (ec) Wouldn't a valid local I.D. be the only way demonstrate age, beside a birth certificate, though? • Lawrence Cohen 20:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration policy doesn't seem to address Arbcom's control over the Arbcom election. It lists it as an unresolved issue. A Wikipedia:Election policy would have helped. -- Jreferee t/c 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I believe Jreferee has established valid points based on his interpretations. I still believe that the ArbCom made the correct determination, however, we won't find a resolution unless either the Foundation, through one of its members or representatives, Cary, or Jimbo address this. Otherwise, we risk having serious confusion and disagreements in the election process, or worse: disenfranchisement. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC) On reflection, ArbCom's outcome probably is correct. ArbCom can determine that "our working practices are incompatible with having a minor as a member of the Committee" in the context of the privileged information since only ArbCom (and others with access) know what in fact constitutes the privileged information. All Wikipedian's can determine whether minors can be shown privileged information in a general sense, but when it comes to making a determination regarding the actual privileged information that would be revealed to the minors, only those who can review such actual privileged information can make such a determination. -- Jreferee t/c 21:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

2008: Timeline - Calling the question

(copied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive 2)

Don't forget there will need to be sufficient time between announcement and commencement to allow for identification to the Foundation. --bainer (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Last year, winners were announced on the 26th, and I know of no problems with getting the proper identifications in place before the 1st. It might be simpler to remove that date, since it is not binding on Jimbo at all - and we would trust that he would approve the winners with sufficient time remaining in the year to identify themselves. The other option, if there is some delay, would be to seat the arbitrators only when they are confirmed to have properly identified themselves. Since new arbs don't hop in on old cases, the only issue would be if we got a new case in that first week of the year. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2008: Identification

(copied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive 2)

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 this is unavoidable, and worth raising prior to nominations. I've raised it on arbcom-l also. ...[snip, see below]... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Extended content

Access to non-public data is governed by the Foundation's Access to nonpublic data policy. It contains the following provisions: The intent of this policy is to ensure that volunteers who have access to nonpublic data covered by the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy are personally and legally accountable. 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 [...which is covered by...] the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. 2. Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation... It is already agreed (WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit) that users standing must meet the age requirement for non-public data. Rationale for the belief that identification is unavoidable is in that thread, and also as follows: A user appointed to the Committee, even if they do not request Checkuser or Oversight, will join the arbcom mailing lists. This automatically gives "access to... nonpublic data or other nonpublic information produced, collected, or otherwise held by the Wikimedia Foundation" even if they do nothing else. (See also [8].) A user who avoided arbcom mailing lists, and is not party to dialog or emails containing non-public or personal data about users, would effectively be so "out of the loop" (based on experience of arbcom activities) that they could not substantively do the role. Even if not every case involves such data, it would only take one or two significant points to involve such matters, and the Arbitrator would probably be unable to fully review the whole case as his/her colleagues could. (I haven't formally counted what proportion of activity and threads include at least one email with such discussion but I'd hazard a guess roughly as follows: 30 - 50%, rising sharply for the more significant and high profile cases, and for appeals. Enough.) The presence of an Arbitrator who was unable to be sent emails that touched on, or contained quotes of, non-public information, would be highly disruptive and difficult for other arbitrators, who must discuss these with their colleagues on a daily basis, usually via their mailing lists. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC) I have added "be willing to identify to the WMF if appointed" as a criterion.[9] Anthøny (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC) I really think it's a bit extreme to require all candidates to provide identification, but I think it's more or less accepted that it may be necessary to provide ID to the WMF after being elected, but before being appointed. If nothing else, processing and verifying the ID credentials of 50+ hopefuls would probably take up a whole bunch of time for WMF volunteers that could be more productively spent on something else. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC). I asked Cary and he does not care about doing it before, during, or after the election. MBisanz talk 05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Yeah, but why waste his time doing ID for the obviously nonviable candidates that are going to pop up? I've no idea how much work is involved, but it seems silly to do all that work (and not just for Cary, but for the candidate who has to find and send the appropriate authorisation), not to mention the potential for privacy violations, for candidates who stand no chance at all of being elected. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC). My thought would be that ineligible candidate User:X runs, wins, refuses to identify, is not seated on arbcom, spends the next year reminding everyone how he was denied his seat because the Foundation is ageist/etc. To identify, all one must do is email/fax a copy of their driver's license/passport to the Foundation, so there is not that much paperwork involved. MBisanz talk 05:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry, when I say "nonviable" I'm talking about people like User:X who may just barely meet whatever entry criteria we set, but who have a profile or history that will more or less prevent them ever being elected. Say, a 21 year old with 500 mostly-automated edits, and a history of lighting more fires than putting them out. This person, although technically eligible, will never ever be elected, so what's the point in wasting the time validating their identity and age? Now, I'm fine with requiring a user to disclose their identity to WMF in order to be elected, but it seems like it would be a lot of fiddly mucking about to do "a little bit" of paperwork for fifty people, when we can possibly get away with doing it for under ten. That's why I think we should require identification as FT2 has suggested, but we stipulate that a person is not required to do so until after they have been successfully elected (but probably prior to appointment by Jimbo). If anyone refuses to identify themselves for any reason, we can then always point at this notice and say "Well, you knew it was a condition of being elected". Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC). Okey, works for me , but I'm reserving the right to call shenanigans if someone tries to lawyer the identification process after the election. MBisanz talk 08:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) There is the point, however, that since identification is a si ne qua non requirement of being actually appointed, someone who does not or cannot do so at the time of nomination is a huge waste of everybody's time in the whole voting process. I think the prerequisite identification would be a valuable filter. — Coren (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Proposal: Identification as a prerequisite [Forked into separate section for navigation.] Quite so. Additionally: the only argument against pre-identification is that it's a waste of time to have every candidate identify. Cary has already stated that he's fine with folks identifying before; from that point of view, that rationalisation is somewhat moot. I move to make pre-identification a prerequisite for running this year right here and now. Anthøny (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I have created {{ACEidentity}} for the purposes of noting which candidates have identified, if this goes ahead. Identification:     Candidate has identified. Identification:     Candidate has not identified. Identification:     Identification is in progress. Example, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Example. Anthøny (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Given all the concerns about the privacy of identities, I would think that we would want as few disclosures as possible-- i.e. identifications AFTER the election as a final step before actual appointment. Most of the candidates aren't going to be appointed to arbcom-- why make them all identify? Just make sure they all know they'll have to before they could serve. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Hold on - where is Cary's post on this subject? Where is the Foundation's description of what information will be collected, how it will be kept secure, how long it will be kept, and how it will be destroyed if no longer required? This sort of stuff isn't covered in the Foundation's privacy policy. Unlike candidates for the WMF Board, arbitrators have no fiduciary responsibility mandated by law. Let's not kid ourselves, privacy is a very big deal on this project, and this is moving the goalposts a very long way. Note that I have changed the title to include the word "Proposal". Risker (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC) MBisanz privately contacted Bastique. If Cary could be asked to pop by here and confirm that he is indeed willing to accept identifications from candidates pre-Election, it would be all the better. Anthøny (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Nevertheless, if you nominate yourself for the ArbCom you must be willing to identify yourself and trust that the Foundation isn't going to be misusing that identification. Otherwise, you obviously have no intention of actually serving if elected (given that those would be requirements). Yes, it means that you need to make an affirmative step when you nominate yourself— I would expect this to weed out frivolous candidacies if nothing else. If you don't trust the Foundation with your identity before the election, something which is a legitimate concern, then what would make you suddenly trust it after the election? — Coren (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, with Arbitrators gaining Oversight rights, and most having CheckUser right, identification is required for Arbitrators. Since data is apparently discussed on the list, it would be nonsensical for someone to run who wasn't willing to identify, or who was under 18. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC) It wouldn't be the end of the world, I don't know that any candidate would have a huge problem with it, but it's just good practice to not collect information you don't need. The easiest way to guarantee that something doesn't get stolen is to make sure you never possess it in the first place. As always happens, some candidates are going to find out that, although they weren't previously aware of it, they are actually extremely unpopular, or at least untrusted. Those with hurt feelings will probably will regret having revealed their identities, and if those people are outed later, they may allege a leak from within the foundation. In short, we could do five times the amount of work, and all we'd get for our trouble would be potential problems. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Does it actually matter if the identification is received before or after? As long as it's received some time between nominating, and say, a week after the new Arbitrators are announced, it shouldn't be an issue, should it? As someone said, it's a waste of time dealing with IDs for people who run but aren't successful. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC) And it's a waste of time dealing with election for people who cannot or will not identify themselves to the foundation. The only question are, in practice, (a) How likely is it that someone who gets pick then does not identify themself, and (b) how many candidates will rethink their participation if they are presented with the requirement to identify beforehand. For the record, I think (b) is a positive, not a caveat. — Coren (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Identification simply says that person is over 18. No other personal information is ever revealed. I personally don't see what the problem with identifying beforehand is, but some people seem to. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Identification includes providing evidence of identity, not just age. Cary is quite rightly not concerned about Arbcom elections, which is why he doesn't specifically comment. His requirement will be Foundation's policy compliance. Foundation policies include a requirement that any user with access to WMF non-public data (so defined) must identify, or not be given that access. My observation is that access to non-public information is integral to Arbitration Committee work. The norms and process for that identification would be the same as for any user, who requests access to a project role, that involves access to data covered by the WMF's non-public data policy. Basis of observation, and background to this: Arbitration Committee ruling on age limit, WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit and WT:ACE2008#Identification. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry; I might not have been clear. I meant that some people may have been wary of identifying because of fears of personal data being "leaked", or their identity being public knowledge. The only thing that is public knowledge is the fact the person is over the age of 18. It is, of course, essential that ArbCom members identify themselves, due to the nature of their work. The point of this discussion is determining when to do so: before voting, or after once the new Arbitrators are announced. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I like Anthony's template, given that identification for me was as simple as taking a picture of my driver's license with my digital camera and emailing it, I'm not seeing the time strain either way. Given the deceptions we've had over the last year with PoetGuy and Archtransit (as recently as yesterday at commons with Archtransit), it is a nice, tiny, extra safeguard to have everyone identified before/during the election. Given that the pre-election stage is nearly a month long, that should be plenty of time. Risker, the new privacy policy was released this week, page 6 of wmf:Image:Privacy Policy 10.14.08.odt - NeoOffice Writer.pdf describes the circumstances under which the Foundation (Cary) could disclose the information. Basically it is the same level of protection required by CheckUsers, but since Cary's job is on the line (as opposed to the volunteer checkusers), it is a pretty good protection. Now if you review the wmf:Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy document, it clearly says 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. It goes on to say that the type of identifying data required is ...which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside. So I'm not seeing how requiring pre-identification from someone who actually intends to serve an an arbitrator is that much different than what we've always done. MBisanz talk 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I fully agree that identification is required under the Foundation's policy. It would be quite impossible to do arbitration work without access to private data. There doesn't seem to be any way round this in my opinion, and that's fine by me. I'm not convinced, however, that identification is useful before we have chosen our arbitrators. It seems like a lot of unnecessary work both for the candidates and for Cary. I think the situation that would make it worth it is a pretty remote possibility. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC) A user who was appointed then played round with identifying might well find the response was withdrawal of invitation, rather than playing along. Arbitrators are expected to be above that, and to have considered and checked matters if they had concerns. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I'm assuming any user who got the level of support needed for Arbitrator-ship would be the kind who wouldn't do that; I expect they'd be fully prepared, and willing to work with the system, not against it. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Sam, I don't mind either way, before or after the election. But given traveling and holiday schedules, it might be a nice option that people can identify before if they want and that Athony's template can keep track of it all. Not required before, just a "By Jan 1 (?) you should have identified" sort of thing. MBisanz talk 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC) I think that identification beforehand is a good thing (disclaimer: I made no secret of my intent to run, and I obviously have no problem with this), because: It ensures that anyone who runs qualifies for the position should they be selected; it requires a positive act, possibly weeding out candidacies "for the heck of it" which distract the voters from evaluating the other candidates (this has been observed in previous elections, but is admittedly not a major problem); and it significantly reduces the probability of attempts to game the system. In all fairness, there are drawbacks as well: It identifies people who have not been selected to serve to the Foundation who otherwise wouldn't have had to; it may impose a dissuasive barrier to some less confident candidates; and there is the legitimate (albeit not necessarily justified) fear that this information, which is very private, is then lost or misused. I think that the workload to identify the candidates is a red herring; not only has Carey already confirmed that it is not a problem in itself. So the end result is that the primary factor is that some people will have their identities known to the Foundation who otherwise would not; but if they were sincerely being on the ArbCom, then they were necessarily prepared to have that information known. Given the fact that the Foundation takes privacy very seriously (as has been amply and regularly demonstrated in the past) then I can't think of a reason why we'd not streamline the election process by starting the identification at nomination time. — Coren (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Indeed. All in all, I think requiring candidates to identify pre-Election is a net-positive. Adjusting the election procedures to ask candidates to quickly identify is a good move. Anthøny (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC) It is all very lovely that MBisanz and Cary had a private chat. Cary needs to come here and say the same thing, and also tell people exactly and precisely what the Foundation's policy is with respect to requiring personal information, and what they do with it. Not one person commmenting in this thread, including present and former arbitrators, is qualified to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation on this point. As self-identification is not explicitly discussed in the Foundation's privacy policy, this is not a minor point. There is zero net positive in pre-election identification. I will point out that in our recent Checkuser appointments, none of those who self-nominated were requested to self-identify as part of their self-nomination; this is clear based on the rights logs, and at least one checkuser confirming that he was not required to provide personal identification until after the offer of appointment. I work with huge amounts of personal private information on a daily basis, and such a cavalier attitude toward the collection, use, retention and destruction of such information in a project where personal privacy has been a major issue just leaves me shaking my head. Risker (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Update: I've asked Cary Bass to comment on this issue, both specifically and in a general sense, because of course there is no doubt that successful candidates would have to identify themselves to the Foundation. My request to him is here on his user page. We have to be reasonable and understand that this question relates to his work as the Foundation's Volunteer Coordinator, and because it's a "work" question we should not expect him to answer it outside of his usual business hours. I hope for his sake that doesn't include Saturday evening. Risker (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure why any conversation I had on IRC with someone who asked me some questions is even mentioned in this discussion, and I'd certainly like it if people stop referencing any conversation I might have had with them. It's kind of creepy to learn of your own discussions on IRC days later on the wiki. There are posts ad nauseum either on mailing lists or on meta about the retention of data as well as the method of submission and what happens to the data after identification. Members of Arbcom and others can certainly repeat what's already been said by the Foundation about the issue. Asking me to continue to repeat the same information again and again takes my time away from other valuable resources. As I'm certain there are literally hundreds of people who watch this page, someone can find the information you're looking for, without demanding my time to make the same "official statement" over and over. I would like to add that the insinuation that any staff member of the Foundation that is delegated to perform the task of identification might leak anyone's personal information is baseless and absurd. It is baseless because there's no evidence, in all the identifications that have been made (See m:Identification noticeboard for a list), that anyone's personal information has been leaked. It is absurd to even consider that I might be "personally motivated" to leak someone's information; in my capacity at the foundation I have handled private information of a wide variety of individuals in a wide variety of matters, many of whom did not have ideal relationships with myself or the foundation. Even if I had personal feelings about any of the candidates, it certainly would not affect the way I handle their information. Bastique demandez 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC) I'm surprised anyone is even suggesting the Foundation is leaking anything. How ridiculous. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Speaking for myself, I don't myself mean to suggest they would leak, and (hopefully) that's not what any here is saying. It's just good data handling to only collect what you need. For one thing, right off the bat, even if we trust the humans involved, computers get compromised all the time. For two, "Don't collect what you don't need" shields the foundation from false allegations of leaking-- it is impossible to leak what you never had. This is why police officers on a traffic stop will insist that you hand them only your identification, rather than you entire wallet-- if they were never in possession of your wallet, it is impossible for them to have mishandled it. I'm just saying-- I estimate that the probability that we'll have to deal with one of top-8 most trusted people on the project being unwilling to identify if actually elected is basically zero. On the other hand, the probability that a disgruntled losing candidate might try to stir up trouble by alleging mishandling of information is distinctly non-zero. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your reply, Cary. I'm sorry if you felt annoyed by the requests to make an 'official statement' of any kind; I suppose the justification was that this really is a first-of-its-kind situation (an individual project demanding candidates pre-identify; until now, only WMF-wide elections [steward, Board of Trustees] seem to have required that). I suppose a useful compromise would be to simply make it all the more clear to candidates that, if elected, they will have to identify before taking their seats. I'm going to create an editbox with a pre-loaded notice that gives a few disclaimers to candidates whilst they're creating their statement. (I'll link here in a moment.) Anthøny (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC) No. Abcom is in theory at least chosen by the community. If the community choses someone who isn't prepared to identify that is it's choice.Geni 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, the community chooses a candidate on the assumption that s/he is willing to identify. If the candidate later reveals he isn't willing to identify, then he's mislead the community, and in my view, the appointment is void. Anthøny (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Not the case I was thinking of. The community may want to chose someone who refuses to identify.Geni 13:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC) And the point would be what, exactly? The community would chose someone who would then not be on the ArbCom? Please remember that the requirement to identify is a Foundation issue; the community has no say in the matter. What you propose, at best, is to have a Pope at Avignon. — Coren (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC) The person could be on arbcom if a rather ineffective memeber. The point would be that the rules for running the election are not meant to make it easy for the community to pick the candidate it likes. Not for the people seting the rules to pic the candidate type they like. If someone who refuses to identify manages to win (I suspect it would be imposible but they should be free to try) that would suggest the community accepts that it is legitate not to trust the foundation's data handleing procedures. If that were to happen (I really really doubt it would) perhaps the foundation would feel the need to review those policies. The ability for people with non standard views to run for arbcom is an important check and balance in en's relationship both with itself and with the foundation.Geni 15:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Actually no, the person could not be on ArbCom at all; there is no community leeway here: members of ArbCom are and must be identified, and someone who is not identified cannot be a member of ArbCom. — Coren (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Not so. They couldn't be on the arbcom mailing list. They would not be allowed acess to priverlaged information but that does not de jure prevent them from being part of arbcom. Heh I understand some wikis have arbcom memebers who are non admins.Geni 22:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC) That would be correct, if it weren't wrong.  :-) Last year, there was an official clarification to exclude minors from ArbCom because they cannot identify, and that identification was sine qua non to being a committee member. — Coren (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Nope no such board resolution exists. The foundation may request that the community limits itself to choseing people prepared to identify but it cannot force the community to unless it is prepared to take over the functions of arbcom. It can block arbcom-l acess or simular. I suspect such a request would have significat weight but that is a descision for those voteing not those sorting out the running.Geni 23:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Well, you have sort of made my point for me, Coren. It is a Foundation issue, not something to be decided by individual wikis, and any questions about it need to be addressed to Foundation personnel; nobody in this thread with the exception of Bastique is in a position to answer them authoritatively. This appears to be the first time where an individual wiki has proposed to require pre-identification as part of the self-nomination process; the Foundation's policy on access to nonpublic data says "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".(emphasis mine) I'm not quite getting why en.wp would want to require, for this one particular role, an identification policy that goes far beyond that of the Foundation itself. Please note that candidacy for an Arbcom is not comparable to candidacy for the Foundation Board (the only other place where pre-identification is required). Foundation Board members are required by law to be publicly identifiable. Arbcom members need only to self-identify to the Foundation (not the whole world), and only in response to an internal policy. Risker (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, you got this pretty much backwards. Board members are, indeed, required to be identifiable - not candidates. The reason why pre-identification was required was to ensure that all candidates, if elected, could actually serve. Handling of identification of candidates that were not selected is exactly analogous to what would happen here. The data handling policies of the Foundation are nothing but a red herring in this case: they remain exactly the same whether identification is made at the time of nomination or after the vote. There is no legitimate reason to request or expect that running for ArbCom can be made pseudonymously given that the position absolutely requires that identification be made. Anyone who wishes to run without identifying is, in effect, stating that they refuse to serve (given that they refuse to fulfill the only absolute qualification). If one wants to remain pseudonymous, one needs to not request positions of access to private information. — Coren (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC) (The though occured to me that, as well, someone could run and refuse to identify themselves if they fully expected that they could not be elected and that identification would be moot— this is even worse for two reasons: if they indeed have not been elected then they have wasted a great deal of community effort; if they do get elected against their expectation then they would either have to identify themselves in the end, or would have not only wasted community effort but displaced another, viable, candidate). — Coren (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC) I think the appropriateness of requiring advance identification depends in part on how many candidates there are. If there are 10 candidates for 6 or 7 positions, it would be perfectly reasonable to ask everyone to identify. If there are 50 candidates, it would probably be excessive to ask the Office to verify more than 40 extra people, even though Cary has indicated that he is willing to do so. If we don't go with advance identification, then it will be simple enough for someone to post a question to all the candidates: "Are you willing to identify yourself to the Foundation Office immediately upon being elected?" Anyone who doesn't answer that question with a yes isn't going to be elected anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC) The corollary to that question is whether requesting advance identification will affect that number downwards. I would expect that a number of "what the heck" candidates for ArbCom will reconsider if nominating oneself involves more than simply writing and transcluding a page. Sorta of a "you must be this serious to run" sign on the door... whether that is a good thing or a bad thing on its face is open to debate (I think that's a good thing). — Coren (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC) I just wish I worked at the office, because I want to see Bishzilla's birth certificate. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC) What office? Bishzilla just ate it. Jehochman Talk 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC) FWIW, Jimbo has restated that he will not appoint someone who has not identified to him or the Foundation, but that he sees "no reason to bother" identifying beforehand. Given that there are privacy implications to requiring the identification of all candidates, and that the change in procedure is not clearly undisputed, I'm changing my position to "Meh, it would have been a good idea but I'm not deadset about it."  :-) — Coren (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC) It is my belief that an individual project can make more stringent requirements for things like access to data (and many other things) than the foundation, but it cannot make less stringent requirements, the WMF requirements are a floor. So a project could (if such consensus were demonstrable) require that candidates have the first name Brad, or be ineligible to hold office. There are many projects already that impose more stringent requirements than mandated on things such as how CU checks are carried out, or who can be a CU. This strikes me as no different. I think a commitment that one WILL identify to the foundation if elected is an absolutely reasonable one to ask of candidates. I think candidates should be allowed to identify in advance if they so wish, and if Cary's willing to process them, great. (Note that to run for steward you are supposed to self identify in advance, not after. Note also that I am not necessarily saying that a committee that had only Brads on it would be a good thing... Or am I?) ++Lar: t/c 04:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

2008: Nomination instructions

(copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements)

• Candidates who are appointed to the Committee will be required—without exception—to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats. Therefore a willingness to identify should you be appointed is a criterion for candidates in this year's election. Background: WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit. [10]

2008: What people in the WMF will get to see the new arb's names?

(copied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive 3)

Extended content

I wasn't sure where to put this but was just wondering which individuals in particular get to see the real names of the new arbs? As obviously prospective arbs might have their own opinions of the individuals concerned and that might effect whether they stand or not. I know that in general doubts about their personal info possibly getting out into the real world or something, are unfortunately causing some people not to stand. Sticky Parkin 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC) See the policy: "Each Arbitrator will make their own decision about how much personal information about themselves they are willing to share, both publicly, and with the rest of the Committee." – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC) However, they need to identify; therefore Cary Bass does. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Do they? Where does it say this? – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Archive_2#Identification. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC) What so they can tell the multiple checkusers who abuse their power. Giano (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC) This time they have to disclose their real names at least- or so people are saying. Some people don't want to because they might believe if it got out that they're on arbcom it might have some bearing on their career or something, or because of general risk of outing concerns, not everyone trusts people with those details or might have specific concerns about some individuals; I don't know.) Is it just Cary Bass? I assume not? Sticky Parkin 01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They need to send a valid drivers license, a passport, or other acceptable identification (including real name, address and date of birth) to Cary Bass. He then adds the people to the Identification Noticeboard. They don't need to make any of this data public, and only Cary (to my knowledge) has access to the database of identification paperwork itself. Just to emphasise: they don't need to make public any information at all, however they do need to send the identification to Cary Bass, and Cary only. Daniel (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

2009: Upcoming ArbCom "advisory" election

(copied from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_50#Upcoming_ArbCom_.22advisory.22_election)

... [snip]

Yes. I intend to keep the size of the ArbCom the same, unless there are compelling arguments offered now and with majority support of the sitting ArbCom. And second, I intend to form a new review committee composed of former arbs and checkusers, tasked specifically with doing "background checks" on the winning candidates for sockpuppets, past bad behavior, etc. Their reports will be the only thing that I would consider legitimate as a reason to not appoint, that is to say, I want my "appoint" role to be purely ceremonial this time around. And third, I will insist that all ArbCom members identify to the Foundation before taking office. I have discussed some of the details of this with ArbCom but haven't yet gotten around to reaching a final conclusion about the details - and I welcome input.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

...[snip] Jimbo: In my opinion, full disclosure to the Foundation of an arbitrator's identity, background, and details of commercial affiliations is essential, and a lesson to be learned from history. In the future, I would favor such a requirement, along with verification of the credentials and the sort of on-Wiki background check that you propose, when a Wikipedian becomes a candidate for ArbCom, with the investigation to be completed before voting starts; that would prevent possible controversy after the election, if a winning candidate is found to be unfit for the office. As for the term, I am not sure that three years is too long, but one year is too short, in my opinion. It is important to have a contingent of experienced arbitrators in such a demanding, powerful, and responsible position. I suggest looking to present and past ArbCom members for guidance about the term. —Finell (Talk) 19:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Finell, I agree with your points about full disclosure, before the election. It's all a bit of bother, but it can only raise the prestige of ArbCom. As for arb terms, the staggered-terms system does provide both experience and new blood simultaneously (if we can reduce the rate of departure through mishap, that would be even better). I'd not ask the US President whether s/he would be OK with a change to a one-term limit or an extension to three terms: conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) While I can see the arguments for it, it reeks of WP:OUTING, and is likely to have a chilling effect on candidacies. Just informing all of the participants that they will have to be verified if elected should have the same effect for less work on all sides. If it works for the IOC (where medal winners are drug tested), it should work for Wikipedia. AKAF (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) It's one thing to be an essentially anonymous registered editor. It is quite another to be an anonymous candidate for ArbCom and the power that it wields over all of us. The Foundation should check the qualifications and background of candidates before the election, not afterward to invalidate the vote. —Finell (Talk) 00:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC) The current committee is a hair away from being completely publicly identified, some of them against their will—don't you think that is chilling? If you want to remain anonymous, you should not run for ArbCom, period. It's probably practical advice to make it known from the get-go, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Cool Hand Luke 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC) That is excellent news - thank you, Jimmy! --Tango (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC) "tasked specifically with doing "background checks" on the winning candidates for sockpuppets" This is TOTALLY against CU policy, ie, CU is not for fishing. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Disgraced sockpuppeting arbitrators are also contrary to policy – what alternative would you suggest to prevent these slipping through?  Skomorokh  20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC) By that logic ALL USERS should be CU'd and investigated as all puppeteers are a disgrace. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC) All users are not is as sensitive position as ArbCom are. As long as it is made clear to candidates that this will be done before they decide to stand, I don't see any problem with it. If you have something to hide, don't stand for ArbCom. --Tango (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Simply make it clear in the election criteria that all candidates must agree to be checkusered. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry if I'm missing the point, but I can't see what the issue is. All ArbCom members must be identified to the Foundation, is that right? (If not, then they ought to be.) If all members must be ID-ed, how can it have a chilling effect to ask that all candidates be ID-ed? I think we need to stop pussy-footing around with this. We've had a few bad situations with ArbCom members not being quite who or what they said or implied they were, so let's put an end to it and introduce some professionalism. (a) Let's be told exactly who we're voting for, (b) let's be told how many places we're voting for, and not have the number changed after the election closes; (c) let's have a secret ballot, and (d) let's allow the results of that ballot alone determine who is appointed, and not have Jimbo or anyone else decide it. All these measures are long overdue. Playing around with anything less suits only people with vested interests in secrecy or cabalism or unprofessionalism. Let's move beyond all that as a community, and have free and fair elections. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC) In the past, Arbcom members have not been required to identify to the Foundation, despite CU data and OS issues flowing across the Arbcom list regularly. This should be addressed at all levels. In regards to Checkuser, it is not a panacea; it will only be useful to prevent candidatures like Catherine de Burgh. The only solution is to ask the candidates hard questions, such as divulging their previous accounts as required by policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency, and kick the shit out of them if we find out that they lied. If we dont ask the hard questions, and dont insist on clear answers, these problems will continue. Needless to say, I agree we should stop pussy-footing around, and that your recommendations are long overdue. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for that information, John. I didn't realize ArbCom members weren't required to identify, which seems absurd. What is the procedure for sorting all this out in time for this upcoming election? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC) If I'm not mistaken, that "past" refers to AC elections prior to the last, and in any case, after the recent little kerfuffle as far as I know all AC members are fully identified. So that issue seems to be solved already, it's now a requirement for AC membership. I still see no reason for candidates to provide identification. The serious vs. unserious candidates become apparent within the first week, and we've never had a case that I know of where a candidate was elected but couldn't fulfill the ID requirements (though there was a young and very capable fellow who withdrew based on the age-of-majority limit). In any case, if a candidate-elect fails whatever scrutiny, election proceeds to the next candidate in line, so we never get "screwed" by a hoax. To SV's points, a) we are told who we're voting for - the editor associated with the pseudonym they selected on signing up. Their record is open to examination (but we'll never know every one of their email, IRC and gchat missives). Once those candidates are selected to serve, they need close scrutiny by WMF staff and current and former AC members - but only because they will be privy to sensitive information. Mere candidacy shouldn't require the same level of examination. b) as I recall, the number of places assigned last go-round was premised partly on planned departures to which most were not privy, and partly to address workload issues and Arb availability and participation. I personally have no big issue with the "executive decision" which gave the current result. Given the "short tail" of the ACE2008 results, I think it was admirable in fact, and I'm not aware of any damage that resulted (feelings maybe, but not in terms of actual operation of the site); c) I seem to be in the minority on this, but I thought TenOfAllTrades made very cogent points in the RFC and I personally favour open outcry elections. They allow the site editors to explicitly give their opinions with their votes, and I for one am always very interested in the opinions of my fellow editors. I rarely agree, but I do like to read how wrong all you other people are ;) TOAT made an excellent point that open-style voting lets others quickly identify fringe candidates and focus their limited time on scrutiny of issues with the realistic candidates. And open voting would have indicated pretty quickly that Lady Catherine wasn't a viable candidate last time, so we wouldn't have needed a CU - enough people had a clue there. And d) well actually, it's not all that uncommon for "other people" to decide the results of an election. I can think of at least one election in a major country in the last 10 years that was eventually decided by a majority vote among just nine eminent persons. So no, SV, I don't think I have any of the vested interests you describe above, and I disagree that your proposals are the only way to achieve "free and fair" elections. Free and fair is such a nebulous and abused concept that I don't even want to touch it (as in, didn't Stalin hold "free and fair" elections? Like that...) Sorry Jimbo and all others for the long post! Franamax (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Any project which have either oversighters or checkusers will have sensitive data ending up in the hands of the arbitration committee. The wmf:Access to nonpublic data policy was very strict about identification, however Arbitrators have become exempt due to the wmf:Resolution:privacy policy update April 2008 (see "users elected by project communities to serve as stewards or Arbitrators"). Irrespective of that, the meta or en.WP community can determine requirements for their own arbitrators and candidates. On meta, meta:Arbitration Committee and meta:Wikimedia Arbitration committees election processes are the relevant pages. On English Wikipedia, WP:ACE2009 is editable ;-) The executive summary of the ArbCom secret ballot RFC is that a "return to secret ballots for ArbCom elections has been resoundingly endorsed" so now we need to execute that. IIRC, the technical infrastructure for the secret ballot is already being discussed somewhere. I think it would be a good idea to ask the Board election committee if they would oversee our upcoming Audit-subcom & Arbcom elections, as they have recent experience, they provide necessary external oversight as many are not regulars here on en.WP, and their authority comes from the WMF board. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (undent) John. Please. "Executive summary" - when did we start having those? Did you mean the closer's comment? And in this case do you mean the comment by the same editor who initiated the RFC [11] with an advocative statement and then closed it with a similarly advocative statement?[12] "Resoundingly endorsed" will henceforth be truth on this matter? You're a fair-minded editor imo, I'd have expected better. If you guys have determined an agenda on this, I'd be happier if you would just tell me straight out... Franamax (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Given the technical limitations of the Checkuser extension, it would be pretty simple for a maleficent user to avoid getting caught - if they know when the CU will be done. I'm not going to say how, but if they can't figure it out, it's not too likely they'll answer the candidate questions well either. I agree with Rlevse on this, it's against CU policy and I don't see why it's necessary or even helpful. Franamax (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Franamax, forgive me if this is a tangent (there are important issues being raised here and I don't want to bog us down if this is a less relevant detail), but if someone wants to be an Arb, they will have to ID themselves, so why would they not want to do it in advance? If people who aren't serious stand, they do affect the pattern of votes. There's no need for that. We're not children, we don't need these games. If ArbCom is to be taken seriously (and I think it ought to be), we need to start making the process by which people get there a serious one. No funny user names, no sockpuppets, no candidates who don't really want to be elected, no voters who think they're electing seven Arbs only to learn they've elected 10. No BS. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC) This is getting hard to sort out, my post immediately above is specifically about using the CU tool to scrutinize candidates, I think that's a serious issue of itself. But in response to your presumed meaning, I've never been a fan of "the next bridge might be too hard to cross, so let's burn the one we're standing on". :) Nothing that I've seen proposed addresses the specific concerns you raise, though I agree they are serious concerns. Identifying yourself to an impersonal organization is a big deal, or at least should be. Many people here know my real name and where I live, but they are people who (whom?) I have come to trust. Even if I chose to stand for AC, I would expect to maintain my privacy until I actually had to fax a photocopy of my driver license to prove my identity to the Foundation - but I'd still never just tell you my name. And I'd never expect you to tell me your name either. Main point is, the more people who know your name (and credit card numbers etc.), the more likely it is that your personal identity will be abused. It's a fundamental principle of data protection - don't provide it unless it's absolutely necessary. I see no reason at all for editors here to provide information in advance of their acclamation to a position. Think about it, AC candidates fall into three categories: really solid contributors (whether article writers or not, NYB being an excellent model); pretty damn solid contributors who think they might have a chance but either withdraw when they see in the open-voting process they aren't gonna cut it or proceeed to the bitter end; and the frivolous candidates, just like (in my country) the Rhino party and the Marijuana party. Those frivolous candidates are perfectly valid in "free and fair" elections, and asking them to provide ID in advance won't stop them at all. TOAT's point about open elections just means that they will be quickly discounted, and the rest of the editorship can get on with the voting process. And since I've never myself seen where someone has hoaxed through an AC election, only to be discovered as a faker in-between the election close and the appointment of Arb members, I just don't understand what all this is meant to prevent. What problem are you trying to solve? Franamax (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Jimbo: would the review committee be tasked with anything else? Such as allegations of inappropriate conduct by sitting arbitrators? The lack of any independent review body may have contributed to several problems, such as arbcom list leaks and a few rather bad spurts of drama. Durova315 01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC) And Jimbo, could you just confirm that "keep the size of the ArbCom the same" means 17, as I believe it was after the previous appointments? Tony (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC) His announcement last year said 18, unless I missed something subsequent. MBisanz talk 06:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Matt, this chart seems to have been maintained until now, yet when I squint and count (including FT2), there were 17 at the start of 2009. Any idea where the discrepancy lies? Tony (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Deskana, I think. He announced his resignation during the elections and, in Jimmy's note, seems to have been included in one count (18) and excluded in another (17).  Roger Davies talk 08:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC) ←Thanks, Roger (e.c.). Jimbo said this, at the link provided by Matt: Deskana is resigning his seat. I am not filling that seat right now, but I intend to do so in an interim election at some point in 2009, yet to be determined. There have been some mentions of other possible retirements, and so I will wait to see if anyone else is looking to retire early next year, and then we'll see about an election in March or June or so. With the 3 expansion seats, it is not as if we will be short-staffed. No interim election was held, despite further falls in numbers by three, through misadventure and resignation: that's 18 down to 14. May I put to you that greater certainty, stability and community involvement need to be built into the system? The second ArbCom policy draft, promulgated some months ago—and due for updating to the third draft "by September 15"—includes these significant provisions that have a bearing on the discussion above: Candidates must (i) meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to nonpublic data, (ii) disclose in their election statements all their prior and alternate accounts, and (iii) not be legally deceased in their country of residence. The Committee may call interim elections, in a comparable format to the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators. These matters need to be sorted out urgently—certainly before the start of the electoral process in December. In addition, the Duties and responsibilities at the opening of the second draft clarify that ArbCom's role is not one of governance, but that of the peak magistracy of the project. Arbitrator Vandenberg confirmed this here. The point is that voters should know whether they are probing and electing candidates whose skill-set matches that required by a judicial body alone, or whether the skills appropriate to wider governance (which can't help but be political) should be at issue when they form their judgments. Tony (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

2009: Nomination instructions

(copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements)

Criteria for running

• Editors must be either 18 years of age or older, or of legal age in their place of residence, whichever is higher, and will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats.

Arbitration Committee ruling on age limit  · Background: WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive 2#Identification [13]

2010: Statement regarding identification to WMF

(copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard)

As the community staff member responsible for verification, I have been asked to post the WMF procedure for verifying identification that is provided to us for the purpose of access to restricted tools and elections.

Identification that is faxed to WMF with my attention on it is brought immediately to me. Identification that is emailed to the secure-info email address is accessible to only two people: myself and my designee, Megan Hernandez (who is a community officer, currently assigned to our fundraising department). I selected her as my designee because of my deep trust in her judgment (in fundraising she has access to all manner of confidential material, and I've seen the great care with which she handles it). All employees who handle this information, myself included, were subject to background checks.

Once we verify that the identification is for someone who is of legal age we update the Identification Noticeboard, and any physical copies are shredded; any virtual copies are removed from the mailbox and destroyed. WMF does not retain copies of emails in that box, nor is that box accessible to anyone else.

To the best of my knowledge, this represents both the current and past procedures for handling this data. I am unaware of any other procedure, and can't imagine a situation in which the Foundation would mandate that this information be kept or disclosed. In fact, if I were ordered to disclose any such information, I would not do so. Though I know the real names of many editors, I make it a personal policy to not address them using that name unless given permission to do so, or until introduced to them using that name. Both Megan and I have the highest regard for personal privacy.

Respectfully submitted,
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

2010: Nomination instructions

(copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates)

• Eligibility criteria

To stand as a candidate, an editor must have:

• made at least 1,000 edits (including deleted edits) to the English Wikipedia article namespace as of 00:01 UTC on 14 November 2010.
• be at least 18 years of age and of legal age in their place of residence.^[note]
• be willing and able to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seat.^[note]

2010: Identification information page

(copied from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13)

I saw the large mess above and couldn't find any project-space page explaining the identification process, so I wrote one at Wikipedia:Identification. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

2010: Someone asked me to be really clear on this

(copied from User talk:Jimbo Wales)

The rules of this election are clear. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates. One of the rules, not written by me, says candidates must "be willing and able to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seat." I am not empowered to make appointments in explicit contravention of policy. Therefore, I will appoint candidates to ArbCom who are eligible for appointment only upon their identification to the Foundation. Any future discussion about this should be focused on whether that policy should change, not on what I should do, because I've already said what I am going to do - I will follow policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)