Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements

Age limit wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alphabetical order

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

Word limit

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

My statement is a mere 629 words. The limit prevents me from directly displaying it. For the sake of readers adding an extra link isn't the best of all ideas. My statement was blanked for not complying. I generally use short words so that things I intend to say is clear to everybody even new learners. -- Cat ^chi? 17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)