"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]

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]

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)

Also I would like to know if someone else's statement was blanked or if that is a common practice. It feels unnecessarily hostile as a measure. -- Cat ^chi? 17:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe and Jayvdb's first statements were blanked for length, they re-wrote to the appropriate length. MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in WJB's case, linked to a subpage of their statement which contained the original (longer) statement. I think the message here, White Cat, is that the community has set a very firm limit on how many words candidates may use to outline their platform, and that that limit is being strictly enforced. I understand that that may be frustrating at times (although I suppose I can empathise only to some degree, never having been a candidate in the election myself), but it is an inescapable factor to be worked with. If you wish for my assistance in trimming your statement (although succinctness is not my strongest point!), do drop me a message. AGK 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even FT2 and I managed to stay under the word limit last year. (In my case, at least, I more than made up for it on the questions page.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may have expressed myself inadequately. I think a better metric is the use of character number rather than the number of spaces (words). Usage of more words means you waste your character limit to the spaces. -- Cat ^chi? 07:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

On the table below compare the columns. -- Cat ^chi? 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Grand table

What I'm putting here, I'm posting notice of on the relevant Ani thread in just a moment. That out of the way, NWA's statement is, do to his recent addition, over 400 words, which I just noticed today after while checking the two new statements. I've been a hard ass on any and all candidates over 400 in an effort to be fair, but it was brought to my attention that NWA.rep is on his way out, so I'm aware that removing his statement would look like I'm booting him out the door, and that is not the message I wish to send. So I wish to deffer to the community to answer these two questions:

• Should candidates statements be removed (against the author's wish) if the candidate has declared his or her intention or actual exit from the Wikipedia community?
• Should there be any exception to the 400 word limit?

Lets try to get this handled with a minimum of irrelevant drama please.--Tznkai (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that NWA.rep remains blocked (on which I express no view), give him 48 hours to shorten his statement and post it on his talkpage, and then copy it to the statements page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If NWA.rep is unblocked, but still continues to express that he wishes to leave the community, what then? I more concerned with that than the block.--Tznkai (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue, but recommend not agonizing over it too much; there is no way a candidate with that declared intention will realistically be elected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just put everything beyond the limit behind <includeonly> tags and leave a link at the end to the full version on the subpage. A notice at the top that the candidate has left Wikipedia should provide enough notice to voters that they can decide whether to look into the candidate. I've taken the liberty of implementing both.--chaser - t 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His voting link doesn't go to the proper places. The Support or Oppose this candidate goes to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Example. maclean 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so does Privatemusings'. maclean 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These all should be fixed now.--chaser - t 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]