Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:12, 1 December 2010

Template:Fix bunching

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Template:Fix bunching

Template:Fix bunching

Comment at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE#Template:PD-USGov-DOE_Laboratory_image_use

There is a question regarding the copyright status of National Labratories in the US. Does the WMF have legal counsel which could comment at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE#Template:PD-USGov-DOE_Laboratory_image_use? It's probably best not to stagnate this into what happened with US government portraits.Smallman12q (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I would email legal@wikimedia.org to inquire.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't ask them to leave a comment?Smallman12q (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom election re Giano

Can one be an arb and not a checkuser? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Technically it should be trivial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not all Arbs are or have been. Historically, no Arb has not been an administrator - but since that is nominally an indication of length of editing history and knowledge of WP policy it should be recognised that Giacomo Returned also qualifies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

One can be arb and not checkuser. One cannot be arb without identifying to the Foundation, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Good. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I rather think, Mr Wales, you will find that is a decision for the community - not you. Or are you planning yet another of your ill thought out constitutinal crisis? I shall happily abide by the commuity's decision - no wise man would consider doing otherwise.  Giacomo  12:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been the policy in the past; it will continue this year as usual. I would gladly respect an instruction from either ArbCom or a properly conducted community poll showing consensus to change this policy. Perhaps you'd like to lead that process?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly, but if you personally want to take me on, I am happy to engage with you - you do, howver, seem a little nervous. Perhaps best wait for the outcome of the election, I would imagine that will be as good indication - or don't you trust the polls and scrutineers?  Giacomo  13:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What did I say which seems nervous to you? I do trust the polls and scrutineers. And I will continue to follow the policy which has been in place in the past, and for good reasons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I should hope that a figurehead aand constitutional monarch such as yourself will indeed follow policy, and like the Queen Elizabeth II, that greatest of constitutional monarchs, will sensibly do as instructed by the votes of your loyal and devoted people.  Giacomo  13:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said, I will follow policy. The policy, clearly spelled out on the election page and not written by me, says that I shall not appoint anyone who does not identify. This policy was in place in past years (though regrettably and in error not enforced in the case of Sam Blacketer 2 years ago, thus resulting in a minor scandal and his departure from the committee) and is still good policy today. As always, I will respect legitimate changes to policy done within our traditional constitutional framework. But I see zero support for that at this time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Question. Foundation personel have stated that they only check the persons age, and then destroy the identifying data. (WP:ACN#Statement_regarding_identification_to_WMF). Is this so? And if so how does this policy relate to the Sam Blacketer situation?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But I don't want any of your magical tools. I don't want to be a CU, an OS or even an Admin. So even if it were necesary for me to identify - which it's not, my length of service here proves more than adequatly that I am over 18 (I don't even envy 18 year olds - the 30s were the best), so I'm afraid wanting to know my name is just pure noseyness and I am not going to tell you.  Giacomo  13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what permissions you do or don't want access to. As an arbitrator you will at various times be privy to the same kinds of information that a checkuser, oversighter, and administrator would be; and so you need to identify. Submitting a candidacy and having to intention to identify, whilst knowing that identification is a requirement, is a useless and disruptive exercise; but you wouldn't do that, would you? AGK 13:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• But I don't want secret information. I don't approve of secret (and seemingly not so secret) information. I am quite capable of making up my own mind. In fact, I suspect the Arbcom's secret information as actually quite banal and they only keep it because they don't know what esle to do with it and having a secret, special place makes them feel important and clannish. Rather like a lot of little boys who have a secret camp up a tree - quite fun, but utterly pointless to an adult. This place needs a new sense of persective, it is an internet project to write an encyclopedia. It is not the Pentagon - and even that is learning the error of keeping too many silly secrest.  Giacomo  13:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Like your name?--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why Jimbo's laughing - he could not even keep the Arbs most private files secret . So, I'm certainly not giving him (or an of his chosen employees) my name to throw about th internet about.  Giacomo  14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But what if you can't get your election certified without that requirement being satisfied? GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Giano is one of the more interesting candidates, and it would be a shame if this ID issue kept him off arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

He is free to try to convince the community to change policy. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a age requirement and it is impossible to know a user's age whether it is Misplaced Pages or Facebook or orkut with so many fake profiles and further if someone objects that a particular arb is not 18 now editing history is not proof of it.Jimbo Wales will have accept the objection as age verification which cannot be done without identification and is a requirement for every candidate not just for one.

Further out of the 2 Million users no personal information including name is collected and only those wishing to be Arb ,Checkuser etc are required to identify and this is fully voluntary.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Which policy would need changing? The only policy I know of is that candidates need to provide you with a list of all their historical accounts, which would have addressed the Sam Blacketer issue, had you done it. The age verification would not have addressed the Sam Blacketer issue. 01:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There was an issue in Alberta here a couple years ago where a colony of Hutterites refused to have their photos taken for their drivers licenses, citing religious beliefs. The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, and they lost. In the end, driving was held to be a privilege, not a right, and it was decided they had to abide by the same rules as everyone else or forfeit that privilege. This issue is no different. Giano has no right to sidestep scrutiny in this case. If he is serious about wanting to be on ArbCom and not just wasting everyone's time, then he needs to submit to the same rules as the other candidates. If not, he should be removed from consideration. Resolute 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Funnily enough I do not reside in Alberta, and neither do I belong to a a colony of Hutterites; suprising is that may seem. So it is quite different. In fact, this is a "community" with a few members attempting to write an encyclopedia that supposedly anyone can edit. It is supposedly democratic, and I am very happy to await a democratic outcome, others seem to be becoming increasingly nervous of that outcome.  Giacomo  15:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of anyone being nervous of anything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are cool, calm and collected as always.  Giacomo  15:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What's at stake is whether Giano can vote on arbitration cases if he chooses not to identify. It is not necessary at all to actually be on the Committee to review cases and express opinions. What is the great danger in allowing somebody to vote? Giano is the sum of his contributions to Misplaced Pages. I for one don't care who he is in real life as long as he's not being given access to non-public info. If the community chooses to elect an arbitrator who does not want CU, OS, Admin, and ArbCom Mailing List access (and therefore does not want to identify himself), that is a statement of consensus that the candidate should be allowed to serve. I will protest quite loudly via appropriate media if the will of the community is subverted by a few who think they know better. Giano has been quite forthright with the electorate, telling them repeatedly that he will not identify. If they choose to elect him anyway, that result should stand. Jehochman 15:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't support that. It was and still is a stated condition that identification is a condition of being a committee member. The time to have dealt with this was a few months ago, using the correct channels and changing the principle, not possibly using the election and standing in opposition to the entry conditions and then suggesting if selected you will be a member and make your judgements without access to all the information available to the Arbs to assist them make a judgment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I, on the other hand, would applaud a refusal to seat a candidate who refused to comply with longstanding policies that he was aware of when he stood for candidacy, and that he has not sought to change through any of the appropriate means at his disposal. Seating an unidentified candidate puts an undue burden on the other Arbitrators, who would not be able to discuss cases with their would-be colleague. Worse, it puts them (and other Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia functionaries who may deal with the ArbCom from time to time, and may not be aware of Arbitrator Giano's special status) at unreasonable risk of iadvertently disclosing private information to an individual who should not have access to it. Why you think avoiding that would play badly in any real media, unless it were reported deceptively and irresponsibly? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of Giano's comment on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley who argues that he is a member of the House of Lords:

• As Misplaced Pages's resident Italian, in high places, in London, I can tell you that most Brits do not think membership is a "good thing." Most think the whole concept is absurd and/or antiquated as proven by the "elevation" of that well known pugilist and example to the nation's young, Baron I-only-took-it-for-me-long-suffering-wife-Prescot. The current House of Lords has succeeded in uniting both in British upper and lower classes in feeling that the House of Lords is a club, now best avoided. I believe Lord Monckton is considered an charmingly eccentric exception to that rule. He knows very well he's not a member, but publicly claiming to be does give him and his causes rather a lot or press attention - doesn't it? Giacomo 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Kittybrewster ☎ 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Giacomo, we are talking about the internet. This is arguing (election) about the rights of those who decide arguments (arbcom) about arguments (how we present an issue on the encyclopedia). This "controversy" all comes across as a good deal of navalgazing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, not nervous. Even if I respect several arbs individually, I've very little respect for ArbCom as an institution and your addition wouldn't really change much in that regard. Indeed, it would be incredibly hilarious to see you ruling on issues of incivility. But the key question, of course, is whether you believe all editors should be considered and treated equally or not. Resolute 16:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales. Up above I've asked a question regarding the nature & purpose of identification. I believe though you may have missed it as the conversation moved on, however I was hoping you could address it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If the requirement (along with being elected) to assume a seat on Arbcom, is to identify yourself to your Arb colleges? Then I don't see where Giacomo has a choice. Unless, after his rejection by the committee, he seeks to get the ID requirement overturned for Arb candidates. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If the previous foundation statement is accurate there is no requirement to identify yourself to Arb collegues. Supposedly it's only for age verification. That's why I've asked for clarification on Mr. Wales reference to the Sam Blacketer situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, can someone please point me to this long standing "policy" that one must identify yourself in order to be on the arbcom? I can't find it anywhere in the arbitration policy page. Tex (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

#2 states "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." Where does that say that you have to identify to be on the arbitration committee? Giano has already said he doesn't want access to restricted data. Tex (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis added is my own:

In addition to its role in dispute resolution, the Committee determines which editors have access to CheckUser and Oversight permissions, and considers certain matters where exceptional factors such as privacy preclude a public hearing.

Arbitrators are neither Wikimedia Foundation employees or agents, nor Misplaced Pages executives. They are volunteer users—usually experienced editors and administrators—whom the community of editors at large elects to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community, and to oversee the few areas where access to non-public information is a prerequisite.

— Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee

Functionaries are users who perform specialised roles, and have privileged technical access, on the Wikimedia projects. Examples include users with Oversight or CheckUser access, OTRS volunteers, and current and past members of the Arbitration Committee. Functionary access must be authorised by the Wikimedia Foundation, and requires confirmation of the user's identity to be recorded by the Foundation, to ensure compliance with the access to nonpublic data policy. This is in contrast to users such as Bureaucrats or members of the Bot Approvals Group, which are 'community' positions.

Functionaries whose permissions and responsibilities are confined to the English Misplaced Pages are under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. These functionaries include:

• Current members of the Arbitration Committee
• Former members of the Committee, who retain access to the functionaries-l mailing list (and are considered functionaries for that, somewhat recursive, reason)
• Users with CheckUser or Oversight access

Functionaries are held to a higher standard of behavior than normal editors, especially in issues related to their area of responsibility. If a user demonstrates a lack of judgment in an area related to their special access, their status as a functionary may be revoked; whether or not an explicit abuse of their privileged access has occured. As functionaries have a high profile within the project, and are the face of Misplaced Pages both to its editors and to the wider world, it is damaging to the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole if these users are repeatedly embroiled in controversy.

A functionary may have their status and technical access removed with broad community consensus, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee.

— Misplaced Pages:Functionary

-- Avi (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's so important why don't they record the identity instead of just verifying that they are 18+ years old?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Avi, you're doing a bang up job of circling all around the question that I asked. Where is the policy that says one must identify in order to be on the arbitration committee? Neither of the pages above that you quote are policies. Additionally, I have not asked anything about funcionaries or non-public data. Jimbo says above that there is a policy that you must identify to be on the arbitration committee. Where is that policy? Tex (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's in italicized bold, the "nonpublic data policy." There is no mention of the bits themselves, it is access to the data that those with the bits supply to ArbCom in the process of ArbCom performing its duty. There is no exemption for volunteering not to have the bits. Members of ArbCom, in the pursuit of their duty, are privy to nonpublic data and fall under the foundation's policy. -- Avi (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see item 1 of wmf:Resolution:Access to nonpublic data -- Avi (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're sufggesting that Arbcom falls under point #1 of the resolution then you're accusing Philippe Beaudette of lying. Please be careful.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If ArbCom handles non-public information, then yes, it falls under point 1. And if Giano were to be elected but refuses to comply to point 1, then point 2 says he cannot take his place on ArbCom. As to whether Philippe is lying, that is your implication, not anybody else's. He could simply be misinformed, or misremembering. Resolute 18:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Philippe is the person who recieves the identification. Either the identity is retained as required by point 1. Or it is only age checked. Philippe has stated they're only age checked and destroyed by Philippe themselves. Philippe can not be "mistaken" about the process Philippe follows.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. So the question then comes back to my "if" statement. Does ArbCom deal with non-public information today, even if it did not (or was not anticipated to do so) in the past? If yes, then it should fall under point 1 and the processes need to be updated. It no, then this is a moot point. Hopefully a current arb is following this discussion and can offer answers from their experience. Resolute 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Avi We have a age requirement for this election How do you verify whether a candidate is more than 18 and is of legal age ie How can Age Verification be done without Identity verification?Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be difficult here, but the foundation's "nonpublic data policy" doesn't say you have to identify to be on the arbitration committee, either. Your link doesn't work, but Kittybrewster linked to it above saying #2 covered it before he changed his response. Now you're saying #1 covers it, but #1 says you can't have access to non-public data unless you identify. Nowhere that I can find does it say that you have to have access to non-public data to be on the arbitration committee. You may be a more effective arb if you do have that access, but it's not required. Tex (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wowsers, both can't be right. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is really very simple, if someone is to be granted access to confidential information and thus be in a position to harm others and the foundation by abusing that access, we need to know who they are. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet to repeat myself again, we've been told they only age check, not retain identity info. Or was that a lie?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two separate links in the chain, it is confusing to combine them. The ANPD Policy categorically requires that users with access to nonpublic data must identify; this covers the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, and mailing lists where such data is routinely presented (arbcom-l and functionaries-en). Enwiki has defined in numerous places, as highlighted by Avi above, that access to these areas is required to be an Arbitrator; by which we conclude that to be an Arb it is necessary to identify. That link in the chain is not unbreakable, but it is currently in place, and to argue that it is not (which requires you to argue that WP:Functionary and WP:Arbitration Committee are not part of the corpus of Misplaced Pages governance) is basically wikilawyering. A constructive approach to this, if you desire there to be non-identified Arbitrators on the Committee, would be to commence a discussion through the usual channels, and form new policy on the subject, rather than blindly assert that the current consensus on the matter simply doesn't exist. Happy‑melon 19:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interupt you all, but the community will and can decide with its vote. I investigated all of this before standing, and it's constitutinally and legally quite OK to be an Arb without identifying so long as one requires no CU or OS. I will not mention the so called secret Arbcom files because Jimbo and the Arbcom have alllowed access to these by all manner of folk, known and unknown. However, I don't think they are relevant here anyway, unless you are one of the unfortunates mentioned in said files. Regarding behaviour and constitution, that the so called and self styled contitutonal monarch has permitted this thread here on his page (with such biased posts as those by Kittybrewster) is akin to Queen Elizabeth flying the Tory party banner from the flagpole at Buckingham Palace. If I am elected, I shall show you what impartiality and fairness is all about. It will be a learning curve for Jimbo; Arbs not on the mailiong list will be free of his influence.  Giacomo  20:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but I am asserting nothing. It appears certain people in this thread, including Jimbo, are the ones "blindly asserting" that there is a concensus on this. No one has been able to show a policy that says you have to identify to the foundation to be an arb. You are incorrect in saying that Avi has shown "that access to these areas is required to be an Arbitrator". Every instance says that arbs have access to that data, it does not say that an arb has to have access to that data. Instead of coming here with your holier than thou attitude telling me what my desire is, perhaps you should be the one to show that there is consensus for this. As it is, there is a bunch of hand-waving saying that something is so, yet no proof that it is so. Tex (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You have identified the point precisely. Enwiki has established policies and practices which make being an Arbitrator synonymous with having access to private data, hence requiring identification. To allow the appointment of someone without identification is a redefinition of what enwiki considers 'an Arbitrator'. That is a change of policy. There is indeed no fundamental reason why that consensus cannot be changed, but it does currently exist. Happy‑melon 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Can an arbitrator choose to forgo access to the internal arbitrator forums (the wiki, the mailing lists, etc)? And if he so chooses, would he then be required to identify himself to the Foundation? Raul654 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A person can very easily be offered access to those forums, and choose not to accept them; the Foundation would not then require them to identify. It is an entirely separate question whether such a person would be an Arbitrator. Happy‑melon 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

By not having OS & CU, a definition of an administrator? GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether somebody is an arbitrator can largely be decided by the vote. Giano has said from the start that he doesn't want these accesses, and that he would not identify. If the electorate chooses him knowing those facts, then there is a consensus for two things: (1) Giano is an arbitrator, and (2) being an arbitrator is independent from having access to the secrets of Misplaced Pages. Unless there is some sort of egregious misrepresentation to the electorate (Example: User:Loosmark's sock puppetry), Jimmy ought to appoint whoever the community chooses. Jehochman 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Raul, in my opinion, an arbitrator without access to the data necessary to make decisions is only slightly more useful than a wikipedia editor without internet access. The purpose of ArbCom is to handle various situations on wikipedia which very often requires access to information for which the foundation requires identification. Technically, I guess an arbitrator can be excluded from having any part in every discussion in which confidential information may be necessary, allowing them to take part in discussions in which NO confidential information may be released. However, this places a burden on the remainder of the committee who may need to discuss confidential information. In my opinion, if someone is interested in that kind of role, they would serve the community much better by volunteering for the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee. -- Avi (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If the community agrees with Avi, they won't elect Giano. It's as simple as that. Jehochman 20:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Giano has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, honestly, but at some point this issue should probably be clarified to avoid future clashes over this particular point. Tarc (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its possible to say that for certain, Giacomo has pockets of support and could well be seen as an alternative vote. But what Jerechoman says is not a correct position. This is the ARBCOM election which although Giacomo has stated right from the start that he won't identify and made that clear, if users support him that isn't a community consensus to change the entry conditions for the commitee because clearly that is not the question beinng asked of voters. Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you and some others arguing about something that can't possibly happen? Why not just save electrons by waiting to see what does or does not happen? (Okay, quick, somebody slap {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} around this conversation.) Jehochman 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be discussing this at JW's talkpage anyway. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Jehochman/Avi We have a age requirement for this election

• 1 How do you verify whether a candidate is more than 18 and is of legal age ie How can Age Verification be done without Identity verification?
• Sorry if I am being repetitive but not getting the answer.
• Even if one agrees that a user will not get CU,OS access or will not take part in cases with private evidence and or be in mailing lists .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The age verification issue is precisely because of the "imposed by Wikia" privacy aspect of some communications that Arbs may have access to - there is no age limit within policy for accepting, commentating, and voting upon cases. That seems to be the issue here. An arb without access to those lists is pretty much in the same place as non arbs involved in the discussion, except that they have a vote (and get to make their comments in places not available to non arbs). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers, Giacomo has been with Misplaced Pages since 2004. If he isn't 18 by now, he's been the most precocious minor I've ever come across. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Without a confirmed ID, he could be the latest incarnation of the Dread Pirate Roberts. After all, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. --Allen3  21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Giacomo_returned is not Giano_II and is playing leapfrog. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I should think that anyone who reviewed the topics edited, the style of the contribution, the manner of the use of references and sources, the methodology of the editor would have no problem discerning that they were the same person. Of course, such a reviewer would need to be conversant with good article content creation - so I see why you might have some issues with not being certain. Mind you, as has been pointed out, on the internets nobody knows if you are a Doge. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Really, what does identifying to the Foundation entail? I have been under the impression that it was faxing a copy of a drivers license, passport or other government issued ID. But what's to stop someone sending their mum's, dad's, best friend's or something? Or does it involve more than that? I don't see how though -- the Foundation certainly doesn't have enough employees to send people to editors' houses and demanding proof of ID. Can't Giacomo blank out his name or address or any other personal details he doesn't want the Foundation knowing, as long as his age or DOB is displayed? Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

When I identified (I'm an OTRS respondent and run the SM accounts), I sent my military ID and my passport. Just checked my email, and I was informed that proof of age/identity may be provided in one of the following manners:

1. Copy or scan of Driver's License
2. Copy or scan of Passport
3. Copy or scan of other official documentation indicating real name and age

Hope that helps answer, although it's not one of the 'super-policies' like this one. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom elections

Howdy JW. I wish we could see the voting in progress at those elections, as we can at RfAs. Though I can understand why the progess must be kept hidden until results are finalized, the waiting is torturious. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly excited about the change from our traditional process to the closed process, but I seem to have been proven wrong... the reduction in drama has been a good thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So Jimbo, at the RFC which so far as I'm aware was the key to changing to a "closed" process, you were mentioned as "Jimbo Wales...has already expressed support for such a transition" . I didn't see you object at the time, but this is at least the second time I've seen you say that you weren't initally in favour of a secret ballot. I still can't square that... Franamax (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki UK Limited

The "appeal from Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales" is made in the name of the above company (registered in the UK, number 06741827). Having looked up this company at the Companies House web-check service, I find that, although it is listed as active, there is a current "proposal to strike-off". It was incorporated in Nov 2008, but appears to have never filed any accounts as required by law - these are currently overdue.

This doesn't seem to be a very good incentive for people to donate money? -- MightyWarrior (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been in discussion with the UK chapter about this issue. Perhaps someone from there can weigh in directly. Basically, there was a delay in filing the appropriate paperwork, but doing so is going to happen very soon. The Foundation is aware of the issue. As far as I have been able to determine, it is purely a paperwork matter, not anything substantive. Even so, of course I am not happy about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A little more info is at WP:VPM#Wiki UK Ltd to be struck off?. Johnuniq (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages in the old days

Back then, like in January or February 2001, what was Misplaced Pages like? Just wondering. Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of typing. Lots of arguing. Same as today. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to ask user:Mav, who is one of the few people from early days who is still actively editing. Back then, every couple days, he would go through all of the edits to the English Misplaced Pages and manually revert the bad ones. A single person could, in a few minutes/hours, see all of the site's edits for the last day or two. Back then, there was very much a wild-wild west mentality where policy and behavior was concerned. Many of today's rules didn't exist, and there was no dispute resolution process to reign in the especially troublesome users. No RFA either - you just asked for an admin bit on the mailing list and you got it. Raul654 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Lots of arguing. Same as today." Too much arguing for my tastes. It seems like if I want to make a real contribution, I have to find an article that no one else is editing. Every other article I try to edit, there seems to be some sort content dispute. Or maybe I just have bad luck. :( A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a shiny brand new article with no content disputes for your editing pleasure. Raul654 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It has both Circumcision and Jesus, two of the least controversial topics we cover. Jonathunder (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Homeopathic circumcision of Jesus in Islam according to GLBT Eastern European scientologists?. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look to appealing. As mentioned, there was no RFA process, there still is not on some very small wiki's, it was just a request. No week long battle through the elements. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 21:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder - it'd be amusing to list for instance the first ever block, and the first edit war. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a database crash that wiped out early editing? I may not be remembering right, but I thought the very early editing history was lost (or something). RxS (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The only lost data I am aware of is about a week's worth of uploaded images from January of 2004 that were lost when we upgraded from Mediawiki version 2 to mediawiki version 3.

As far as edit warring, the worst edit war on record was between user:VeryVerily and User:172. It was something like 100 or 150 reverts in the span of about 90 minutes. I cannot remember the article, but it was utterly ridiculous. Raul654 (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

meta:February 2005 server crash and Misplaced Pages:Historical archive has some interesting information. -- œ 07:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC) We've lost lots of article histories from the UseModWiki era of Misplaced Pages plus some other important article history from before June 2004; also see this section about the deletion archive. BTW, Mav started contributing in January 2002, not January 2001. Graham87 07:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)  

I wasn't counting edit histories as data - I'm well aware that a lot of the early ones are screwed up. I was talking specifically about lost article content or lost uploads, of which there are surprisingly few.

As for Mav - yes, he's from 2002, not 2001, but by "very early editors" I mean pre-2003, when the number of editors was still less than 100. Raul654 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the database does seem to be funky when it comes to early contributions and page histories: I ran across an odd one when trying to research the history of WP:NOT... try loading the first version, then see where you get when you click "previous version" ;-). --SB_Johnny |  12:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is the oldest known edit in the database. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What? Jimbo was blocked? Perseus (t • c • g) 13:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think some of those were just jokes. One of the blocks was for 1 second. According to block log, the longest Jimbo's been blocked was 8 minutes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Jimbo hasn't been blocked in over 3 years, so it looks like whatever conduct issues existed have been corrected. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they are all either jokes, accidents, or compromised accounts. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, did you ever sight any vandalism on very, very, early Misplaced Pages? Perseus (t • c • g) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In theory, old days is inaccurate. Each earthly day, can only get 23.25 hrs old, thus each past day is no older then any other past day. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

linking to wikilinks

I thought you might be interested in the discussion about if we should be using and linking to these controversial wikileak documents. At the Administrators noticeboard here - Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales Date of Birth

Hello, I could not help but notice on Jimmy Wale's wiki page that his DOB is questionable, either August 7 or 8, 1966. I am familair with numerology, and after a quick look at the numbers for both dates, it is clear to me that the 8th is much more likely to be the actual day of birth. The 8th of July that year produces important master numbers (an 11, 22, and 33) in prominent places on the chart that I think are indicative of Wale's success in technology pioneering. Hopefully this helps! Thanks, T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.245.130 (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. However, your experience with numerology is not a reliable source, and your judgements constitute original research. Thus, the article will not be changing based upon your numerological musings. LadyofShalott 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I just glanced at this, and I have to say, at face value it seems particularly silly. Some sticklers out there are probably going to object on WP:COI, WP:V and WP:RS grounds, but I wonder whether Mr Wales might simply chime in here and give us an answer. NickCT (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was born on the 7th of August, according to my mother. My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due to an error on my birth certificate. I am of the firm opinion that the discussion in the Misplaced Pages entry on me should all be removed in favor of simply saying that my date of birth is the 7th.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone asked me to be really clear on this

The rules of this election are clear. Misplaced Pages: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)

I am going to start a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates to resolve what I view as ambiguity. Jehochman 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no ambiguity in "before taking their seat". It's black and white.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)