Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:47, 1 December 2010 view sourceJimbo Wales (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Founder14,542 edits →Someone asked me to be really clear on this: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 16:00, 1 December 2010 view source Jehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,284 edits →Someone asked me to be really clear on this: discussionNext edit →
(12 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:
|} |}
{{fix bunching|end}} {{fix bunching|end}}

== Violent / Hate Speech in Misplaced Pages ==

:''This section, or comments from this section, was/were incorrectly removed in . It/they have been restored.'' ] (] • ]) 02:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I already made a thread at ANI about this, so I do not want to forum shop (and do not expect an answer specific to the question at ANI) but I think this is an important core issue. Basically, is hate speech / inciting to violence allowed in Misplaced Pages when it is sourced? ''']]''' 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:Your behavior and attitude in the ANI thread is not ok. I recommend that you sit back and rest from this issue for awhile.
:To answer your specific question to me (which was asked in a highly biased way, once I went to see what the real issue was), yes, of course it can be perfectly fine to quote hate speech or incitement to violence in Misplaced Pages, when it is relevant and a part of the history of some particular aspect of the world.
:To answer your specific question over at ANI, first, I will say that it is a content issue best decided on the talk page of the article, but one that is a legitimate content issue that you can't short-circuit by simply screaming 'hate speech' about a quote from the Bible! In an article on same sex marriage, it seems rather obvious to me that at some point Biblical views need to be covered, and one very likely way to explore and explain to the reader the historical roots of traditional Christian opposition to same sex marriage would be to quote from the Bible. I'm not taking a firm stand on whether or not that quote should be included - that's up to a discussion on the page. I'm just saying that it's a worthwhile and perfectly reasonable discussion for people to have.--] (]) 09:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

::I've commented on this . ] (]) 10:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Ok, I will take your advice and rest from this issue for awhile.
:::But, I am not sure if you misunderstood me or if I am misunderstanding you. I'm not saying ''any'' quote from the bible is "hate speech"; I am talking about "Leviticus 20:13" which seems to call for killing of gay people. And this is not strictly historical, eg: ], which some Christian groups in that country support and it could be argued that the basis of that bill is largely Christian/religious.
:::So, my final 2 questions: 1) Are you are saying that a reference to a specific text which calls for death of gay people is OK in a gay related article?
:::2) And the larger question is if incitement to violence is ok in Misplaced Pages (even if it is a '''current issue''' and not necessarily historical) when there might be a relevance to a certain Misplaced Pages article? ''']]''' 16:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

::::By this logic, an article on Adolph Hitler would not be able to reference ''Mein Kampf''. It doesn't make sense. The proper response to obnoxious statements is not to pretend that they weren't said. ] (]) 16:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::No that is not a correct analogy. The correct analogy would be adding references to ''Mein Kampf'' into ] article under a section like "Contreversy". ''']]''' 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

::::If someone posts Lev. 20:13 as their personal motto, that's an incitement to violence. To state Lev. 20:13 called for the death penalty for homosexuality is a fact that may be legitimate historical encyclopedic content. As Looie496 says, there are plenty of things in the encyclopedia that would be inappropriate for an editor to promote as their personal opinion, but have a contextual and encyclopedic place in an article.--] (]) 17:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::I dont know if you are reading my answers. I already clarified that I am talking about a possibly '''current''' context, rather than a '''historical''' one. ''']]''' 22:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::Current religious teachings for the most part are based at least in part on historical teachings and/or traditions. If being used in the context of discussing certain religions objections to same sex marriage I would not consider it "an incitement to violence." As a content discussion it may not be appropriate for the article in question. It may be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH if there's no secondary sources connecting that verse to official doctrines. Possibly other issues. But that's a content question.--] (]) 23:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

::::::If reliable sources indicate that Lev. 20:13 is in some people's opinion relevant to their views on same-sex marriage, then it would be perfectly acceptable to reference it in an article on same-sex marriage. Of course, one would have to consider what weight to give it, and if, on that basis, it merited mentioning - but at a guess I'd say that's quite possible. That some people are offended by those views in neither here nor there. Misplaced Pages doesn't concern itself with the question of whether article content might offend (see ]). Indeed any editor wishing to exclude content '''merely''' on the grounds that it is "hateful" hasn't really understood the meaning of ]. Misplaced Pages takes no position on whether gay-marriage is good, bad, sacred, or even merits the death penalty. My (or your) views on such matters are wholly irrelevant.--] 23:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

*Might I ask how Leviticus is relevent to Same-sex marriage? That section that is quoted and is referenced by various religious groups, along with other sections in the Bible, all refer to homosexuals having sex. The sections are not about marriage. So how is including that really relevant to the topic of marriage between homosexuals? It seems to me that having it in the article is trying to push a bit of an agenda. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
:If that's directed at me I'm not sure it is 100% relevant. However there's a difference between a content question on "does the verse belong" and declaring it an "incitement to violence" in multiple venues.--] (]) 23:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

::Scott MacDonald, I see your point and that answers my question to Jimbo Wales. However, the final thing I'll say is, we have a higher sensitivity when it comes to ]. I think it doesn't make sense that such standards aren't also applied to incitement to violence and you have to engage in prolonged debates to remove ]. ''']]''' 00:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Whether it is OR or not is a normal content decision for the talk page, and nothing more. This gets decided as a content level and nothing more. You don't get to seek an advantage in deciding content by claiming something is "hateful" or "incites" this or that. This is exactly the same game that's been tried by Muslims wanting special treatment over images of the prophet and it was rejected then. BLPs are only different to the extent that we insist that things are verifiable and neutrally presented. Saying "Leviticus says x, and some people, in this basis have argued y" and giving reliable sources, can be perfectly factual and neutral. The fact that some people don't like it is their problem. Frankly, the way you've argued this, and the emotional way you've behaved, gives me concerns that you don't get the basic idea of what Misplaced Pages is. We deal in sourced facts. If the facts are unpleasant for some people - tough.--] 02:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

::::Images of prophet is not a good analogy as those didn't suggest violence. And it is unlikely that you can gauge emotional reactions from written text accurately. Finally, while we deal with sourced facts, because of things like ], it is not always an exact process. ''']]''' 02:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::And since it isn't an exact process we have content discussions on the article talk page to reach consensus.--] (]) 03:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Eh! I don't believe in same-sex marriage or just same-sex. IMHO, sex should be different each time. ] (]) 03:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
:You must be single LOL ] (]) 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The ANI thread was closed. It is not unreasonable to cite source material or to discuss the beliefs that people have; but I would be concerned that this seems like an issue best covered in an article about some ] perspective and only covered in "]" at the same-sex marriage article, which ''might'' mean not placing ] on any one quote. One can vigorously contest the idea that because an anti-gay statute is in the Old Testament, and Christianity is based on the Old Testament, hence Christianity condemns it. After all, the Old Testament similarly condemns wearing a garment made out of two different kinds of thread. Its rules are reported to be designed to make Abraham's seed as numerous as the dust of the earth, as opposed to, say, establishing peace on earth and good will toward men. Christianity includes an injunction to "keep the commandments", but the definition of the latter may be open to debate; in any case they don't include the great bulk of Israelite dietary laws. And then, you might cover Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Christian perspectives. ] (]) 23:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is quite evident that when the Western liberalism of most Wikipedians comes into conflict with the stated project aim of neutrality, that neutrality loses. I stay well away from all such articles because there's not a hope in hell of neutralising the obvious agendas.--] 00:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

:I really appreciate the discussion on this feed. Just for context, the challenged article text at issue here currently reads as follows (it originally didn't have the footnotes, which was my fault):

:Some religious arguments against same-sex marriage are based upon ] ] passages such as ] 19:4-11, ] 18:22, and ] 20:13,<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref><ref></ref> while others are based upon ] ] passages such as ] 1, ] 6:8-10, and ] 1:7.<ref></ref><ref></ref>

:This sentence is in the religion subsection of the controversy section of an article on same-sex marriage. I must say that I am truly dismayed that another editor would write to the founder of Misplaced Pages and make accusations of violent hate speech on the basis of this sentence. ] (]) 09:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
::I might have phrased what I said above better. To have a sentence like this in the article ''is'' better than nothing — it's just a very narrow look at a broad set of issues. It should be developed further using more scholarly references that review a broader range of Christian beliefs and interpretations. But I should have been clear that it is completely wrong to accuse a contributor of "hate speech" for documenting an argument. ] (]) 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Using a primary source (such as the Bible) is usually a violation of the No Original Research policy. For example, should someone be allowed (on Misplaced Pages) to argue that the God of the Old Testament is actually the Devil based on the Bible's claim that God mass-murdered all humans and all other species other than the specific entities that were on Noah's Ark? - ] (]) 00:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::No, but we could certainly reference a ] sect's statements advocating such a point of view. ] (]) 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:A primary source can certainly be used to substantiate statements about that source. It would be ridiculous, for example, if an article about the ] was unable to refer to the Bible. ] (]) 19:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::It turns out that reality ''is'' ridiculous. For example, we ''do'' need to use secondary sources on an article about the ]. Research "'''Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth'''". You could ''begin'' that research with and . By the way, other than Seventh Day Adventists, how many Christians "Keep the Sabbath (Saturday) holy"? Religious doctrine is only taken seriously by those who have not studied it. - ] (]) 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::To be fair, the challenged sentence cited some religious groups opposed to gay marriage. Depending on the level of collaboration these groups use in creating published statements of their common beliefs, these fairly may be viewed as "secondary", though partisan, in nature. Secondary sources from a broader and more "neutral" perspective are somewhat more desirable and certainly needed to complete the coverage of the topic, but we shouldn't create a tyranny of the liberal arts commentators. ] (]) 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

== Erdogan confuses Wikileaks with Misplaced Pages ==

Thought you might be interested in this NY Times article on the website today, quoting the Turkish prime minister as saying the following: “First, let’s wait until Wikileaks spill all the beans, and then we would check how serious or unserious they are,” Mr. Erdogan said. “Because the seriousness of Misplaced Pages is doubtful." The Times should have pointed out that there is no connection between Misplaced Pages and Wikileaks. ] (]) 17:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:I think Jimmy is doing whatever he can to assert that we are not connected to wikileaks, I saw a quite lengthy interview with him with Adam Boulton on Sky news focused on that point at the week end. ] (]) 17:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::Indeed, all around. I think the key is that Mr. Assange should start helping with the clarification.--] (]) 18:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:::Jimbo, are you (are are you able to be) in communication with Assange? There's a wide-held perception (not just by Mr Erdogan) that websites starting with "Wiki..." are all Misplaced Pages, or, at the least, part of the Wikimedia Foundation. Anything formalised you could do beyond Sky News? ] (]) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

::::I guess what troubled me was that the Times didn't point out Erdogan's error. If I wuz Mr. W I'd fire off an email to the Times. ] (]) 20:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

:Indeed this is a constant problem, and it's critical to clarify things especially now more than ever because of all the recent news hype coinciding with the fundraising drive. Many people will be hesitant to donate if they think we're affiliated with Wikileaks. Hopefully it won't affect it too much but we'll have to see. -- ]] 09:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
::On the other hand, some may be especially willing to donate if they think we are connected with Wikileaks. Of course we should clarify this ''on principle'', no matter what the influence on the donation stream is. --] (]) 09:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:::It may be relevant to point out that it sounds like ] may get a trademark on the word "face" in any compound at all in their area of business.<sup></sup> I doubt this is the kind of IP precedent anyone at Misplaced Pages would approve of; nonetheless, I wonder if it is potentially a bargaining chip Misplaced Pages could use to demand that Wikileaks make a statement distancing itself on its website. ] (]) 10:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

== US photographs ==

Something occurred to me. Unlike the UK where images of most villages can be uploaded from http://www.geograph.org.uk/ there is a considerable problem for many places in the US and Canada obtaining a plentiful supply of decent freely useable photographs for small towns, and even larger ones, one example I can think of is ].... I was wondering Jimmy if your foundation would endorse the idea of running a US version of geograph to photograph every grid square or whatever you use for the United States. Sure it would be an ambitious project, but not as ambitious as wikipedia... This would not only solve our problem of having a poor supply of photographs for many places in the United States but it would build up a highly valuable bank of images over time under a Creative Commons/GFDL license which I am certain many people would find very valuable. I wonder how many times somebody has looked for a freely useable image of a small US town or unincorporated place and found no images on it. Given that geograph is clearly a massive success and has suppled the majority of British villages with images, I wonder if it would be too much to ask if the foundation could host a US version of such a project to attract people into a project which would photograph the United States in such detail? I know that the United States is considerably larger than the UK but I don't see why such a project couldn't be a success for most places with a high internet population. If I can get some sort of backing I'll make a formal proposal on this.♦ ] 18:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
:I second this - if this can be made viable, it would be a great idea. (It's actually something I've considered before; trouble is I'm not net-savvy enough to know where to begin in creating it.) I've done enough photographing of backwoods Virginia to know that free images for much of the country are next-to-impossible to come by at the moment, even for some of the larger/more notable places (see ] for but one good example). I know it's a huge country, but the population ''is'' pretty large - I don't see why this couldn't work. --<font face="Old English Text MT">]</font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 22:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


== Comment at ] == == Comment at ] ==
Line 104: Line 23:
:I would email legal@wikimedia.org to inquire.--] (]) 08:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC) :I would email legal@wikimedia.org to inquire.--] (]) 08:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
::You can't ask them to leave a comment?] (]) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC) ::You can't ask them to leave a comment?] (]) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

== ] ==

Were you just preparing to start a new article? -- ]] 09:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
:Yes. She was just recently elevated to the peerage and we don't have an article on her. I am not 100% sure I will have time to create an article, so I thought I would at least post the links I found to assist someone else who may wish to do it. :)--] (]) 11:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


== Arbcom election re Giano == == Arbcom election re Giano ==
Line 229: Line 143:
# Copy or scan of other official documentation indicating real name and age # 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 . ] (]) 09:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Hope that helps answer, although it's not one of the 'super-policies' like . ] (]) 09:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

==[REDACTED] helping google with the dissemination of information ==

Recently I searched google using the term, "theory of adhd". The first link was to the wiki article entitled, ]. The gist of this theory is that the disorder has been socially constructed and "could not exist had we not built it". Basically this theory questions the validity of the disorder and is often used to claim that the disorder doesn't exist. ADHD is considered a medical condition and accepted as such by the western world. SCTA would be considered a fringe viewpoint or possibly a minor viewpoint within select populations.

Now I know that google can be manipulated so that search results are skewed and all of this can happen outside of wikipedia. But, is[REDACTED] also contributing in some small degree in the improper dissemination of information? I could well imagine that this problem could involve many topics.--] (]) 13:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

:Let me approach the question more generally, because I do think it is philosophically interesting. Let's suppose (I haven't read the article in question and anyway do not have the relevant background to assess it directly myself) the article you are talking about is neutral and high quality. Even so, it is a neutral discussion of one particular viewpoint. If google is (accidentally, surely) sending people to a "sub-article" on a particular viewpoint, rather than the main article which puts that viewpoint in a wider context, this could indeed in some cases be problematic.
:I don't have a solution for that, and it is bound to happen in some cases even without "manipulation".
:I think people would be rightly outraged in some cases, enough to complain to google about it. From our end, I suppose the main thing we can do is make clear that a subarticle is part of a "series" about some topic, and make sure people are aware of the existence of the general article.--] (]) 13:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


== Arbcom elections == == Arbcom elections ==
Line 277: Line 181:


::::::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 ]... try loading the first version, then see where you get when you click "previous version" ;-). --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:35, 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 ]... try loading the first version, then see where you get when you click "previous version" ;-). --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 12:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::::I believe is the oldest known edit in the database. ] (]) 12:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::::What? Jimbo was ? <span id="Perseus, Son of Zeus" class="plainlinks" >]&nbsp;(] • ] • ])</span> 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. ] (]) 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. :) ] (]) 13:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

:::::::::::Jimbo, did you ever sight any vandalism on very, ''very'', early Misplaced Pages? <span id="Perseus, Son of Zeus" class="plainlinks" >]&nbsp;(] • ] • ])</span> 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


== linking to wikilinks == == linking to wikilinks ==
Line 282: Line 196:
I thought you might be interested in the discussion about if we should be using and linking to these controversial wikileak documents. At the - ] (]) 16:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I thought you might be interested in the discussion about if we should be using and linking to these controversial wikileak documents. At the - ] (]) 16:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


==GOCE elections== == GOCE elections ==

{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2011/Notice1}} {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2011/Notice1}}
<small>Sent on behalf of the ] via ] using ] on 01:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)</small> <small>Sent on behalf of the ] via ] using ] on 01:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)</small>
Line 290: Line 205:
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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> 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 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Great. However, your experience with numerology is not a ], and your judgements constitute ]. Thus, the article will not be changing based upon your numerological musings. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>]</font> 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC) :Great. However, your experience with numerology is not a ], and your judgements constitute ]. Thus, the article will not be changing based upon your numerological musings. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">]<font color="#0095c6">of</font>]</font> 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 ], ] and ] grounds, but I wonder whether Mr Wales might simply chime in here and give us an answer. ] (]) 15:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


== Someone asked me to be really clear on this == == Someone asked me to be really clear on this ==


The rules of this election are clear. ]. One of the rules, not written by me, says "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.--] (]) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC) The rules of this election are clear. ]. 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.--] (]) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

: I am going to start a discussion at ] to resolve what I view as ambiguity. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:00, 1 December 2010

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
There are also active user talk pages for User:Jimbo Wales on commons and meta.  Please choose the most relevant.

Template:Fix bunching

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
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 
Archiving icon
Archives
Index –index–
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

(Manual archive list)

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[REDACTED] editor without internet access. The purpose of ArbCom is to handle various situations on[REDACTED] 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)  
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)

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)

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)
User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions Add topic