Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-11-19/News and notes
The "what" reached 10,000 articles?--Rayc (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, I was just coming here to say that too. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Age requirement[edit]
I don't know the exact wording of the privacy policy, but if that policy doesn't allow for minors to take part in the arbitration comittee, that is a serious omission. Rather than limiting the age of applicants, the policy should be altered. Why is it such a problem to share private info with minors? Age isn't an issue with administrators either and it shouldn't be. Administrators should be reliable and mature and that depends on conduct rather than age. - Mgm|(talk) 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "exact wording" of the privacy policy, or at least of the resolution controlling access to nonpublic data, is directly linked from the story. The Checkuser and Privacy policies were significantly tightened after the Essjay incident. All persons with checkuser access must be of legal age in their jurisdiction and must disclose their real identity to the Foundation. Thatcher131 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have carefully reviewed the wording of the policy and am not at all convinced that, in and of itself, it excludes editors younger than 18 from service on the Arbitration Committee, nor am I convinced that there is any reason for such exclusion. There has been discussion of this issue on the elections talkpage. This talkpage to an article in the Signpost is watchlisted by no one (I only saw it because it was cross-referenced in an edit that came up in a feed of arbitration-related edits in the arb-clerks IRC channel), and is probably not the best place for any discussion of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is also discussed at WT:RFAR. It seems clear that if minor editors were to serve, there would have to be a two-tiered system, with a separate mailing list for issues involving checkuser information and minor Arbitrators automatically recused from all cases involving checkuser evidence (at a minimum). Thatcher131 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know that's the conclusion that some of the arbitrators have come to, but I've read the policy carefully and it does not actually say so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Um, 2. Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, including proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside. Obviously this means minors can not be checkusers. Why do you think this does not bar minors from discussing data obtained from the checkuser tool in the context of an Arbitration case or appeal of a community ban, for example? Thatcher131 11:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll follow up on this with you on another page or elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Um, 2. Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, including proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside. Obviously this means minors can not be checkusers. Why do you think this does not bar minors from discussing data obtained from the checkuser tool in the context of an Arbitration case or appeal of a community ban, for example? Thatcher131 11:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know that's the conclusion that some of the arbitrators have come to, but I've read the policy carefully and it does not actually say so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have carefully reviewed the wording of the policy and am not at all convinced that, in and of itself, it excludes editors younger than 18 from service on the Arbitration Committee, nor am I convinced that there is any reason for such exclusion. There has been discussion of this issue on the elections talkpage. This talkpage to an article in the Signpost is watchlisted by no one (I only saw it because it was cross-referenced in an edit that came up in a feed of arbitration-related edits in the arb-clerks IRC channel), and is probably not the best place for any discussion of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
A reminder: These talk pages are normally used primarily for discussion of the story. I don't particularly mind having a discussion on whether the move was a good one or not, but the result of having such a discussion here is that it's fragmented amongst multiple pages, and I'm not convinced that's a good thing. Ral315 » 13:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)