The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 00:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created by me. This page documents a voluntary pledge of users who are active in the account request and creation process through the ACC tool interface. User Prodego had speedily deleted this page a few days ago quoting, "inappropriate use of Wikipedia namespace." I requested him to restore this page as this page did not qualify in any manner for a non-controversial speedy deletion, especially as at the time of deletion, there were 14 signatories who might have preferred deletion discussions than a CSD. Prodego accepted that the page "meets no obvious CSD" criteria, but he did comment that the page has a purely negative impact, "horribly misrepresents the ACC tool, insinuating that these users are voluntarily recusing from releasing so called 'personal information' out of their own good will." At the same time, he allowed me to undelete this page. In good faith, I commented to him that I shall myself nominate this page for a deletion discussion post the restoration. I invite users to comment on whether this page is an "inappropriate use of the Wikipedia namespace," and has such "a purely negative impact" that it should be deleted. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Woah there, we aren't voluntarily recusing from releasing any information, this pledge is just asserting that those who sign it strongly believe that releasing the information of a requesting user would be grossly inappropriate and misuse of the tool. In signing the pledge a user agrees to the conditions of membership at ACC, because upon joining all users are told not to misuse the tool, this pledge just reaffirms that. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:13pm • 10:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Delete Harmless though it may be I see what other senior users of the tool say, they raise a fair point, it's part of the conditions and it's common sense that if you do something against policy you're given 1 chance and then you're out of here. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:27pm • 06:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepWe have hundreds of "humorous" pages that could be considered an inappropriate use of Wikipedia namespace yet we dont delete them. I think its worth keepeing, I fail to see any negative impact it could have, it keeps spirits high and shows good faith. ZooPro 10:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Delete Per issues raised below, I was not aware it wasnt sanctioned by ACC nor was anyone consulted. I would hate to think that any user who didnt sign the pledge (or wasnt aware of it) could be targeted for not appearing to care about privacy. ZooPro 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page doesn't appear to be humorous (if it is, I don't get the joke) and like you (pretty much) said - pages like this are generally OK. There are other issues with this specific page which need addressing though. [stwalkerster|talk] 13:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE As an ACC Developer, I find it offensive that such content was created for a tool I help maintain, without ANY consultation on the mailing list regarding it before hand. I soundly agree with Prodego's assesment, it is a horrible misrepresentation, a falacy and does no good to the ACC tool, it creates a segregation between ACC users who have signed it and those who have not. The page as it stands is as bad as altering the documentation for the tool and putting lies into it (doing that would trigger immediate ACC suspension) as it misrepresents the tool and project. I am telling you that ALL ACC users have to abide via the Privacy Policy and to suggest otherwise in some falicious page that attempts to officially affiliate itself with ACC and those who run it has no place on Wikipedia. Futhermore the page serves further to cause confusion for New ACC users and some people who have signed it arn't even on ACC (and probably never will be). It is for the best that the project co-ordinators, admins and developers handle anything on the Wikipedia namespace for ACC and it really should stay that way. Move it to the user namespace at the very least, you can 'volunteer' to do that much.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that the 'voluntariness' of the pledge between 14 and so Wikipedia users is an issue? Are you saying that all ACC users have agreed to abide by the privacy policy in some other mandatory page? (The privacy policy has no mention of the ACC tool server; and I remember having initiated discussions at meta on this issue too). And are you also saying that the page should not have non-ACC users? Could you also clarify how you believe this page "attempts to officially affiliate itself with ACC and those who run it"? Please don't mind my questions. They are not made in order to affront you; they are being put forward just to gain clarification on your point of view. Kind regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All projects on the Toolserver and thier associated users are bound by the Toolserver, Wikimedia DE and inherriently the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy, these are well documented in the toolserver rules and among other reasons checkusers are on the tool so they can see that we dont make data availiable needlessly. Non-ACC users on the page confuse the issue and make them seem to be ACC users when they are not. The ACC pledge further confuses the issue because it makes this all seem voluntary. It attempts to officially be tied to ACC by A)having ACC in its name. B)Being in the Wikipedia namespace. C)Linking to offical ACC pages. D)Being in the Wikipedia interface help category.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I am telling you that ALL ACC users have to abide via the Privacy Policy". Would you please point to some documentary evidence for this assertion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Rules Terrillja _talk 22:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a perfectly reasonable use of the project space and I don't think it serves any negative impact at all. Any misrepresentation that may exist can be easily remedied with some type of disclaimer or note on the page. Swarm ^X 11:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Whatevs. Swarm ^X 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • What sort of disclaimer did you have in mind? From what I can think of, any useful disclaimer will disclaim against pretty much the entire page, which sort of leads us back to "why does this exist in the first place?". [stwalkerster|talk] 13:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete page seems pointless, and slightly misleading. It's voluntary to sign the pledge, carries no weight with ACC Tool Admins, developers or WMF, and is unknown by the majority of ACC Tool Users. It's even in one case signed by someone who has no access to the tool. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my comment to delete, as discussions further down this page about privacy lead me to think that this page was created out of misunderstandings, misconceptions and falsely attempts to regulate a non problem. It is nothing more, nothing less than one user's misguided attempt to trump all other (serious and consensual) policy involved in ACC. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It just comes off as snobbery. Clearly you have to agree to that or you lose access to the tool. Having a userbox and signing some pledge (that has absolutely no consensus in the ACC community) about all the info you get and how special you are only makes ACC as a whole come off as a bunch of stuck up asses, even if only a small minority of users signs it. Absolutely nothing is gained by keeping it and it only serves to undermine the community's trust of the ACC tool and its users.--Terrillja _talk 12:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Weak delete It's all covered by the privacy/checkuser policy. Pledges like this are nice, but really serve no useful perpose. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 12:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utterly useless and has no base in policy. If anything, it's redundant to the WMF privacy policy and should not be used as a substitution for a "real" policy. This pledge is completely worthless, really, and based on the fact that a non-ACC user signed, is just for show. I find it extremely misleading due to the fact that it is worded like an "official" policy but is really just a show-off. If you didn't personally agree to these things before joining ACC, you can suck it up because you're governed by the WMF policies, not this silly pledge. The fact that one has to actually pledge these things makes me think there are some people who would violate the privacy policy—very worrying that there's some sort of distrust among ACC members. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Get rid of it, Promethean raises good points. I actually find it offensive albeit not for the same reasons as Promethean - by it's very nature it indicates that most of the users on ACC who haven't signed it are less trustworthy. What data is actually stored on the tool is not to be released to anyonewith a few exceptions which are insignificant in this case, no matter if they've signed the pledge or not. The ACC tool is hosted on the toolserver, which is under the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. Therefore, everyone is bound to it. The only use I see this page as having is to confuse people about what is going on over at ACC, and to drive apart users. I don't think pages like this are an inappropriate use of the namespace, but this page specifically isn't appropriate. I fail to see the use of the disclaimer, as any useful disclaimer would invalidate pretty much the entire page. [stwalkerster|talk] 13:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't really the way we do things. And even if it were, it would have to be something universally adopted. We don't need people's agreement to apply policy to them. Gigs (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page is a bit odd and it really promotes an "us versus them" mentality in my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportDeleteI used to like it but as other users say, it is already said in the WMF privacy policy, and is pretty much useless. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless, as detailed above, and dripping with pompousness. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. What is ACC? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACC--Terrillja _talk 22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as superfluous and inappropriate per much of the discussion above.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• question does anyone know why this was made? Could the original creator shed some light on why they created something redundant to the toolserver agreement? HominidMachinae (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator created it on the misinformed assumption that he is not automatically bound by the Privacy Policy by using the tool. He was wrong, in this respect and due to that the page serves no purpose other than "snobbery" as someone put it among the other reasons above.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Firstly, as far as I recall, this was not discussed on the ACC user's mailing list, unless I missed something. Secondly, I have not (and would not) sign this - does that mean that I am not trustworthy? Thirdly, the use of the ACC tool is covered by the privacy conditions of ToolSever, so this is superflous.
  If the creator of the page has specific examples of ACC users who have released such information, they should contact (in the first place) an ACC admin to get that user's access revoked. Further action against the individual can then be discussed. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Fetchcomms. GcSwRhIc (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Stwalkerster. It seems to do nothing but create a division in terms of perceived credibility between tool users who have signed and those who chose not to, at least in the eyes of those who are unfamiliar with ACC. Use of the tool already mostly binds you to those terms in the first place, so any additional "pledge" would be superfluous and confusing. Krashlandon ^(talk) 03:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Echo of statements above. Redundant to current toolserver privacy policys. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 03:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe that the users commenting here have extremely valid comments. The reason I created the page was with no intention to create a differentiation between us and them, or any allusions to snobbery, as has been mentioned by some editors. The main reasons for creating this page was because I do believe that ACC users do not adhere to the Foundation's privacy policy, despite the mention here by some site administrators and users that they do. I have one main reason to believe the same. The Access to nonpublic data policy[1] that the Foundation has clearly mentions a few critical points, three of which I reproduce here:

1. "Only persons whose identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation shall be permitted to have access to any nonpublic data or other nonpublic information produced, collected, or otherwise held by the Wikimedia Foundation, where that data or other information is restricted from public disclosure by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy."
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, 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."
3. "Exceptions to this policy may be made only by resolution of the Board of Trustees."

The data available through ACC is nonpublic and restricted from public disclosure vide the privacy policy. And in case we believe that the privacy policy is applying to ACC, then I would expect that all ACC users have had their identities confirmed, as is mandatory per policy. My clear understanding in the case of ACC is that, that is not true. There are many ACC users who have not had their identities confirmed. In other words, the ACC in practice does not follow the main pillar of the privacy policy at all. Therefore the pledge exists. Irrespective of this critique that I have forwarded, I would have no issues in case the community here decides (as is evident here) to delete the page and other related templates. But I would request this discussion to be allowed to continue for its full duration, so that the community is able to see various points of view. Thanks and regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Privacy Policy does not equal the Access to nonpublic data policy and furthermore the Access to nonpublic data policy does not propogate to Toolserver projects, only the Privacy Policy. You are misinformed, again.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange you would say so. The Access to nonpublic data policy is point number 7 on the Foundation's privacy policy. And the toolserver policy does mention, "The Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy shall govern the collection and handling of private user data." And the Access to nonpublic data policy does mention that it is concerned with identity of users when they have access to "data or other information that is restricted from public disclosure by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy." Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that because we raised the issue of identification with Mike Godwin before he left, and he said as long as we keep our ducks inline then there is no issue and no need to identify. Keegan (an OTRS Admin, Oversighter and Administrator) was the one who raised all that with Mike and I trust his say a hell of allot more than yours. Your trying to bat a ball that has been batted several times over the course of ACC's history and nothing has changed for good reason. The requesting user also consents to us storing and using the information much like you consent to have your email exposed to non-identified users when you use the "Email this User" function. Further the Access to non-private Data policy explicitly states who is subject to it, specifically stewards, checkusers, oversighters, developers (as in the WMF sort) and OTRS volunteers. Notice the distinct lack of anything to do with ACC or Toolserver projects or anything that could be broadly construde to include ACC, its admins or users. Seeing as the lack of a mention of the privacy policy on the tool has in part caused the above misinformation, I have rephrased the bit that mentions it on the ACC guide which people certify they will abide by when they register to use the tool.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your interpretation of the Access to non-private data policy. At the same time, the Privacy policy very clearly mentions, "Other users who may have access to private identifiable information include, but are not limited to, users who have access to OTRS, Checkusers..." And as far as your point about Toolserver not being mentioned, perhaps you have not yet seen WP:Identification, which makes a confounding statement, "Members of the volunteer response team and users with Toolserver accounts are both required to submit their real names before being granted access, although they do not have to submit verification of that information." Do you believe our ACC users have submitted their real names? You might have raised the issue of identification of ACC users with others; and you might have also talked with Keegan and Mike, and they to each other. I have no way to confirm that. Some others might be able to confirm this discussion you say happened as they may be in the know of this discussion you are referring to. If this discussion went beyond being a group discussion and was endorsed by the Board of Trustees, I don't think we should be even wasting a second more on this issue. And even if we have to, this forum is surely not the appropriate one to continue our discussion on policy and its application. Perhaps someone in the future might bat once again and request an RfC on this issue. My intention was purely to bring out the issue and the lack of adherence to policy. Thanks Promethan for your inputs. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 11:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"users with Toolserver accounts are both required to submit their real names" - ACC Account is not equal to a Toolserver Account. Keegan raised concerns with ACC and took those concerns to Mike by himself who pretty much said it was a non-issue - this was widely discussed on the en-accounts mailing list and IRC channel. Im sure other people can recall this and verify it. On a sidenote there is no lack of adherence to policy, only scare mongering of it. I also find it hilarious you feel so strongly about the issue that you haven't even taken the initative to self identify like most of the devs and admins (and some of the users) despite being an ACC user yourself [2][3], really undermines how serious you are about this.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that comments by you and others are considerably strong enough to justify a delete of the page at this juncture. And I have to say, I more or less have no issues with the page and its related pages getting deleted now. If there are no issues, may I propose that I be allowed to myself delete all the pages? Of course, if none has any issues - else, any administrator can go ahead and delete them without delay. Thanks and regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd be OK with you deleting the page. With regard to Promethean's last comment above, are you intending to self-identify to the Foundation? I did so when the question of ACC access to personal information was discussed on-wiki before - and that was a while before I got the Oversight flag, which obviously needs self-identification (indeed, at the time I had no idea that I would go for the OS flag!). I believe that you personally self-identifying to the Foundation would make a better "personal pledge", which you would not need to publicise on your page with a little userbox! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve. Actually, I am interested in applying for OTRS, and therefore would be identifying during that application process. And of course, in case identification is made mandatory for ACC access... I also accept Promethean's and your point that identification does make for a better pledge than anything else. Thanks and nice to see you around as always. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 23:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not aware that this had not been disucssed in the mailing list or IRC channel (this was created when I had limited access to the internet, so I did not really check every email I had got). Agree with Promethean, Delete. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.