[Foundation-l] Oversight rights

Jon Harald Søby jhsoby at gmail.com
Wed Dec 20 13:39:04 UTC 2006

On 12/20/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is almost off-topic because it doesn't impact the main point of
> your post, we still do need a way of dealing with oversight requests,
> but I think this needs to be said:
> Oversight can, with great annoyance, be undone. Oversight's only real
> risk is causing misleading attribution, but the same thing is true of
> deletion so long as your standard of misleading is focused on casual
> readers rather admins (as it should be).
> The effect of an inappropriate release of checkuser data is an
> irreparable loss of privacy. I wouldn't go so far as saying that a
> carelessly performed checkuser could be life threatening, since if
> your life is on the line over any websites ability to protect your
> privacy thats your mistake.. but it is clear that often the result of
> a mistake made with checkuser data can not simply be undone.
> As such I don't think we should get in the practice of considering
> oversight a more sensitive privilege than checkuser.

I didn't mean that oversight is a more sensitive privilege, but that
the _requests_ for oversight are more sensitive. E.g. a request to ask
if user A is a sock of user B isn't sensitive, but a request to remove
a specific revision will be. If that is done in public on Meta, the
revision will be viewable by everyone until someone removes it. Hence
the suggestion about the mailing list, like it is done on en. But this
is probably a bit off-topic, you're right. ;-)

Best regards,
Jon Harald Søby

Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
Skype - jon.harald.soby

More information about the foundation-l mailing list