[Wikimedia-l] New access to non-public information policy, re-ID requirements and data retention

[Sydney]

I can think of three times that people with access to private information misled the community about their identity and it would have been better if there were records showing who they were. Being able to audit the records for false documentation would have been useful in two and probably would have prevented the other. 

Sydney 


Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 23, 2013, at 19:01, Newyorkbrad <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> Although I personally didn't consider identifying to be onerous, I've never
> thought the entire identification requirement and process were necessary,
> since nothing is ever done with the identification data.  Can anyone think
> of a situation that would have been handled differently if the
> proposed policy had been in place at the relevant time?  (I myself can
> think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
> 
> Newyorkbrad
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier <marc at uberbox.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users.
>> 
>> The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most
>> certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term.  :-)
>> 
>> Seriously, however, I can understand why some current holders of rights
>> might have reservations about a policy that tightens greatly how private
>> information is handled and how much vetting is done on who does the
>> handling; but that tightening does very much need to take place.
>> 
>> It's not clear to me what those people who have signed the petition
>> think they can accomplish; those new rules (perhaps altered through
>> feedback) will need to be installed eventually, but nobody is obliged to
>> abide them if they do not feel comfortable doing so; being a steward,
>> oversighter or checkuser is not something one is forced into doing.  If
>> they prefer not to proceed with the new system, they don't actually need
>> to resign.
>> 
>> As a volunteer, I'd *much* rather those functions be held by active
>> members of the community than by staff; and as long as there remains
>> sufficient volunteers to do the job, then this is what should happen.
>> (We'd probably get more people willing to step forward if we stopped -
>> collectively - heaping so much crap on the heads of functionaries; but
>> that's a different issue).
>> 
>> -- Coren / Marc
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>