UDWiki talk:Privacy policy

Since it is official policy, this page could do with being in Category:Policy Documents. (I know it wasn't voted on, but that doesn't change it being policy.)--Toejam 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Considering adding section re: personal data? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:01, 6 May 2011 (BST)

---

yikes! sysops should have to take a personality test...you can hardly trust any1 w/ a plethora of IPs →Son of Sin← 05:55, 13 October 2011 (BST)

To be fair 90% of them wouldn't know what to do with an IP to cause problems if they tried and the other 10% are real tight asses about leaking of personal information. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:21, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Interesting opinion. It's true, at times I think checkuser should be only assigned to those who understand the consequences fully but at the same time it really hasn't been a massive issue for a while now. Only a couple times does anyone in the team slip up. annoying 08:43, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Yeah, and then the two worst were insta-demotions where people gave other people access to their accounts. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:12, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I've been meaning to write up a new Checkuser policy for a while now. It should not be handed out willy-nilly as it is at present; I think the amount of abuse it has gotten clearly demonstrates that. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:34, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Honestly can only think of about four incidents. J3d, Nubis, and two accidental postings(one, again by J3d), it's done significantly more good as far as A/VB is concerned but, then again not everyone takes the time to use it in cases of fly by night vandalism. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:42, 13 October 2011 (BST)

And me.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:46, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I don't know why you'd fly that flag when I was giving you a pass by not mentioning your name. :P --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:48, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Because it's true and it's relevant to a discussion on privacy policy. I'm not "flying that flag", but it is information which could be relevant.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:56, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Well, honestly, I'd only gotten as far as requiring all CheckUsers to be 18+… ideas are not particularly developed, hence “meaning to write up.” Out of curiosity, how many of said incidents would this rule have prevented? (Also, I believe there were more, earlier, incidents, but am disinclined to look them up at the moment.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:02, 13 October 2011 (BST)

J3D's and only really those, depending on how early into Yonnua's term his incident was. Nubis would have probably ended up with whatever level of access anyway but in J3Ds case he was already controversial and we caught him account sharing in like a week or three. So basically it would have prevented one user from getting access. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:17, 14 October 2011 (BST)

About two years ago

I was sent an email asking whether a specific user (No idea who) was editing using a specifically named IP after the same IP had vandalised an URBAN DEAD related forum. At the time I ignored the request (and subsequently the vandal openly vandalised the same forum so it was irrelevant in the end). However I feel this is the kind of thing that should be specifically given as a no no. --^{Hey Sweden!} 17:36, 13 October 2011 (BST)