Talk:Oversight policy
Add topic
|
Several proposals have been made concerning this page. Before making a new one, please review these discussions and their results (keep, change, or no consensus).
|
|
For threads older than 60 days please look at the archives. |
Concerns about the Ombuds Commission's decision: is the French Committee community- and legally valid?
[edit]See Talk:CheckUser_policy#Concerns_about_the_Ombuds_Commission's_decision:_is_the_French_Committee_community-_and_legally_valid?. LD (talk) 10:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Intended meaning of Use case 1
[edit]The text of case 1 under the heading Use mentions "pseudonymous or anonymous individuals" and "public individuals". My reading would be that public just means not pseudonymous or anonymous. The German translation changes it in of public interest ("des öffentlichen Interesses"). In the latter case results in a three-way split, with a third group consisting of persons who aren't of public interest, but use their own name. This would mean their non-public personal data is not to be suppressed, which looks wrong to me. The Dutch translation shows small differences between Meta and Commons, "publieke personen" and "publieke individuelen". As "publiek" can have both the intended meaning of English "public" and German "des öffentlichen Interesses" the result is still quite confusing.
If my reading is correct, this confusion probably stems from the rather convoluted sentence. It tries to capture both real names and other pseudonyms as possible non-public information, by making distinctions between different types of users. A less confusing text would be:
- Removal of non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or names and identities used of individuals who have not made that personal information public.
By not making distinctions, this formula covers all users and highlights making the information public yourself as the main criterion. MarcoSwart (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)