The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm already > backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here. If you > have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with their > interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF Legal, > although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve themselves. > > For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly > more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly > or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current > setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. > > Pine > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
