Forum:Identification

Forums: Index &rarr; General discussion

Hello! With the recent discussion over the addition of an 'ombudsman' and current existing stewards, Orain staff decided it would be a great time to start drafting an identification policy and ask for the communities feedback on the topic (since this will effect either your private data or you if you ever gain access to non-public data). The draft below has drafted by Kudu, Joe and John and is fully up to debate. After a week, a final draft will be made and given a Meta: page where any other clarifications can be requested before we make it official. Please use the 'comments' sections to make comments on the section and suggest alternatives. This includes supporting or opposing specific sections as well. John (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I think this is all premature without a pre-existing Privacy policy, as linked to from the footer of all pages of Orain-Meta. That should be a prerequisite to having an identification policy, IMHO. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Augur NZ &#x2710; &#x2315; 04:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See Privacy Policy. John (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, it must just be the link on the footer that is incorrect. Augur NZ &#x2710; &#x2315; 11:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Users
Users (Orain staff) who will be responsible for dealing with identification purposes (verifying, responding to requests etc.) will be Dusti and John. Additional staff may be added in the future but for now only two will have access.


 * Comments
 * 1) -- Joe G. (Talk) 01:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Benjozork (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) . I suggest adding that only Community Council members may be added as "identifiers". Kudu (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) -- 레비 Revi D C  M 04:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sending
At the moment, email will be the preferred method of sending identification to Orain. Alternatives can be discussed in the future on a case-by-case basis.


 * Comments
 * 1) -- Joe G. (Talk) 01:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Benjozork (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) . I suggest recommending the use of PGP. Kudu (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with Kudu. -- 레비 Revi D C  M 04:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Information to retain
This section is wholly debatable as private and personal information will be stored from what comments are made here. At the moment, we are discussing whether to retain the following information from IDs before destroying them completely; Full legal name - DoB (or simple 'above age of majority') - Country of Citizenship - and possibly form of identification used and where we got this from 'e.g. passport, drivers license etc.'.


 * Comments
 * 1) More specifically, I prefer a simple AoM Y/N over DoB. -- Joe G. (Talk) 01:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  I don't want under age of majority to be stored. -Benjozork (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Only users over the age of majority will have such a thing recorded. And in addition it will only be available to Dusti or I and that is also only if you provide identification. People who identify under the AoM won't have anything recorded. John (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks i was fearing getting banned of the wikifarm because of my age... -Benjozork (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. It just prevents you gaining access to tools such as Oversight or CheckUser or being trusted with responsibilities of stewards/ombudsman due to their role with private data. John (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, i understand, i can wait 6 years! :D -Benjozork (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) although I disagree with not storing any information for people under 18. Full name, country of citizenship and type of ID should still be recorded for people between 13 and 18 who identify. Kudu (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, i agree but i don't want a Under age of majority to be stored and displayed like stupid pro-COPPA forums, but do i REALLY need to give my full name? -Benjozork (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure someone else will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the expectation to fully identify oneself to Orain staff under this (proposed) policy will only be applied to those who are subject to / part of the (proposed) Organizational structure of Orain. Augur NZ &#x2710; &#x2315; 11:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those who will be asked to, are those who have access to non-public data such as; Stewards, Ombudsman, Oversighters and CheckUsers. If addition roles have access to non-public, they will also be asked. For the reason of this 'non-public' is defined as information kept on private mailing lists (Ombudsman), access to information with additional deletion levels beyond administrators (Oversighters) or those with access to non-public information of other users (CheckUsers). Stewards are required to as they fulfil Oversight and CheckUser roles when necessary on wikis without local users (so far only Metawiki has a local Oversighter, so stewards fulfil all advanced roles on all wikis at the moment). I hope this has cleared somethings up. There is no requirement to identify unless you a) choose to out of your own request or b) want to or are waiting for access to non-public data as described above. John (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) -- 레비 Revi D C  M 04:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Storing of retained information
At the moment, we are suggesting a simple on-wiki list which lists all users identified to us. This will be on-wiki to allow stewards to easily see who is identified. In addition, this allows other peoples personally retained information to only be accessed when needed as only a username will be on-wiki. The off-wiki storage has yet to be fully decided but it will include a username entry followed by all the private information recorded by either Dusti or John. This will also only be accessible by Dusti or John when adding a new entry (we will focus on the new entry only) or when we have a reason to access someone's information (we will focus on their entry only).


 * Comments
 * 1) -- Joe G. (Talk) 01:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Benjozork (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Kudu (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) -- 레비 Revi D C  M 04:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Releasing retained information
We aim to take this information very seriously as it is intended to be 'private' information especially on an online community. Information will only be access with intention to release when a valid law enforcement order is requesting it (mainly a subpoena) and we have exhausted all other alternatives to avoid releasing the information.


 * Comments
 * 1) -- Joe G. (Talk) 01:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Benjozork (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Kudu (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) -- 레비 Revi D C  M 04:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)