Talk:Access to nonpublic personal data policy
- No, that is not needed now. For example as an OTRS member (now former) at the moment when I became one I just needed to email my name and whether I am a major, and when the new policy was put in place I had to sign phab:L4 and phab:L32 and that's it, the action on Phab was all I needed. I believe nothing has changed since (at least not as of May when I still had OTRS access). --Base (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The big blue box at the start of the page says "Provide contact and identification information", and links to a section titled "Identification", but that section does not exist. Does an identification requirement currently exist for holding advanced permissions? If so, it isn't enforced. Can this wording be changed or removed? – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- See Talk:Access to nonpublic information policy/Noticeboard#Identification. From what I understand, you sign your name and then are added to the noticeboard. No additional identification is required. Would be great to hear confirmation. --Eurodyne (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The requirement of identification was removed from this policy in April 2014. What is left is that users need to give their email address (can be under a pseudonym), "certify" that they're of age (accepted as AGF) and provide a signature that can be also made with a pseudonym. The blue box has not been updated regarding the "identifcation information" and twice refers to it, which is very misleading in my opinion. Could it please be updated to better represent the actual policy? -kyykaarme (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Reference to the authentic text of this documentEdit
Sets of nonpublic personal dataEdit
This policy targets nonpublic personal data from OTRS, CheckUser, email response teams like ArbComs, and possibly other sets. This is written as a broad policy.
Some weirdness has crept into the wiki community without documentation. At some point in the past WMF staffers permitted the registration of Wikimedia user groups to be a nonpublic personal data issue. I am not sure why this happened or if the staffers were even conscious of what they were doing. AffCom was a part of this but seemingly acting at the behest of staff.
Over at Wikimedia Foundation bylaws/December 2018 - Affiliate-selected trustees, term limits, and diversity there is the proposal that user groups should get some powerful voting rights. That could be okay, but if that were so, I wish that the registration and governance of user groups would shift from being nonpublic personal data to being on-wiki in the usual way. The implication is the new power to user groups would give voting rights to individuals who would vote behind this nonpublic personal data policy, instead of making themselves known as Wikimedia account users. In all previous Wikimedia elections most votes come from people with Wikimedia accounts, sometimes from IP users, and never from people who were neither account holders or IP editors. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I am a little confused about 1/ what is meant by "authorized parties" in this context and 2/ why it is thought necessary to inform the Foundation in advance --or inform the Foundation at all--when the person whose data is being disclosed consents that it be released —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk)
How do I sign?Edit
I have tried loading this page in both of my browsers: Opera 12 and Opera 55 as well as via mobile but I can't see where to sign. The 'submit' button is just text. Am I missing something? Xania (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
How long does it take to process?Edit
Hello! I'm interested in becoming involved with Account Creation over and en-wp and signed the agreement a couple months ago. I was wondering how long it takes for things to be processed, as I don't actually see my username on the noticeboard yet. Cheers, Cymru.lass (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Cymru.lass. I don't have access to the signatures so I cannot check (currently it looks like Samuel (WMF) is the one taking care of this). Please nonetheless make sure you've signed the updated Confidentiality Agreement (a.k.a. L37) because this policy was updated in November and they ain't adding people to this board who hasn't signed the updated NDA. Hope that it helps. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Link to other languages on leftEdit
Hi. Today I clicked on languages on the side bar (left side of the page) it goes to google chrome page. I even liked on English it went to google chrome page. Is this my problem (that I don't think so) or the links. Please check. Thanks.23:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, that's weird. You are correct, I am getting the same result, taking me to w:en:Chrome OS when clicking on "English", and the same article in other languages when clicking on other languages. No idea how that would be happening. Risker (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
At the bottom of the text, a link is made to the "OTRS confidentiality agreement". Following that link leads to a statement that the OTRS agreement is withdrawn, apparently since 2015. Can somebody correct the link so it leads to the current OTRS agreement-if any exists? Thanks, Ellywa (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I can't see any link to OTRS/Confidentiality agreement on this page. Stryn (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see such a link here either. Ellywa,
- the Wikimedia Foundation requires OTRS volunteers to agree to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L45, which is the OTRS version of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37 (same content). This is the Confidentiality Agreement discussed in section 3(c) of the access to nonpublic personal data policy ("To ensure that community members with access rights understand and commit to keeping the Nonpublic Personal Data confidential, they will be required to read and certify that they agree to a short Confidentiality Agreement [...]"). OTRS access cannot be granted to volunteers unless they sign this agreement.
- Meanwhile, OTRS/Confidentiality agreement was intended as an additional OTRS-specific agreement (hereinafter: the "volunteer agreement"), authored and to be enforced not by the Wikimedia Foundation but by the group of volunteers managing OTRS access rights (the OTRS administrators). It was withdrawn many years ago. The idea was that when signing the Wikimedia Foundation confidentiality agreement discussed in the preceding paragraph, OTRS agents would in addition be asked to state their agreement with the volunteer agreement ("By typing your name below, clicking the check box, and clicking the 'Sign Document' ('Sign Document') button below, you acknowledge that you have reviewed and agree both to this confidentiality agreement between you and the Wikimedia Foundation as well as the OTRS confidentiality agreement."). I'm not sure why this language is still in Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information, which is supposed to be the "Wiki copy" of the Phabricator document (maybe that is where you saw it?). Either the Phabricator interface was changed at some point to reflect the withdrawal of the volunteer agreement and the Wiki page was not updated, or the Phabricator interface in fact still asks new volunteers for that. So something probably needs updating ... Materially, however, it makes no difference since, as I said, a separate volunteer agreement no longer exists.
- — Pajz (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation. I made a mistake, the link to the OTRS agreement I saw indeed on the page you mentioned: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. Should that link be removed there?
- Regarding the OTRS agreement, I was actually looking for my obligation, as an OTRS volunteer, to ensure all content I am uploading to Commons through the permission queues, or all content on Commons which I happen to see, is according to the copyright policies of Commons. I thought this obligation existed, and I wanted it to show it to somebody asking for my help. Ellywa (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Who else has experienced this problem with signing the agreement in which the submit button is a text that literally cannot be clicked? I see Xania also experienced this problem & voiced out but did not receive a reply. This is a humble plea; please if you are reading this & are knowledgeable about this kind of problems what do you think could be the cause of this? I have used multiple browsers but the problem is still there. Could this be an overlooked error? Or are there pre-requisites one must attend to before signing this document? Celestina007 (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)