This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oversight page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
For the fastest way to request oversight, send an email to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org; registered editors may use wikimail by CLICKING HERE. |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Requests for oversight redirects here. |
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
This is not the place to request suppression/oversight!
Never make such a request by editing a Wikipedia page. You will need to privately contact an Oversighter to have an edit suppressed/oversighted. See the instructions at
Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for more information. |
can Wikipedia delete some ip addresses on Wikipedia? 155.137.27.93 ( talk) 19:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
User:Oversight/Emailnotice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a line along the lines of
This address should only be used for requests to oversight content '''on the English Wikipedia'''. For other wikis, check the local oversight or suppression page.
Since it seems that some users accidentally send their requests here when it is intended for other wikis. Happy to share examples with the OS team if needed. DannyS712 ( talk) 21:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
At the moment all oversight blocks are indefinite. In ~95% of the cases this has seemed appropriate to me. Indefinite is not infinite and in most cases the behavior is so egregious or so repeated that indefinite feels like the right way to stop disruption. Once in a while it feels like too much and sometimes I think the fact that we only do indefinite means we don't block someone, because it feels like a disproportionate response, or we let a problem get worse that a shorter block applied more quickly may have stopped. I am wondering if this practice of the OS team should be reconsidered. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to access the suppression log and I got the "permission error" message. Also when looking through oversighted edits, it is unclear who had oversighted, as the software refused to show me. Any assistance? Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 18:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The oversight extension has been deprecated for more than a decade, and very few people (particularly newer contributors) actually understand why the tool was named as such. A rename would be better for newer users.
A rename would entail moving this page from Project:Oversight to Project:Suppression, renaming the appropriate group roles, updating references of "oversight" to "suppressor" or "suppression team" across the project where needed, etc. It might also involve updating email addresses and mailing lists (but not discontinuing previous ones). " Oversight" is not even defined as we use it right now; oversight means "supervision or management" and is not synonymous with " suppression".
Suppression might have a negative connotation, but it is also important to note that suppression is only done for material that for one reason or another creates legal liability if accessible even by administrators. And I don't think there are many other terms that accurately describe what this is doing. We could differentiate between these different levels of deletion with stuff like level I deletion and level II deletion, but then the group name would be "level II deleter" and that does not ring nicely, and that might still not have an entirely positive connotation.
Maybe one can find a better term to reflect this role that is not negative or something? I can be certain that this role only exists for legal reasons, in the same manner "checkuser" exists. So finding a term that reflects this fact would be more helpful. Awesome Aasim 00:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
functionary
role would have access to the IP addresses accessed by accounts, ability to redact and technically suppress information, and oversight over each other's use of these tools. I have never seen a case where one with both roles lost just one or the other. (example:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block where a former functionary lost both roles because of lapsed judgement with the "checkuser" tool).
Awesome
Aasim 00:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
suppression is only done for material that for one reason or another creates legal liability if accessible even by administratorsthis is not correct. The policy section of this page lists the situations where we suppress material, and privacy reasons are far more common than legal ones (both in terms of criteria and in terms of how often they are applied). Thryduulf ( talk) 10:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
How about this for the role namings and policy namings:
It may get a bit redundant if one has both but it resolves this historic happenstance and inaccurate description by using the same name to refer to both checkusers and oversighters. Awesome Aasim 23:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There are functionaries without either toolaren't functionaries essentially users entrusted by both the community (or ArbCom) and the WMF to handle personal data? There could be a right called "arbcom" that lists Arbitration Commitee members, which would be a cosmetic-ish role. Awesome Aasim 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Oftentimes, oversighted content gets picked up by the Wayback Machine before it is removed. They will remove PII on request. Some Wikipedia users, especially new users, are unaware about the Wayback Machine. Could there be a reminder added to the page to check if the content was archived in the Wayback Machine, and contact them to remove it? Félix An ( talk) 08:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oversight page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
For the fastest way to request oversight, send an email to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org; registered editors may use wikimail by CLICKING HERE. |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Requests for oversight redirects here. |
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
This is not the place to request suppression/oversight!
Never make such a request by editing a Wikipedia page. You will need to privately contact an Oversighter to have an edit suppressed/oversighted. See the instructions at
Wikipedia:Requests for oversight for more information. |
can Wikipedia delete some ip addresses on Wikipedia? 155.137.27.93 ( talk) 19:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
User:Oversight/Emailnotice has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a line along the lines of
This address should only be used for requests to oversight content '''on the English Wikipedia'''. For other wikis, check the local oversight or suppression page.
Since it seems that some users accidentally send their requests here when it is intended for other wikis. Happy to share examples with the OS team if needed. DannyS712 ( talk) 21:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
At the moment all oversight blocks are indefinite. In ~95% of the cases this has seemed appropriate to me. Indefinite is not infinite and in most cases the behavior is so egregious or so repeated that indefinite feels like the right way to stop disruption. Once in a while it feels like too much and sometimes I think the fact that we only do indefinite means we don't block someone, because it feels like a disproportionate response, or we let a problem get worse that a shorter block applied more quickly may have stopped. I am wondering if this practice of the OS team should be reconsidered. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to access the suppression log and I got the "permission error" message. Also when looking through oversighted edits, it is unclear who had oversighted, as the software refused to show me. Any assistance? Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 18:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The oversight extension has been deprecated for more than a decade, and very few people (particularly newer contributors) actually understand why the tool was named as such. A rename would be better for newer users.
A rename would entail moving this page from Project:Oversight to Project:Suppression, renaming the appropriate group roles, updating references of "oversight" to "suppressor" or "suppression team" across the project where needed, etc. It might also involve updating email addresses and mailing lists (but not discontinuing previous ones). " Oversight" is not even defined as we use it right now; oversight means "supervision or management" and is not synonymous with " suppression".
Suppression might have a negative connotation, but it is also important to note that suppression is only done for material that for one reason or another creates legal liability if accessible even by administrators. And I don't think there are many other terms that accurately describe what this is doing. We could differentiate between these different levels of deletion with stuff like level I deletion and level II deletion, but then the group name would be "level II deleter" and that does not ring nicely, and that might still not have an entirely positive connotation.
Maybe one can find a better term to reflect this role that is not negative or something? I can be certain that this role only exists for legal reasons, in the same manner "checkuser" exists. So finding a term that reflects this fact would be more helpful. Awesome Aasim 00:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
functionary
role would have access to the IP addresses accessed by accounts, ability to redact and technically suppress information, and oversight over each other's use of these tools. I have never seen a case where one with both roles lost just one or the other. (example:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block where a former functionary lost both roles because of lapsed judgement with the "checkuser" tool).
Awesome
Aasim 00:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
suppression is only done for material that for one reason or another creates legal liability if accessible even by administratorsthis is not correct. The policy section of this page lists the situations where we suppress material, and privacy reasons are far more common than legal ones (both in terms of criteria and in terms of how often they are applied). Thryduulf ( talk) 10:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
How about this for the role namings and policy namings:
It may get a bit redundant if one has both but it resolves this historic happenstance and inaccurate description by using the same name to refer to both checkusers and oversighters. Awesome Aasim 23:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
There are functionaries without either toolaren't functionaries essentially users entrusted by both the community (or ArbCom) and the WMF to handle personal data? There could be a right called "arbcom" that lists Arbitration Commitee members, which would be a cosmetic-ish role. Awesome Aasim 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Oftentimes, oversighted content gets picked up by the Wayback Machine before it is removed. They will remove PII on request. Some Wikipedia users, especially new users, are unaware about the Wayback Machine. Could there be a reminder added to the page to check if the content was archived in the Wayback Machine, and contact them to remove it? Félix An ( talk) 08:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)