This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
...that ought to be removed from an article's edit history? -- Rrburke( talk) 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm quoting the article:
"Revocation
Just as easily as the oversight permission can be granted, it can be revoked."
After the earlier discussion about tight control of the Oversight capability, the first part of this sentence sounds like a joke. I don't know if that was the intent.
Just thought I would mention this. Cheers, Wanderer57 03:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a proposal to partially open up the oversight logs to administrators. Please comment here. Thanks! :) -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - Neither this or WP:RFO mention whether uninvolved 3rd parties can request oversight. I noticed someone had published an email address in WP:RS and raised it on ANI - [1] who asked me to request oversight. Thanks -- John ( Daytona2 · talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone give the community a rough count of how many edits of User:Defender 911 were oversighted on or about 11 August? He was indef blocked on 11 August and has come back asking forgiveness, but the argument is being made at WP:AN#User:Defender 911 that no one can judge the extend of his first-offense block as some massive number of edits were removed. Just want to make sure the community isn't being confused here by people who could be misremembering these four month old events. -- Kendrick7 talk 11:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That'd still inevitably be in the deletion log. Could oversight remove this?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This taken but unused account has now been usurped by the Arbitration Committee so as to allow alerts to be emailed by the "E-mail this user" functionality from inside the wiki. For those who don't have their email set up on the computer they're using, and as another useful alert hotline :-) - David Gerard ( talk) 22:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(Well, it's being held for approval, but my understanding is that this does not happen with email sent directly to oversight-l?)
Your mail to 'Oversight-l' with the subject Wikipedia e-mail Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message has implicit destination Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel this posting, please visit the following URL: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/confirm/oversight-l/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
— Random832 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The old revocation section has turned up to be flawed by ambiguity. This was never spotted, mostly since it has never been needed. So I've redrafted it, and present reasoning here for communal review. Background:
The 'revocation' section was added very early without dissent, but also without discussion. It looks like a section that has been there from the start (July 2006), and never looked at because it's never been needed, in all that time. What is ambiguous is this. The text stated: "If a Wikimedia Steward feels that the editor has abused oversight by hiding revisions which do not qualify under one of the above criteria, they will immediately remove the permission from the editor." This question was raised by a Steward who felt it misleadingly suggested stewards (even if not granted the permission) might be expected to self-authorize for English Wikipedia Oversight.
It is unclear - and has probably never been thought of - was the original edit thinking of stewards in a role of investigator, or decision-maker? That is, does that sentence signify
The latter seems far more likely, since we routinely separate such matters (sysop rights/crat, etc), and there is no precedent of Stewards randomly checking up on other similar rights such as CheckUser, unless they actually have the CU bit. Also the local oversighters routinely check the logs.
The amended text addresses that. Stewards don't act as police or investigators on WMF, as a rule, and apparently seem to actively avoid doing so. WMF policy requires oversighters to patrol each other, as with CheckUser. The current policy and practice is that any question of misuse of a significant right (Sysop, Oversight, CheckUser) is passed to Arbcom who will investigate and request its removal by a steward if there is a problem.
I also clarified two other areas - emergency requests (rare but could happen) and primacy of WMF policy. I note that in reality, none of this has ever come up so it may all be pointless in a way.
Summary of edits:
[3] diff
If there is a need to further amend or clarify any of these, or the edit made does not reflect communal best practice, then it will need further discussion and more eyeballs.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please add User:Oversight to Category:Contact role accounts. It's a protected page so I cannot do that. 213.216.199.6 ( talk) 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This user list is out of date -- however, I'm not sure about where to put the new oversight users so I'm not adjusting the list. Isaac ( talk) 19:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused as to whether oversighting images can now be done by any user with this right, or whether it still requires a developer. The relevant bugzilla thread suggests this is fixed and anyone with oversight can do it, but comments from oversighters suggest this is not the case. Can anyone clarify? WjB scribe 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Revision hiding → Wikipedia:Oversight — Starting at the lead and excluding "See also", the word "oversight" is, as of now, used 40 times, while revision hiding/deleted revision/etc. is used ... seven times. — Mouse is back 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Offensive vandalism isn't currently a reason for deleting a revision, but suppose the offensive material appears in an edit summary in the article's history, as
here? (Take a look at the article history with popups). I can see that anyone who seeks out a particular past revision of an article can't really complain if they come across offensive vandalism, but anyone who mouseovers the history link? Or should popups not preview images in edit summaries?
Philip Trueman (
talk) 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that individuals like Raul654 should not use their position or status within the Wikipedia bureaucracy to override Wikipedia community policy on original research [4] [1], or community rejection of certain procedures. I would appreciate if someone reminded user Raul654 of this-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
So yesterday I discovered that User: 74.205.209.250 has come up with possibly a new way of vandalising articles. He made a non-edit (adding a space) in an article, and used the edit summary to make some personal attacks [5]. Now, the problem is that I could have deleted the revisions, but that would not have removed the edit summaries from the article histories (and since there was no vandalism in the articles themselves, I didn't bother). This person's comments will still be seen by everyone who checks the article's history. However, the edits still don't seem to qualify for oversight, based on the current rules. Do the criteria need to be expanded? Or is there some other way of dealing with this? Exploding Boy ( talk) 15:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I am getting tired of seeing ▄█▀█▄ █▄█ █▀ █ █▄ ▀█▀ █▀ ██ █ █ and nasty urls in the histories of articles. This is done by socks of an editor known as Grawp. There are sysops who are much better Grawpologists than myself; i just have this simple question: his edits are definitely not constructive, and some of them target articles with hundreds and thousands of edits, which may be intentional, as it makes them hard or even impossible to delete. Is it possible to automatically wipe out all contributions of an account that has been positively identified as vandal-only and which badly contaminates edit summaries, such as this one?
For an example of his dreadful activity, see Special:Contributions/I_didn't_push_her; don't try the URL in the edit summary, as it may make you reboot your PC. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering granting Oversight to user:Jayvdb. This is an important decision. For more information, including background, and comments by email only, please see WP:AN#Proposed granting of Oversight to Jayvdb.
For the Arbitration Committee,
FT2 ( Talk | email) 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just randomly checking some things and noticed that the oversight users list on this page is out-of-date (I think it was wrong even when the last updates were made on 27th October - [7] and [8]):
Looking further, I see AGK moved UninvitedCompany to the right list, but the change got lost when FT2 reverted AGK's introduction of table format. I also tracked down the point where Newyorkbrad was removed to this edit. I've checked the software-generated list at Special:ListUsers/suppress, and checked the list of Arbitration Committee members at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, and based on that I'm going to put Newyorkbrad back in the list, and redo AGK's move of UninvitedCompany to the "former arbitrators" list, and update the "accurate as of" date. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Oversight has a certain aura of Nineteen Eighty-Four to it. "He who controls the present controls the past", Winston Smith putting documents down the memory hole, and "Ministry of Truth" just seem to fit. -- John Nagle ( talk) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have an essay on the topic of Checkuser and Oversight accountability and transparency posted at User:Thatcher/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Thatcher 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is sought on a proposal from ArbCom for handling future CheckUser and Oversight appointments. The proposal in full is here and all comments are welcomed. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it reasonable to say that if something has been up on Wikipedia for a while then oversighted later then it will be still up on Wikipedia mirror sites? -- DFS454 ( talk) 12:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The historic first-ever checkuser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee is due to close at 23:59 (UTC) today! If you wish to vote, you need to do so soon. Your participation here is important to make the election a success! Thanks in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 13:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Might be worth indicating users who're inactive in this list, much like we've done at WP:CRAT. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please tell me which bug ID on bugzilla enabled global permission "hideuser" to local oversights? That feature has still bugs (like bugzilla:18182 or bugzilla:18185) which should be fixed first, so that stewards will be able to keep on testing before it will be enabled locally. Thanks, — DerHexer (Talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
So, an IP made some nasty comments about a real person on various pages, and someone who knew about it asked for oversight. Most of the comments were not within the strict definition (although a few were). However, they were certainly deletable, to keep them out of the page history and protect the people involved. And Selective deletion has been around for a long time and is non-controversial. But this raised a new problem. The article had been deleted several times before to remove bad vandalism edits and libel. Deleting it again (1500+ revisions) to knock out 4 bad edits had the additional problem of making sure that the previously deleted bad edits were not accidentally restored. And it occurred to me, why use a chainsaw when we now have access to a scalpel?
The ultra-strict no-oversight-without-a-good-reason policy was necessary because edits removed with the Oversight Extension can not be restored--ever. So we have been properly careful and limited in how it was used. But edits hidden or suppressed with RevisionDelete can be restored, so I propose to loosen the strings on the use of RevisionDelete.
Before I continue, it is important to note how RevisionDelete actions are logged. There is a checkbox in the interface, "Suppress data from administrators as well as others". If this box is checked, the action is logged in the Suppression log. Users and admins can see that an edit was removed, but they can not see the content or who removed it. If this box is not checked, the action is logged in the deletion log--the content is still hidden from all users including admins, but you can see who removed it. It is also important to note that it is possible that RevisionDelete could someday be handed out to all admins. Admins could delete single revisions containing libel or copyright violations, without having to delete and restore the whole page. Other admins could review and reverse the deletions. Users in the "Oversight" group would have the additional ability to suppress edits so that admins could not see or reverse them. At the present time, admins can not do this, but if the "suppress data from admins" box is not checked, then at least other admins can view the action in the log and will know whom to ask for more information. It is a semi-transparent solution, and much more transparent than the oversight extension used to be.
The bottom line is, it makes little sense to treat RevisionDelete as cautiously as we treated the oversight extension. I propose to allow users with the oversight permission to use the RevisionDelete tool (but not the oversight extension) to remove edits that would otherwise be acceptable for deletion using Wikipedia:Selective deletion, provided that the Suppress data from administrators box is not checked, so that the action will show up in the regular deletion log.
Thatcher 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Use of RevisionDeleted:
An edit, a field within an edit, or a log entry may be removed from public view using the RevisionDeleted tool if it falls into one of the following categories:
The oversight extension is deprecated and should not be used. The sole exception is where complete removal of the revision is specifically called for. Typically these will be rare, and will relate either to serious harassment cases, or to edits whose removal via lesser means would itself probably foster a breach of privacy. |
Agree with Thatcher and Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
For want of a better page, I have collated here some initial findings on the use of the RevisionDeleted package as a deletion tool from its rollout around Jan 30-Feb 1 to today (just over 3 months). Since RevDel can be used both as an admin level and oversight level tool, and has been used as both, I hope to summarize for both kinds of usage, as well as Oversight (as a comparative, which RevDel is often likely to supersede).
As a first step, below is a table of Admin usage of RevDel. (I'll add suppression use data shortly.) This reflects all RevisionDeleted actions to date that were not tagged as "admin suppressed". In principle, these would be expected to relate to deletions that are effectively "normal admin deletion", ie not oversightable matters such as privacy and defamation removal, since they appear in the normal deletion logs and if admins were given access to revDel they could view them. Since RevDel actions are currently not accessible to admins anyhow (see collapse box), some oversighters took note of the distinction and checked the "admin suppression" box for oversightable material, and others didn't.
About RevDel (if you're new to it)...
|
---|
RevisionDelete (RevDel) is an enhanced deletion method that at present co-exists with normal deletion and oversight. It allows the selective deletion of any or all aspects of an edit or log entry - ie any or all of the user's name/IP, the revision text, and the edit summary. Users with RevDel access can see the deleted information, and alter or undo the deletion; the revision itself shows up in all contributions and histories as normal but with the deleted information inaccessible to the public. A further setting allows this deletion to be "moved up a level" and to exclude administrators as well, only allowing oversighters access to the view and modify page. A revision that is locked from admin viewing ("suppression" or "removal") in this way is still visible to all users (eg in page histories, contribs, etc), but viewing of the suppressed/removed data, and changing the deletion setting to allow admin access or reverse the deletion, is limited to oversighters while that setting is checked. At present, RevDel is being rolled out, tested, refined, and debugged. During that process the permissions are restricted to Oversighters only, as a kind of "test group". Although admin-access is available as a setting for oversighters while using RevDel, admins haven't yet got the necessary permissions/groups added in the configuration file, to allow them to use the tool and view or modify edits marked as "admin deleted" via RevDel. The tool therefore functions more like Oversight in that all actions are effectively suppressed even if marked as "admin viewable". When the extension is ready and the config file is updated, all existing actions not tagged as "suppressed/removed" would become admin accessible and admins will be able to view and modify them via RevDel (subject to any items where suppression has been explicitly added). |
To date (Jan 30 - May 6, approx 3 months and 1 week)) there have been 382 uses of RevDel as an admin level tool in the "delete" log:
Was material oversightable? |
Reason given / number of actions | Total |
---|---|---|
No/ probably no (ie, would usually be admin viewable) |
|
127 |
Yes/ probably yes (Oversightable) |
|
215 |
Maybe (Need to review edit to confirm) |
|
16 |
Unknown/other |
|
24 |
Analysis by oversighter of the above:
detail...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hoping this is useful to the community and to those working with the RevDel tool. FT2 ( Talk | email) 07:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I've commented at bugzilla (#17806). Basically, once RevDel is at least read-accessible by all admins (even if they can't modify it) then there is probably no need for a separate log.
You might not be aware fully how RevDel works. In brief, it's more (not less) visible than usual deletion. A revision will still show up in contribs, or page history, which it doesn't for deletion, and any user let alone any admin can see it exists. What revDel does is strike out various fields, ie, it won't show their contents to someone who isn't (in this case) an admin. For admins, a link appears next to every revision, allowing them to see the hidden data and check what was removed from public view, and that the removal was reasonable. That link is visible in every users contributions, every diff page, every page history, for every revision, so any admin can see any revision whenever they want, and check it was reasonably removed or what it contained.
Compared to usual deletion, it's more transparent. Anyone can see that something's been removed (usually only admins can), and it's clearly visible in the contributions and page history (usually deletion isnt shown in sequence and you have to click separately for any deleted contribs or revisions). FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The
August 2009 CheckUser and Oversight elections will end at 23:59 UTC on August 10, in approximately 3.5 hours. Voting is currently underway.
For the Arbitration Committee
Risker (
talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This is already happening. "Policy is what people do, then eventually write it down." Either it is acceptable to use suppression to remove certain kinds of vandalism that can not be removed using regular admin tools (pages with >5000 edits, certain other types of vandalism), in which case we need rules on how, when, where and why; or suppression should not be used for vandalism no matter what, in which case there needs to be a strong consensus on this page which is communicated to Arbcom and the Oversighters. Leaving the policy as was (stating it was never used this way when it sometimes is) is unacceptable either way. Discuss. Thatcher 01:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Although in practical terms there isn't a massive difference between supression and oversight, I fully support the removal of things like offensive edit summaries using the supression tool, as has been happening before this addition to the policy was made. -- Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
First, "Policy is what people do" -> "Policy is what the general community thinks is best". Second, what kind of vandalism are we talking about here? Just edit summaries? Do this only if they expose private information. Defamatory comments in edit summaries may be not sufficiently visible. If it is entire versions of pages, don't do this, it screws up vandalism stats tools. M 10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I just came across Luna's advert for outside eyes. I must say that this strikes me as so sensible as to be a no-brainer. I fully agree that routine vandalism should not be grist for the suppression or oversight mill, but I don't see that anyone advocates that. The type of vandalism I see as being implicated here, both within the proposed change and in current practice, is the kind that specifically seeks to take advantage of seams in our deletion policies and technological limitations to leave a lasting mark. Suppression seems to be a sufficiently fine-edged tool for those cases when normal deletion isn't up to the task. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Suppression should not used for material that's merely "grossly offensive". Administrative deletion should be enough, where no actual personal information or plausible defamation is involved. As I understand it, the reason for allowing suppression is purely that we don't have any better tool at admin level, and hence this criterion is temporary until (if/as/when) a better tool is available for admins.
Note that it's implicit that it will become redundant if a better admin tool did exist ("...vandalism that can not be removed by normal administrative measures...") and reversal is implied if suppression is no longer necessary ("... so that they may be reversed if needed...") but the policy presently reads that it's an enduring addition. I have added a brief note to ensure this is clear.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Several months ago, I drafted a policy for the use of the revision deletion function for administrators on the English Wikipedia. After consultation with a small group of users, I made modifications and changes (with the help of FT2) to better address the suggestions of these people. I have waited a while for the policy to become more stable before consulting the wider community, because it is in my belief that there is nothing worse than discussing a policy draft that still does not have the consensus of its drafters. The policy in its current state is quite similar to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion policy, in that it defines very specific circumstances in which the revision deletion functionality can be used. The policy is defined so strictly to help allay some of the fears of potential misuse of the functionality, with deviation from the set criteria resulting in whatever sanctions are decided upon by the community. I would invite all users to read the statement and FAQs that I have written at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#Community consultation regarding the functionality and then discuss on the talk page the merits of ratifying this policy, and subsequently enabling the feature for administrators on this project. Thanks for listening and happy editing! ~ fl 05:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed this happen, though all three edits made by the user in question were reverted in such a way that their name was mentioned in the reverter's edit summary. Should something be done about those? Miremare 18:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Criterion #4 allows extreme vandalism to be removed from logs via suppression.
At that time, RevisionDelete (equivalent to suppression) was the only tool available to remove egregious vandalism in usernames or log entries, where admin tools wouldn't work.
Vandalism in log entries per Criterion #4 can still only be removed by oversighters (eg on admin request), but now the deleted items can be easily seen and discussed by all administrators in the usual way, they don't need suppression.
The only area of Criterion #4 where suppression is still needed, is username vandalism. Alone of all the RevisionDelete functions, "hide username" is now the only one that doesn't have an admin-level version.
Criterion 4 can now be narrowed right down to this one area:
Everything else can be handled by admins, or at worst by admin-viewable actions, and doesn't need suppression.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The past policy said only that edits which revealed personal information or libel were suppressible. So "Thatcher is a pedophile" is suppressible under the old policy but "Thatcher is an asshole", "Thatcher takes it up the ass" and "Thatcher picks his nose" are not suppressible, even though they are all clearly intended to attack, harass or annoy Thatcher. Recently someone suppressed User:ZSCOUT370 is NAPOLEON DYNAMITE which, while probably intended to annoy or harass, could not remotely be considered personal information or libel. Also suppressed was User:Zscout370, there's no point in blocking these unused accounts, which is just plain trolling (and 4 year old trolling at that). Someone also suppressed User:Baby covered in semen, which is not an attack on any user. If it is current practice to suppress of any user name that is intended to harass, annoy, irritate, or troll another user, as well as user names that are offensive without attacking a specific user, then say so. Vandal user names, including but not limited to those that attack, harass or annoy other editors, may be hidden on request. Thatcher 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:
The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 07:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:
here.
For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop.
SecurePoll was recently used in the
Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the
upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current
request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (
talk) 09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The old criterion #2 for oversight that allowed removal of defamation if it was "upon request", has been modified at Meta. The criteria for removal stay the same but there is no requirement in the policy for a formal prior request.
This reflects best practice for many years and across many wikis, where oversightable material is removed on sight, not merely when the subject asks (if they do) a long time later. The proposal was passed without dissent, checked with WMF, the global policy changed, and the local policy updated to match.
There is no practical effect of this, for this project, because it hasn't been a norm to hold back oversighting on this wiki until a formal request is made.
Crossposted at WP:AN. FT2 ( Talk | email) 08:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.
On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
IMO, "Username or IP removed" by itself is unhelpful. My first question was, "why was it removed?" I had to guess and hunt to figure out I was looking at an oversighted accidentally revealed IP address. Wouldn't a link to this policy in the edit summary be helpful? -- Geniac ( talk) 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see WP have a Reversibility policy: any procedure, tool, or bot that can edit, delete, or revert edits in articles, logs, etc., must be reversible. For example, suppose someone edits an article to include a private cell phone number for the President of the USA. Clearly, this should be expunged immediately, whether the number is genuine or not, just in case it is genuine. There should be an easy-to-find link, button, or page that allows anyone to request emergency intervention, then any of a dozen or so trusted individuals should have to power to edit out the phone number (even if the page is fully protected). Suppose that later it turns out that publication of the phone number was deliberately requested by the President in a public telescast. The same small group of trusted people should have the ability to reverse their emergency action. For any apparent malicious action, there might be a subsequent reason to reverse. For this reason, all urgent edits, deletes, and reversions must be reversible. David spector ( talk) 02:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a proposal for adding an extra category of instances in which oversighting and/or selective deletion may be used:
Removal of non-public information that could cause significant harm to a person, property, or endangered wildlife.
To invoke this clause, the following three criteria would all need to be satisfied:
Such a clause would be helpful in the relatively rare instances in which the publication of information is not illegal but is clearly not in the public interest, and is not covered by an existing clause.
A recent instance on WP prompted the drafting of this proposal and illustrates the kind of situation in which it might be useful. The location of an orchid which is extremely rare in Britain, with just one genuinely wild plant left, was added to a couple of articles. This information has always been kept out of the public domain by the relevant conservation bodies, and had not previously appeared in a reliable published source. The plant is accepted to be at risk from illegal plant collectors, while any seedlings it produces would be at risk from trampling by careless visitors. Thus there was a risk that publication on Wikipedia could have led to the extinction of the species as a native British wild plant.
There are likely to be few circumstances in which this clause would be justifiably invoked. If preferred, wording could be added to make this clear, and to make it clear that a high level of proof would be needed for a request for oversight/selective deletion to be accepted.
As a counter-example to the above, there is currently another rare British orchid whose location details appear on WP without a reliable source been cited. However in this case there are multiple plants at three different locations, and so the loss of one or two would not be catastrophic. Thus while removal of the information is justified unless a reliable source can be found, the potential harm may not be serious enough to warrant selective deletion.
Such a clause would both safeguard the person, property or wildlife concerned, and safeguard WP from accusations of being responsible for causing such harm.
This proposal goes beyond information about endangered wildlife in order to allow for any other 'public interest' cases that might arise. However a case could be made for a narrower clause, or series of clauses. Jimi 66 ( talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I would support what this is trying to do, but have a big objection to the wording. The "public interest" clause isn't needed and is in fact the biggest problem. It would require Oversighters to judge "public interest" which is something they are not qualified to do, and sets a precedent that can be railroaded by anyone with a claim that this or that "isn't in the public interest" in future. Also the demand to "not be in a reliable source" is a problem, because the moment the orchid's location appeared in a reliable source (which does not have to be widely available) that defeats the whole idea of it.
Also bear in mind the New York Times "kidnapped journalist" drama last year which this clause would also have been used for - is there a clear consensus that we would have communally agreed to suppress all mention of the case if Oversight norms had allowed it back then, or should do so if it happens in future?
The better wording would be a narrow and objective one:
Removal of non-public information that if published would cause clear direct harm to a person, property, or part of the natural world. The criterion is that there is some form of formal protection granted by society to the person or object at risk (for example by recognizing it as an endangered species, witness protection, court reporting blackout, or the like), that this appears to be for its own protection and welfare rather than due to censorship, and the information published would directly undermine or negate that protection. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea. First, Jimi66 is the author of the failed Wikipedia:Sensitive wildlife locations proposal. As far as I can see, this is just an attempt to smuggle his proposal through against the consensus on that page, by wrapping it up in a stronger proposal with feel-good language. Ignoring that, though, oversight is not a tool for feel-good proposals in the first place, but only a last resort for problems that can't be solved any other way - and only for circumstances that everyone would always agree is a problem.
Asking oversighters to perform such a function is asking them to make content rulings via the oversight mechanism, and once that's done there's no way back. If everyone agrees the oversighter was wrong to make such deletions, then they necessarily are going to lose their bit over it. If there's some agreement that the oversighter was right to make such content deletions - which the above commenters are surely assuming would be true most of the time, and there can't be any harm in something uncontroversial, right? - the harm would be much worse. Once an oversighter has made such a content decision, it will not be possible for real discussion to occur on the subject, because at least one side will have to wonder exactly where the line is that would cause oversighters to nuke things from orbit on the same principle. The oversighters would have to do this, too - if they have once said that the content is oversightable, they had better defend it forever, or else they were wrong and they will necessarily lose their bit over it. This would be entirely destructive of normal editing anywhere it happened.
Jimi66, if you are concerned about a few British orchid species, there's nothing wrong with that - but Wikipedia is not an orchid protection covenant that happens to have an encyclopedia lying around - we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, and secondly, just as important, a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. We can't have policies like this because we wouldn't be a collaborative encyclopedia anymore. Our longstanding policy in this is WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and it's not going to change. Please accept this. — Gavia immer ( talk) 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The proposal is too broadly worded and a considerable expansion of oversight use. For instance, if I wrote at
Talk:Thylacine, "Blog X has reported that a Tasmanian tiger has been spotted by the east banks of River Kumaon. Does anyone know if anyone reliable source has reported anything similar ?", my edit is eligible to be oversighted under the proposal; on the other hand if someone simply rollbacked my edit, they'll probably loose their rollback privilege. Think about that! Do we really want the bar for oversighting to be lower than the bar for rollback ?
Instead of trying to come up with new clauses for use of oversight tool for every conceivable rare situation, it is much preferable to use (1) common sense and (if necessary) IAR instead, and, (2) use tools (like reversion, deletion etc) that are more easily reviewable and reversible than jumping for the biggest gun in our arsenal.
Abecedare (
talk) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand the motivation for this proposal, but I don't see why this information would be so sensitive that we'd need to keep it away from the prying eyes of even our own admins (Full disclosure: I once oversighted an edit that included a valid software product key, but only because the article had more than 5,000 edits and I could not go the selective-deletion route). The existing oversight criteria are underlain by a) maximum concern for privacy (two of them) and minimizing libel exposure (the other one). I don't see how information that might be useful in the commission of a crime or other socially harmful behavior needs to be constrained by oversight, unless we were to get a court order requiring this maximum level of suppression (And I can't really see that happening unless the information were classified). Daniel Case ( talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Waaaaay too broad for me to support this. Heart's in the right place, though. Given the failure of Wikipedia:Sensitive wildlife locations, this definitely strikes me as an attempt to work the same stuff back in from a different angle. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with those who say the wording would need to be more rigorous, more objective and perhaps narrower than in my draft, and also agree FT's wording is a good step in that direction. Jimi 66 ( talk) 21:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we look at a separate question: Should article and talk page revisions containing information of the type we are discussing be deleted rather than oversighted (putting them out of reach of ordinary editors, but still visible to administrators), and is this current practice? -- JN 466 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Why can't we view the Oversight Log? We can look at the deletion log, even though we can't look at deleted pages. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. Someone (I can't find out who; I presume Big Brother) has oversighted the history of User:JPatrickBedell. That didn't do much good, as it was mirrored by Google when it became interesting to the press (and is still visible at mirrors e.g. [11]), and hence was discussed in the media (see e.g. [12]; Google has the other 4,000 stories).
A previous case like this, User:James von Brunn, was dealt with by keeping the text but placed behind a template so that it wouldn't be easily Google-able. Although there are 66 deleted edits, those are all post-press edits by others. Why wasn't this dealt with in the same way, and why isn't this the standard approach in this sort of situation? It's much less Big Brother-like, and much more transparent. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 07:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning today, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see the election page.
For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago ( talk) 18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Beginning 15 May 2010, the English Wikipedia Oversight mailing list will be migrating to the OTRS mail management system hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The primary purpose of this move is to better track requests as they come in, and to ensure timely and consistent responses. This move comes after the German and French oversight lists moved to OTRS in the past year; both have found that it has assisted them in better responding to requests. Over the next week or so, oversighters who have not used OTRS before will be learning the fine points of that system, but the Oversight team will endeavour to maintain adequate responses to the system. The team has also prepared an introductory manual to assist with the transition, which discusses use of both the OTRS system and the Oversight tools.
The major effect on non-Oversighters will be the change in email address to which requests should be sent. When that change is made, we will widely publish the new email address for everyone's information, and we will encourage regular correspondents, particularly recent change patrollers and new page patrollers, to update their contact lists. The current Oversight-L mailing list will remain accessible for approximately two weeks after the changeover; after that, it will become a closed list where oversighters will discuss complex cases or review best practices.
For the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight team,
Risker (
talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Centralised discussion of this
The CheckUser and Oversight election has now opened. Any editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits prior to the first announcement of the election may vote. The voting will close at one minute past 23:59 UTC on 27 May 2010.
Direct link to the voting pages
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk) 05:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I brought this up on Template talk:Importance, but nobody watching had an efficient idea - there are 118 deleted edits in Template:Importance's history that would be much better placed, undeleted, in the history of Template:Cleanup-importance, since the template was re-purposed. The change itself should not be controversial, but the poor man's process to get them there sounds pretty disruptive to me. Since oversighters have additional powers regarding revisions, maybe they can accomplish the same goal with no fuss? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 18:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am pleased to advise you that, effective immediately, requests for oversight/suppression will be accepted using the OTRS system. Please bear with us as the Oversight team becomes accustomed to this new method of receiving and replying to requests. We will strive to maintain timely service.
If you have found yourself reporting concerns to the oversight mailing list, please take a moment to add the new email address to your list of contacts: oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org We look forward to continuing to work with the community in protecting the privacy of editors and others.
For the Oversight team,
Risker (
talk) 04:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Discuss this
all Wikimedia admins ... at least so I understood. The document says "On the English language Wikipedia, access to the Oversight and RevisionDelete tools is controlled by the Arbitration Committee." I won't challenge, just curious if things go differently here on EnWP and there are some technical differences of settings on other wikis. -- Aphaia ( talk) 04:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.
For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 17:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee accepts, with regret, the resignation of Tznkai ( talk · contribs) as a member of the Audit Subcommittee, effective immediately. Tznkai has been a community representative on the AUSC since its creation in 2009, first as an interim appointee and subsequently as a community-elected representative. As well, he has been a long-time Arbitration Clerk, and has been active in arbitration enforcement. We thank Tznkai for his services, and wish him well in his future endeavours, with the hope that he may return to be an active Wikipedian at some point in the future.
Further to the AUSC appointment announcements of November 2009, MBisanz ( talk · contribs) is appointed to fill the remainder of Tznkai's term on the Audit Subcommittee.
In addition, arbitrator KnightLago will be filling the slot now vacant as Kirill Lokshin has come to the end of his term on the AUSC, and SirFozzie has agreed to extend his term to December 31, 2010.
The Arbitration Committee, in consultation with the community and with past and present members of the Audit Subcommittee, will be reviewing the activities and processes of the AUSC through its first year, to identify what improvements can be made. This review will be completed by October 10, prior to the next scheduled round of elections for community representatives to the subcommittee.
For the Arbitration Committee,
NW ( Talk) 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Following the call for applicants (19 July) and the initial call for comments on the candidates (16 August), this notice is a second call for comments from the community on the suitability of the candidates for the September 2010 appointments for checkuser and oversight permissions. The Arbitration Committee is continuing to review and collate the comments received so far. If you have not done so already, please send in your comments before 23:59 on 25 August 2010 (UTC).
Those actively being considered for Checkuser and Oversight permissions are listed here (same link as above). As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia privacy policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org).
For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth ( talk) 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears that suppression criteria #4 and #5 of the policy are no longer necessary, due to the current ability of administrators to apply revision deletion in cases of attack names in logs and vandalism. Nonetheless, there might be some reason to retain the criteria of which I'm unaware. Thoughts? Peter Karlsen ( talk) 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please give me oversight to the T.S. Eliot article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.21.171 ( talk) 23:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
When someone emails an oversight request, their email address and identity ought to be confidential. Please at least edit the information box at the top of WP:Requests for oversight to guarantee confidentiality. I would guess that some people shy away from making oversight requests because of the confidentiality concern, and they don't want to go to the trouble of setting up a dummy email account. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
<Undent> To the extent I can discern your tone, Risker, it suggests you very much dislike my suggestion, which was only meant to increase users' willingness to submit Oversight requests. So I won't belabor the point, and please feel free to have the last word if you want. The privacy policy linked at the bottom of this page only covers information "stored by the Foundation on its servers", and explains that "Users may also interact with one another outside of Foundation sites, via email...and should assess the risks involved, and their personal need for privacy, before using these methods of communication." (The policy also excludes: "use of the wiki 'email user'" feature.) Maybe that is why assurances of privacy and confidentiality are very common elsewhere at Wikipedia. Just to mention a very few examples:
So, I'm not quite sure why you think that the privacy policy linked at the bottom of this page is somehow unique. Anyway, cheers to you Risker. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
...that ought to be removed from an article's edit history? -- Rrburke( talk) 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm quoting the article:
"Revocation
Just as easily as the oversight permission can be granted, it can be revoked."
After the earlier discussion about tight control of the Oversight capability, the first part of this sentence sounds like a joke. I don't know if that was the intent.
Just thought I would mention this. Cheers, Wanderer57 03:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a proposal to partially open up the oversight logs to administrators. Please comment here. Thanks! :) -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - Neither this or WP:RFO mention whether uninvolved 3rd parties can request oversight. I noticed someone had published an email address in WP:RS and raised it on ANI - [1] who asked me to request oversight. Thanks -- John ( Daytona2 · talk) 14:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone give the community a rough count of how many edits of User:Defender 911 were oversighted on or about 11 August? He was indef blocked on 11 August and has come back asking forgiveness, but the argument is being made at WP:AN#User:Defender 911 that no one can judge the extend of his first-offense block as some massive number of edits were removed. Just want to make sure the community isn't being confused here by people who could be misremembering these four month old events. -- Kendrick7 talk 11:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
That'd still inevitably be in the deletion log. Could oversight remove this?-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This taken but unused account has now been usurped by the Arbitration Committee so as to allow alerts to be emailed by the "E-mail this user" functionality from inside the wiki. For those who don't have their email set up on the computer they're using, and as another useful alert hotline :-) - David Gerard ( talk) 22:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
(Well, it's being held for approval, but my understanding is that this does not happen with email sent directly to oversight-l?)
Your mail to 'Oversight-l' with the subject Wikipedia e-mail Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message has implicit destination Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel this posting, please visit the following URL: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/confirm/oversight-l/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
— Random832 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The old revocation section has turned up to be flawed by ambiguity. This was never spotted, mostly since it has never been needed. So I've redrafted it, and present reasoning here for communal review. Background:
The 'revocation' section was added very early without dissent, but also without discussion. It looks like a section that has been there from the start (July 2006), and never looked at because it's never been needed, in all that time. What is ambiguous is this. The text stated: "If a Wikimedia Steward feels that the editor has abused oversight by hiding revisions which do not qualify under one of the above criteria, they will immediately remove the permission from the editor." This question was raised by a Steward who felt it misleadingly suggested stewards (even if not granted the permission) might be expected to self-authorize for English Wikipedia Oversight.
It is unclear - and has probably never been thought of - was the original edit thinking of stewards in a role of investigator, or decision-maker? That is, does that sentence signify
The latter seems far more likely, since we routinely separate such matters (sysop rights/crat, etc), and there is no precedent of Stewards randomly checking up on other similar rights such as CheckUser, unless they actually have the CU bit. Also the local oversighters routinely check the logs.
The amended text addresses that. Stewards don't act as police or investigators on WMF, as a rule, and apparently seem to actively avoid doing so. WMF policy requires oversighters to patrol each other, as with CheckUser. The current policy and practice is that any question of misuse of a significant right (Sysop, Oversight, CheckUser) is passed to Arbcom who will investigate and request its removal by a steward if there is a problem.
I also clarified two other areas - emergency requests (rare but could happen) and primacy of WMF policy. I note that in reality, none of this has ever come up so it may all be pointless in a way.
Summary of edits:
[3] diff
If there is a need to further amend or clarify any of these, or the edit made does not reflect communal best practice, then it will need further discussion and more eyeballs.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please add User:Oversight to Category:Contact role accounts. It's a protected page so I cannot do that. 213.216.199.6 ( talk) 22:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This user list is out of date -- however, I'm not sure about where to put the new oversight users so I'm not adjusting the list. Isaac ( talk) 19:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused as to whether oversighting images can now be done by any user with this right, or whether it still requires a developer. The relevant bugzilla thread suggests this is fixed and anyone with oversight can do it, but comments from oversighters suggest this is not the case. Can anyone clarify? WjB scribe 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Revision hiding → Wikipedia:Oversight — Starting at the lead and excluding "See also", the word "oversight" is, as of now, used 40 times, while revision hiding/deleted revision/etc. is used ... seven times. — Mouse is back 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Offensive vandalism isn't currently a reason for deleting a revision, but suppose the offensive material appears in an edit summary in the article's history, as
here? (Take a look at the article history with popups). I can see that anyone who seeks out a particular past revision of an article can't really complain if they come across offensive vandalism, but anyone who mouseovers the history link? Or should popups not preview images in edit summaries?
Philip Trueman (
talk) 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that individuals like Raul654 should not use their position or status within the Wikipedia bureaucracy to override Wikipedia community policy on original research [4] [1], or community rejection of certain procedures. I would appreciate if someone reminded user Raul654 of this-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
So yesterday I discovered that User: 74.205.209.250 has come up with possibly a new way of vandalising articles. He made a non-edit (adding a space) in an article, and used the edit summary to make some personal attacks [5]. Now, the problem is that I could have deleted the revisions, but that would not have removed the edit summaries from the article histories (and since there was no vandalism in the articles themselves, I didn't bother). This person's comments will still be seen by everyone who checks the article's history. However, the edits still don't seem to qualify for oversight, based on the current rules. Do the criteria need to be expanded? Or is there some other way of dealing with this? Exploding Boy ( talk) 15:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I am getting tired of seeing ▄█▀█▄ █▄█ █▀ █ █▄ ▀█▀ █▀ ██ █ █ and nasty urls in the histories of articles. This is done by socks of an editor known as Grawp. There are sysops who are much better Grawpologists than myself; i just have this simple question: his edits are definitely not constructive, and some of them target articles with hundreds and thousands of edits, which may be intentional, as it makes them hard or even impossible to delete. Is it possible to automatically wipe out all contributions of an account that has been positively identified as vandal-only and which badly contaminates edit summaries, such as this one?
For an example of his dreadful activity, see Special:Contributions/I_didn't_push_her; don't try the URL in the edit summary, as it may make you reboot your PC. -- Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is considering granting Oversight to user:Jayvdb. This is an important decision. For more information, including background, and comments by email only, please see WP:AN#Proposed granting of Oversight to Jayvdb.
For the Arbitration Committee,
FT2 ( Talk | email) 11:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just randomly checking some things and noticed that the oversight users list on this page is out-of-date (I think it was wrong even when the last updates were made on 27th October - [7] and [8]):
Looking further, I see AGK moved UninvitedCompany to the right list, but the change got lost when FT2 reverted AGK's introduction of table format. I also tracked down the point where Newyorkbrad was removed to this edit. I've checked the software-generated list at Special:ListUsers/suppress, and checked the list of Arbitration Committee members at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, and based on that I'm going to put Newyorkbrad back in the list, and redo AGK's move of UninvitedCompany to the "former arbitrators" list, and update the "accurate as of" date. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Oversight has a certain aura of Nineteen Eighty-Four to it. "He who controls the present controls the past", Winston Smith putting documents down the memory hole, and "Ministry of Truth" just seem to fit. -- John Nagle ( talk) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have an essay on the topic of Checkuser and Oversight accountability and transparency posted at User:Thatcher/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Thatcher 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is sought on a proposal from ArbCom for handling future CheckUser and Oversight appointments. The proposal in full is here and all comments are welcomed. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 19:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it reasonable to say that if something has been up on Wikipedia for a while then oversighted later then it will be still up on Wikipedia mirror sites? -- DFS454 ( talk) 12:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The historic first-ever checkuser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee is due to close at 23:59 (UTC) today! If you wish to vote, you need to do so soon. Your participation here is important to make the election a success! Thanks in advance, -- ROGER DAVIES talk 13:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Might be worth indicating users who're inactive in this list, much like we've done at WP:CRAT. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Could you please tell me which bug ID on bugzilla enabled global permission "hideuser" to local oversights? That feature has still bugs (like bugzilla:18182 or bugzilla:18185) which should be fixed first, so that stewards will be able to keep on testing before it will be enabled locally. Thanks, — DerHexer (Talk) 10:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
So, an IP made some nasty comments about a real person on various pages, and someone who knew about it asked for oversight. Most of the comments were not within the strict definition (although a few were). However, they were certainly deletable, to keep them out of the page history and protect the people involved. And Selective deletion has been around for a long time and is non-controversial. But this raised a new problem. The article had been deleted several times before to remove bad vandalism edits and libel. Deleting it again (1500+ revisions) to knock out 4 bad edits had the additional problem of making sure that the previously deleted bad edits were not accidentally restored. And it occurred to me, why use a chainsaw when we now have access to a scalpel?
The ultra-strict no-oversight-without-a-good-reason policy was necessary because edits removed with the Oversight Extension can not be restored--ever. So we have been properly careful and limited in how it was used. But edits hidden or suppressed with RevisionDelete can be restored, so I propose to loosen the strings on the use of RevisionDelete.
Before I continue, it is important to note how RevisionDelete actions are logged. There is a checkbox in the interface, "Suppress data from administrators as well as others". If this box is checked, the action is logged in the Suppression log. Users and admins can see that an edit was removed, but they can not see the content or who removed it. If this box is not checked, the action is logged in the deletion log--the content is still hidden from all users including admins, but you can see who removed it. It is also important to note that it is possible that RevisionDelete could someday be handed out to all admins. Admins could delete single revisions containing libel or copyright violations, without having to delete and restore the whole page. Other admins could review and reverse the deletions. Users in the "Oversight" group would have the additional ability to suppress edits so that admins could not see or reverse them. At the present time, admins can not do this, but if the "suppress data from admins" box is not checked, then at least other admins can view the action in the log and will know whom to ask for more information. It is a semi-transparent solution, and much more transparent than the oversight extension used to be.
The bottom line is, it makes little sense to treat RevisionDelete as cautiously as we treated the oversight extension. I propose to allow users with the oversight permission to use the RevisionDelete tool (but not the oversight extension) to remove edits that would otherwise be acceptable for deletion using Wikipedia:Selective deletion, provided that the Suppress data from administrators box is not checked, so that the action will show up in the regular deletion log.
Thatcher 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Use of RevisionDeleted:
An edit, a field within an edit, or a log entry may be removed from public view using the RevisionDeleted tool if it falls into one of the following categories:
The oversight extension is deprecated and should not be used. The sole exception is where complete removal of the revision is specifically called for. Typically these will be rare, and will relate either to serious harassment cases, or to edits whose removal via lesser means would itself probably foster a breach of privacy. |
Agree with Thatcher and Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
For want of a better page, I have collated here some initial findings on the use of the RevisionDeleted package as a deletion tool from its rollout around Jan 30-Feb 1 to today (just over 3 months). Since RevDel can be used both as an admin level and oversight level tool, and has been used as both, I hope to summarize for both kinds of usage, as well as Oversight (as a comparative, which RevDel is often likely to supersede).
As a first step, below is a table of Admin usage of RevDel. (I'll add suppression use data shortly.) This reflects all RevisionDeleted actions to date that were not tagged as "admin suppressed". In principle, these would be expected to relate to deletions that are effectively "normal admin deletion", ie not oversightable matters such as privacy and defamation removal, since they appear in the normal deletion logs and if admins were given access to revDel they could view them. Since RevDel actions are currently not accessible to admins anyhow (see collapse box), some oversighters took note of the distinction and checked the "admin suppression" box for oversightable material, and others didn't.
About RevDel (if you're new to it)...
|
---|
RevisionDelete (RevDel) is an enhanced deletion method that at present co-exists with normal deletion and oversight. It allows the selective deletion of any or all aspects of an edit or log entry - ie any or all of the user's name/IP, the revision text, and the edit summary. Users with RevDel access can see the deleted information, and alter or undo the deletion; the revision itself shows up in all contributions and histories as normal but with the deleted information inaccessible to the public. A further setting allows this deletion to be "moved up a level" and to exclude administrators as well, only allowing oversighters access to the view and modify page. A revision that is locked from admin viewing ("suppression" or "removal") in this way is still visible to all users (eg in page histories, contribs, etc), but viewing of the suppressed/removed data, and changing the deletion setting to allow admin access or reverse the deletion, is limited to oversighters while that setting is checked. At present, RevDel is being rolled out, tested, refined, and debugged. During that process the permissions are restricted to Oversighters only, as a kind of "test group". Although admin-access is available as a setting for oversighters while using RevDel, admins haven't yet got the necessary permissions/groups added in the configuration file, to allow them to use the tool and view or modify edits marked as "admin deleted" via RevDel. The tool therefore functions more like Oversight in that all actions are effectively suppressed even if marked as "admin viewable". When the extension is ready and the config file is updated, all existing actions not tagged as "suppressed/removed" would become admin accessible and admins will be able to view and modify them via RevDel (subject to any items where suppression has been explicitly added). |
To date (Jan 30 - May 6, approx 3 months and 1 week)) there have been 382 uses of RevDel as an admin level tool in the "delete" log:
Was material oversightable? |
Reason given / number of actions | Total |
---|---|---|
No/ probably no (ie, would usually be admin viewable) |
|
127 |
Yes/ probably yes (Oversightable) |
|
215 |
Maybe (Need to review edit to confirm) |
|
16 |
Unknown/other |
|
24 |
Analysis by oversighter of the above:
detail...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hoping this is useful to the community and to those working with the RevDel tool. FT2 ( Talk | email) 07:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I've commented at bugzilla (#17806). Basically, once RevDel is at least read-accessible by all admins (even if they can't modify it) then there is probably no need for a separate log.
You might not be aware fully how RevDel works. In brief, it's more (not less) visible than usual deletion. A revision will still show up in contribs, or page history, which it doesn't for deletion, and any user let alone any admin can see it exists. What revDel does is strike out various fields, ie, it won't show their contents to someone who isn't (in this case) an admin. For admins, a link appears next to every revision, allowing them to see the hidden data and check what was removed from public view, and that the removal was reasonable. That link is visible in every users contributions, every diff page, every page history, for every revision, so any admin can see any revision whenever they want, and check it was reasonably removed or what it contained.
Compared to usual deletion, it's more transparent. Anyone can see that something's been removed (usually only admins can), and it's clearly visible in the contributions and page history (usually deletion isnt shown in sequence and you have to click separately for any deleted contribs or revisions). FT2 ( Talk | email) 09:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The
August 2009 CheckUser and Oversight elections will end at 23:59 UTC on August 10, in approximately 3.5 hours. Voting is currently underway.
For the Arbitration Committee
Risker (
talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
This is already happening. "Policy is what people do, then eventually write it down." Either it is acceptable to use suppression to remove certain kinds of vandalism that can not be removed using regular admin tools (pages with >5000 edits, certain other types of vandalism), in which case we need rules on how, when, where and why; or suppression should not be used for vandalism no matter what, in which case there needs to be a strong consensus on this page which is communicated to Arbcom and the Oversighters. Leaving the policy as was (stating it was never used this way when it sometimes is) is unacceptable either way. Discuss. Thatcher 01:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Although in practical terms there isn't a massive difference between supression and oversight, I fully support the removal of things like offensive edit summaries using the supression tool, as has been happening before this addition to the policy was made. -- Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 03:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
First, "Policy is what people do" -> "Policy is what the general community thinks is best". Second, what kind of vandalism are we talking about here? Just edit summaries? Do this only if they expose private information. Defamatory comments in edit summaries may be not sufficiently visible. If it is entire versions of pages, don't do this, it screws up vandalism stats tools. M 10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
(Outdent) I just came across Luna's advert for outside eyes. I must say that this strikes me as so sensible as to be a no-brainer. I fully agree that routine vandalism should not be grist for the suppression or oversight mill, but I don't see that anyone advocates that. The type of vandalism I see as being implicated here, both within the proposed change and in current practice, is the kind that specifically seeks to take advantage of seams in our deletion policies and technological limitations to leave a lasting mark. Suppression seems to be a sufficiently fine-edged tool for those cases when normal deletion isn't up to the task. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Suppression should not used for material that's merely "grossly offensive". Administrative deletion should be enough, where no actual personal information or plausible defamation is involved. As I understand it, the reason for allowing suppression is purely that we don't have any better tool at admin level, and hence this criterion is temporary until (if/as/when) a better tool is available for admins.
Note that it's implicit that it will become redundant if a better admin tool did exist ("...vandalism that can not be removed by normal administrative measures...") and reversal is implied if suppression is no longer necessary ("... so that they may be reversed if needed...") but the policy presently reads that it's an enduring addition. I have added a brief note to ensure this is clear.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Several months ago, I drafted a policy for the use of the revision deletion function for administrators on the English Wikipedia. After consultation with a small group of users, I made modifications and changes (with the help of FT2) to better address the suggestions of these people. I have waited a while for the policy to become more stable before consulting the wider community, because it is in my belief that there is nothing worse than discussing a policy draft that still does not have the consensus of its drafters. The policy in its current state is quite similar to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion policy, in that it defines very specific circumstances in which the revision deletion functionality can be used. The policy is defined so strictly to help allay some of the fears of potential misuse of the functionality, with deviation from the set criteria resulting in whatever sanctions are decided upon by the community. I would invite all users to read the statement and FAQs that I have written at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#Community consultation regarding the functionality and then discuss on the talk page the merits of ratifying this policy, and subsequently enabling the feature for administrators on this project. Thanks for listening and happy editing! ~ fl 05:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 21:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed this happen, though all three edits made by the user in question were reverted in such a way that their name was mentioned in the reverter's edit summary. Should something be done about those? Miremare 18:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 19:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Time is rapidly running out. The closing date for completed applications is 23:59 (UTC) 22 October 2009. If you are interested in becoming one of the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee, see the election pages now for the job specification and application details.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 17:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Criterion #4 allows extreme vandalism to be removed from logs via suppression.
At that time, RevisionDelete (equivalent to suppression) was the only tool available to remove egregious vandalism in usernames or log entries, where admin tools wouldn't work.
Vandalism in log entries per Criterion #4 can still only be removed by oversighters (eg on admin request), but now the deleted items can be easily seen and discussed by all administrators in the usual way, they don't need suppression.
The only area of Criterion #4 where suppression is still needed, is username vandalism. Alone of all the RevisionDelete functions, "hide username" is now the only one that doesn't have an admin-level version.
Criterion 4 can now be narrowed right down to this one area:
Everything else can be handled by admins, or at worst by admin-viewable actions, and doesn't need suppression.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The past policy said only that edits which revealed personal information or libel were suppressible. So "Thatcher is a pedophile" is suppressible under the old policy but "Thatcher is an asshole", "Thatcher takes it up the ass" and "Thatcher picks his nose" are not suppressible, even though they are all clearly intended to attack, harass or annoy Thatcher. Recently someone suppressed User:ZSCOUT370 is NAPOLEON DYNAMITE which, while probably intended to annoy or harass, could not remotely be considered personal information or libel. Also suppressed was User:Zscout370, there's no point in blocking these unused accounts, which is just plain trolling (and 4 year old trolling at that). Someone also suppressed User:Baby covered in semen, which is not an attack on any user. If it is current practice to suppress of any user name that is intended to harass, annoy, irritate, or troll another user, as well as user names that are offensive without attacking a specific user, then say so. Vandal user names, including but not limited to those that attack, harass or annoy other editors, may be hidden on request. Thatcher 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:
The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.
For the Arbitration Committee, Roger Davies talk 07:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:
here.
For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop.
SecurePoll was recently used in the
Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the
upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current
request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (
talk) 09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank ( push to talk) 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The old criterion #2 for oversight that allowed removal of defamation if it was "upon request", has been modified at Meta. The criteria for removal stay the same but there is no requirement in the policy for a formal prior request.
This reflects best practice for many years and across many wikis, where oversightable material is removed on sight, not merely when the subject asks (if they do) a long time later. The proposal was passed without dissent, checked with WMF, the global policy changed, and the local policy updated to match.
There is no practical effect of this, for this project, because it hasn't been a norm to hold back oversighting on this wiki until a formal request is made.
Crossposted at WP:AN. FT2 ( Talk | email) 08:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.
On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
IMO, "Username or IP removed" by itself is unhelpful. My first question was, "why was it removed?" I had to guess and hunt to figure out I was looking at an oversighted accidentally revealed IP address. Wouldn't a link to this policy in the edit summary be helpful? -- Geniac ( talk) 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see WP have a Reversibility policy: any procedure, tool, or bot that can edit, delete, or revert edits in articles, logs, etc., must be reversible. For example, suppose someone edits an article to include a private cell phone number for the President of the USA. Clearly, this should be expunged immediately, whether the number is genuine or not, just in case it is genuine. There should be an easy-to-find link, button, or page that allows anyone to request emergency intervention, then any of a dozen or so trusted individuals should have to power to edit out the phone number (even if the page is fully protected). Suppose that later it turns out that publication of the phone number was deliberately requested by the President in a public telescast. The same small group of trusted people should have the ability to reverse their emergency action. For any apparent malicious action, there might be a subsequent reason to reverse. For this reason, all urgent edits, deletes, and reversions must be reversible. David spector ( talk) 02:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a proposal for adding an extra category of instances in which oversighting and/or selective deletion may be used:
Removal of non-public information that could cause significant harm to a person, property, or endangered wildlife.
To invoke this clause, the following three criteria would all need to be satisfied:
Such a clause would be helpful in the relatively rare instances in which the publication of information is not illegal but is clearly not in the public interest, and is not covered by an existing clause.
A recent instance on WP prompted the drafting of this proposal and illustrates the kind of situation in which it might be useful. The location of an orchid which is extremely rare in Britain, with just one genuinely wild plant left, was added to a couple of articles. This information has always been kept out of the public domain by the relevant conservation bodies, and had not previously appeared in a reliable published source. The plant is accepted to be at risk from illegal plant collectors, while any seedlings it produces would be at risk from trampling by careless visitors. Thus there was a risk that publication on Wikipedia could have led to the extinction of the species as a native British wild plant.
There are likely to be few circumstances in which this clause would be justifiably invoked. If preferred, wording could be added to make this clear, and to make it clear that a high level of proof would be needed for a request for oversight/selective deletion to be accepted.
As a counter-example to the above, there is currently another rare British orchid whose location details appear on WP without a reliable source been cited. However in this case there are multiple plants at three different locations, and so the loss of one or two would not be catastrophic. Thus while removal of the information is justified unless a reliable source can be found, the potential harm may not be serious enough to warrant selective deletion.
Such a clause would both safeguard the person, property or wildlife concerned, and safeguard WP from accusations of being responsible for causing such harm.
This proposal goes beyond information about endangered wildlife in order to allow for any other 'public interest' cases that might arise. However a case could be made for a narrower clause, or series of clauses. Jimi 66 ( talk) 22:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I would support what this is trying to do, but have a big objection to the wording. The "public interest" clause isn't needed and is in fact the biggest problem. It would require Oversighters to judge "public interest" which is something they are not qualified to do, and sets a precedent that can be railroaded by anyone with a claim that this or that "isn't in the public interest" in future. Also the demand to "not be in a reliable source" is a problem, because the moment the orchid's location appeared in a reliable source (which does not have to be widely available) that defeats the whole idea of it.
Also bear in mind the New York Times "kidnapped journalist" drama last year which this clause would also have been used for - is there a clear consensus that we would have communally agreed to suppress all mention of the case if Oversight norms had allowed it back then, or should do so if it happens in future?
The better wording would be a narrow and objective one:
Removal of non-public information that if published would cause clear direct harm to a person, property, or part of the natural world. The criterion is that there is some form of formal protection granted by society to the person or object at risk (for example by recognizing it as an endangered species, witness protection, court reporting blackout, or the like), that this appears to be for its own protection and welfare rather than due to censorship, and the information published would directly undermine or negate that protection. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a terrible idea. First, Jimi66 is the author of the failed Wikipedia:Sensitive wildlife locations proposal. As far as I can see, this is just an attempt to smuggle his proposal through against the consensus on that page, by wrapping it up in a stronger proposal with feel-good language. Ignoring that, though, oversight is not a tool for feel-good proposals in the first place, but only a last resort for problems that can't be solved any other way - and only for circumstances that everyone would always agree is a problem.
Asking oversighters to perform such a function is asking them to make content rulings via the oversight mechanism, and once that's done there's no way back. If everyone agrees the oversighter was wrong to make such deletions, then they necessarily are going to lose their bit over it. If there's some agreement that the oversighter was right to make such content deletions - which the above commenters are surely assuming would be true most of the time, and there can't be any harm in something uncontroversial, right? - the harm would be much worse. Once an oversighter has made such a content decision, it will not be possible for real discussion to occur on the subject, because at least one side will have to wonder exactly where the line is that would cause oversighters to nuke things from orbit on the same principle. The oversighters would have to do this, too - if they have once said that the content is oversightable, they had better defend it forever, or else they were wrong and they will necessarily lose their bit over it. This would be entirely destructive of normal editing anywhere it happened.
Jimi66, if you are concerned about a few British orchid species, there's nothing wrong with that - but Wikipedia is not an orchid protection covenant that happens to have an encyclopedia lying around - we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, and secondly, just as important, a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. We can't have policies like this because we wouldn't be a collaborative encyclopedia anymore. Our longstanding policy in this is WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and it's not going to change. Please accept this. — Gavia immer ( talk) 13:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The proposal is too broadly worded and a considerable expansion of oversight use. For instance, if I wrote at
Talk:Thylacine, "Blog X has reported that a Tasmanian tiger has been spotted by the east banks of River Kumaon. Does anyone know if anyone reliable source has reported anything similar ?", my edit is eligible to be oversighted under the proposal; on the other hand if someone simply rollbacked my edit, they'll probably loose their rollback privilege. Think about that! Do we really want the bar for oversighting to be lower than the bar for rollback ?
Instead of trying to come up with new clauses for use of oversight tool for every conceivable rare situation, it is much preferable to use (1) common sense and (if necessary) IAR instead, and, (2) use tools (like reversion, deletion etc) that are more easily reviewable and reversible than jumping for the biggest gun in our arsenal.
Abecedare (
talk) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand the motivation for this proposal, but I don't see why this information would be so sensitive that we'd need to keep it away from the prying eyes of even our own admins (Full disclosure: I once oversighted an edit that included a valid software product key, but only because the article had more than 5,000 edits and I could not go the selective-deletion route). The existing oversight criteria are underlain by a) maximum concern for privacy (two of them) and minimizing libel exposure (the other one). I don't see how information that might be useful in the commission of a crime or other socially harmful behavior needs to be constrained by oversight, unless we were to get a court order requiring this maximum level of suppression (And I can't really see that happening unless the information were classified). Daniel Case ( talk) 14:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Waaaaay too broad for me to support this. Heart's in the right place, though. Given the failure of Wikipedia:Sensitive wildlife locations, this definitely strikes me as an attempt to work the same stuff back in from a different angle. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with those who say the wording would need to be more rigorous, more objective and perhaps narrower than in my draft, and also agree FT's wording is a good step in that direction. Jimi 66 ( talk) 21:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we look at a separate question: Should article and talk page revisions containing information of the type we are discussing be deleted rather than oversighted (putting them out of reach of ordinary editors, but still visible to administrators), and is this current practice? -- JN 466 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Why can't we view the Oversight Log? We can look at the deletion log, even though we can't look at deleted pages. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. Someone (I can't find out who; I presume Big Brother) has oversighted the history of User:JPatrickBedell. That didn't do much good, as it was mirrored by Google when it became interesting to the press (and is still visible at mirrors e.g. [11]), and hence was discussed in the media (see e.g. [12]; Google has the other 4,000 stories).
A previous case like this, User:James von Brunn, was dealt with by keeping the text but placed behind a template so that it wouldn't be easily Google-able. Although there are 66 deleted edits, those are all post-press edits by others. Why wasn't this dealt with in the same way, and why isn't this the standard approach in this sort of situation? It's much less Big Brother-like, and much more transparent. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 07:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has determined that there is a need for additional oversighters and checkusers to improve workload distribution and ensure complete, timely response to requests. Beginning today, experienced editors are invited to apply for either or both of the Oversight or CheckUser permissions. Current holders of either permission are also invited to apply for the other. The last day to request an application is April 10, 2010. For more information, please see the election page.
For the Arbitration Committee - KnightLago ( talk) 18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Beginning 15 May 2010, the English Wikipedia Oversight mailing list will be migrating to the OTRS mail management system hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The primary purpose of this move is to better track requests as they come in, and to ensure timely and consistent responses. This move comes after the German and French oversight lists moved to OTRS in the past year; both have found that it has assisted them in better responding to requests. Over the next week or so, oversighters who have not used OTRS before will be learning the fine points of that system, but the Oversight team will endeavour to maintain adequate responses to the system. The team has also prepared an introductory manual to assist with the transition, which discusses use of both the OTRS system and the Oversight tools.
The major effect on non-Oversighters will be the change in email address to which requests should be sent. When that change is made, we will widely publish the new email address for everyone's information, and we will encourage regular correspondents, particularly recent change patrollers and new page patrollers, to update their contact lists. The current Oversight-L mailing list will remain accessible for approximately two weeks after the changeover; after that, it will become a closed list where oversighters will discuss complex cases or review best practices.
For the Arbitration Committee and the Oversight team,
Risker (
talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Centralised discussion of this
The CheckUser and Oversight election has now opened. Any editor who has made at least 150 mainspace edits prior to the first announcement of the election may vote. The voting will close at one minute past 23:59 UTC on 27 May 2010.
Direct link to the voting pages
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk) 05:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I brought this up on Template talk:Importance, but nobody watching had an efficient idea - there are 118 deleted edits in Template:Importance's history that would be much better placed, undeleted, in the history of Template:Cleanup-importance, since the template was re-purposed. The change itself should not be controversial, but the poor man's process to get them there sounds pretty disruptive to me. Since oversighters have additional powers regarding revisions, maybe they can accomplish the same goal with no fuss? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 18:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am pleased to advise you that, effective immediately, requests for oversight/suppression will be accepted using the OTRS system. Please bear with us as the Oversight team becomes accustomed to this new method of receiving and replying to requests. We will strive to maintain timely service.
If you have found yourself reporting concerns to the oversight mailing list, please take a moment to add the new email address to your list of contacts: oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org We look forward to continuing to work with the community in protecting the privacy of editors and others.
For the Oversight team,
Risker (
talk) 04:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Discuss this
all Wikimedia admins ... at least so I understood. The document says "On the English language Wikipedia, access to the Oversight and RevisionDelete tools is controlled by the Arbitration Committee." I won't challenge, just curious if things go differently here on EnWP and there are some technical differences of settings on other wikis. -- Aphaia ( talk) 04:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.
For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 17:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee accepts, with regret, the resignation of Tznkai ( talk · contribs) as a member of the Audit Subcommittee, effective immediately. Tznkai has been a community representative on the AUSC since its creation in 2009, first as an interim appointee and subsequently as a community-elected representative. As well, he has been a long-time Arbitration Clerk, and has been active in arbitration enforcement. We thank Tznkai for his services, and wish him well in his future endeavours, with the hope that he may return to be an active Wikipedian at some point in the future.
Further to the AUSC appointment announcements of November 2009, MBisanz ( talk · contribs) is appointed to fill the remainder of Tznkai's term on the Audit Subcommittee.
In addition, arbitrator KnightLago will be filling the slot now vacant as Kirill Lokshin has come to the end of his term on the AUSC, and SirFozzie has agreed to extend his term to December 31, 2010.
The Arbitration Committee, in consultation with the community and with past and present members of the Audit Subcommittee, will be reviewing the activities and processes of the AUSC through its first year, to identify what improvements can be made. This review will be completed by October 10, prior to the next scheduled round of elections for community representatives to the subcommittee.
For the Arbitration Committee,
NW ( Talk) 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Following the call for applicants (19 July) and the initial call for comments on the candidates (16 August), this notice is a second call for comments from the community on the suitability of the candidates for the September 2010 appointments for checkuser and oversight permissions. The Arbitration Committee is continuing to review and collate the comments received so far. If you have not done so already, please send in your comments before 23:59 on 25 August 2010 (UTC).
Those actively being considered for Checkuser and Oversight permissions are listed here (same link as above). As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia privacy policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org).
For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth ( talk) 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It appears that suppression criteria #4 and #5 of the policy are no longer necessary, due to the current ability of administrators to apply revision deletion in cases of attack names in logs and vandalism. Nonetheless, there might be some reason to retain the criteria of which I'm unaware. Thoughts? Peter Karlsen ( talk) 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please give me oversight to the T.S. Eliot article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.21.171 ( talk) 23:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
When someone emails an oversight request, their email address and identity ought to be confidential. Please at least edit the information box at the top of WP:Requests for oversight to guarantee confidentiality. I would guess that some people shy away from making oversight requests because of the confidentiality concern, and they don't want to go to the trouble of setting up a dummy email account. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
<Undent> To the extent I can discern your tone, Risker, it suggests you very much dislike my suggestion, which was only meant to increase users' willingness to submit Oversight requests. So I won't belabor the point, and please feel free to have the last word if you want. The privacy policy linked at the bottom of this page only covers information "stored by the Foundation on its servers", and explains that "Users may also interact with one another outside of Foundation sites, via email...and should assess the risks involved, and their personal need for privacy, before using these methods of communication." (The policy also excludes: "use of the wiki 'email user'" feature.) Maybe that is why assurances of privacy and confidentiality are very common elsewhere at Wikipedia. Just to mention a very few examples:
So, I'm not quite sure why you think that the privacy policy linked at the bottom of this page is somehow unique. Anyway, cheers to you Risker. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)