Wikipedia talk:Oversight/Archive 1

Bad spellings!!
A really tiny suggestion, and I know it's not even in the correct place -- but for obvious reasons, as a non-Admin, non-Oversight user, I cannot AFAICS put it in the correct place: As can be seen from the image of the Oversight log page which is thumbnailed and linked in the "Logging" section of the page, the words "permanently" and "privileges" are misspelled on that log page. Somebody please change the last 'a' to an 'e', and remove the 'd'! Thank you. (And feel free to remove this request once the correction is done.) --CRConrad (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions
I have a couple of suggestions for this page:
 * I believe we should list all users with the permission here. Naturally, the full list can be seen on Special:ListUsers/suppress, but so can those of the Bureaucrats and the Admins, but they are still listed in their respective project pages, not to mention that, for less experienced users, this page will come to be far better known than the special page.  If we do this, I suggest we use the  template.
 * Regarding the procedure: considering the events here in Wikipedia and those over in the Meta-Wiki, I believe we can say safely that those requesting the tool must obtain consent from the ArbCom here on Wikipedia, and not post on Meta, which is done by a member of the ArbCom iff the request is approved.  What we don't have is a formal format for requesting the status, given the lack of a separate forum (such as RfA exists for requesting Adminship) or a specific boilerplate, although it could be said that the talk page of the ArbCom project page would be a good place to request that the ArbCom consider a user for the status.

Thoughts? Redux 04:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Point one: Good idea, I'll implement it. :)
 * Point two: Hmm, true. I'll tack in a "suggested method" perhaps.
 * Thanks for the suggestions. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  04:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes in the list: a) I replaced the template with , mainly because the key links a visitor to this page wants to find are those to the users' talk pages and Wikipedia email, so that they can contact a user with Oversight access.  I figured the links provided by the previous template were not necessary here &mdash; equally, I removed the designation for Bureaucrats and Stewards, since I figured it would also be unnecessary here; b) I changed the title of the header; I thought that the term "overseers" is not really in use, since we usually refer to the access as "Oversight rights/permissions"; in addition, the term "active" seemed (to me) best left off the level 1 header: if it happens that users with Oversight go inactive or semi-active, we can do as it is done in the forums for the Bureaucrats and Admins and start level 2 headers to separete them; c) I also provided a link to the automatic list at the special page. Hopefully all of this helped improve the section.  Redux 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Overseers", to be painfully honest, was a bit of whimsy on my part, not to be taken seriously. :D I'd just been playing Diablo2, and ask anyone with the expansion pack who Shenk is and you'll understand. Good idea with user4, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was using admin more as a lack-of-better-option-at-the-time. The only point of concern I have (and it's very terribly minor and may be ignored safely) is that now we've got the link to Special:ListUsers/suppress on there twice. Think we should remove one? Congrats on your own be-flagging, by the way. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  06:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. About the two links: you are referring to the external-link-formatted one in the "References" section, right?  Well, I see no big deal about having the two, but if we had to chose, I'd say we keep the one in the "Users.." section.  Mainly because the more concise we can make the information, the easier it will be for the average user to find what s/he may be looking for.  We provide a list of users with Oversight and useful links to contact them, so it seems more efficient to have the link to the automatic list nearby, so that the visitor will see them both (and either choose one or check both).  If they are "too far" apart, I believe some people might miss the link to the automatic list, and take notice only of the in-place list (which &#150; knock on wood &#150; could happen to be outdated somehow at the time).  Redux 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oversight log
Could anyone please explain why it was necessary to remove the public oversight log? Brion has been asked to comment on this, but I couldn't find his response anywhere. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, let me say that what I'm about to state is just my opinion, and not an official position of any kind. The log was public only for a short while, immediately after Oversight was instated.  The decision to make it a restricted page certainly has to do with the fact that the very purpose of this tool is to safeguard the privacy of users.  With a public log, it was possible to know where information had been removed from, which could work against the initiative.  Of course, we still need a log in order to keep minimal tabs on what is being done, but by restricting it only to users with Oversight permission, the potential problem I just noted is virtually neutralized.  Redux 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On Hiding revisions it states "There is no longer any public logging, to minimize the leaking of private personal information." You may also want to check on m:talk:Hiding revisions as there is a small amount of talk there regarding the topic. I'm afraid the comment from Meta is the closest I have to an answer. :| ~Kylu ( u | t )  17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your replies, but to quote AmiDaniel, 'I personally don't see what harm the public log was doing, as it essentially just stated "Foo removed an edit from Bar (PI)"'. I don't see how it could anyone work against the initiative if they only knew where information had been removed from, but not what information. And if they know what confidential information was removed, they could just repost the same information anywhere. In sort - to quote Simetrical - 'I also can't see what exactly is gained by making the oversight log private'. --Zoz (t) 17:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The decision appears to be in favor of caution over accountability: In this case, we do happen to know that the developers are watching oversight to make sure it's not abused, so for now we're limited to trusting the developers to keep our best interests at heart. Remember that the current oversight system is a temporary "hack" and once the new deletion system is in place, the logging may well be different. Fortunately, most of the information on the page seems like it will stay current. ~Kylu ( u | t )  19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The decision was not just precationary; there was a reason. People could check the page/date from the log and then download the Wikipedia dumps and get the information. An anti-Wikipedia site already managed to pull 10 or so "uncensored" version of pages. Voice -of- All  18:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! --Zoz (t) 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for permissions
I'm curious as to if anyone else thinks this page is ready enough yet for the Meta: page to link here? It's not quite a FA-class page, but hopefully it's accurate enough now that it can be used as a reference? ~Kylu ( u | t )  19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. There may be some work to be done yet, but I believe that the bulk of it is in place.  I was also considering suggesting to developers to turn the "oversight" word in the Special:Userlist results into a link to this page, just like "Bureaucrat" and "Sysop" link to their respective project pages.  Redux 01:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I heartily approve! My little baby's growing up. :D ~Kylu ( u | t )  01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Psst. Get an administrator to insert Wikipedia:Oversight as the content of MediaWiki:Grouppage-oversight to fulfill Redux's suggestion above. 86.134.116.228 15:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to make the reference in the list capitalised, plonk Oversight into MediaWiki:Group-oversight. 86.134.116.228 15:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, done. <i style="color:#FF00FF;">~Kylu ( u | t ) </i> 05:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

New tool: Requests for oversight
Please see WP:RFO/Requests for oversight on how to request that a specific page revision be hidden. Brand spanking new page. Yay. <i style="color:#FF00FF;">~Kylu ( u | t ) </i> 06:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser procedures
What procedures should I follow to request a Checkuser?

User Lochdale has been banned indefinitely on suspicion of being a sockpuppet of Ted Wilkes. He has contacted the Unblocking list claiming vehemently that he isn't. The banning admin Jtdirl states that the ban was based on editing patterns. Is there any way of using Checkuser or another mechanism to shed light on this matter? Capitalistroadster 23:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Checkuser requests should be brought to Requests for checkuser. Please see RFCU policy at the top of that page before placing your checkuser request, however. Thanks! <i style="color:#FF00FF;">~Kylu ( u | t ) </i> 17:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)